Switch Theme:

Why does nobody talk about casual play?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Preparing the Invasion of Terra






Nobody is blaming Karol for playing GK or the rules decisions GW makes.

What people are saying is that they have chosen to keep doing a thing that actively makes them depressed, not gone for any alternatives and if they have been offered a option to sell their collection, haven't taken that either.
Instead Karol has come onto a forum, given their views, disagreed with literally everyone who isn't on board with those views and continued to complain.

You're right, it would a lovely thing if people didn't need to change what they want to take in an army to accommodate other players. But that's not how things are and compromising to make sure everyone has a good time is the sign of a good community. If someone's hobby is causing them to be depressed and their community is a main cause of that, then that community is absolutely toxic.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/10 16:27:34


 
   
Made in gb
Walking Dead Wraithlord






Children be doing children things guys

Its not his fault.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy

Eldar- 4436 pts


AngryAngel80 wrote:
I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "


 Eonfuzz wrote:


I would much rather everyone have a half ass than no ass.


"A warrior does not seek fame and honour. They come to him as he humbly follows his path"  
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

I have never been in any social situation where *SOME* self-control that isn't imposed externally is required.

Wargaming is no different. Yes. It isn't against the rules that you don't piss on the table while nude and covered in chocolate, but I still won't be interested in playing against you just because you follow the rules.
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




Or there is rules. You can't scream or shot, because otherwise the store owner gets problems with other stores and they call the police on him. You can't drink or eat inside, because it stinks the place up. Can't play with digital or printed out rules, especially vs new players. You are not allowed to touch other people models. You can't fight people at the store. Ton of social rules to follow.


You're right, it would a lovely thing if people didn't need to change what they want to take in an army to accommodate other players. But that's not how things are and compromising to make sure everyone has a good time is the sign of a good community.

That is nice, for others to read I guess. Because when I started the forums gave me this options. Polish forums gave me army lists, which at a glance cost more then I had money, and I did not know that recasting is a thing when I started. Plus I generaly tend to not trust local people very much. People that live 2-3 countries away, tend to gain less for screwing with you, which makes their anwsers less unbiased. Problem is on non-polish forums, I got a mix of play what you want and 8th is the best and most balanced edition ever. So after a few dozen games that went really bad, I came here and asked what am I doing wrong with GK. I think that was even my first post on the forums. No one told me when I was starting that to properly play w40k and have fun, you need the income of an unmarried 35 year old, preferably with his own house and a bunch of friends who also play w40k. And that bad things can stay bad in w40k for a very long time, or at least for me 4 years is a very long time. Took me over 2 years to realise that maybe GW is not even trying to fix stuff or even make a good game. A learning expiriance, I wish was less costly.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/10 18:36:04


If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




I keep forgetting Karol apparently plays 40k in the Thunderdome
   
Made in us
Second Story Man





Astonished of Heck

Slipspace wrote:
 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.

You missed what I said and inserted your own beliefs. There is a difference between playing to win and only considering winning as playing. If you only consider only winning as playing, then you are one of the toxic players. Playing does involve losing. And it is fine to lose, even in a competitive atmosphere. Admittedly, it is more fun to lose in a close race than a loss in turn 1, but that doesn't equate to playing = winning.

You also ignored what I said in the second point. I never stated that a good player with a bad army will always win, I just said that they can win against a bad player with a good army. If a player doesn't know how to use the abilities in that army, especially with a finesse army that doesn't allow a lot of mistakes (which is what Dark Eldar have historically been), then it doesn't matter if they have the new hotness if they can't deploy it properly, time the abilities right, prep the table/use cover properly, etc. This concept is known in some circles as strategy and tactics in others.

I also pointed out that one does not always have to be using the top army in order to be competitive. One does not have to chase the meta to be competitive, but one can be close without necessarily chasing it, and sometimes those dice will do the win more than any other choices you make. All the hot armies do is make rolling your desired rolls easier and your opponent's rolls harder. If a person is using an army that is currently #3 in the meta, then they will usually do pretty well. You mentioned in "certain scenarios and certain matches", well those don't always apply. Sometimes you can mold the game towards them and sometimes you can mold them away from it.

Nothing you said actually counters those points.

Slipspace wrote: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.

And I wasn't addressing Karol's problems, I was addressing the very toxic concept that one cannot play a bad army in competitive games. One can, just their losses will be more incredibly more likely than wins. If winning is the only objective, then more research is needed, but I doubt that is why get Karol got involved in 40K in the first place. It is this type of attitude which leads to the same toxic atmosphere that Karol is experiencing.

And it sounds like Karol is in a toxic atmosphere. "Winning is the only goal." "The next tournament is the only concern, and so all games must fit in to that paradigm." I've ran in to those guys before, and I don't care for them. There are only a few choices in that situation: Join in and stop complaining; Try to develop a side community that plays the way you want; Start looking in to a different game with a different group; abandon the hobby all together. While the last is technically the easiest, it's not always desired.

My local community at large has a mix of those who are good with pickup games and those who only do schedule games as they are tournament-focused. It sometimes made it hard to get a 40K game in with an army that was 1/2 to 2/3 the size of the tournament standard. But to be fair, it is a big metropolis with numerous game stores one can find one's groove with and a few more popular ones who are big enough to attract both crowds.

Still, my best time, lately, has been with a new, small store that has been playing an old favorite, Classic Battletech, and we're just playing to have fun and introducing new players to the game, and being quite crazy about how we handle things. Last Friday, we did a 3v3v3, with each player having 3 models doing a Team King of the Hill on old Heroscape tiles. We could only get a few turns in before the store closed (CBT turns can take a while to process at times), but some crazy events happened, like a headcap on a custom Wasp with a medium laser, an ammo explosion on an otherwise healthy Battlemaster, and me jumping a mech up to capture the hill, alpha strike and THEN notice it had Stealth Armor I could have turned on right after everyone started shooting at it.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/05/10 18:42:34


Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




 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.


Yes in central and western Poland. I live what is sometimes considered as Poland B. Would love to live in a big city like Pozen or Krakow with its multiple stores .

And as much as I feel people think I am telling stories. I always like to point out at stuff like CB kicking the polish judges for infinity from the forums, for not accepting stuff like intent play. My people are the reason why Kurwaspam existed, and why the newest edition of inifity looks the way it does, because our dudes were warping it really hard.


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

I have no way to recive the money or send out the army. Unless someone decides to hop on plane and visit Dubeniki.


And it sounds like Karol is in a toxic atmosphere. "Winning is the only goal." "The next tournament is the only concern, and so all games must fit in to that paradigm." I've ran in to those guys before, and I don't care for them. There are only a few choices in that situation: Join in and stop complaining; Try to develop a side community that plays the way you want; Start looking in to a different game with a different group; abandon the hobby all together. While the last is technically the easiest, it's not always desired.

This didn't even work even when my old store was open. And I knew all people in it from seeing them in my town or at school. There is zero chance, and I checked, for someone my age to go up to people who are 30+, and clearly are having fun, and force them to play my way. Specially as I wouldn't even know what that would be. I had maybe 3 games I would consider fun, and only one of them was played with GK. I ain't no game designer, it takes me weeks if not longer to figure out what is wrong with something. Creating something from ground up is something I never did, and don't think I could go do. Plus people would just say no, the way they always say to all homebrews that don't come from event orgs or store owners.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/10 18:48:08


If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





I've been thinking more about this thread; in my last post, I came to the realization that describing myself as a casual player wasn't really correct; narrative player, or Crusade player fits better than "casual" as a descriptor for me; I'm actually pretty aggressive about the narrative elements of my gaming; there isn't really anything casual about writing a 20 page backstory for every army and refusing to fight in any arena that would compromise that story.

But I do see myself as non-competitive, and I think that is why I sometimes describe myself as casual.


 Jidmah wrote:


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



For me, what's worth discussing is campaign systems and ideas, cross platform gaming/ integration and connections between rules and stories. That's not to say that Jidmah's list ISN'T worth discussing... It certainly is- especially for new players. It just isn't what I really want to read about- I can figure that all out by reading the rules myself. The Crusade thread that popped up as an offshoot to this one was the most interesting threads I've read in a long time, and it didn't contain any of the stuff listed above.

Some of what I'm looking for appears in background and rule forums, but I find rule forums still focus more on suggestions made in the name of balance than narrative, and I find the background forums place too much emphasis on BL content, which is entirely divorced from the tabletop (like my favourite example of "Marines are faster than sisters and guardsmen cuz novels say so, despite the fact that everyone has the same move stat).

   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





If I were to play my Tau army, I'd pretty much have to play it under Casual/Open play. I've done a ton of models in it that are customized to my own tastes, nothing terribly fancy mind you. I wager some of my friends are game-mature enough to work with me to get them on the table and have a decently fun AND fair game.

And I think that's the requirement. Not 'being an adult', not needing to have a third party or designer decide for us what the points and power should be... You need people who are game-mature (trademark and all rights to knucklewolf 2021 )

We could easily sit down and say realistically together that this model is built to be like this one, but has these alternate things, and that could impact the game in this way, so we will just agree to go with it's base cost per the 'dex plus a tax of 'XYZ'points, or just add one or two to it's power. Then we'll play a game and do an after action look of was that enough tax? Or should we laugh at ourselves and bump it up? Or maybe even just go back to base price of it really wasn't that impactful?

With the amount of games experience some guys have played, mixed with the right mental attitude, I'm sure we could get it done. But I haven't answered really why we don't talk about that on forums.

That I think, IMHO, is because it's just plain easier to argue with concrete than with the fog. It's really kind of a departure from the comfort zone of a rulebook to deal with some more abstract items that casual play would embody. And someone who isn't 'game-mature' could often be afraid someone's trying to cheat them, or indeed trying to cheat someone else with a playground attitude of having the same action figure but wanting to still win the mock battle in the sand box.
   
Made in pt
Journeyman Inquisitor with Visions of the Warp




Sterling191 wrote:
I keep forgetting Karol apparently plays 40k in the Thunderdome



+1 for that one
   
Made in us
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






Mira Mesa

KnuckleWolf wrote:
We could easily sit down and say realistically together that this model is built to be like this one, but has these alternate things, and that could impact the game in this way, so we will just agree to go with it's base cost per the 'dex plus a tax of 'XYZ'points, or just add one or two to it's power. Then we'll play a game and do an after action look of was that enough tax? Or should we laugh at ourselves and bump it up? Or maybe even just go back to base price of it really wasn't that impactful?
I agree with your sentiment about playing with a mature gamers. In this particular endeavor, there's an even easier solution: play with a points-handicap. Tau are bad. How bad? Let's try giving you 20% more points and see what happens. Outside of a tournament, there's no stakes for a one-off game. A strongly competitive minded player shouldn't have complaints, and should find the challenge interesting. Certainly you can give the weaker player too many points, but once you approach a handicap that feels balanced, by the definition the competitive player can't complain about it being unfair. We have the math to show playing an even game is unfair to the Tau.

That's not at all to say you need to use meta-data winrates to make a handicap chart for every match up you play, or any such extreme. Rather, it's a really simple way to bridge the gap between the least and most competitive players and armies. I think we should normalize it. A hardened veteran should offer 10-30% against a fluff bunny or a noob. It makes the game more fun for everyone, even if your only goal is to win. The win by itself isn't valuable, the win signifies overcoming a challenge; so make the challenge fair, or even stack the odds against yourself, and the win is better.

Coordinator for San Diego At Ease Games' Crusade League. Full 9 week mission packets and league rules available: Lon'dan System Campaign.
Jihallah Sanctjud Loricatus Aurora Shep Gwar! labmouse42 DogOfWar Lycaeus Wrex GoDz BuZzSaW Ailaros LunaHound s1gns alarmingrick Black Blow Fly Dashofpepper Wrexasaur willydstyle 
   
Made in nl
Jovial Plaguebearer of Nurgle





 DarkHound wrote:
KnuckleWolf wrote:
We could easily sit down and say realistically together that this model is built to be like this one, but has these alternate things, and that could impact the game in this way, so we will just agree to go with it's base cost per the 'dex plus a tax of 'XYZ'points, or just add one or two to it's power. Then we'll play a game and do an after action look of was that enough tax? Or should we laugh at ourselves and bump it up? Or maybe even just go back to base price of it really wasn't that impactful?
I agree with your sentiment about playing with a mature gamers. In this particular endeavor, there's an even easier solution: play with a points-handicap. Tau are bad. How bad? Let's try giving you 20% more points and see what happens. Outside of a tournament, there's no stakes for a one-off game. A strongly competitive minded player shouldn't have complaints, and should find the challenge interesting. Certainly you can give the weaker player too many points, but once you approach a handicap that feels balanced, by the definition the competitive player can't complain about it being unfair. We have the math to show playing an even game is unfair to the Tau.

That's not at all to say you need to use meta-data winrates to make a handicap chart for every match up you play, or any such extreme. Rather, it's a really simple way to bridge the gap between the least and most competitive players and armies. I think we should normalize it. A hardened veteran should offer 10-30% against a fluff bunny or a noob. It makes the game more fun for everyone, even if your only goal is to win. The win by itself isn't valuable, the win signifies overcoming a challenge; so make the challenge fair, or even stack the odds against yourself, and the win is better.

You might be surprised by how some people absolutely refuse to operate outside of the GW/rules mandated standards. I think your suggestion is fair and reasonable but even in my local group most are unwilling to move outside of the standard matched play framework. For example I offered one of my regular opponents to have his IW updated to 2/3 Wounds a pop for 3 points per model. But he refused, stating that would be unofficial and he would rather try and beat my DG with his woefully trash current CSM codex. In this instance one refuses even to his own detriment so I think it is rather common for quite a few people/groups to find it hard to find opponents willing to handicap themselves for a better play experience.
   
Made in us
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






Mira Mesa

 Castozor wrote:
Spoiler:
 DarkHound wrote:
KnuckleWolf wrote:
We could easily sit down and say realistically together that this model is built to be like this one, but has these alternate things, and that could impact the game in this way, so we will just agree to go with it's base cost per the 'dex plus a tax of 'XYZ'points, or just add one or two to it's power. Then we'll play a game and do an after action look of was that enough tax? Or should we laugh at ourselves and bump it up? Or maybe even just go back to base price of it really wasn't that impactful?
I agree with your sentiment about playing with a mature gamers. In this particular endeavor, there's an even easier solution: play with a points-handicap. Tau are bad. How bad? Let's try giving you 20% more points and see what happens. Outside of a tournament, there's no stakes for a one-off game. A strongly competitive minded player shouldn't have complaints, and should find the challenge interesting. Certainly you can give the weaker player too many points, but once you approach a handicap that feels balanced, by the definition the competitive player can't complain about it being unfair. We have the math to show playing an even game is unfair to the Tau.

That's not at all to say you need to use meta-data winrates to make a handicap chart for every match up you play, or any such extreme. Rather, it's a really simple way to bridge the gap between the least and most competitive players and armies. I think we should normalize it. A hardened veteran should offer 10-30% against a fluff bunny or a noob. It makes the game more fun for everyone, even if your only goal is to win. The win by itself isn't valuable, the win signifies overcoming a challenge; so make the challenge fair, or even stack the odds against yourself, and the win is better.
You might be surprised by how some people absolutely refuse to operate outside of the GW/rules mandated standards. I think your suggestion is fair and reasonable but even in my local group most are unwilling to move outside of the standard matched play framework. For example I offered one of my regular opponents to have his IW updated to 2/3 Wounds a pop for 3 points per model. But he refused, stating that would be unofficial and he would rather try and beat my DG with his woefully trash current CSM codex. In this instance one refuses even to his own detriment so I think it is rather common for quite a few people/groups to find it hard to find opponents willing to handicap themselves for a better play experience.
I understand his perspective. I think the principle issue is that players want consistent experiences, both for fairness but also for comparing their own progress as a player. Changing the unit's statlines and cost doesn't really help his experience. It's harder to reconfigure your list if you change the points value of individual parts; the value propositions change. He doesn't have a direct comparison to his previous performance, so it's both harder to play well and apply the game's lessons going forward. On the point of going forward, it's extremely unlikely that every opponent will agree on the specifics of the changes. The opponent also can't use the game as a reference point or lesson. Changing the stats for one match is basically meaningless for both players.

That's why I think giving points handicaps is more effective. It's way easier for an opponent to understand and agree to. If your community is acclimated to it, you can sort of count on the experience being consistent. You don't have to relearn your list, just throw in an extra unit. Plus point handicaps are useful in more situations, like helping a weaker player have a good experience against a strong player, regardless of armies.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/11 01:01:27


Coordinator for San Diego At Ease Games' Crusade League. Full 9 week mission packets and league rules available: Lon'dan System Campaign.
Jihallah Sanctjud Loricatus Aurora Shep Gwar! labmouse42 DogOfWar Lycaeus Wrex GoDz BuZzSaW Ailaros LunaHound s1gns alarmingrick Black Blow Fly Dashofpepper Wrexasaur willydstyle 
   
Made in nl
Jovial Plaguebearer of Nurgle





I had not considered that to be honest. I think you make a fair point, I'll try and offer him to play 2200 vs my 2000 points and see if he accepts.
But realistically I think he will still decline on grounds of me belittling him even if I don't mean it in that way. Weird how people can agree one army (DG) is better than another (IW) and still refuse to actually do anything about it themselves.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 Castozor wrote:
Weird how people can agree one army (DG) is better than another (IW) and still refuse to actually do anything about it themselves.


A lot of people aren't willing to take on the responsibility of balancing the game for themselves. It means putting on a designer hat, trying to understand the problematic areas or at least agree on the relative power, and becoming partially responsible if the game still ends poorly rather than being able to simply blame imbalance. Taking on the burden of trying to balance the game means potentially having to resolve differences of opinion (do we agree on the degree of imbalance, or if it even exists?) or damage to one's ego (are we handicapping this much because my army is weak, or is it implying that I'm a worse player and need a leg up?). For some, that's just not part of the experience they want, so it's easier to just play it as-is and hope for a fix.

I don't mean for that to sound like a negative judgment, to be clear. We're all invested in the hobby differently. I really enjoy homebrewing rules and iterating on games I like, but I have friends who just want to drink beer and throw dice, and I respect that they don't want to dive into this rabbit hole even if they also acknowledge that there are things that could be improved.

   
Made in us
Terrifying Doombull




 Castozor wrote:
I had not considered that to be honest. I think you make a fair point, I'll try and offer him to play 2200 vs my 2000 points and see if he accepts.
But realistically I think he will still decline on grounds of me belittling him even if I don't mean it in that way. Weird how people can agree one army (DG) is better than another (IW) and still refuse to actually do anything about it themselves.


I can't see that as weird. The players of the armies are invested in them. They're not going to do a good job 'balancing' their own or the opposing army. I doubt they would anyway, even without the obvious bias. With it... why and how would they arrive at a mutually satisfactory conclusion?

Edit for clarity: garage play with the same handful of people for X years is going to be a different thing. Outside of that, good luck...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/11 02:29:46


Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Castozor wrote:
I had not considered that to be honest. I think you make a fair point, I'll try and offer him to play 2200 vs my 2000 points and see if he accepts.
But realistically I think he will still decline on grounds of me belittling him even if I don't mean it in that way. Weird how people can agree one army (DG) is better than another (IW) and still refuse to actually do anything about it themselves.

Because we shouldn't HAVE to do anything ourselves. Instead what happens is GW does this crap and you give it the ultimate pass: you buy it.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Second Story Man





Astonished of Heck

Voss wrote:
I can't see that as weird. The players of the armies are invested in them. They're not going to do a good job 'balancing' their own or the opposing army. I doubt they would anyway, even without the obvious bias. With it... why and how would they arrive at a mutually satisfactory conclusion?

Very true. Either they will be arrogant and overbearing with the changes or too humble and conservative with the changes.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Oddly enough, didn't the ETC allow for such handicaps back in the old days of Fantasy Battles? I know that some people here are quite happy using tournament packs for balancing issues, and often insist on using them even in PUG situations. I don't know if anyone is actually considering utilizing such a system at this time. As it is, the point reductions that come out every year are basically the same thing, just in a different direction and more specificaly targeted.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in gb
Stubborn White Lion




Karol wrote:
Spoiler:
 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.


Yes in central and western Poland. I live what is sometimes considered as Poland B. Would love to live in a big city like Pozen or Krakow with its multiple stores .

And as much as I feel people think I am telling stories. I always like to point out at stuff like CB kicking the polish judges for infinity from the forums, for not accepting stuff like intent play. My people are the reason why Kurwaspam existed, and why the newest edition of inifity looks the way it does, because our dudes were warping it really hard.


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

I have no way to recive the money or send out the army. Unless someone decides to hop on plane and visit Dubeniki.


And it sounds like Karol is in a toxic atmosphere. "Winning is the only goal." "The next tournament is the only concern, and so all games must fit in to that paradigm." I've ran in to those guys before, and I don't care for them. There are only a few choices in that situation: Join in and stop complaining; Try to develop a side community that plays the way you want; Start looking in to a different game with a different group; abandon the hobby all together. While the last is technically the easiest, it's not always desired.

This didn't even work even when my old store was open. And I knew all people in it from seeing them in my town or at school. There is zero chance, and I checked, for someone my age to go up to people who are 30+, and clearly are having fun, and force them to play my way. Specially as I wouldn't even know what that would be. I had maybe 3 games I would consider fun, and only one of them was played with GK. I ain't no game designer, it takes me weeks if not longer to figure out what is wrong with something. Creating something from ground up is something I never did, and don't think I could go do. Plus people would just say no, the way they always say to all homebrews that don't come from event orgs or store owners.


Ok dude, I tend to visit Poland once or twice a year in non-Covid times (my better half is from there). I'll give you a shout next time I do and if you send me a copy of your list I'll post my collection and other dakkarites who know the game better than me can suggest what I should field as a balanced match up. I've also always fancied a wee Grey Knights force so will give you a decent price for it. (All this assuming you can't get rid of it before then)

Also as someone else once said owning Karol from Dakkas GK army would be quite the thing, you're a bit of a legend.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/11 07:29:11


 
   
Made in us
Master Engineer with a Brace of Pistols





washington state USA

 catbarf wrote:
 Castozor wrote:
Weird how people can agree one army (DG) is better than another (IW) and still refuse to actually do anything about it themselves.


A lot of people aren't willing to take on the responsibility of balancing the game for themselves. It means putting on a designer hat, trying to understand the problematic areas or at least agree on the relative power, and becoming partially responsible if the game still ends poorly rather than being able to simply blame imbalance. Taking on the burden of trying to balance the game means potentially having to resolve differences of opinion (do we agree on the degree of imbalance, or if it even exists?) or damage to one's ego (are we handicapping this much because my army is weak, or is it implying that I'm a worse player and need a leg up?). For some, that's just not part of the experience they want, so it's easier to just play it as-is and hope for a fix.

I don't mean for that to sound like a negative judgment, to be clear. We're all invested in the hobby differently. I really enjoy homebrewing rules and iterating on games I like, but I have friends who just want to drink beer and throw dice, and I respect that they don't want to dive into this rabbit hole even if they also acknowledge that there are things that could be improved.


It does happen
.

It took our group of veteran 40K players all of 2 hours of discussion to agree on rules fixes for 40K . 15 little rules imports into a single edition that make the game fun for all players no matter which codex you choose to use in the compatible editions.

Mezmorki did the same (with a great deal more effort) with his prohammer project as did AnomanderRake with his project.





GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 aphyon wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
 Castozor wrote:
Weird how people can agree one army (DG) is better than another (IW) and still refuse to actually do anything about it themselves.


A lot of people aren't willing to take on the responsibility of balancing the game for themselves. It means putting on a designer hat, trying to understand the problematic areas or at least agree on the relative power, and becoming partially responsible if the game still ends poorly rather than being able to simply blame imbalance. Taking on the burden of trying to balance the game means potentially having to resolve differences of opinion (do we agree on the degree of imbalance, or if it even exists?) or damage to one's ego (are we handicapping this much because my army is weak, or is it implying that I'm a worse player and need a leg up?). For some, that's just not part of the experience they want, so it's easier to just play it as-is and hope for a fix.

I don't mean for that to sound like a negative judgment, to be clear. We're all invested in the hobby differently. I really enjoy homebrewing rules and iterating on games I like, but I have friends who just want to drink beer and throw dice, and I respect that they don't want to dive into this rabbit hole even if they also acknowledge that there are things that could be improved.


It does happen
.

It took our group of veteran 40K players all of 2 hours of discussion to agree on rules fixes for 40K . 15 little rules imports into a single edition that make the game fun for all players no matter which codex you choose to use in the compatible editions.

Mezmorki did the same (with a great deal more effort) with his prohammer project as did AnomanderRake with his project.


Tendencially that happens with closeish knit groups and often vets that are desilusioned with the way GW "handels" it's IP and game...
Not all players have that. Also GW has it's own ecosystem of players in their shops. Which has them insulated from such issues entirely.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Jidmah wrote:

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.





While I disagree with you on banning talk about casual play as I feel it has value, with the caveat that context should also be firmly declared, I think that if there is any take-home message for you, you should be proud of this Jidmah, that folks who play at a lot of varied levels want to play against you.

I feel the ‘greatest player’ isn’t the guy who wins the most tournaments the hardest, it’s the guy who understands the game well enough to play at every level, who is the guy everyone enjoys playing against and who everyone wants to play against. Inclusivity and community building 101. Yeah, be that guy.

KnuckleWolf wrote:If I were to play my Tau army, I'd pretty much have to play it under Casual/Open play. I've done a ton of models in it that are customized to my own tastes, nothing terribly fancy mind you. I wager some of my friends are game-mature enough to work with me to get them on the table and have a decently fun AND fair game.



I agree. ‘beating the game’ and building the most powerful lists is certainly a skill, but while some people idolise it, and see it as the ultimate expression of a game I don’t. I see it as only the most basic understanding of a game, the beginners take on the ultimate expression of the game. Its aiming for the ‘absolute’ power of a list, rather than the ‘relative’ power. While you might have patented ‘game-mature’, I’ve seen other terms used, such as ‘this approach requires emotional maturity to work’ or another one was ‘post-competitive’. I prefer the term ‘game-building’, and rather than ‘list-building for advantage’, I prefer ‘list-matching’ (note, not ‘list tailoring!’). Personally, I find the ‘game-building’ approach (which encompasses scenario, objectives, lists) to be a far more intriguing measure of my abilities and skills than ‘can I math out the best combo’.

Castozor wrote:you might be surprised by how some people absolutely refuse to operate outside of the GW/rules mandated standards. I think your suggestion is fair and reasonable but even in my local group most are unwilling to move outside of the standard matched play framework.




The ‘cult of officialdom’ is very much a thing. Gamers are very conservative and often lazy creatures, many will outright refuse to step outside of the walls of officialdom. More important than ‘good rules’ are ‘official rules’, even if they’re terrible. On the more extreme end, you have a lot of people treating the rules like the faithful hold to their god(s), often a blind, bitter and angry god who brooks no compromise. you’ll often find this synonymous with a cult of irresponsibility, that we shouldn’t have to put any effort into our communities, or games, and that all the problems are someone else’s fault, and we shouldn’t have to lift a finger, being angry is all we need to do, and adhere to the rules without question because anything else makes you a white knight/beaten.spouse etc.


catbarf wrote:

A lot of people aren't willing to take on the responsibility of balancing the game for themselves. It means putting on a designer hat, trying to understand the problematic areas or at least agree on the relative power, and becoming partially responsible if the game still ends poorly rather than being able to simply blame imbalance.



It’s a harder road for sure, but I think ultimately, more rewarding, and sometimes necessary – we all want different things.

Everything in life requires some sense of responsibility and personal endeavour. Put nothing in, get nothing out is something I’ve learned in life. My marathons didn’t run themselves, though my knee wishes they did these days!

And game building at least is a spectrum. There’s a difference in the input and energy required between ‘drinking beer and throwing dice’ as you say and some of the very complex scenarios we’ve run, not that I am devaluing either!


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Because we shouldn't HAVE to do anything ourselves. Instead what happens is GW does this crap and you give it the ultimate pass: you buy it.


2 sides. 1 coin.

Pretty much everything in life, and every type of relationship requires a modicum of personal responsibility, front end effort, cost, compromise and accomodation. Everything requires you ‘have’ to do things yourself, and if you think 40K is hard and that you shouldn’t have to do anything, wait until you have to deal with ‘friendships’ and ‘relationships’.

And again with this black knight malarkey. Give it a break man. Buying stuff from GW is not a free pass. Adhering to its most broken aspects without question and bludgeoning your peers with them without shame or regret whilst paying lip service to blaming ‘god and the good book’ (or in this case GW), doing nothing else and shrugging off any sense of responsibility for your own actions and their consequences is what a ‘free pass’ looks like in the real world. People accommodating others is community building – its building a broad church, rather than a sneering elitist clique. People homebrewing and house ruling is often a more effective way of thumbing noses, and ‘taking it to the man’ than just posing with righteous anger on the internet. Adhering unquestioningly to the rules and ignoring your own personal responsibility and ability to implement positive change is often more destructive than breaking rules or working around them with your peers – more bad things in life have occurred from people ‘following orders’ than ignoring them. There’s a reason we celebrate thieves and rogues, like Nottingham’s other favoured son Robin Hood and many other local renegades. And at the end of the day, in my experience this approach means that my friends and I enjoy our hobby and our games more. And that for me, is the real ‘win’.

greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy

"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are" 
   
Made in us
Master Engineer with a Brace of Pistols





washington state USA

many will outright refuse to step outside of the walls of officialdom. More important than ‘good rules’ are ‘official rules’, even if they’re terrible.


Yep i see that quite a bit. usually translated as the "i refuse to play anything other than the current rules set", or any other game system outside GWs walls.





GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 aphyon wrote:
many will outright refuse to step outside of the walls of officialdom. More important than ‘good rules’ are ‘official rules’, even if they’re terrible.


Yep i see that quite a bit. usually translated as the "i refuse to play anything other than the current rules set", or any other game system outside GWs walls.


Honestly, i think it's also strategy from GW to insulate itself and it's custommers . (nvm their shops)
It's also something with the recent focus on Competitive that mndates all official rules... despite the core problem right now being GW day 1 DLC.

And then there's the fact that the most regular players seem to be the ones atleast locally that are competitive minded so they will always demand up to date rules use, even IF the up to date rules are infact worse than what once was. Yup, had that admitted to my face, which makes me wonder, what if GW officialdom cult would not exist, or turn as bad as it once did, would we see more local and often better approaches torwards the comp scene?


I am split on the matter, on one hand i think that if i pay for a ruleset it should be working without me needing to intervene all too much, or at all indeed (NVM that there are better games out there with rules not costing a dime so yeah..... about that). Otoh, it is my responsibility to have fun with my hobby indeed and as such modifying a ruleset should come naturally.

Maybee that's an issue with how i went along the hobby road, being somewhat competitively minded initially, before switching over to a casual and narrative approach.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Castozor wrote:
I had not considered that to be honest. I think you make a fair point, I'll try and offer him to play 2200 vs my 2000 points and see if he accepts.
But realistically I think he will still decline on grounds of me belittling him even if I don't mean it in that way. Weird how people can agree one army (DG) is better than another (IW) and still refuse to actually do anything about it themselves.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^it is BEYOND bonkers to me that people will sit down at a table and go 'haha, this is broken' 'haha yep the game is sure meaningless and over in five seconds' like you BOTH AGREE fething DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT instead of just doing this weird ritual of a foregone conclusion. Why would you actively choose to have less fun and make a less interesting game? It takes five seconds to give one player more points, or play on a normal size board instead of carefully measuring to the 'real' edge of the board every time JUST so you can play the published MINIMUM board size allowable for your game.

If both players are saying 'this is unfair' and spotting the same exact unfairness between their armies, and agreeing that thing is unfair, why just laugh about it and move on? I see this happen every week I play a game, at least once! no GW employee is under the table taking notes, nobody's gonna pop out of the closet and get you if you fail to take your unearned advantage in an imbalanced game of plastic dollies.

"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




I feel GW has made going away from offical rules quite difficult. The game is bloated up a lot with lots of rules that are different in name and the burden of understand can be quite high.
So deviating from offical rules can be hard for a lot of players.
Special missions and such I see as really tough to make work in 40k as even a great mission can be unplayable if someone decides to turn up with something like knights.
Terrain and boards need to accomodate them as well, and objectives in buildings or hard to reach places can be a no go to push a infantry based gameplay.
The other games I okay don’t have these issues and players can with relative ease since everyone is playing with a more equal design to there factions.

This I think leads into the other issues of casual play falling to the wayside, sometimes units just suck. I don’t think I have ever taken a cutthroat list of units before in 40k, but there is some units that I don’t use as they are just mostly useless.
It’s great when players are willing to take more agency in trying to fix the game issues.
But if they are changing basic things, then things that make the game more fun are also harder to change as it’s adding more burden of rules onto players.
:(
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 the_scotsman wrote:


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^it is BEYOND bonkers to me that people will sit down at a table and go 'haha, this is broken' 'haha yep the game is sure meaningless and over in five seconds' like you BOTH AGREE fething DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT instead of just doing this weird ritual of a foregone conclusion. Why would you actively choose to have less fun and make a less interesting game? It takes five seconds to give one player more points, or play on a normal size board instead of carefully measuring to the 'real' edge of the board every time JUST so you can play the published MINIMUM board size allowable for your game.

If both players are saying 'this is unfair' and spotting the same exact unfairness between their armies, and agreeing that thing is unfair, why just laugh about it and move on? I see this happen every week I play a game, at least once! no GW employee is under the table taking notes, nobody's gonna pop out of the closet and get you if you fail to take your unearned advantage in an imbalanced game of plastic dollies.


Stop being a white knight! How dare you show any sense of responsibility or personal initiative or even worse how dare you do anything other than take the most broken stuff, bludgeon your peers with it without compromise or apology. Life is brutal and unforgiving, remember? Your games need to reflect this.

Apparently...

Some will say you, and your attitude are the real enemy. Sad, really. *shrug*

Not Online!!! wrote:


Honestly, i think it's also strategy from GW to insulate itself and it's custommers . (nvm their shops)

It's also something with the recent focus on Competitive that mndates all official rules... despite the core problem right now being GW day 1 DLC.


I disagree. Its no planned strategy. Its just human psychology 101. Basic instinctive tribalism and herd mentality. Stay in the ‘protection’ of the group, don’t deviate, follow orders, get in line. If I may quote Equilibrium ‘its not the message that is important but our obedience to it’. And its always been there, in every edition of the game, its not a recent focus. You’ll see this is every group, hobby, belief system, political party etc. Heck, if we think of the cult of officialdom in terms of religion, those of us who homebrew, accommodate and DIY are basically the heretics and atheists and ne’er-do-wells of the analogy. At the more extreme end, we all know what the blind zealots of a religion think of heretics, don’t we? Pitchforks and flaming torches. I’m sure you’ve seen the internet versions of these.



Not Online!!! wrote:


And then there's the fact that the most regular players seem to be the ones at least locally that are competitive minded so they will always demand up to date rules use, even IF the up to date rules are in fact worse than what once was. Yup, had that admitted to my face, which makes me wonder, what if GW officialdom cult would not exist, or turn as bad as it once did, would we see more local and often better approaches torwards the comp scene?



Yes, and no. You’d ultimately get a fracturing of the community, which arguably is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself since in reality, there is no ‘one’ community anyway. ‘Better’ would be down to perspective. I’d prefer ‘different’. Clubs and stores would reflect what the garagehammer scene already reflects, and rather than any kind of official dogma or ‘one true way to play’, you’d have more local variations and eccentricities in the real world. People would ultimately make it work for themselves and their group and what they see in their area, but other groups with an alternative approach may find frictions and incompatibilities when directly compared. No different to dealing with a different culture or language barrier when you go abroad. You move locations or play in a different club, you’d need to appreciate more that ‘folks do things a bit differently here’ rather than a universal meta based on the lowest common denominator of ‘I can turn up, grunt, throw my stuff on the table, not need to speak to speak to anyone and still get a game in’. If you’re ok with that, and are happy/willing to adapt, it’s not necessarily an issue.

Then again, not everyone is going to play everyone else everywhere else, so I often find the cries of potential frustration that ‘this would mean I’d need to buy a totally different army to play in the shop ten miles down the road’ are more than a little bit of overblown hyperbole.

Not Online!!! wrote:


I am split on the matter, on one hand i think that if i pay for a ruleset it should be working without me needing to intervene all too much, or at all indeed (NVM that there are better games out there with rules not costing a dime so yeah..... about that). Otoh, it is my responsibility to have fun with my hobby indeed and as such modifying a ruleset should come naturally.

.


Fair, but no rules set will ever accommodate the demands that the competitive (and especially competitive-at-all-costs) crowd insist they are due, especially to keep ‘those tfgs’ in line. These are limited systems with limited load bearing abilities and rough edges. No rules set will ever be without issue, or aspects that cannot be gamed. Unfortunately, those approaches, especially the latter caac, are all about gaming the system, and exploiting those issues. These modes of play often have an undue influence in shaping how the game is played (especially online), and on the conversations surrounding this, and left unchecked these approaches can rapidly toxify an environment to everyone’s detriment regardless of how things work at lower levels.

It’s the same as recycling, in a lot of ways. Regardless of what the big players are doing or not doing, you should still do your bit at your end. We all have responsibilities and obligations after all.

Not Online!!! wrote:


Maybe that's an issue with how i went along the hobby road, being somewhat competitively minded initially, before switching over to a casual and narrative approach.


I dunno. It was exactly the same approach for me. Played competitive 40k back in 3rd and 4th amongst a very competitive group, played competitive WMH for most of Mk2, burned out twice with both and honestly, learning to appreciate the hobby side brought me back the first time, and learning to appreciate modes of play outside of ‘tournament play’ brought me back the second time – when I lost interest in the competitive scene and chasing the dragon, it was our far more laid-back weekend garagehammer (or garagehistoricals, garagefinity and garage-other-gw-games) that kept me excited and actively engaged in rolling dice. After nearly 20 years and half my life playing TTGs, its not the tournament meta or the top table talk that keeps me engaged after all this time. And I don’t have anything to prove to any try-hard either.

Ultimately, unlike the interwebs where you can more easily be a poser spouting vengeful absolutist uncompromising and extremist nonsense, you have to make compromises when it comes to gaming in the real world if you want to enjoy your hobby long term and keep your community healthy. There are a lot of things we want in our games in the real world that are mutually exclusive. Within games, from my POV, ‘variety’, ‘competition’ and ‘social aspect’ all feed off of each other – you can’t be 100% in all 3 (and to be fair, there’s probably more than 3). You want to play at the top table? Say goodbye to the 97% of the game that isn’t mathematically efficient enough as well as a lot of the players and lists that reflect the lore. You want to play all the variety the game has? Say goodbye to the top table. You want to be welcoming to everyone, accommodate everyone else type of game completely – you’re playing everyone else’s version of the game, or different games, not necessarily the game/game style you want to play. Adapting to how your community plays opens some doors and closes others, both in terms of ‘who’ you play and ‘how’ you play – sometimes you gotta be assertive and push back on what you want to play too, which may be at their expense. Accomodation goes both ways after all. Everything is a compromise to some extent. That’s just the reality.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/11 12:48:15


greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy

"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are" 
   
Made in nl
Jovial Plaguebearer of Nurgle





Well the first few games against my new Codex I can understand. You are trying to feel out the powerlevel and try and come up with counters for the next game. It is fun to come up with new list ideas or strats to use to hopefully come out on top next time. But we are almost 10 games in at this point, I think we can all agree that his IW's need help against DG.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Castozor wrote:
I had not considered that to be honest. I think you make a fair point, I'll try and offer him to play 2200 vs my 2000 points and see if he accepts.
But realistically I think he will still decline on grounds of me belittling him even if I don't mean it in that way. Weird how people can agree one army (DG) is better than another (IW) and still refuse to actually do anything about it themselves.

Because we shouldn't HAVE to do anything ourselves. Instead what happens is GW does this crap and you give it the ultimate pass: you buy it.

We shouldn't have to, but reality is GW does a poor job. Just sitting there and sulking about it isn't going to do anything. As for buying, I only really buy the codex at this point. Their Day 1 DLC is too insulting to buy, and the second hand market has all the models I need.
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






PenitentJake wrote:
I've been thinking more about this thread; in my last post, I came to the realization that describing myself as a casual player wasn't really correct; narrative player, or Crusade player fits better than "casual" as a descriptor for me; I'm actually pretty aggressive about the narrative elements of my gaming; there isn't really anything casual about writing a 20 page backstory for every army and refusing to fight in any arena that would compromise that story.

But I do see myself as non-competitive, and I think that is why I sometimes describe myself as casual.


 Jidmah wrote:


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



For me, what's worth discussing is campaign systems and ideas, cross platform gaming/ integration and connections between rules and stories. That's not to say that Jidmah's list ISN'T worth discussing... It certainly is- especially for new players. It just isn't what I really want to read about- I can figure that all out by reading the rules myself. The Crusade thread that popped up as an offshoot to this one was the most interesting threads I've read in a long time, and it didn't contain any of the stuff listed above.


I agree, but you are taking my list completely out of context. I was talking about tactics only. Fluff doesn't really have a place there.

7 Ork facts people always get wrong:
Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other.
A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot.
Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests.
Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why.
Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor.
Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers.
Orks do not have the power of believe. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

On the note about how easy GW makes it to deviate from officialdom:

As the organizer for my local club's 30k narrative event at our local con, I will say I've had a way easier time developing fun and narrative special rules in the 30k system than I would have in the 40k system.

Compare the following:
"The Forward Observer model has the following weapon: [Artillery Bombardment] R: Infinite | Str: 9 | AP: 3 | Apocalyptic Barrage (3), Pinning, One Use"
vs
"The Forward Observer model has the following ability: [Artillery Bombardment]: Pick a point on the table. Roll a dice for each unit within 4" of that point (friend or foe!). Subtract one if it is a character. On a 4+, that unit takes d3 mortal wounds. If a unit suffers any wounds from this attack, it must roll 2d6 against its leadership, and if it fails, it cannot move in its following turn and only hits on a 6+ if it shoots."

One of those is clean, elegant, and utilizes USRs and weapon keywords to make it clear exactly what is going on. I can model up said FO, hand it to a player for use in a narrative battle (say, to represent allied PDF on a beleaguered world in the midst of planetary civil war), and it is immediately clear what that FO does (if you are familiar with the 30k rules).

For the second rule, it follows the normal formatting of GW's "orbital strike" mechanics (e.g. inquisition orbital strike, deathstrike missile, SM orbital strike, etc). but I'd be surprised if I didn't miss some necessary detail or something and the weapon doesn't function correctly. It was harder to write, I still probably missed something, and I have no idea if it's even relatively effective compared to the first weapon listed. Is it the same? More damaging? Less damaging? Who knows, I certainly don't.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/11 13:08:05


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: