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.

I don’t entirely disagree. But I’m not entirely sure GW are aiming for a Tournament Suitable Rules Set, so much as using organised play, which is going to exist anyway, as a useful source of raw information which can be considered for adjusting balance.

Because what I think most folk want out of any TTWG is fun.

We spend hours building our models. Some even paint them enthusiastically. Nobody is going to enjoy putting in all that effort, just to get their face smashed in in every game.

This is why I fell out with X-Wing. The learning curve between Newcomer and Mildly Experienced was a difficult gulf to cross. Its rules are pretty solid, sure. But it’s a tricky game to get into unless you’ve a group willing to take the time to really walk you through your first engagements. Because without that community support, you’re not only gonna lose, but lack an understanding of why you lost.

I think WM/H was a weird one because their major "growth" was in bringing over various people who had grown alienated with GW games. Same with X-Wing after that came out in 2012. At least part of that was GW's decidedly anti-competitive/tournament mentality. I.E. blatant army imbalance (that would be ignored for years) and very limited concern for the game as a game.

WMH was meant to be (and I'd argue was,) tighter and faster. If you got assassinated in 15 minutes due to making a horrible move as a new player, just set up and go again. It was more MTG than 40k's (or Fantasy)'s "I know I'm screwed, but I'm still going to play out this game for an hour or more."

Unsurprisingly this made the average player much more competitive/gamey than 40k had been historically (although, as said repeatedly, I think 40k moved this way from 5th onwards.) Unfortunately this produced an increasingly oppressive and toxic meta, as the game was somewhat "solved". Get on board or clear off.

I think its interesting how both WMH and X-Wing kind of grew and then imploded as they hit the issues that GW has to navigate. How do stay in the business of selling miniatures, without blatant codex creep or bloat? I think both game systems failed to cross that hurdle and that's why they fell over. Meanwhile 40k continues to march on.

Where GW I think have been better in modern times, is that they have been willing to jump in if the professional/tournament circuit starts playing in a way they don't like. (And partly that's because some element of the professional circuit usually starts crying as well). But that circuit could very easily go "that's the meta, just accept it" - which as said, was the problem above.

I'm talking about things like flyer nerfs (both in 8th and 9th), character and unit limitations etc. While there are exceptions, if you look at competitive builds, they aren't typically unnatural or different to what casual players with organic collections might put together in their stores or garages. But there certainly have been periods of such and I think is to a degree more accident than design.

I don't think going for competitive games is what killed Warmachine, it is one part of many parts that combined together at around the same time which caused a snowball effect that just spiralled.

Each individual part that caused an issue wasn't enough to cause the decline on its own. It was a combination of factors happening all at once which reinforced the move and led to some poorer choices.



Heck if anything some aspects such as the move toward 2D terrain could be less a case of pandering to a competitive market and perhaps a lack of effective marketing and focus on what GW calls and markets as "The Hobby"

Ergo that they didn't so much as do something wrong as they didn't do something to help provide alternative focus

 Dysartes wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
For me, the biggest problem with 40K is the Design Studio has failed to sculpt the game to in a way to encourage players to play the game in a way that more closely matches the core of the background material.

Counter-point - if they were to try to do that, the tournament try-hards would complain that They're Doing It Wrong, would still build lists that bear little resemblance to the lore, and (in extremes) decide they can do it better and produce their own packs for events, which in turn would lead to bad data if the Studio was using it. And the NOVA guy would get employed by them, for no good reason.

I don't think the Tournament players could care less is GW sculpted the game to in a way that made upgrading units, not going MSU, and actually taking 3 Tactical Squads, an Assault Squad, and a Devestator squad good. They just don't want to see rules that say take X, Y, and Z and get bonus A.

No. I have to take that last statement back. Players will gladly add the Loyal 32 to grab themselves some much needed Command Points despite it having nothing to do with the rest of their army. This is why GW needs data to realize when their fluffy rules can easily be exploited to build unintended results.

Also, you stop grinding that Mike Brandt Axe. I think it has moved past sharp and is destroying your blade.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
This is why I fell out with X-Wing.

God that ended up being a heartbreaker. I just wanted to reenact my childhood dreams and fly around making The Noises and saying all the quotes...
And then the Competitive Internet took over.
"I activate this squadron leader so that lets me activate all fighters in range and they're all in range and they've all got cluster missiles and can use a single lock on and I've blown up all but one of your ships and what do you mean you're just going to watch D... and S... play Napoleonics for the rest of the night? Don't you want another game?" (What do you mean 'another', I didn't even have one)

As for Warmachine ... I've ranted about Page 5 before. They got the target market they wanted, I hope they enjoyed it.

I think competitive gaming has a place, but it will very rarely produce 'real' forces, even in the Historical arena. It ends up being the equivalent of running doomstacks in the game of your choice, then complaining about how the Devs need to introduce more unit variety

I think consistent adjustment of the rules/points is a good thing for the frequent player, especially those that go to events. For the more casual player, the constant change can be annoying. You just get something painted/finished and then your list is now pointed incorrectly or doesn’t play the way it did when you built the list. And to be honest, I think many of the changes GW made during 9th could have been simply ignored.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
For me, the biggest problem with 40K is the Design Studio has failed to sculpt the game to in a way to encourage players to play the game in a way that more closely matches the core of the background material.

Counter-point - if they were to try to do that, the tournament try-hards would complain that They're Doing It Wrong, would still build lists that bear little resemblance to the lore, and (in extremes) decide they can do it better and produce their own packs for events, which in turn would lead to bad data if the Studio was using it. And the NOVA guy would get employed by them, for no good reason.

Pffft. Just remember all those fluff bunny Death Guard players who suddenly took three units of bikes/spawn when they became good (not that a Chaos Legion being able to muster a dozen bikes in one place is actually all that unfluffy...)

It isn't unfluffy though. Mortarion in the fluff doesn't do jack gak for thousands of years, so it doesn't matter what he likes and doesn't like. The Legion is going to fight differently.

On themed lists…so what if the next player hasn’t themed their list?

Your Hobby isn’t my Hobby, my Hobby isn’t the next person’s Hobby. And none of us are Hobbying Wrong.

The ideal of course is for any force fielded, provided it’s a legal army selection, should be able to compete. Because of course that’s the ideal.

But let’s put ideals aside and deal with realism. Even without Character Compartmentalisation, 40K has dozens, if not by now hundreds of units. And a ridiculous number of potential combinations thereof.

I don’t think that can deliver Perfect Balance. Even if we’re talking minor advantages gained from a given list, there are those to whom that’s The Most Important Thing. I’m not against that at all - but I think we can all object to someone being an obnoxious opponent regardless of their list (constant moaning, demanding you measure to the micrometer, rules quibbles over the slightest thing, but expecting you to just let them away with anything).

Are we getting close to that? I couldn’t tell you. But it does seem GW are finally invested in trying to get as close as possible. This is why they separated out unit and weapon points costs. This is why we’re getting more frequent FAQs and Errata’s. This is why we get Metawatch - which at least offers some rationale for why they’re changing things.

Have they got that right yet? Again I’m not the person to say. But points for trying is points for trying - and I can only encourage fellow hobbyists to keep on feeding back to GW. Vent online all you need. Conversation is good. But tell GW direct as well. Even more so if, like me, tournament play isn’t really your bag for whatever reason.

I agree with a lot of what's already been said, that tournament play is a good source of data and lets you gauge what's happening when players are ruthlessly optimizing towards the most effective play. If there are massive balance issues, tournaments reveal it pretty quickly.

However- the designers then need to keep in mind that not everyone is playing win-at-all-costs at the top tables of LVO. A game can be balanced for high-level play but encourage optimizations that run contrary to the fluff, promote unintuitive strategies (eg deliberately not attacking so you stay 'hidden' in melee), rely on rules interactions that may not be obvious to casual players (eg tri-pointing), or end up being less balanced among more average players. If the developers focus on competitive play exclusively and use tournament data as the only metric for success, the result may not be a better experience for everyone.

On top of that, if the community focuses exclusively on tournament play, it can become actively toxic to anyone not interested in that style. See: Warmachine, as already mentioned.

I don't think there's anything wrong with tournament play, it just needs to be treated as one way to play rather than the be-all and end-all of 40K.

And that's why I wish GW had done more with their other ways to play theme.

They advertise "three ways to play" however in practice its

Matched play - just bog standard 40K
Narrative play - just bog standard 40K with some story here and there before and after the game and maybe a few linked missions but not much else
Open play - just whatever the heck you want that doesn't need anyone to tell you to call it a play style



And in the end most chatter is about matched and most narrative is matched play and most open play is based on matched.
So in the end you've one mode of play, a few bits of narrative content here and there, but nothing to really make it stand out.

I wish GW had done more for narrative to really make it much more its own thing. I think they kind of have tried with things like Crusade and perhaps with the new boarding missions and focus aspects. I think they are steadily trying and I really hope it works because I think a good matched play system, built around steady even balance across and within battletomes/codex; can then form a fantastic foundation for a more diverse Narrative play system.

It's a LOT easier to mess with a well balanced set of rules and stats than it is a badly setup game. With a well setup game you can change things and adjust things and have a degree of understanding of what those changes will do to the game and how it will change them and how you cna then setup expectations and gameplay elements.

Eg with a well balanced system you can do a defensive mission where one player is holding the line against an army 3X its size and the whole objective isn't to kill each other its to see how long the defender can last out or how fast the attacker can kill them. The win/loss is almost a forgone conclusion its how you get there. Then you can link that into missions that follow after. Perhaps even just a straight fight with how many turns you survive influencing elements in the next game etc....

I’d warn against false impressions here.

The comings and goings of a given tournament tend to be more noteworthy than folks playing at home or in a club etc.

I mean, a story about how someone managed to win a Tournament with a warts and all account, including where they pulled a significant victory from the jaws of defeat is always going to be more engaging than that time I beat Big Smelly Bob the other week.

Both can be interesting stories of course, but winning a tournament is just of naturally greater interest, because it has naturally greater stakes involved.

It’s kind of the same reason people will tell you who one the English Premier League for every year since it’s inception, but very, very few people will be able to say how Accrington Stanley placed in those same years. One is just Higher Stakes, despite it being ostensibly Exactly The Same Game Being Played With The Same Victory Conditions.

Indeed, the joy of narrative gaming is when you have a group invested in the narrative, because the scenarios are fun and challenging, but to some extent, You Had To Be There to get the full effect.

Like when I ran a pretty well received local Narrative Campaign for Eye of Terror. The dust of war has long since settled, and whilst the participants still look fondly upon it, what everyone remembers is I’d written a set of interlinking scenarios, set on St Josman’s Hope.

Yes. St Josman’s Hope. The Penal (stop tittering at the back) Planet that…got blown up in the first week or fortnight, leading to frantic re-writing on my behalf!

No, tournament play is not at fault.

The thing about tournament play is that you get to the table with a set of rules and most people at the table accept that. If the game changes the tournament players would change as well, because they are playing within the margins set by GW.

This is not so with many narrative gamers I have met, and having run a few narrative campaigns myself I find the entire affair exhausting. Tournament players have just one vision of the game which is whatever GW has provided them with, narrative gamers, however, have as many visions as there are people.

You can remove the point changes, nerfs, rules, or whatever you disagree with. Only thing that it changes is that the tournament players will now dominate the entire edition with whatever is the strongest army. Tournament players existed before GW embraced tournaments. They did not appear out of thin air.

On top of that, if the community focuses exclusively on tournament play, it can become actively toxic to anyone not interested in that style. See: Warmachine, as already mentioned.

Personally I'd lay the blame entirely on the Warmahorde creators. There is a reason why page 5 is infamous: They cultivated a toxic trait from the get go.

Tournament play absolutely has its place and has a very valuable niche. I think some people over value tournament play as the 'pinnacle' or 'ultimate expression' of the hobby but regardless folks enjoy it for lots of reasons and fair play.

The only ways I would say tournament play is a 'problem' and I use that teem loosely, is when folks the bleeding edge meta lists into casual games or folks who aren't jnto that kind of thing. It can get very toxic if you're not careful. But that's more 'poor communication' at best; and 'jerk player' at worst that a tournament thing.

The other way is more personal. Burn out. Tournaments are fun. I did them for ten years. But they can be intense. keeping 'current' with the meta, keeping 'on top of it', keeping -sharp' takes a lot of time and enerhy. Do it long enough and a break is needed and folks should step away every now and theb.. Too many players don't and either burn out or end up frustrated and angry and miserable and not enjoying the hobby. So again, both strictly 'toyrnaments' but they can play a factor.

 Overread wrote:
And that's why I wish GW had done more with their other ways to play theme.

To avoid sounding overly confrontational and antagonistic, I want to agree up front that they could have leaned harder into the three ways than they did.

 Overread wrote:

They advertise "three ways to play" however in practice its

Matched play - just bog standard 40K
Narrative play - just bog standard 40K with some story here and there before and after the game and maybe a few linked missions but not much else
Open play - just whatever the heck you want that doesn't need anyone to tell you to call it a play style

I don't think this is enitrely fair. I'd break it down this way:

Matched play: ALWAYS 2K, always points, always stand alone games. Regular updates to points and rules (ie. Flyers, Subfaction souping etc)

Narrative Play- Campaign play is an explicit part of the game built into the core Narrative rules. Escalation HIGHLY encouraged. Intended for use with PL, which were updated ONCE during the entire edition. Rules added via campaign materials, but RARELY removed or changed.

Open play- Most flexible game mode, excellent for houserule development, encouraged use of mission decks.

I would also say that holding GW accountable for what happens "in practice" isn't particularly fair. GW is responsible for what happens in theory- that's why they write books. WE are responsible for what happens in practice, because WE are the ones who play the game.

If I had a shiny nickel for everytime my praises of Crusade were met with "But nobody plays it where I live" I wouldn't be trying to make decisions about whether I can afford to get three more dexes before the edition ends- I'd have enough money to just pull the trigger.

The point, however, is that this isn't GW's fault and there is absolutely feth all they can do to change it. If the people at your store or in your group only ever played 2k matched games in 9th, it's all they are going to play in 10th too- no matter what GW does.

 Overread wrote:

I wish GW had done more for narrative to really make it much more its own thing. I think they kind of have tried with things like Crusade and perhaps with the new boarding missions and focus aspects. I think they are steadily trying and I really hope it works because I think a good matched play system, built around steady even balance across and within battletomes/codex; can then form a fantastic foundation for a more diverse Narrative play system.

I think there's a lot of you trying to be fair here, and I respect that. But honestly? GW could not have done more to promote Crusade than they did. As I have pointed out several times this edition, there have been far more Crusade only books published than Matched only books. And even 8th's shift back to an evolving story rather than a fixed setting is support for narrative.

And I think there's a huge misunderstanding when people think of Crusade as being something done FOR narrative. GW very clearly intended Crusade to be THE narrative play mode... Not just an optional tool for narrative players who think that a tree campaign with the occassional asymmetric mission is all narrative should be.

 Overread wrote:

It's a LOT easier to mess with a well balanced set of rules and stats than it is a badly setup game. With a well setup game you can change things and adjust things and have a degree of understanding of what those changes will do to the game and how it will change them and how you cna then setup expectations and gameplay elements.

I think this is fair too. I can behind this.

But...

 Overread wrote:

Eg with a well balanced system you can do a defensive mission where one player is holding the line against an army 3X its size and the whole objective isn't to kill each other its to see how long the defender can last out or how fast the attacker can kill them. The win/loss is almost a forgone conclusion its how you get there. Then you can link that into missions that follow after. Perhaps even just a straight fight with how many turns you survive influencing elements in the next game etc....

My group does this all the time in Crusade, and what makes it work for us is all the camapaign goals that AREN'T connected to win/loss. So yeah, I hold the board for three turns before being wiped out by a larger force... But maybe three units manage to achieve Agendas before they are to injured to continue the battle, and so they earn battle honours. Maybe my Archon gathers the intel that allows him to seize a Commorrite territory before he's incapacitate. Maybe a unit of Repentia return to the Emperor's grace.

But again, if you aren't using those rules because your opponent insists on playing 2k Matched stand alone games, a) you will never know how satisfying and narrative it is to make progress toward winning a war while losing a battle, and b) no matter how good the rules are, GW can't help you because the problem is not the game, it's the environment in which you are playing.

Tournaments are not an issue. Focusing too much on the competetive side of the game is a problem, but the fact that it can be played competetively is a feature, not a bug.

The disconnect between individual players is what I would point to. Annoying bloat aside this is the most balanced edition of 40k I have played going back to 3rd. But that doesn't matter if 2 players have different expectations from the game.

For example when a fluff players knows they're playing fluff themed list and accepts this as a handicap to better their immersion, there is no issue. But when a player expects that same fluffy list to beat a tuned optimized competitive list that's a problem because it most likely cannot. Assuming roughly equal skill. This leads to dissatisfaction with the game and finger pointing at gw when the issue is mostly player expectation.

dominuschao wrote:
But when a player expects that same fluffy list to beat a tuned optimized competitive list that's a problem because it most likely cannot. Assuming roughly equal skill. This leads to dissatisfaction with the game and finger pointing at gw when the issue is mostly player expectation.

In a well-designed game, a fluffy list and an effective list are one and the same.

I don't think it's fair to dismiss players negatively experiencing a disconnect between gameplay and background as a matter of player expectation. But it's something you need to go beyond tournament results to assess.

I disagree that a well designed game can overcome the difference, although it could possibly close the gap. But I do agree that this is something that shouldn't be dismissed. Although it is, or rather not recognized enough.

I have a couple modes and one is full hard mode. But if I'm routinely facing players who are not wanting to engage at that level, and I'm not playing in a tournament, then I will tone it down. In my experience this leads to better game experience and overall a healthier local meta.

That a fluffy list and a competitive list are different comes simply from the fact that rules and background don't work together

If the background writes about unit X is the backbone of the army and there are always at least 4 of them
But for the rules unit x is the worst one to get with unit Y doing everything better but cost less points
You get a fluffy list with unit x and a competitive list with unit y

If the fluff writes that unit y is the backbone of the army, your list is fluffy and competitive

We already had those in 40k with some armies were the troop choice were also to main combat unit and not just a tax to pay to get the good stuff which always resulted in a nerf

That there is a difference between "thematic list" and "competitive list" is by design and intended and not because it is not possible otherwise

Yet the big problem is that new players have only the fluff and theme as orientation on how their army should look like and it might even be the reason why they choose it in the first place (because they liked the look of unit X and as it is the backbone of the army they thought they can get a good list by using only that unit)

PS: could even be seen as false advertising as the stuff GW writes an army is built on and the stuff you really need is not the same

PPS: a well designed game would write such background according to the rules and would therefore not run into that problem
Not saying that one build is not weaker than another but there would not be the case that a given theme does not work at all

Fluff is an issue with almost all fantasy/scifi wargames and I'd argue the only ones that really resolve it are historical games where the "fluff" is actual historical data and where the forces squaring off against each other are not balanced against each other.



Also note that fluff is interpreted by the reader. Two people can read the same fluff and design a fluffy list along a similar theme and yet come out with two distinctly different takes on the army composition.


I would also argue that separating fluff from gameplay happens in all games that have some kind of backstory to them. It's going to happen and whilst I agree armies should follow fluff themes in design, you are rarely going to reach a point where you can have a diverse army with actual tactical choices and not end up with the option to build unfluffy forces or have unfluffy ones potentially be the more tactically sound choices to take.


As for writing fluff to fit the game that can work for things like Infinity where the stories and models are small skirmish groups; but for a mass wargame its never going to really work quite the same way because of how abstract things have to be so that the Marine player can field more than half a dozen models and the Tyranid player can actually make it to the table without being smothered under a swarm of gaunts to build and paint.

yes fluff can be interpreted differently, but something like a Space Marine Battle Company is very clear and and not much about interpretation
hence why an army build on certain units is considered fluffy or thematic, because it is very clear how a typical army should look like

yet, if that typical army is the weakest version and other builds are still possible, it is by design, be it intended or because the designer suck at writing rules

and for a game with fictional background it is even more a problem as changing the background to fit the rules is not an issue
specially as how often GW changes the necessary details on the fluff anyway

for historical games, were it is very clear how your force should look like, it is in the designer to get it right to make the rules in a way that the typical force of a faction won't lose by default and limit the army building to avoid anything that should not be possible, which is much more difficult

PS: and I don't know any other fictional game that has such a problem with thematic/competitive list as GW games
this is not related to skirmish/mass battle or if it is fictional or historic, this is a GW problem
same as most other issues with 40k are GW problems and not general Wargaming problems

A big issue with the fluff vs rules is the minis team is clueless, and stuff just comes out for other teams to support I feel.

And a lot of 40k is all hype no substance, so we end up with things like all dreads but no support elements or guide to support that kind of list.
When often a simple rule on a support element would be all that’s needed.

Something I think has been learned at GW possibly. As they more recent new factions have been better, but still not as good as it should be considering the resources they put into it. Often 5 mins of thought would be enough to steer away from the issues.

Kind of feel the issue with fluff will always be in how strict you take it.

https://www.goonhammer.com/competitive-innovations-in-9th-our-metagame-yearns-for-freedom-pt-2/

If I were to go through some tournament placing lists, how un-fluffy are they? Linked above so people can play at home.

GSC.
We've got all the usual GSC characters (only 1 though as per the limitations). 3 units of acolytes, 3 units of neophytes, a squad of genestealers, 2 biker units, 3 rock grinders and 2 trucks. Seems fluffy to me. Not sure how you go about making a non-fluffy GSC list with the current limitations.

Dark Angels. This one is perhaps a bit more contentious, although I admit to not knowing DA fluff.
We've got a Chapter Master - possibly shouldn't be allowed due to the fact there's named one.
We've got 2 Talonmasters.
We've got one squad of infiltrators, an Ancient, two veterans, two squads of 10 Deathwing Terminators, two Landspeeder Tornados and Two Desolation Squads. (Which have turned out to be much better than I thought)

Its a bit contrived to pick and choose the good stuff. Should DA have to pick "one wing" and stick with that? If the lore is that they do mix like this then I don't see the issue..

Daemons.
We've got Skarbrand, a Bloodthirster, a Herald of Tzeentch and a Herald of Slaanesh.We've got 4 units of Daemonettes. 3 units of fiends, a unit of flamers, 2 units of hell hounds and a unit of seekers.

Is it fluffy? I don't know really. Skittles Daemons upsets some people - but insisting on mono-god or nothing takes a limited roster and makes it ludicrously limiting. It doesn't seem unfluffy to me.

Space Wolves
A Captain and Chaplain on bikes. 2 units of Infiltrators. 2 units of aggressors, a Judicar, 3 units of scouts and a unit of jump pack wolf guard. 3 units of Skyclaws, 3 units of Long fangs and 2 Land Speeder Storms.

Is this fluffy? Well in a world where you need a tactical squad for every other unit no - but it doesn't seem out of whack to me. Unless you take the view that if you aren't maxing out on Thunder Wolves you aren't a true Space Wolf list.

Tyranids.
2 Hive Tyrants (maybe a question mark), a Tyranid Prime and a Neurothrope. 2*15 Hormagants, 3 Tyrant Guard, 9 Pyrovores, 6 Venomthropes, 3 Ripper Swarms and 2 Tyrannofexes.

Apart from the 2 Hive Tyrants (and even that I'm not overly bothered by) I'm not sure why this would be an unfluffy-list. Unless its fluffy for Pyrovores to be a joke unit and so them being worth taking is a crime against humanity.

Eldar
We've got two farseers on bikes and one on foot. Some warlocks on bikes. 20 Guardian Defenders. 30 Dire Avengers. 2 Vipers and 27 Wind Riders all with Shuriken Cannons.

Clearly mechanically this list is abusing Hail of Doom (which imo should never have existed). But if you painting this red and said "Saim Hann" it would be a fluffy if somewhat one-dimensional list.

Iron Hands
Lieutenant in Reiver Armour. 2 units of Infiltrators. 1 unit of scouts (and a Land Speeder Storm). 2 units of vanguard vets. Two Land Speeder Tornados, a Suppressor Squad. 3 Desolation Squads, 2 Devestator Squads and Gladiator Reaper.

Is this a fluffy Iron Hands list? Maybe it should have another unit of troops or something - but I don't see why its especially not-fluffy.

Guard
Command Squad, Death Korps Marshall, The Lord Solar and a Tank Commander. 4 units of Cadian Shock Troopers. 2 units of Kasrkin. 2 Sentinels. 9 Mortar Squads. 3 Rogal Dorn Tanks. I guess you could ask why the Lord Solar has shown up (see special characters in general) - but this seems like a fluffy Guard list to me. Some tanks, some infantry, some better infantry, some fire support.

I'm starting to run out of steam - but hopefully readers get the idea.

Tournament 40k is weird, because while it's inherently flawed, it's also understandably the driving force of how people play. let me explain.

the core of the 40k demographic are adults. Sure, GW is always trying to draw kids in, but kids play at home. the people that want to play are adults, usually with jobs, and often with families and kids. This means that we're not playing on Tuesday Afternoons, it means it's easier to get a Saturday. And tournaments, with their "play three games in a day" are the best way for working adults to get in some 40k.

However... 40k is pretty bad as a competitive game. The game takes too long to set up, terrain is a massive factor with little official guidance, and the game is so huge that properly balancing all the units/strats/abilities/etc. is basically impossible.

I don't think tournament play is killing 40k, but we need to be aware that forces push 40k into tournament play when that's not really it's strong point. I think GW has done a lot with crusade to get people to play that, with some but overall limited success.

Competitive play is not for me at all. Not interested...

To me it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. It seems like 40K is in all likelihood 70% luck and 30% skill with most of the skill going into your army design.

But having a vibrant competitive play community helps keep sales up and keeps the hobby going. So that helps me out.

Play on tournie crowd!

What if people could build armies strictly in accordance with the Codex Astartes or in accordance with the chapter lore were there would be

Big beautiful armies, epic battles

Games could last generations. You'd hand off your armies to your sons and daughters who would continue the fight.

Tyel wrote:
<snip>

Fluffy vs WAAC conception of lists has always been that some people believe lists need to self-flanderize a faction to be fluffy. If you're not taking nothing but bikes as White Scars, you're UNFLUFFY AND WAAC! Nevermind that the fluff explicitly states they use a ton of tac squads in rhinos as well. You have to ignore that part, because it's not BIKES!

You also have to ignore that players are given a wide berth for their own fluff, and the universe is so vast (in space and time!) that anything can happen. If I make a demi battle company of Mantis Warriors representing a force from the Badab War, I'll get praised for the fluff. If I make 2nd company Ultramarines and don't field Cato Sicarius because my fluff has my army representing a force before he ascended to Captain, I am terribly, terribly unfluffy. It's always the current point in the official timeline in 40k, unless I deem your army cool enough to be allowed to exist in the past.

It's a weird phenomena of the online 40k community.

I think its an area where some people have a greater degree of imagination than others. Some read a lore/fluff and whatever is written is gospel and cannot be deviated from in any degree.

If the book says X then that is taken as the ultimatum of fact.


Others read them as stories set in a vast universe and are more apt to invent things of their own within the structure that the fluff outlines.
They realise that an army themed around one focus can also entertain other options and will do so.

It's the same elements who realise that a unit of Marines is likely not operating alone, but has servitors and other support following after them to upkeep them.
Same thing in fantasy between those who think an army marches in full armour polished and ready for battle for days; VS those who realise that an army on the move has armour on carts; a swarm of camp followers and support such as smiths, cooks etc... Heck a knight might well have those who help dress them in their armour for the day of the fight







I'd also say another aspect is that some people don't understand the game (and sometimes don't want too); so they lean into the whole WAAC VS FLUFFY argument for why their army keeps losing when the reality is they just don't understand the game very well and can't build/use a good list. You see the same thing in games like Magic the Gathering, only there its insanely more brutal to the point where the good deck will nearly always win unless shuffling messes it up for one game.

It’s the difference between a preference and an obsession.

To continue the example, White Scars clearly have a preference for rapid warfare. So whilst it’s rare they’d take the field without transports, the bike thing seems a “fielded more often” thing - not a “and they never ever ever take the field without bikes”. Because let’s be honest, bikes aren’t always going to be the right tool for a given job, and at least Loyalist Chapters aren’t obsessed with a given facet of warfare, they’re just noted for a preference.

The question of where the limits are on a fluff-accurate army is rather beside the point.

It may be perfectly reasonable for a White Scars army to be composed entirely of footsloggers, but if taking an archetypical bike-heavy army is a guaranteed loss, then the rules aren't doing a good job of representing White Scars. A good game would be one where you can look at how White Scars are set up in the lore, copy their composition, and have a reasonably effective force on the tabletop. If step #1 of building an effective, competitive White Scars army is ditching the bikes, then clearly something is wrong.

In historicals, it's pretty straightforward- if the most effective tactic is to take force compositions that never existed and use tactics that would be suicide IRL, then the game isn't doing a very good job of modeling the conflict it's trying to portray. Obviously in a wholly fictional sci-fi-fantasy future that's less critical, but the disconnect between 'fluffy' and 'competitive' is entirely a product of the lore not aligning to the rules. Historical accuracy may not be a goal, but verisimilitude, internal consistency, and intuitive design always are.