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.
2023/04/25 17:01:59
Subject: Is tournament play the biggest problem with 40k
This is why I stressed, that it is a social problem, not ruleset problem. It takes just a small minority of players in a club with a cutthroat tournament mindset, to start the arms race and push out any casuals/narrative guys who don't want to participate in it out of the club. Seen it happened just too many times. You can also see this in pretty much every thread on Dakka, that there are people, like EviscerationPlague, who can't even fathom, that there are different approaches to wargaming even possible, and that blind pick-up culture is somehow the only way wargames are used. From the history point of view, pick-up is only a relatively recent concept in wargaming.
It isn't a social problem, it is a social reality.
You aren't changing the fact that some people like to win when playing games. There are several ways to mitigate it, but you aren't changing that.
Same with pick-up culture, it may be a relatively recent concept in wargaming, but the sheer success of 40k means it is the new reality.
No, not really. It is only "social reality" if you stick to 40k and the type of club 40k reigns in. There are other, greener pastures out there, but you have to do some legwork to either find them, or nurture them yourself. However, I get that this is rare or nigh impossible in the U.S. and I can only be glad, that I don't live there.
It's not.
You just hear about the gakky places because there's so much more to complain about concerning them vs decent stores/clubs/groups.
2023/04/25 17:19:05
Subject: Is tournament play the biggest problem with 40k
This is why I stressed, that it is a social problem, not ruleset problem. It takes just a small minority of players in a club with a cutthroat tournament mindset, to start the arms race and push out any casuals/narrative guys who don't want to participate in it out of the club. Seen it happened just too many times. You can also see this in pretty much every thread on Dakka, that there are people, like EviscerationPlague, who can't even fathom, that there are different approaches to wargaming even possible, and that blind pick-up culture is somehow the only way wargames are used. From the history point of view, pick-up is only a relatively recent concept in wargaming.
It isn't a social problem, it is a social reality.
You aren't changing the fact that some people like to win when playing games. There are several ways to mitigate it, but you aren't changing that.
Same with pick-up culture, it may be a relatively recent concept in wargaming, but the sheer success of 40k means it is the new reality.
No, not really. It is only "social reality" if you stick to 40k and the type of club 40k reigns in. There are other, greener pastures out there, but you have to do some legwork to either find them, or nurture them yourself. However, I get that this is rare or nigh impossible in the U.S. and I can only be glad, that I don't live there.
It's not. You just hear about the gakky places because there's so much more to complain about concerning them vs decent stores/clubs/groups.
Not entirely wrong. It IS much harder to find non-Warhammer centric areas in the US, and harder still to find actual gaming clubs that aren't just a bunch of people who go to the same store but an actual club. They do exist, but it's not like they're easy to find. Again, I can only speak to my area but from years looking, I haven't found any club like that in Tampa, just some people in various parts of the state who often congregate at one of our historical wargaming conventions. But as far as an actual gaming club that's not store-centric, I've come up empty handed. And getting one started is way harder than it seems because of the dominance of Warhammer and game stores.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/25 17:21:16
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2023/04/25 18:48:42
Subject: Is tournament play the biggest problem with 40k
This is why I stressed, that it is a social problem, not ruleset problem. It takes just a small minority of players in a club with a cutthroat tournament mindset, to start the arms race and push out any casuals/narrative guys who don't want to participate in it out of the club. Seen it happened just too many times. You can also see this in pretty much every thread on Dakka, that there are people, like EviscerationPlague, who can't even fathom, that there are different approaches to wargaming even possible, and that blind pick-up culture is somehow the only way wargames are used. From the history point of view, pick-up is only a relatively recent concept in wargaming.
It isn't a social problem, it is a social reality.
You aren't changing the fact that some people like to win when playing games. There are several ways to mitigate it, but you aren't changing that.
Same with pick-up culture, it may be a relatively recent concept in wargaming, but the sheer success of 40k means it is the new reality.
No, not really. It is only "social reality" if you stick to 40k and the type of club 40k reigns in. There are other, greener pastures out there, but you have to do some legwork to either find them, or nurture them yourself. However, I get that this is rare or nigh impossible in the U.S. and I can only be glad, that I don't live there.
It's not.
You just hear about the gakky places because there's so much more to complain about concerning them vs decent stores/clubs/groups.
Obviously, I don't have any kind of first-hand experience of U.S. reality, but anywhere on the web 40k discussions happen, stores/pick-up centric tales from U.S., and the problem of playing in any other way than competitive is a recurrent theme.
The problem with the pick-up culture altogether, is that many players treat other people as NPCs. In a tightly knitted club, or even amongst shop regulars here, there was this "our block" mentality [as in neighbourhood], but not in a "turf war" meaning, but "a common ground we take care of". We donated terrain, we helped eachother with modelling, painting etc. "Today your fancy, tommorrow mine" was a mentality we simply grew up with. But I saw this toxic pick-up here too - amongst MTG players, who couldn't care less about other people, because there are simply wide enough stream of new opponents to play with. Card trading doesn't help either, as many players here treat MTG as their source of income, and see other players only as customers.
2023/04/25 20:36:56
Subject: Is tournament play the biggest problem with 40k
This is why I stressed, that it is a social problem, not ruleset problem. It takes just a small minority of players in a club with a cutthroat tournament mindset, to start the arms race and push out any casuals/narrative guys who don't want to participate in it out of the club. Seen it happened just too many times. You can also see this in pretty much every thread on Dakka, that there are people, like EviscerationPlague, who can't even fathom, that there are different approaches to wargaming even possible, and that blind pick-up culture is somehow the only way wargames are used. From the history point of view, pick-up is only a relatively recent concept in wargaming.
It isn't a social problem, it is a social reality.
You aren't changing the fact that some people like to win when playing games. There are several ways to mitigate it, but you aren't changing that.
Same with pick-up culture, it may be a relatively recent concept in wargaming, but the sheer success of 40k means it is the new reality.
No, not really. It is only "social reality" if you stick to 40k and the type of club 40k reigns in. There are other, greener pastures out there, but you have to do some legwork to either find them, or nurture them yourself. However, I get that this is rare or nigh impossible in the U.S. and I can only be glad, that I don't live there.
It's not.
You just hear about the gakky places because there's so much more to complain about concerning them vs decent stores/clubs/groups.
Not entirely wrong. It IS much harder to find non-Warhammer centric areas in the US, and harder still to find actual gaming clubs that aren't just a bunch of people who go to the same store but an actual club. They do exist, but it's not like they're easy to find. Again, I can only speak to my area but from years looking, I haven't found any club like that in Tampa, just some people in various parts of the state who often congregate at one of our historical wargaming conventions. But as far as an actual gaming club that's not store-centric, I've come up empty handed. And getting one started is way harder than it seems because of the dominance of Warhammer and game stores.
You really think those guys congregating at your areas historical cons aren't playing in-between shows? Trust me, they're playing with someone, somewhere.
As for the supposed dominance of game stores? BS. The local game shop is just the tip of the iceberg.
It's where you go to play with people you'd otherwise not be inviting home for a game, to meet new people, introduce others to whatever your groups game of choice might be, & possibly recruit new blood for those gaming clubs you can't find.
For some though it is also the convenience: They don't have room to host games, they don't have terrain etc, they live too far away for others to readily get to, they really don't have anyone else to play this stuff with....
And then there's the "kids'. At the shop? We've got a handful of 15-17 year olds playing various games. Guess what? They are not invited to the Bolt Action BBQs several of us adults host during the summer. Not all of the adult BA players are either. Like I said, there's people you play with at the shop that you won't be inviting otherwise.
Getting non-40k games started at shops? I've never had much trouble. All it takes are a few people who're into game x & some table space. Play, visibly have fun doing it, & others will check it out. Be prepared to teach the game & have some extra units on hand.
2023/04/25 23:12:58
Subject: Is tournament play the biggest problem with 40k
EightFoldPath wrote: The incredibly wrong statement is that there isn't a massive skill advantage available in 9th edition 40k.
What is the skill, though?
Is it army list building?
Tactical performance?
Probability manipulation?
If you like rolling dice, there are games that are based entirely on it, and some people are very good at them.
My point is that 40k combines too many disparate elements to make a good tournament game. It's like requiring tennis players to design and fabricate their own racket, balls, build the court and then play well on it - oh and each half of the court is made by the opposing player.
EightFoldPath wrote: The incredibly wrong statement is that there isn't a massive skill advantage available in 9th edition 40k.
What is the skill, though?
Is it army list building?
Tactical performance?
Probability manipulation?
If you like rolling dice, there are games that are based entirely on it, and some people are very good at them.
My point is that 40k combines too many disparate elements to make a good tournament game. It's like requiring tennis players to design and fabricate their own racket, balls, build the court and then play well on it - oh and each half of the court is made by the opposing player.
The only real skill in 40k is building lists.
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2023/04/26 00:13:24
Subject: Is tournament play the biggest problem with 40k
EightFoldPath wrote: The incredibly wrong statement is that there isn't a massive skill advantage available in 9th edition 40k.
What is the skill, though?
Is it army list building?
Tactical performance?
Probability manipulation?
If you like rolling dice, there are games that are based entirely on it, and some people are very good at them.
My point is that 40k combines too many disparate elements to make a good tournament game. It's like requiring tennis players to design and fabricate their own racket, balls, build the court and then play well on it - oh and each half of the court is made by the opposing player.
Have you played in any 9th edition tournaments?
2023/04/26 00:19:44
Subject: Re:Is tournament play the biggest problem with 40k
BA in no way sucked. Yours is the excuse given by bad Blood Angel players. And bad Ork players as well (they used to have some really random stuff in various editions of 40k & WHFB)
You haven't disproven my point. At various times BA have been bad. At various times Orks and Goblins were *terrible* during WHF. Some balance so players who bought the faction could have a fair chance is a good thing. Arguing against it just kinda makes you look like you want unearned wins over greenskin players.
He's not wrong though. The creativity died when people became obsessed with tournament balance.
Now you see people, mainly the competitive crowd, cry over homemade terrain because it doesn't adhere to whatever itc/etc/wtc feels is balanced enough. It has to be the same boring trash with the same mirrored boring ass layout to be good.
Well, tournament players know you need a certain amount of Obscuring to prevent the player who goes first from blasting their opponent off the board. If you can't handle that then you don't want the game to be balance or fun.
Here's hoping the terrain rules in 10th change that.
It causes standardization in models, terrain, and layouts of the board.
It causes people to mathematically analyze the rules to "solve" the game, ignoring the lore, how an army works, or other factors beyond killing power or scoring power of combos and stats.
Eh, I play in tournaments on occasion and I don't ignore the lore or how an army works. Honestly I find the "casual" players to give less of a toss about the lore because they don't actually read their codex and go off of what some YT personality says instead.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nou wrote: An issue typically not addressed in this kind of threads is "how the non-tournament focussed focussed game would look like". It is assumed, that it would look the same, just had way more imbalance to it.
This view is fundamentally wrong.
No, it's exactly right.
"Negotiation" is not something I pay for. A good game, whether for tournaments or not, should not require me to rebalance the game before playing it. I don't want to have to do my own design work.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2023/04/26 00:43:03
2023/04/26 00:30:30
Subject: Is tournament play the biggest problem with 40k
Wayniac wrote: And yet, I think it's correct. Very few tournament players I have met want a 50% chance of winning, where skill is the deciding factor. No, they want to maximize their own chances by picking the best things. They want to focus on the "skill" of picking a good army, often to the exclusion of all else (i.e. they want to win the game before it starts by having a superior list). The focus on winning a game through tactics/generalship seems to have diminished in favour of "I'm going to come at you with a force you can't beat, so I don't need to win by superior skill".
The other games I play (ASOIAF and Infinity) both require more player skill on the table than 40k, and I play those in a more tournament-focused way and it works fine. Infinity in particular is infamous for people netlisting and then losing bad against a player with a less optimized list who knows what they're doing.
What you're describing isn't the norm among tournament players, it's the norm among 40k tournament players because the game is so unbalanced - you can't make moves on the table to win the game, most lists basically pilot themselves.
2023/04/26 00:53:07
Subject: Re:Is tournament play the biggest problem with 40k
ccs wrote: BA in no way sucked. Yours is the excuse given by bad Blood Angel players. And bad Ork players as well (they used to have some really random stuff in various editions of 40k & WHFB)
You haven't disproven my point. At various times BA have been bad. At various times Orks and Goblins were *terrible* during WHF. Some balance so players who bought the faction could have a fair chance is a good thing. Arguing against it just kinda makes you look like you want unearned wins over greenskin players.
If those various times when BA were bad were when they didn't have the 3rd Ed randomness, and the 3rd Ed randomness existed while they were the game-dominating meta army, how on earth is that evidence that random mechanics made them suck?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/26 00:53:30
Excellent redirection. How about showing me where I'm wrong?
I mean, if you want to refute me, a great place to start is army selection. I'd love to hear that this is only a minor aspect of game play.
I'm just curious if you've had any experience in it -- for me it's been the least list-buildy and the least amount of probability management of any edition.
2023/04/26 00:58:43
Subject: Re:Is tournament play the biggest problem with 40k
catbarf wrote: If those various times when BA were bad were when they didn't have the 3rd Ed randomness, and the 3rd Ed randomness existed while they were the game-dominating meta army, how on earth is that evidence that random mechanics made them suck?
I didn't make that claim, that was the poster I replied to.
2023/04/26 01:04:12
Subject: Re:Is tournament play the biggest problem with 40k
catbarf wrote: If those various times when BA were bad were when they didn't have the 3rd Ed randomness, and the 3rd Ed randomness existed while they were the game-dominating meta army, how on earth is that evidence that random mechanics made them suck?
I didn't make that claim, that was the poster I replied to.
You said:
"Your opinion that Blood Angels players deserved to have an army that sucked and that took away their control is a bad one."
The time when they had mechanics that took away their control isn't when they sucked. It's when they were arguably the best army in the game.
I mean, there's certainly valid criticism to make about mechanics that make the army so unpredictable that you lose every game... but the specific example here isn't that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/26 01:05:21
Tyranids were near the top of the competitive pack in late 3rd Ed, when the Instinctive Behavior rules were at some of their strictest, and wouldn't come anywhere close to that again for the next five editions, even as Instinctive Behavior was gradually watered down into irrelevance.
Turns out that needing to stay near Synapse Creatures wasn't a crippling Achilles' heel that outweighed all the powerful shenanigans you could pull with weapon-beast mutants and create-your-own-species. And conversely even when Instinctive Behavior was dead and buried in 8th that didn't mean they suddenly swept the tournament tables (aside from about seventeen minutes of Flyrant spam before GW created RO3).
Anyone else remember Epic: Armageddon, where Marines with their excellent C&C always beat difficult-to-control Orks? No? They often got ground into paste? Huh.
Seriously, this idea that any mechanics that take away control result in an auto-loss is silly. It's just another mechanic to balance; there's no substantial difference between Instinctive Behavior and charge rolls, advance rolls, morale checks, random numbers of shots, or any other mechanic where the dice 'take away control' (ie cause things to either happen or not happen).
Where random mechanics can become problematic is when there's no way to mitigate them, when they're so impactful that they win or lose games on their own despite efforts to mitigate them, or when you're expecting chess-like determinism in your dice-based wargame.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/26 01:36:28
I disagree. 3rd edition IB table had a few benefits and it could even turn a failed moral or pinning test into a charge.
6th edition IB tables meanwhile were pretty much variations of "see how much fethed up you are" and even had a "kill yourself and lose your turn" as a result.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/04/26 02:09:03
2023/04/26 03:24:43
Subject: Is tournament play the biggest problem with 40k
EightFoldPath wrote: The incredibly wrong statement is that there isn't a massive skill advantage available in 9th edition 40k.
What is the skill, though?
Is it army list building?
Tactical performance?
Probability manipulation?
If you like rolling dice, there are games that are based entirely on it, and some people are very good at them.
My point is that 40k combines too many disparate elements to make a good tournament game. It's like requiring tennis players to design and fabricate their own racket, balls, build the court and then play well on it - oh and each half of the court is made by the opposing player.
This argument might work if not for the fact that tournament play is drawing healthy and increasing numbers of players and has a dedicated professional scene growing up around it. Places like Goonhammer and the various tournament-focused YouTube channels prove that there is enough of a draw to keep people gainfully employed. It's hard to call that a failure no matter how one measures it.
2023/04/26 04:24:05
Subject: Re:Is tournament play the biggest problem with 40k
catbarf wrote: "Your opinion that Blood Angels players deserved to have an army that sucked and that took away their control is a bad one."
The time when they had mechanics that took away their control isn't when they sucked. It's when they were arguably the best army in the game.
I mean, there's certainly valid criticism to make about mechanics that make the army so unpredictable that you lose every game... but the specific example here isn't that.
Yes, the person I was talking to said that mechanics like the old BA one were good *because they made armies underpowered and took away player control of their army.* Do you disagree with that reasoning on their part?
2023/04/26 04:30:50
Subject: Is tournament play the biggest problem with 40k
EightFoldPath wrote: The incredibly wrong statement is that there isn't a massive skill advantage available in 9th edition 40k.
What is the skill, though?
Is it army list building?
Tactical performance?
Probability manipulation?
If you like rolling dice, there are games that are based entirely on it, and some people are very good at them.
My point is that 40k combines too many disparate elements to make a good tournament game. It's like requiring tennis players to design and fabricate their own racket, balls, build the court and then play well on it - oh and each half of the court is made by the opposing player.
I'd say all of the above, you can pick a list that has proven itself at GTs, which lets you cheat on the list-building challenge but I also think it increases the tactical performance challenge because you don't understand why the units in the list are in the list. By the time you talk with someone to learn how and why the list looks like it does I think you'd be able to construct your own good list anyways, even if you don't make active use of it. Being able to read a list and instantly understand how best to use it is not a common attribute I don't think. I haven't played 9th competitively, balance was on fire for 2 years and now 10th is just around the corner, but I did play a number of competitive 8th games and it's basically the same game.
Tennis players have to train to be in good physical shape. Tennis players have to know their opponents. Tennis players have to be good at Tennis. 40k players do not need to be good at building or painting miniatures, which would be the equivalent of making a racket, I don't think there are any rules against making your own racket in Tennis and you can get someone to construct and paint your 40k army.
2023/04/26 09:35:56
Subject: Is tournament play the biggest problem with 40k
Tyran wrote: I disagree. 3rd edition IB table had a few benefits and it could even turn a failed moral or pinning test into a charge.
6th edition IB tables meanwhile were pretty much variations of "see how much fethed up you are" and even had a "kill yourself and lose your turn" as a result.
I think GW did say (years ago, late 7th/early 8th) that "losing control of your models" was the biggest complaint they received.
Really though I think it feels bad when you get "fluffy negative rules" and most factions don't.
Its like if you make morale crippling - but then make 80% of armies immune. Its just a kick in the teeth for the few who are left. "Its fluffy" "Okay what's your fluff disadvantage?" "Nothing, we are just awesome at everything we do."
=====
In terms of 40k - skill is the decisions made in game. List building clearly matters a bit, but this idea that its all cookie cutter isn't really applying now (and has arguably often been exaggerated even when the meta's suffered the tyranny of a 70% win rate faction).
I mean go through these lists:
https://www.goonhammer.com/competitive-innovations-in-9th-even-angels-fall-pt-2/
How many are you going "well obviously they ran that, we see it every week?"
How many are provoking this idea of "well that army obviously plays itself to placing in a tournament?"
I think the main issue with 40k - and why there's skill in it rather than just dice - is that people don't play it that much. Because a game takes so long.
Even the quasi-professionals get in maybe 5-6 games a week? Probably have to miss a weekend from time to time. Lets say you get in 50-60 games over a 3 month season.
Well there's 24~ factions in 40k - more if we start separating out Space Marines. If they had perfectly balanced player proportions (and they aren't) you'd expect play each faction twice.
So you won't accumulate a lot of experience (clearly some things carry over, this is a bit exaggerated to effect) - and hence are likely to make mistakes.
Which is in turn why there are complaints about bloat in 9th edition. Even if you think you play all the time, if your last game against say Chaos Knights was 6 months ago, you aren't going to remember any of their rules.
I bring this up because I feel the criticisms I see of 40k being low skill tend to relate to how I see say MTG (or say Hearthstone etc). But that's because those games can be played to death - especially online. Compared to 40k its easy to identify how your list "works" compared to other meta relevant decks from that data (never mind the data everyone else is also collecting). Which, assuming you play in an optimal manner, reduces the outcome of the game down to a statistical probability - the order in which you draw your cards. The skill is reduced to just hoping to be lucky.
Which to a degree should happen (and does happen) in 40k. But because there's so many unknowns, it doesn't feel as solved.
2023/04/26 13:43:50
Subject: Is tournament play the biggest problem with 40k
Tyran wrote: I disagree. 3rd edition IB table had a few benefits and it could even turn a failed moral or pinning test into a charge.
6th edition IB tables meanwhile were pretty much variations of "see how much fethed up you are" and even had a "kill yourself and lose your turn" as a result.
I think GW did say (years ago, late 7th/early 8th) that "losing control of your models" was the biggest complaint they received.
Really though I think it feels bad when you get "fluffy negative rules" and most factions don't.
Its like if you make morale crippling - but then make 80% of armies immune. Its just a kick in the teeth for the few who are left. "Its fluffy" "Okay what's your fluff disadvantage?" "Nothing, we are just awesome at everything we do."
=====
In terms of 40k - skill is the decisions made in game. List building clearly matters a bit, but this idea that its all cookie cutter isn't really applying now (and has arguably often been exaggerated even when the meta's suffered the tyranny of a 70% win rate faction).
I mean go through these lists:
https://www.goonhammer.com/competitive-innovations-in-9th-even-angels-fall-pt-2/
How many are you going "well obviously they ran that, we see it every week?"
How many are provoking this idea of "well that army obviously plays itself to placing in a tournament?"
I think the main issue with 40k - and why there's skill in it rather than just dice - is that people don't play it that much. Because a game takes so long.
Even the quasi-professionals get in maybe 5-6 games a week? Probably have to miss a weekend from time to time. Lets say you get in 50-60 games over a 3 month season.
Well there's 24~ factions in 40k - more if we start separating out Space Marines. If they had perfectly balanced player proportions (and they aren't) you'd expect play each faction twice.
So you won't accumulate a lot of experience (clearly some things carry over, this is a bit exaggerated to effect) - and hence are likely to make mistakes.
Which is in turn why there are complaints about bloat in 9th edition. Even if you think you play all the time, if your last game against say Chaos Knights was 6 months ago, you aren't going to remember any of their rules.
I bring this up because I feel the criticisms I see of 40k being low skill tend to relate to how I see say MTG (or say Hearthstone etc). But that's because those games can be played to death - especially online. Compared to 40k its easy to identify how your list "works" compared to other meta relevant decks from that data (never mind the data everyone else is also collecting). Which, assuming you play in an optimal manner, reduces the outcome of the game down to a statistical probability - the order in which you draw your cards. The skill is reduced to just hoping to be lucky.
Which to a degree should happen (and does happen) in 40k. But because there's so many unknowns, it doesn't feel as solved.
What people mistake for „skill in 40k” is „encyclopedic” knowledge - 40k is a very simple game, but it’s simplicity is obfuscated by a vast number of unit entries and special cases. Which creates a very important distinction - 40k is „difficult” only if you’re exposed to the entirety of it. 40k is so much list focussed (not as a skill, but as a source of replayability), that playing in a „2000pts, latest GT” style in a small, closed group is pointless. It is solved in just too few games, and then it is a simple grind. If a game stops becoming any challenge that fast, there is very little actual skill in it. There are very few decision points during the actual match - most of decision making is relegated to list building stage.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/26 13:44:33
2023/04/26 13:47:43
Subject: Re:Is tournament play the biggest problem with 40k
catbarf wrote: "Your opinion that Blood Angels players deserved to have an army that sucked and that took away their control is a bad one."
The time when they had mechanics that took away their control isn't when they sucked. It's when they were arguably the best army in the game.
I mean, there's certainly valid criticism to make about mechanics that make the army so unpredictable that you lose every game... but the specific example here isn't that.
Yes, the person I was talking to said that mechanics like the old BA one were good *because they made armies underpowered and took away player control of their army.* Do you disagree with that reasoning on their part?
Huh? The comment was:
As the game was back in the days of old, it was poorly balanced, and there was quite a bit of randomness, but things were more fun imho and more fluffy. BA pulling random dudes from random squads to join the DC was cool. over charged engines were cool. potentially having to move towards the nearest enemy model was fluffy.
but not a single portion of any of that is something that could feasibly be accounted for by a BA player in a highly competitive tournament scene, and a few bad roles could gut your hard hitters, or lure a unit out into the open rather than moving into cover or sitting put.
Where do you get 'mechanics like the old BA one were good because they made armies underpowered' out of that? Unpredictable and underpowered are not the same; BA could be an unpredictable army but at the same time (3rd Ed) they were one of the more powerful.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/26 15:00:51
nou wrote: What people mistake for „skill in 40k” is „encyclopedic” knowledge - 40k is a very simple game, but it’s simplicity is obfuscated by a vast number of unit entries and special cases. Which creates a very important distinction - 40k is „difficult” only if you’re exposed to the entirety of it. 40k is so much list focussed (not as a skill, but as a source of replayability), that playing in a „2000pts, latest GT” style in a small, closed group is pointless. It is solved in just too few games, and then it is a simple grind. If a game stops becoming any challenge that fast, there is very little actual skill in it. There are very few decision points during the actual match - most of decision making is relegated to list building stage.
I don't think so.
I mean as an example (with due credit to Goonhammer):
How would you deploy - never mind play out a game - with this list:
Spoiler:
++ Arks of Omen Detachment (Imperium – Astra Militarum) [90 PL, 2CP, 1,650pts] ++
+ Configuration +
Arks of Omen Compulsory Type: Heavy Support
Game Type: 5. Chapter Approved: Arks of Omen
Regimental Doctrine: Born Soldiers
+ HQ +
Death Korps Marshal [2 PL, -1CP, 35pts]: Bolt pistol, Power sword, Relic: Laurels of Command, Stratagem: Imperial Commander’s Armoury
Lord Solar Leontus [9 PL, 170pts]: Warlord
Tank Commander [11 PL, -2CP, 195pts]: Heavy bolter, Leman Russ Battle Cannon, Meticulous Calibrator, Relic: Gatekeeper, Stratagem: Imperial Commander’s Armoury, Stratagem: Officer Cadre, WT: Master Tactician
. 2 Heavy Bolters: 2x Heavy bolter
Mortarion [25 PL, 450pts, -1CP]: 1. Revoltingly Resilient, 2. Living Plague, 4. Arch-Contaminator, 5. Curse of the Leper, 6. Gift of Plagues, Gloaming Bloat, Stratagem: Warlord Trait, Warlord
++ Total: [120 PL, 2,000pts, 3CP] ++
On a table looking something like this?
Spoiler:
If you think its really obvious then you must be a much better player than I am.
This idea of "I bring 2 WK and some scatbikes, 5 Riptides, or a Marine Characterball and just attack-move across the table" just isn't there and hasn't really been for the whole edition. Even with the OP factions its rarely been a function of "I spam this and hope to roll well gg".
I guess if you have 2 friends and they each only have 2k points and that's it, and you just play those 2 possible games over and over you will solve that game. But I suspect such would be true for every miniatures game played with such restrictions. Its not a realistic assessment of 40k as a whole.
2023/04/26 22:07:24
Subject: Is tournament play the biggest problem with 40k
I guess if you have 2 friends and they each only have 2k points and that's it, and you just play those 2 possible games over and over you will solve that game. But I suspect such would be true for every miniatures game played with such restrictions. Its not a realistic assessment of 40k as a whole.
That is exactly what I was writing about, and it is a very realistic assessment of 40k - majority of players do not attend tournaments and play within small groups only, down to garragehammer players and their friends and families. This is why there is maelstrom, why there were campaign books and a lot of built-in match randomisation stuff built in. Exactly because any particular GT matchup "riddle" as yours above is solvable in a very small number of games, so playing with those same opponents, with small collections (say, 3k points, so you have some leway for "surprise" at the table, otherwise lists are perfectly known before each and every game) becomes pointless very, very fast.
And it is funny, that you did include lists, but didn't include the actual mission nor deployment zones in your little riddle, that is meant to convince me, that 40k is not first and foremost list dependent Just compare your riddle to how chess riddles look like: you're presented with a board state and asked a question about solution of a very tiny, couple of moves long fragment of the game. If I know how chess pieces work, I can try to solve any chess riddle. But I can't solve your riddle, because I don't know neither IG nor DG codices - I don't have the encyclopedic knowledge. But because you misunderstood my post completely, I'll elaborate a bit - it wasn't about "there is nothing to think about during the game" or "lists play themselves", only that if you count individual decision points that happen before the match and their impact on the flow and outcome of the game, vs those, that happen during the match, most of them happens before. You only have a couple of dozen decision points during the actual 40k game - you literally only decide where to move, what to shoot, what to charge, when spend CPs etc, and since you start the game with about a dozen and a half units and the attrition is so steep, there are only so few decision points in the game. And most of those are not really decisions at all, target priority is usually obvious. Everything that happens before the game boils down to encyclopedic knowledge and mathhammer, but because you're building lists out of literal thousands of options (if you're looking at the entirety of 40k), there is way, way, way more decision making, than during the game. But when you take out this list building stage out of the game, like in friends&family situation, there is little left to solve.
And no, not every miniatures game is like that, including 40k - you just have to step outside 2000pts GT. Maelstrom makes 40k completely unsolvable, that is part of the reason, why it is dismissed by competitive players. The only other GW game I play, OG Necromunda, can also be replayed over, and over, and over, and over again with those same few sets of gang models, and it doesn't get repetitive, because of all built in randomness.
I hope I made it clear enough this time around...
Now beyond our little wargaming sandbox - you can endlessly repeat chess with the same opponent, or play Bridge endlessly with those same three people over and over again and have new challenge every time. I'll focus a bit on bridge, as this is my main competitive game. To even claim, that you know how to play this game, you have to literally study, from actual books on how to play the game, not what different cards do. You have to learn an artificial, mutable language, that you then use to communicate with your partner, and out of this conversation you have to deduce the exact location of 39 cards and establish up front and with high precision, how the gameflow will look like. Then, if you're the declarer, you must precisely follow an usually singular path of 26 decision steps, that you tried to foresee during the auction. There is nowhere near this level of skill in 40k. As I wrote before, this is a simple game, which is then made to look difficult, by high level of encyclopedic knowledge (the bloat) required to play it against wide stream of different opponents.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2023/04/26 22:21:47
2023/04/26 22:21:17
Subject: Is tournament play the biggest problem with 40k
EightFoldPath wrote: The incredibly wrong statement is that there isn't a massive skill advantage available in 9th edition 40k.
What is the skill, though?
Is it army list building?
Tactical performance?
Probability manipulation?
If you like rolling dice, there are games that are based entirely on it, and some people are very good at them.
My point is that 40k combines too many disparate elements to make a good tournament game. It's like requiring tennis players to design and fabricate their own racket, balls, build the court and then play well on it - oh and each half of the court is made by the opposing player.
You're just describing Magic the Gathering and Yugioh and other very much tournament oriented games.
I guess if you have 2 friends and they each only have 2k points and that's it, and you just play those 2 possible games over and over you will solve that game. But I suspect such
Spoiler:
would be true for every miniatures game played with such restrictions. Its not a realistic assessment of 40k as a whole.
That is exactly what I was writing about, and it is a very realistic assessment of 40k - majority of players do not attend tournaments and play within small groups only, down to garragehammer players and their friends and families. This is why there is maelstrom, why there were campaign books and a lot of built-in match randomisation stuff built in. Exactly because any particular GT matchup "riddle" as yours above is solvable in a very small number of games, so playing with those same opponents, with small collections (say, 3k points, so you have some leway for "surprise" at the table, otherwise lists are perfectly known before each and every game) becomes pointless very, very fast.
And it is funny, that you did include lists, but didn't include the actual mission nor deployment zones in your little riddle, that is meant to convince me, that 40k is not first and foremost list dependent Just compare your riddle to how chess riddles look like: you're presented with a board state and asked a question about solution of a very tiny, couple of moves long fragment of the game. If I know how chess pieces work, I can try to solve any chess riddle. But I can't solve your riddle, because I don't know neither IG nor DG codices - I don't have the encyclopedic knowledge. But because you misunderstood my post completely, I'll elaborate a bit - it wasn't about "there is nothing to think about during the game" or "lists play themselves", only that if you count individual decision points that happen before the match and their impact on the flow and outcome of the game, vs those, that happen during the match, most of them happens before. You only have a couple of dozen decision points during the actual 40k game - you literally only decide where to move, what to shoot, what to charge, when spend CPs etc, and since you start the game with about a dozen and a half units and the attrition is so steep, there are only so few decision points in the game. And most of those are not really decisions at all, target priority is usually obvious. Everything that happens before the game boils down to encyclopedic knowledge and mathhammer, but because you're building lists out of literal thousands of options (if you're looking at the entirety of 40k), there is way, way, way more decision making, than during the game. But when you take out this list building stage out of the game, like in friends&family situation, there is little left to solve.
And no, not every miniatures game is like that, including 40k - you just have to step outside 2000pts GT. Maelstrom makes 40k completely unsolvable, that is part of the reason, why it is dismissed by competitive players. The only other GW game I play, OG Necromunda, can also be replayed over, and over, and over, and over again with those same few sets of gang models, and it doesn't get repetitive, because of all built in randomness.
I hope I made it clear enough this time around...
Now beyond our little wargaming sandbox - you can endlessly repeat chess with the same opponent, or play Bridge endlessly with those same three people over and over again and have new challenge every time. I'll focus a bit on bridge, as this is my main competitive game. To even claim, that you know how to play this game, you have to literally study, from actual books on how to play the game, not what different cards do. You have to learn an artificial, mutable language, that you then use to communicate with your partner, and out of this conversation you have to deduce the exact location of 39 cards and establish up front and with high precision, how the gameflow will look like. Then, if you're the declarer, you must precisely follow an usually singular path of 26 decision steps, that you tried to foresee during the auction. There is nowhere near this level of skill in 40k. As I wrote before, this is a simple game, which is then made to look difficult, by high level of encyclopedic knowledge (the bloat) required to play it against wide stream of different opponents.
TLR: "OP apparently mystified at the existence of competitive cardgames not made for bored grandmas, does not make connection. "
Also OP: "Game lacks skill as long as you remove a significant portion of the game from the game." Bridge would be pretty boring if the only card you had to play with was a 3 as well, oh swami.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/26 22:29:16
2023/04/26 22:37:58
Subject: Is tournament play the biggest problem with 40k
Canadian 5th wrote: This argument might work if not for the fact that tournament play is drawing healthy and increasing numbers of players and has a dedicated professional scene growing up around it. Places like Goonhammer and the various tournament-focused YouTube channels prove that there is enough of a draw to keep people gainfully employed. It's hard to call that a failure no matter how one measures it.
What do you mean by "healthy and increasing" numbers? Was there a falloff and now it's getting healthy? Increasing from what?
I'm completely serious, has GW's tournament participation grown appreciably over the years?
The last time I followed GW's affairs closely, Tom Kirby was still in charge and while revenue kept going up, logic suggested that volume of sales was dropping - fewer, more expensive kits were propping up the company.
So I am curious - does anyone have the numbers for GT attendance of late? Is it on an upward or downward trend?
TLR: "OP apparently mystified at the existence of competitive cardgames not made for bored grandmas, does not make connection. "
Also OP: "Game lacks skill as long as you remove a significant portion of the game from the game." Bridge would be pretty boring if the only card you had to play with was a 3 as well, oh swami.
You have some serious problems with reading comprehension, if that's what you TLDRd from my recent posts.
2023/04/26 23:21:29
Subject: Is tournament play the biggest problem with 40k
TLR: "OP apparently mystified at the existence of competitive cardgames not made for bored grandmas, does not make connection. "
Bridge was an obsession among upper-level commanders during WW II. The fact that modern society no longer has the patience or intellect for it isn't the sick burn you think it is.
As for CCGs, the formats vary. Some have fixed decks, some are open deck. I think in terms of sales volume, any one of them buries GW.
Just compare your riddle to how chess riddles look like: you're presented with a board state and asked a question about solution of a very tiny, couple of moves long fragment of the game. If I know how chess pieces work, I can try to solve any chess riddle. But I can't solve your riddle, because I don't know neither 