Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Las,

Agreed. I've said before that 40K is a "lingua franca" or common tongue among tabletop wargamers. Matched play with Battleforged lists means that two strangers can have a good gaming experience without tons of pre-game negotiation. And if they do need to negotiate at least they are doing it from a mutually understood starting point. "You cool with Lords of War? You OK with Forge World?" etc.

I think that "casual" could mean not terribly invested in winning. Doesn't mean you are playing to lose, but you aren't poring over the books trying to squeeze every ounce of tabletop efficiency out of your list.

I find that people in my area tend to show up with a pick-up game with a list tuned to about 70%. They might be trying out a theme but still have a solid core of effectiveness. They would come to a tourney with a list tuned to 90%. If I am playing a stranger I will not bust out the "A List."

Issues arise when one player comes to a pick-up game with a list tuned to 100% against somebody who has recreated a list from their Badaab War (whatever that is, but I see people write about it) fan fiction tuned to about 40% effectiveness but 100% fan fiction attention to detail. Pick-up game culture is not fantastically conducive to hard-core narrative play, and folks who only bring LVO-winning lists will also end being a little unsatisfied (or without opponents).

And that's OK. They'll just have to communicate with opponents before game to find folks with a common understanding of the gaming experience. But the majority seem to get by just fine. Maybe I am mirror-imaging, but I also think that people are capable of being "casual" in one gaming situation and "competitive" in another.

I understand that some local situations may not be as pleasant or flexible as mine.

I agree with a most of this.
I tent to play scheduled games with friends and not pickup games. I'm out of the loop now with my local area gamers as I moved out of the area in 05 and haven't moved closer than an hour and a half dive to the area. I don't have time to get out to the shop with out knowing what I am in for when I arrive. I used to play several games a week but that was several years ago now. I'm more of a casual player because of this. I have attended a few tournaments and hope to attend the club tournament this year if we have it, hopefully I'll be competent enough with 9th to have a good showing if I can't make the top 25%. top 10 would be amazing at this point. For scheduled games I have advantage of knowing who I am playing and their personality as well as expectations from the game, we've gamed together for about 20 years now. I bring a list that will be fun to play and challenging to win with for games with my least competitive friend so that he has as much fun as I do and we'll roll dice and see what happens. I do not enjoy crushing him in a game. He's my standard for list building with friends. as my other friends are usually stronger players I turn up my lists an needed or as I see fit. I have one very competitive friend who I enjoy beating when I do because that's the game he's looking for. Unfortunately if the games are too one sided in my favor he's been known to quit. Which is funny given that I lost all but a hand full of games to him during all of 7th edition. 8th really balanced out our games as far as wind and losses. Good times. He'll ty to explain his army to me but for how little I play now there isn't a lot of point to get specific as I wont remember it.
I prefer close games where we don't know which army will win until the last dice is dropped win or not. I see 40K more like pro-wrestling than a sport. I want to take the ride not reach the destination, my favorite part of playing the game is playing the game.

Agree. That's the thing, it's quite easy to talk about casual play. I do it all the time. Only I do it on my gaming club's discord channel with people who already know what kind of 40K I like to play and share that perspective.

 Las wrote:


Agree. That's the thing, it's quite easy to talk about casual play. I do it all the time. Only I do it on my gaming club's discord channel with people who already know what kind of 40K I like to play and share that perspective.

Okey, so you come to play a game at the store. Tell your opponent you play a weaker or weak army, and he informs you that he has a good army. You both have 2000pts, maybe one of you have a bit more. The easy to talk about part is true, but the results are different only if majority of people have huge collections or multiple armies. And even then there is still power difference. If one player has a top tier 55%+ win rate army and the other one plays something like GSC, Tau or GK, then even if the later player has 10000pts of models there is not going to be much of a real game happening.

You can always NOT play that time...

Unless Poland is really bad and they hold a Radom to your dome, no one is making you play that person.

Karol wrote:

 Las wrote:


Agree. That's the thing, it's quite easy to talk about casual play. I do it all the time. Only I do it on my gaming club's discord channel with people who already know what kind of 40K I like to play and share that perspective.

Okey, so you come to play a game at the store. Tell your opponent you play a weaker or weak army, and he informs you that he has a good army. You both have 2000pts, maybe one of you have a bit more. The easy to talk about part is true, but the results are different only if majority of people have huge collections or multiple armies. And even then there is still power difference. If one player has a top tier 55%+ win rate army and the other one plays something like GSC, Tau or GK, then even if the later player has 10000pts of models there is not going to be much of a real game happening.

I don't play pick up games with whoever is at the store, this issue doesn't really apply to me. I understand that if your only way to get games is like this, it would be a problem. There really isn't a way around it other than to build more interconnected relationships with gamers that you like to play with.

This has been suggested to Karol for years, their toxic meta probably won't allow them to tho...which is sad.

Racerguy180 wrote:
This has been suggested to Karol for years, their toxic meta probably won't allow them to tho...which is sad.

I do understand the frustration. When I got into playing 40k I wasted a lot of weekday nights getting stomped by people who approached 40k more like MtG than a wargame. It really only got better for two reasons: a coalescing of a local club with clear principles, and my proactive drive to game with people that liked to play the same way as me.

Karol wrote:

 Las wrote:


Agree. That's the thing, it's quite easy to talk about casual play. I do it all the time. Only I do it on my gaming club's discord channel with people who already know what kind of 40K I like to play and share that perspective.

Okey, so you come to play a game at the store. Tell your opponent you play a weaker or weak army, and he informs you that he has a good army. You both have 2000pts, maybe one of you have a bit more. The easy to talk about part is true, but the results are different only if majority of people have huge collections or multiple armies. And even then there is still power difference. If one player has a top tier 55%+ win rate army and the other one plays something like GSC, Tau or GK, then even if the later player has 10000pts of models there is not going to be much of a real game happening.

If its a pickup game and neither player has backup armies with them then I guess they have some choices. They can decide not to play - if there is a group of players perhaps they sort out more "even" matches. They could decide to play and let the chips fall where they may, accepting that the result might be a foregone conclusion. They could agree to a "handicap."

Its a pick up game - at the end of the day the stakes are fantastically low.

 Las wrote:


I don't play pick up games with whoever is at the store, this issue doesn't really apply to me. I understand that if your only way to get games is like this, it would be a problem. There really isn't a way around it other than to build more interconnected relationships with gamers that you like to play with.

Okey played in 2 stores in my area, all the other stores are too far for me to go to play somewhere else. I don't build relationship with people, because I don't do social stuff, I don't understand it and each time I do try it, it ends bad. I tried telling jokes 3 times on this forum. And each time it ended with a warrning. Learned my lessons the hard way. But this is hardly a me problem. People here generaly have one army, and most people don't have more then 2000pts or what ever is considered the basic sized army in a given edition. Plus I don't think that telling people that things will get better as long as they get more stuff. First of all they would have to paint the models, then there is the cost of those extra 500-1000pts and some armies don't even have extra stuff to buy, what is a harli player suppose to buy after he gets a 2000pts army. And the third and worse thing is, what happens if buying the extra stuff doesn't fix anything, what if you spend even more cash on the army, then paint it and it is still bad. And this is a general problem, not some specific me one. Not everyone is 35+ with a good job and no family to buy an army ever 6 months.

If durning 8th, I went and followed the advice what was considered the better choice for my army. I would have still end up with a weak army then, and it would still be bad in 9th. So technicaly I would have saved money, if I hadn't bought anything, of course only in theory, because in reality I didn't and don't have the money to rebuy an army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TangoTwoBravo 798035 11119916 wrote:

If its a pickup game and neither player has backup armies with them then I guess they have some choices. They can decide not to play - if there is a group of players perhaps they sort out more "even" matches. They could decide to play and let the chips fall where they may, accepting that the result might be a foregone conclusion. They could agree to a "handicap."

Its a pick up game - at the end of the day the stakes are fantastically low.

I can tell you that after 3+ years of losing and the game not being very fun, the stakes maybe aren't high, if you got the army for free. Each time I think about my sisters buying a tablet with her confirmation money, I just get angry. And I don't like to get angry, it makes me more stupid, and then I have to take medication and that makes me sleepy.

I'm sorry to hear about your difficulties with social interactions, Karol.

I definitely don't think that buying more stuff is the answer for you. I would say to let go of the importance around the game. When you have moments in games that are fun, remember the person you played with and try playing again, even if you lost. Follow the fun if you can. I wish you luck.

Karol wrote:

Spoiler:

 Las wrote:


I don't play pick up games with whoever is at the store, this issue doesn't really apply to me. I understand that if your only way to get games is like this, it would be a problem. There really isn't a way around it other than to build more interconnected relationships with gamers that you like to play with.

Okey played in 2 stores in my area, all the other stores are too far for me to go to play somewhere else. I don't build relationship with people, because I don't do social stuff, I don't understand it and each time I do try it, it ends bad. I tried telling jokes 3 times on this forum. And each time it ended with a warrning. Learned my lessons the hard way. But this is hardly a me problem. People here generaly have one army, and most people don't have more then 2000pts or what ever is considered the basic sized army in a given edition. Plus I don't think that telling people that things will get better as long as they get more stuff. First of all they would have to paint the models, then there is the cost of those extra 500-1000pts and some armies don't even have extra stuff to buy, what is a harli player suppose to buy after he gets a 2000pts army. And the third and worse thing is, what happens if buying the extra stuff doesn't fix anything, what if you spend even more cash on the army, then paint it and it is still bad. And this is a general problem, not some specific me one. Not everyone is 35+ with a good job and no family to buy an army ever 6 months.

If durning 8th, I went and followed the advice what was considered the better choice for my army. I would have still end up with a weak army then, and it would still be bad in 9th. So technicaly I would have saved money, if I hadn't bought anything, of course only in theory, because in reality I didn't and don't have the money to rebuy an army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TangoTwoBravo 798035 11119916 wrote:

If its a pickup game and neither player has backup armies with them then I guess they have some choices. They can decide not to play - if there is a group of players perhaps they sort out more "even" matches. They could decide to play and let the chips fall where they may, accepting that the result might be a foregone conclusion. They could agree to a "handicap."

Its a pick up game - at the end of the day the stakes are fantastically low.

I can tell you that after 3+ years of losing and the game not being very fun, the stakes maybe aren't high, if you got the army for free. Each time I think about my sisters buying a tablet with her confirmation money, I just get angry. And I don't like to get angry, it makes me more stupid, and then I have to take medication and that makes me sleepy.

Karol,

The money you spent on your army is indeed spent. If playing makes you consistently angry, though, then that is absolutely a problem. I am not a therapist or mental health practitioner, and given your disclosure regarding medication I will assume you have access to genuine help. I hope that you share with them (the medical practitioner) what you share here regarding anger etc.

You say that you do not do social stuff, which could also be a problem with tabletop wargaming. I do know, however, that lots of people with various anxieties/phobias do participate in the game and I do hope that people are accommodating in your area. I hazard that our hobby has plenty of folks on the spectrum who find enjoyment and social connection through gaming. I also realize that everyone is a little bit different and honestly wish you the best.

Warm regards,

T2B

 warhead01 wrote:
I see 40K more like pro-wrestling than a sport. I want to take the ride not reach the destination, my favorite part of playing the game is playing the game.

Love this, really nice summary of how I like to approach the game – well put!

Biggest question is, can you smell what da Orks is cookin?

I'm excited for new greenskins. Might actually take the plunge as a modeling project more than anything.

Karol wrote:

 Las wrote:


Agree. That's the thing, it's quite easy to talk about casual play. I do it all the time. Only I do it on my gaming club's discord channel with people who already know what kind of 40K I like to play and share that perspective.

Okey, so you come to play a game at the store. Tell your opponent you play a weaker or weak army, and he informs you that he has a good army. You both have 2000pts, maybe one of you have a bit more. The easy to talk about part is true, but the results are different only if majority of people have huge collections or multiple armies. And even then there is still power difference. If one player has a top tier 55%+ win rate army and the other one plays something like GSC, Tau or GK, then even if the later player has 10000pts of models there is not going to be much of a real game happening.

If you do not have the money to chase the meta then you cannot play 40k in a competitive manner. The power swings are to drastic and certain factions are favored while others not so much. The fact is you need a army in a supported faction (imperial) and even then, as you know being a GK player, that is not enough. No matter your feelings on the issue these facts are facts. The game is highly dependent on your local scene. In your case I would probably just find another hobby. Harsh but its probably the best move for you. There are other games. You are not beholden to GW.

As for the OT. The reason people focus on tourney play on dakka is because thats all there is to talk about. There is a lore section but that does not have very much traffic. Most other things can be supported by watching youtube (hobby advice).

Table wrote:
If you do not have the money to chase the meta then you cannot play 40k in a competitive manner.

This is a flat out lie.

First it is hyperbole. It overly states a concept that the only way one can play is one only wins. If that was the truth, then only the Harlem Globetrotters play basketball. This hyperbole drives me nuts.

Second is that one doesn't have to chase the meta to in order to consistently win. There are a few armies that stay consistently good edition to edition, but more importantly, how one plays an army is far more important. A player who constantly switch armies will always be a few steps behind one that is consistent with their army to be fully comfortable with it, and know how to maximize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses. That isn't to say that a good player with a bad army will succeed against a good player with a good army, it is more that a good player with a bad army can do well against a medium or bad player with a good army.

 Charistoph wrote:

Table wrote:
If you do not have the money to chase the meta then you cannot play 40k in a competitive manner.

This is a flat out lie.

First it is hyperbole. It overly states a concept that the only way one can play is one only wins. If that was the truth, then only the Harlem Globetrotters play basketball. This hyperbole drives me nuts.

Second is that one doesn't have to chase the meta to in order to consistently win. There are a few armies that stay consistently good edition to edition, but more importantly, how one plays an army is far more important. A player who constantly switch armies will always be a few steps behind one that is consistent with their army to be fully comfortable with it, and know how to maximize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses. That isn't to say that a good player with a bad army will succeed against a good player with a good army, it is more that a good player with a bad army can do well against a medium or bad player with a good army.

I disagree. To your first point, the quote is specifically about competitive play which implies you're most concerned with winning. You only have to look at how many of the top players get success by switching armies rather than selecting a single faction and honing their skills to see that having access to more armies/models is the only way to chase the meta. Just look at how the various tools SM players were using at the end of 8th are now much less useful (Aggressors and Eliminators for example) or how Dark Eldar are currently miles ahead of anyone else, to the extent that all the top players at a GT from a few weeks ago played them and most (all?) of them weren't playing them prior to their Codex being released. Knowing a faction well only helps if that faction happens to be one of the ones that is good right now. There's no amount of playing certain weak armies well that will get you success against most DE armies due to the huge power imbalance at the moment. Maybe when they get their Codex they'll be good enough to compete again but until then in certain circumstances and certain matches it just doesn't matter what you do with certain armies, you will lose against the top meta stuff. I somewhat agree with your last sentence except the imbalance between some armies in most GW games is often so bad even a good player will struggle to beat a weak player with certain army combinations.

Karol's problem seems to be they're stuck in a situation where they didn't fully realise what they were getting themselves into when they bought their GK army. If you play in a meta as competitive and toxic as theirs seems to be then the only way to improve your success rate in games is to spend money. Either you go all-out to chase the meta or at the very least you need to be looking at changing your army composition and that means spending money to add new units. 40k, like many wargames, is not a great hobby to play competitively if you're not willing to spend money to "keep up".

That's not to say there aren't many other ways to play the game that don't require constant spending but Karol's made it clear their community doesn't take part in those kind of games. No idea why, and I've also no idea why it's not possible to arrange games beforehand rather than when you're at the store but that seems to be the situation they're in.

As somebody who has played Warmachine and Hordes for years and is possibly picking up some 40K after the pandemic for kick about games with friends, I have one plea to all GW players.

You need to run and support both casual play and competitive play in equal measure. When your ONLY focus and metric of success for a game or faction is how well it did in the last grand tournament, you are on a slow downward spiral that slowly poisons the mindset of the community, the types of people you get coming into the game and then eventually the direction of the company.

GW has some leeway as its such a big company in this space, but even they will respond over time to the desires of the community. If they see reliably that the newest “meta shaping” list sells or that formal big competitions are the real drivers of sales then they will drive production, sales and rules in that direction. Being only focused on Tournaments is dangerous and detrimental to the game. Something we are trying desperately to show the diehards of the WM/H community.

DO NOT REPEAT OUR COMMUNTIES MISTAKES.

In answer to the op - I have banned talk about casual play from the ork tactics threads years ago because it was causing too many problems. People were starting fights about how great objectively horrible units were because they made them work in their private super-casual environment where they have been playing one and the same person for a decade. No one gains anything when a guy from a super laid back meta convinces a new player to buy a pile of worthless models, this will only cause the new player to waste money, get frustrated and eventually leave the hobby.

Essentially what is worth discussing about a faction is
1) how to build a working army
2) how well which units work and in what context
3) how to use any given unit and why they perform as well as they do

If you have understood those things, you can apply that knowledge to your game no matter whether you are playing a casual or competitive game - either to build the best of the best or to match your opponent for a fun and enjoyable game.
Recently there have been some voices in my club about some players getting to competitive, and I genuinely asked whether I was one of them. Three guys of vastly varying experience and competitiveness told me that they always feel like they are getting a great game and a fair fight from me.
It wouldn't be possible for me to tune my armies to match my respective opponent as well as I do if I didn't know my orks and DG inside out.

Any opinion akin to
"Well, it works for me, because I'm my opponents aren't TFG WAAC tournament cheater murderhobos"
"It's a great distraction carnifex, my opponent always shoots it first because he is afraid of it"
"I would refuse to play against that"
"If your opponent <does something greatly disadvantageous to them>, then..."
"In our games we have <houserule/gentlemans agreement>, so..."
Are utterly worthless tactically to anyone not playing in the exact same environment as you.

It just doesn't make sense to talk about non-competitive tactics. Either you are trying to win or you are not. How much of the "trying you win" you eventually apply to your game is up to you.

That said, it's not true that people aren't talking about casual play, there are tons of threads in the general forum on that topic, and YMDC often has suggestions on how to house-rule things that feel unintuitive.

Table 798035 11120119 wrote:
If you do not have the money to chase the meta then you cannot play 40k in a competitive manner. The power swings are to drastic and certain factions are favored while others not so much. The fact is you need a army in a supported faction (imperial) and even then, as you know being a GK player, that is not enough. No matter your feelings on the issue these facts are facts. The game is highly dependent on your local scene. In your case I would probably just find another hobby. Harsh but its probably the best move for you. There are other games. You are not beholden to GW.
.

Well here the options are historicals, which I don't like the people, or AoS which I don't like the models for. there is is also infinity, but the guys playing it only play vs painted armies. Plus the main problem is, the money. I tried selling my army a few times. No one wants to buy it, aside for one guy who ,although this may have been a joke and I am not very good with getting those, said he could buy it for 1/10th what I paid for it. And with that money I could buy a box of 10 intercessors. Ain't going to start another army with it. So I very much am locked in. Quiting is also not an option, the very idea of sitting at home watching a wall thinking that I wasted so much money, would not be good for my mental health. I already have problems with that, and don't need more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Las wrote:
I'm sorry to hear about your difficulties with social interactions, Karol.

I definitely don't think that buying more stuff is the answer for you. I would say to let go of the importance around the game. When you have moments in games that are fun, remember the person you played with and try playing again, even if you lost. Follow the fun if you can. I wish you luck.

I had fun 3 times over the span of 4+ years playing w40k First two games were demos, and we played it with the old store owners armies. Those two were fun, and then one game in 9th, when I got a draw. In an actual game, not by the opponent not showing up for the game. Comparing to that my sister has fun with her tablet ever day, and when I ask for one her dad just tells me that "I got the toy soldiers with my money", and he isn't wrong about that.

Sometimes I just wish, I never started the game, but peer preasure is a thing. First year in new school, everyone was starting 8th. Even my mom thought it was a good idea. That by the way turned up to be a good thing, in all the bad things. Because learned that sometimes your parents can very much be wrong about something.

Karol wrote:
Quiting is also not an option, the very idea of sitting at home watching a wall thinking that I wasted so much money, would not be good for my mental health. I already have problems with that, and don't need more.

I don't think anyone is suggesting quitting and then doing literally nothing to fill the time previously spent gaming. There must be other options for things to do with your free time. I say this because...

Karol wrote:

I had fun 3 times over the span of 4+ years playing w40k

...this is not healthy. Look, I understand there may be some mental health issues at play here and it's great that you seem to be getting help and guidance for them. However, voluntarily participating in an activity that has been fun only 3 times over more than 4 years is not good, to put it mildly. If this really is the case I would strongly advise you to find something else to occupy your time. It seems as though your local community is about as toxic as they come so they're unlikely to change and without players who are willing to adapt to offer something more engaging and enjoyable for you there aren't too many other options.

Switch to X Wing, massive player base in Poland and I have never come across (nor heard of) anyone with the kind of attitude you describe, Karol.

 ingtaer wrote:
Switch to X Wing, massive player base in Poland and I have never come across (nor heard of) anyone with the kind of attitude you describe, Karol.

Also much more balanced than 40k in general and cheaper too.

Karol wrote:
Well here the options are historicals, which I don't like the people, or AoS which I don't like the models for. there is is also infinity, but the guys playing it only play vs painted armies. Plus the main problem is, the money. I tried selling my army a few times. No one wants to buy it, aside for one guy who ,although this may have been a joke and I am not very good with getting those, said he could buy it for 1/10th what I paid for it. And with that money I could buy a box of 10 intercessors. Ain't going to start another army with it. So I very much am locked in. Quiting is also not an option, the very idea of sitting at home watching a wall thinking that I wasted so much money, would not be good for my mental health. I already have problems with that, and don't need more.

People have literally offered to buy your army here on dakka. Your suffering is of your own making.

I think it is pretty clear that the issue isn't the game, the other players, the meta, or anything else. It's Karol. He is the problem.

I don't think that that is very fair to Karol at all

It's all of their faults....

Racerguy180 wrote:
It's all of their faults....

It's Karol's fault that Grey Knights aren't a good army and people shouldn't have to accommodate their own armies because of GW's screwed up balance y'all defend?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
It's all of their faults....

It's Karol's fault that Grey Knights aren't a good army and people shouldn't have to accommodate their own armies because of GW's screwed up balance y'all defend?

Crappy balance is GW's fault.

A toxic community is the community's fault-not helped by the rules, but you can have garbage rules and positive people, or vice versa.

Karol continuing to play despite basically never having fun is his fault-the money is already spent. Playing games you don't enjoy won't unspend it.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
It's all of their faults....

It's Karol's fault that Grey Knights aren't a good army and people shouldn't have to accommodate their own armies because of GW's screwed up balance y'all defend?

Crappy balance is GW's fault.

A toxic community is the community's fault-not helped by the rules, but you can have garbage rules and positive people, or vice versa.

Karol continuing to play despite basically never having fun is his fault-the money is already spent. Playing games you don't enjoy won't unspend it.

The community isn't toxic because other people shouldn't have to accommodate their armies for a bad army, just by principle. Where is their unlimited money to do so? Blaming the players has always been garbage reasoning.