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.

The heart and soul was having fun and telling a fun story and having a fun game, not winning. Winning was a bonus. That winning became the only thing which matters is the most cancerous thing to happen to gaming (not just wargaming, every game where the uber-competitive mindset has taken root and twisted the game to meet its expectations)

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Pay it no heed, it's a Casual At All Cost mentality, which is arguably worse than Win At All Cost.

It isn't even that, storytelling driven play isn't even casual play. It is a way of playing that requires large amounts of social investment, cohesive playing groups and a GM-lite leader to keep a cohesive narrative.

Most casual players do not have access to such organization nor environment, and to be blunt it is mostly limited to the older demographics and a minority among new players.

There is also the argument that there is no point in pandering to narrative players at the ruleset level as they pretty much can get away either simply playing older rulesets to even house ruling and homebrewing entire rulesets.

 Tyran wrote:

It isn't even that, storytelling driven play isn't even casual play. It is a way of playing that requires large amounts of social investment, cohesive playing groups and a GM-lite leader to keep a cohesive narrative.

Certainly not untrue... But there are degrees of story driven play. Any sequence of linked battles is at least somewhat story driven. A simple three stage tree campaign for 2-4 players can usually get through that without a GM.

But you can layer in escalation as a factor, and swap the tree for something map-based. Even then, 2-4 players you can probably still get away without a GM.

Then there's full on Crusade Escalation 25-50 PL to 100-150 PL. That's hitting GM territory... Even for 4 players. Especially if you're using seasonal campaign content.

 Tyran wrote:

Most casual players do not have access to such organization nor environment, and to be blunt it is mostly limited to the older demographics and a minority among new players.

Agreed, and IMHO, unfortunate. If everyone had the chance to play in a well run escalation Crusade campaign with a good GM, you'd never want to play any other way. And if you did, that just means you need a better GM.

 Tyran wrote:

There is also the argument that there is no point in pandering to narrative players at the ruleset level as they pretty much can get away either simply playing older rulesets to even house ruling and homebrewing entire rulesets.

I've seen this argument before... And again, I don't ENTIRELY disagree. But it gets easier to houserule and GM the more tools you have in your tool box. People complained about having 40 strats per faction, but that made it really easy to swoop in as a GM and craft a thematic mission by selecting 8 strats from each player's list that fit the themes of the battle and saying these strats, plust your subfaction unique strat, plus the BRB strats are the only ones you can use for this mission. Ditto on Agendas.

Having 40 strats per faction to use as an example also makes it REALLY easy to make up a strat that is lacking.

I can design Drukhari Territories, or Eldar paths or planet types because of the examples I've been given. Without those exemplars, it can be hard for a GM to earn the faith and trust of his or her players.

To competitive players, to casuals, and to fans of pure wargames, 9th may have been a bloated mess.

But to campaign creators, GMs, or die-hard escalation Crusaders, here at the end, I can say that 9th was the biggest toolbox I ever had, and it is unlikely that the toolbox will ever be so big again.

Wayniac wrote:
The heart and soul was having fun and telling a fun story and having a fun game, not winning. Winning was a bonus. That winning became the only thing which matters is the most cancerous thing to happen to gaming (not just wargaming, every game where the uber-competitive mindset has taken root and twisted the game to meet its expectations)

This is an excellent point.

Has anyone ever won a game that was utterly unsatisfying? That is to say you won, maybe decisively, but found yourself thinking the time could be better spent elsewhere.

Conversely, do you have any defeats that you treasure because they were so much fun?

Just curious as to how important victory on the battlefield is to people.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
The heart and soul was having fun and telling a fun story and having a fun game, not winning. Winning was a bonus. That winning became the only thing which matters is the most cancerous thing to happen to gaming (not just wargaming, every game where the uber-competitive mindset has taken root and twisted the game to meet its expectations)

This is an excellent point.

Has anyone ever won a game that was utterly unsatisfying? That is to say you won, maybe decisively, but found yourself thinking the time could be better spent elsewhere.

Conversely, do you have any defeats that you treasure because they were so much fun?

Just curious as to how important victory on the battlefield is to people.

My impression from good tournament players (read: not WAAC Seal-Clubbers) is that they want a close-fought game where it comes down to the wire. Crushing someone isn't satisfying, just like being crushed isn't satisfying.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
The heart and soul was having fun and telling a fun story and having a fun game, not winning. Winning was a bonus. That winning became the only thing which matters is the most cancerous thing to happen to gaming (not just wargaming, every game where the uber-competitive mindset has taken root and twisted the game to meet its expectations)

This is an excellent point.

Has anyone ever won a game that was utterly unsatisfying? That is to say you won, maybe decisively, but found yourself thinking the time could be better spent elsewhere.

Conversely, do you have any defeats that you treasure because they were so much fun?

Just curious as to how important victory on the battlefield is to people.

Always, but the former comes down to GW's writing rules for units, not the players themselves. Imagine telling someone during 5th that Deathwing would be someone tried to negotiate against this year because they "don't want to lose".

As I've always said, the moment you have to negotiate what your opponent brings from their miniature collection means the game is a failure.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
The heart and soul was having fun and telling a fun story and having a fun game, not winning. Winning was a bonus. That winning became the only thing which matters is the most cancerous thing to happen to gaming (not just wargaming, every game where the uber-competitive mindset has taken root and twisted the game to meet its expectations)

This is an excellent point.

Has anyone ever won a game that was utterly unsatisfying? That is to say you won, maybe decisively, but found yourself thinking the time could be better spent elsewhere.

Conversely, do you have any defeats that you treasure because they were so much fun?

Just curious as to how important victory on the battlefield is to people.

Always, but the former comes down to GW's writing rules for units, not the players themselves. Imagine telling someone during 5th that Deathwing would be someone tried to negotiate against this year because they "don't want to lose".

As I've always said, the moment you have to negotiate what your opponent brings from their miniature collection means the game is a failure.

By that logic, are all historical games failures? Because in those you generally aren't just picking a random force and showing up, your force is based on what was historically available for that battle, or restricted based on what would have historically been available for that conflict. However that said, historical games also have a lot of concepts where the goal of the game isn't to win, but to see how long you can last before you're overrun. The point of the game isn't to rewrite history but see the cost of said victory.

Wayniac wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
The heart and soul was having fun and telling a fun story and having a fun game, not winning. Winning was a bonus. That winning became the only thing which matters is the most cancerous thing to happen to gaming (not just wargaming, every game where the uber-competitive mindset has taken root and twisted the game to meet its expectations)

This is an excellent point.

Has anyone ever won a game that was utterly unsatisfying? That is to say you won, maybe decisively, but found yourself thinking the time could be better spent elsewhere.

Conversely, do you have any defeats that you treasure because they were so much fun?

Just curious as to how important victory on the battlefield is to people.

Always, but the former comes down to GW's writing rules for units, not the players themselves. Imagine telling someone during 5th that Deathwing would be someone tried to negotiate against this year because they "don't want to lose".

As I've always said, the moment you have to negotiate what your opponent brings from their miniature collection means the game is a failure.

By that logic, are all historical games failures? Because in those you generally aren't just picking a random force and showing up, your force is based on what was historically available for that battle, or restricted based on what would have historically been available for that conflict. However that said, historical games also have a lot of concepts where the goal of the game isn't to win, but to see how long you can last before you're overrun. The point of the game isn't to rewrite history but see the cost of said victory.

I'd love to see GW perhaps experiment with that kind of game as well, but I think it would be hard without it being seen too much through cynical eyes as GW just trying to force certain builds/sales.

Historical games get away with it because there's real history behind them and people can argue more over the reality of the numbers and how best to represent them and so-forth. So it becomes more a debate about the historical facts rather than arguing that its just model companies trying to sell models and soforth. In fact it also works because such setups were how wargames became a game in the first place - from simulations and tools used to teach and theorise into something we use for entertainment today.

sci-fi/fantasy I think have to reach for other kinds of setpu to allow for those "no winner see what happens" situations. Campaigns and setups that don't rely on fixed numbers but more generic concepts "2000 points of defenders holding a wall against 5000points of attackers" and such. Rather than specific compositions and armies and such.



Perhaps if someone really nailed how to make Video Battle Reports really entertaining and engaging and a popular thing to the point where people would want to re-create famous battles or famous setups so that they could see if they could beat the results of their champion VS presenter and such

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

Conversely, do you have any defeats that you treasure because they were so much fun?

The best game I ever played in was a six player apocalypse game- two teams of 9k- 3k per player.

My team lost, and I was the lowest scoring player...

But my Celestians managed to discover the tunnel beneath the Altar and find the shield of Saint Katherine. The Palatine who claimed the shield became a Canoness because of that discovery... I even converted a Sister with a Storm Shield to represent her, though I never did get around to painting her.

I think all that was left of my army were 3/10 Celestians, the Palatine and four Adeptus Arbites... Who had a heroic story of their own as their unit had managed to tarpit a Demon Prince for the last two turns of the game- those four Arbites survived 3 rounds of combat with the Prince- I sculpted purity seals on all four of them to commemorate their performance.

That was it. Eight models out of a 3k army survived, I finished with the fewest VP's at the table AND my team lost the mission... But I've never scored a greater glory for the Emperor than returning the shield of his Daughter Alicia Dominica, born into battle 4 millennia earlier by Saint Katherine herself.

And when GW released the Triumph of Saint Katherine a decade later, with that shield leading the procession, it validated my entire 3 decade tenure as a 40k player.

Fun fact: I also scratch built a Kellermorph using a plastic Genestealer Hybrid from a Spacehulk expansion and a cowboy hat chopped off a buckstore cowboy... In 1995ish. When I saw the Kellermorph model years later I almost died. It made me wonder if GW had been spying on me since the 90's... Or if one of the kids from the teen centre I GMed at grew up to work for GW.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Karol wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oni wrote:
In short... Yes.

The ultra-competitive mentality is the problem.

The outcome of the game being prioritized over a mutually enjoyable experience is the problem.

Sacrificing the heart & soul of what Warhammer 40,000 is in order to mutate it into an eSport is the problem.

...but it doesn't need to be.

Since when is losing the "heart & soul" of any game? Especialy in cases of games where you have to invest in to them and you are stuck with what you buy. Wanting to win at a game or any other activity is way older then ESports. There is a reason why even ancient civilisations had games with rules and clear winners and losers. There are rules and boards and even "tips&tricks" on how to win Sumerian table top games.

Pay it no heed, it's a Casual At All Cost mentality, which is arguably worse than Win At All Cost.

IME the CAAC attitude comes from WAAC players who have been thrown out of tournaments or who just aren't good enough to hack it.

Hecaton wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Karol wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oni wrote:
In short... Yes.

The ultra-competitive mentality is the problem.

The outcome of the game being prioritized over a mutually enjoyable experience is the problem.

Sacrificing the heart & soul of what Warhammer 40,000 is in order to mutate it into an eSport is the problem.

...but it doesn't need to be.

Since when is losing the "heart & soul" of any game? Especialy in cases of games where you have to invest in to them and you are stuck with what you buy. Wanting to win at a game or any other activity is way older then ESports. There is a reason why even ancient civilisations had games with rules and clear winners and losers. There are rules and boards and even "tips&tricks" on how to win Sumerian table top games.

Pay it no heed, it's a Casual At All Cost mentality, which is arguably worse than Win At All Cost.

IME the CAAC attitude comes from WAAC players who have been thrown out of tournaments or who just aren't good enough to hack it.

No, it literally was coined by a very rude and angry WAAC player here, who was completely incapable of seeing anything that wasn't "doing everything to win short of cheating", as a retort an somehow caught on as a counter-insult. That's it. Just to give those people an insult of their own to use against "casuals" who don't want to focus on winning. I don't think it's actually a thing, just developed as an insult to "the other crowd" so it wouldn't just be one side with an epithet.

Wayniac wrote:
No, it literally was coined by a very rude and angry WAAC player here, who was completely incapable of seeing anything that wasn't "doing everything to win short of cheating", as a retort an somehow caught on as a counter-insult. That's it. Just to give those people an insult of their own to use against "casuals" who don't want to focus on winning. I don't think it's actually a thing, just developed as an insult to "the other crowd" so it wouldn't just be one side with an epithet.

Citation? You have a link to the post?

Hecaton wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
No, it literally was coined by a very rude and angry WAAC player here, who was completely incapable of seeing anything that wasn't "doing everything to win short of cheating", as a retort an somehow caught on as a counter-insult. That's it. Just to give those people an insult of their own to use against "casuals" who don't want to focus on winning. I don't think it's actually a thing, just developed as an insult to "the other crowd" so it wouldn't just be one side with an epithet.

Citation? You have a link to the post?

Not off the top of my head, it's going back several years at least. But I can tell you I'm pretty sure it was Peregrine who coined the phrase during one of their anti-casual rants several years ago.

Hecaton wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
No, it literally was coined by a very rude and angry WAAC player here, who was completely incapable of seeing anything that wasn't "doing everything to win short of cheating", as a retort an somehow caught on as a counter-insult. That's it. Just to give those people an insult of their own to use against "casuals" who don't want to focus on winning. I don't think it's actually a thing, just developed as an insult to "the other crowd" so it wouldn't just be one side with an epithet.

Citation? You have a link to the post?

Wayniac wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
No, it literally was coined by a very rude and angry WAAC player here, who was completely incapable of seeing anything that wasn't "doing everything to win short of cheating", as a retort an somehow caught on as a counter-insult. That's it. Just to give those people an insult of their own to use against "casuals" who don't want to focus on winning. I don't think it's actually a thing, just developed as an insult to "the other crowd" so it wouldn't just be one side with an epithet.

Citation? You have a link to the post?

Not off the top of my head, it's going back several years at least. But I can tell you I'm pretty sure it was Peregrine who coined the phrase during one of their anti-casual rants several years ago.

I was „the original CAAC” against whom Peregrine coined that term. Or at least that was the first instance of using the term on Dakka that I saw. I don’t even think Peregrine was WAAC, he was simply unable to comprehend, that some people play 40k differently than 2000pts matched. Like really, deeply, could not accept, that other approaches to 40k exist, even „behind closed doors” of garrages, and believed, that if such players do not try to min-max to 11 or play with the current tournament mission pack, they might just as well be throwing peebles at the models while making pew-pew noises.

IIRC that was somewhere around 2016, +/- a year

Wayniac wrote:

No, it literally was coined by a very rude and angry WAAC player here, who was completely incapable of seeing anything that wasn't "doing everything to win short of cheating", as a retort an somehow caught on as a counter-insult. That's it. Just to give those people an insult of their own to use against "casuals" who don't want to focus on winning. I don't think it's actually a thing, just developed as an insult to "the other crowd" so it wouldn't just be one side with an epithet.

From where I'm standing, the ones that are constantly calling the other side "cancerous” and "a problem" and seems unwilling to even coexist in the same community are you guys.

Competitive players may struggle to understand the concept of playing to forge a narrative, buy you are utterly hostile to the concept of playing to win.

A WAAC player even at their worst is still just an individual being an donkey-cave, but you seem to want to control how everyone else plays the game.

 Tyran wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

No, it literally was coined by a very rude and angry WAAC player here, who was completely incapable of seeing anything that wasn't "doing everything to win short of cheating", as a retort an somehow caught on as a counter-insult. That's it. Just to give those people an insult of their own to use against "casuals" who don't want to focus on winning. I don't think it's actually a thing, just developed as an insult to "the other crowd" so it wouldn't just be one side with an epithet.

From where I'm standing, the ones that are constantly calling the other side "cancerous” and "a problem" and seems unwilling to even coexist in the same community are you guys.

Competitive players may struggle to understand the concept of playing to forge a narrative, buy you are utterly hostile to the concept of playing to win.

A WAAC player even at their worst is still just an individual being an donkey-cave, but you seem to want to control how everyone else plays the game.

And yet it's you competitive types that actually end up controlling how everyone else plays. Or at least having a very outsized influence.
Maybe you've failed to notice, but those "balance" sheets they crap out? They don't say tournament play, they say MATCHED play on them. All matched play =/= tournament play.
So when you tourney people whine & cry hard enough about something? GWs response in placating you often screws over a great many people. Same when GW arbitrarily changes something to shake up the tourney meta/influence the tourney win %s.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

It isn't even that, storytelling driven play isn't even casual play. It is a way of playing that requires large amounts of social investment, cohesive playing groups and a GM-lite leader to keep a cohesive narrative.

Certainly not untrue... But there are degrees of story driven play. Any sequence of linked battles is at least somewhat story driven. A simple three stage tree campaign for 2-4 players can usually get through that without a GM.

But you can layer in escalation as a factor, and swap the tree for something map-based. Even then, 2-4 players you can probably still get away without a GM.

Then there's full on Crusade Escalation 25-50 PL to 100-150 PL. That's hitting GM territory... Even for 4 players. Especially if you're using seasonal campaign content.

You can still attempt to win every game in your tree campaign, you can also try to win a map campaign. Playing badly for narrative reasons is not inherent to any type of mission. Good mission and datasheet design will reward playing narratively.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
The heart and soul was having fun and telling a fun story and having a fun game, not winning. Winning was a bonus. That winning became the only thing which matters is the most cancerous thing to happen to gaming (not just wargaming, every game where the uber-competitive mindset has taken root and twisted the game to meet its expectations)

This is an excellent point.

Has anyone ever won a game that was utterly unsatisfying? That is to say you won, maybe decisively, but found yourself thinking the time could be better spent elsewhere.

Conversely, do you have any defeats that you treasure because they were so much fun?

Just curious as to how important victory on the battlefield is to people.

Yes and yes and I never try to lose. You can't see who won if you don't try to win. If you're trying to lose and then you lose then you're robbing both yourself and your opponent from seeing what would have really happened had you not tried to steer the narrative, we're playing an adversarial game, you're not a game master.

ccs wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

No, it literally was coined by a very rude and angry WAAC player here, who was completely incapable of seeing anything that wasn't "doing everything to win short of cheating", as a retort an somehow caught on as a counter-insult. That's it. Just to give those people an insult of their own to use against "casuals" who don't want to focus on winning. I don't think it's actually a thing, just developed as an insult to "the other crowd" so it wouldn't just be one side with an epithet.

From where I'm standing, the ones that are constantly calling the other side "cancerous” and "a problem" and seems unwilling to even coexist in the same community are you guys.

Competitive players may struggle to understand the concept of playing to forge a narrative, buy you are utterly hostile to the concept of playing to win.

A WAAC player even at their worst is still just an individual being an donkey-cave, but you seem to want to control how everyone else plays the game.

And yet it's you competitive types that actually end up controlling how everyone else plays. Or at least having a very outsized influence.
Maybe you've failed to notice, but those "balance" sheets they crap out? They don't say tournament play, they say MATCHED play on them. All matched play =/= tournament play.
So when you tourney people whine & cry hard enough about something? GWs response in placating you often screws over a great many people. Same when GW arbitrarily changes something to shake up the tourney meta/influence the tourney win %s.

If you're not playing to win why do you play matched play? Just play open play without a mission if you want to knock miniatures around and say pew pew at each other. Matched play is for people that don't want to fuss too much and just want to enjoy the game more or less as is. Don't tell me that competitive has an outsized influence when matched play can't even have points because everything has to be PL.

 Tyran wrote:

From where I'm standing, the ones that are constantly calling the other side "cancerous” and "a problem" and seems unwilling to even coexist in the same community are you guys.

Competitive players may struggle to understand the concept of playing to forge a narrative, buy you are utterly hostile to the concept of playing to win.

A WAAC player even at their worst is still just an individual being an donkey-cave, but you seem to want to control how everyone else plays the game.

I get where you are coming from. I understans your sentiment but i think you're missing the forest for the trees a bit.

Firstly there is a huge reservoir of online bile from.nasty posters pointed against casual players and playstyles that are anything but bleeding edge. To say the opposite is being dishonest. Keep an eye out the next time a 'narrative' thread pops up.

And yes, whilst power lists have their place (usually against other power lists, but the game is bigger than that) competitive players, or more accurately over-competitive 'git gud' players and competitive-at-all-cost approaches can absolutely be 'a problem'. Wmh died in large part because casual players were run out by overly-competitive tryhards who could only turn it up to 11 and who could never 'dial it back'.. There are countless anecdotes of player groups thst fell.apart because someone escalated the arms race etc.

Now - as to co-existing? That is fine and i will.absolutely sign on(competitive gaming has its place and a valuable niche) - but playing devils advocate - surely that goes both ways? Maybe consider not bringing powerlists into games/communities and players that don't want them? And then folks can coexist. Because competitive players bringing cutthroat lists into the grass leagues is a problem.

As you say, competitive players can struggle to understand a different pov. Fine, i get it. That used to be me. It took me 10 years and the right community to learn. the issue though isn't when a hypothetical competitive player doesn't get it. 'It ain't my cup of tea, you do yours and I'll.do mine' etc is fine! The issue is when they just flat-out ignore and dismiss that pov they dont understand and say it has no value and plop down a power list anyway regardless of the other player/groups position- that's a problem. Peregrine and slayer123 were classic examples of this hostile-to-the-point-of-beligerence pov.

As to being hostile to 'playing to win' - ok, that's a loaded term by the way. But seriously, think about it. 'Playing to win' covers a lot of ground - up to and intimidating/psyching out your opponent, broken lists, nitpicking rules etc. Listen to karol's anecdotes of toxic competitives in his sports school. How far can one push the notion of 'playing to win' whilst not being toxic? Imo there is a point where 'wanting to win' starts to negatively sffect wveryone else. Hypothetical-you might not care, but its still a dick move. Never mind the other side of the coin - an awful lot is sacrificed on the altar of competitive play - and for a lot of people, those sacrifices (a) are not worth it since the cost is too high and (b) have too much of a negative impact on everyone else.

Now, I have no desire to control everyone and how they play. Neither does wayniac. What I do want to do is hold up a mirror and illustrate the negative consequences and knock-on effetcs of competitive play.A lot of people hsve been on the receiving end of 'competitive git gut' play being introduced to their groups snd see the environment quickly toxify. The lists stagnate as do the scenarios played on the altar of 'practicing for the next tournament'.. They're not wrong either for not wanting that. Talking about a waac player 'just' being an donkey-cave is corrext, but its a very simplistic and shallow take on it. A waac player might be an donkey-cave for sure- and that's not a good thing - and a competitive player might see themselves as a good guy with honest intentions - and probably rightly so. We are all the heros of our own stories and no one ever sees themselves as the bad guy - but you don't hsve to be an donkey-cave, or a bad guy to be the villain in someone else's story and for what you do to ruin their thing.

For the record I did primarily competitive play for my first ten years in this hobby. I get it. I enjoyed it (mostly). Ot has a place and a valuable niche. But the grass leagues are also important. I've learned in my second ten years in this hobby how valuable the grass leagues are. And to channel some Attenborough, like nature, wargames are a delicate ecosystem. Introduce a new super-predator to a new area and there's eveey chance it up ends and obliterates that diversity - like when they introduced pigs to the island with the dodo. You might empathise with the predator (and hey wolves etc are cool!)but I will lament the loss of everything else that comes with that introduction. Take a power build into a grass leagues community - you'll upend that community. Take a grass leagues list into a competitive community - it won't. It will.just get stomped. That's ultimately the difference - one poses more of a threat to the other than vice versa.

 vict0988 wrote:


Yes and yes and I never try to lose. You can't see who won if you don't try to win. If you're trying to lose and then you lose then you're robbing both yourself and your opponent from seeing what would have really happened had you not tried to steer the narrative, we're playing an adversarial game, you're not a game master.

Playing to achieve things other than winning isn't the same as playing to lose.

I frequently prioritize Agendas, which don't award VP over missions, which do. This means I lose a lot, but my armies grow and skill up fast, which to me is more rewarding than winning. The narrative emerges from which Agendas are prioritized, which are attained, and which are lost.

GM's in 40k work best when they don't play. Rather, they work with players to clarify short, mid, and long term goals of the factions in their campaign and they design custom missions, mission trees, maps and special events which facilitate the achievement of those goals.

Winning a campaign does not mean winning every battle that you fight.

 vict0988 wrote:

If you're not playing to win why do you play matched play? Just play open play without a mission if you want to knock miniatures around and say pew pew at each other. Matched play is for people that don't want to fuss too much and just want to enjoy the game more or less as is. Don't tell me that competitive has an outsized influence when matched play can't even have points because everything has to be PL.

People are often forced to play matched play because they play at stores where no one plays anything else. I've done a lot of ranting about other modes of play for the past three years, and the number of people who have responded with "I don't have a group of players who are willing to try Open or Crusade" was truly shocking to me. And that is the undue influence that many people in this thread are talking about.

We used to coexist. But at some point it escalated to where the competitive mindset just rolled in and did a blitzkrieg and conquered everything else.

I don't mind "serious" play sometimes. It's when that mindset becomes the default/only way that anyone wants to do anything, to where even asking for something else gets you looked at like you're insane at best or purposely suggesting it to try and do some nonsense at worst that I have a problem.

That's where I think this divide gets even worse because you have people that feel the entire game starts and ends with 2000 points matched play with GT missions only, then you have people who want to broaden their horizons and do different things depending on what you're playing so that yeah if I'm going to a tournament in a couple of weeks I absolutely will want to practice the list but if I'm going up to game night then why do you need to treat it as though it was a tournament round.

And while I admit that this is anecdotal based on my area only because I have nothing else to go on, my experience has been the people against anything that's not 2K matched GT are the tournament players not the casual players. And I've already given my anecdote about how casual play essentially gets consumed and destroyed all because somebody decided they want to start playing more seriously.

To be perfectly clear the problem that I think a lot of us have with tournament play isn't that it exists because most of us can agree that's a good thing. The problem is that it takes over instead of existing in parallel. Every single place I've seen where there are tournament players they do not exist as a separate group just like the more casual or narrative players do. They are considered the default and the defacto standard for how all games need to be and asking to not do that gets you looked at as though you want to play without any rules at all.

PenitentJake wrote:
Playing to achieve things other than winning isn't the same as playing to lose.

I'd modify that to say that not playing each game to win in isolation isn't the same thing as playing to lose.

Tournament gaming is something unique insofar as unlike a sports tournament, there's really no knock-on effect from game to game. So long as you gain the necessary VPs, a win is a win. You reset and go onto the next game.

In a sports application, there is actual physical fatigue, and coaches have to budget playing time (or individual players have to decide how much effort they can sustain) in order to have something left later.

Narrative gaming recognizes this, which is why players will accept a loss rather than have worse downstream effects.

That is to say, narrative gaming adds a different way of competing, but it is also collaborative, because they players can jointly decide downstream effects as the game is in progress.

To people who think only in terms of the game immediately in front of them and of the opponent as merely a generic, faceless person who is no more than an obstacle to victory, that probably looks silly and "unprofessional."

But in fact it requires much more thought and imagination, and (in my experience) it is the result of competitive players maturing as they learn more about actual military operations.

Just to address one common misconception tournament players believe in, even in this very thread, that narrative players somehow don’t need rulesets and can just make pew pew noises.

For you, rules act as a ground for comparing skill. For us, rules act as physics of the world in which we try to find out, how the conflict of two armies would look like. We can and do invent units, special rules and scenarios, but we do need comprehensive core rules and cohesive building blocks from which we can then craft encounters - if only for the sake of saving us a LOT of time. Moreover, there is this misconception, that we then micromanage outcomes if individual actions within the match, so we can „forge our narrative”. Please, just read what verisimilitude, friction and validation terms mean in historicals context and understand, that the world we try to recreate being the one of magic and lasers, does not mean, it shouldn’t be cohesive. That a wargamer, that want the ruleset to include the concept of friction, somehow he does not care about playing to the rules, or does not care about making optimal in game decisions. We do strive to play in optimal way, because that is how we can simulate appropriately what „our dudes” would do in those simulated situations.

I still struggle to see why the so-called casuals get so upset about tournament play. The players who play in the big events are not coming to your FLGS pick-up game night to smash some random player. Close friends and family playing in their basement or garage can do what they want and have really wonderful narrative games. People at a local tournament know what they are getting into and having balance updates from the tourney scene makes for a better experience.

GW paying attention to the competitive scene to make balance adjustments mitigates problems at pick-up games. I recognize that updates can make it a challenge for folks who do not check the GW site to stay up to date - these updates should have the lightest touch necessary and with the least frequency as possible. But from what I read here, it seems that some "casuals" want to have overpowered stuff? Else why worry about balance updates in your so-called casual games? Why shouldn't GW tone down overpowered stuff when the data is there?

Narrative games require two players with the same vision. This is very hard to realize in pick-up games. I play historical games as well, and it can be very hard to find opponents who want to recreate the same era/battle that I might want to. That is part of the strength of 40K - it is a lingua franca, if an imperfect one.

I sense some condescension from anti-tourney crowd here. I play multiple styles and systems, but I am not going to look down my nose at people who have fun a different way than I do.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Narrative games require two players with the same vision. This is very hard to realize in pick-up games. I play historical games as well, and it can be very hard to find opponents who want to recreate the same era/battle that I might want to. That is part of the strength of 40K - it is a lingua franca, if an imperfect one.

I sense some condescension from anti-tourney crowd here. I play multiple styles and systems, but I am not going to look down my nose at people who have fun a different way than I do.

I think it's important to put all this in context. In the pre-internet era, it was often very difficult to find opponents who were into any kind of wargaming. That's why conventions became a thing.

Once they began to catch on, game companies had to think of ways to lure people to their booth/event, because game cons were the most pure, distilled form of their target demographic on earth. Many companies (not just GW) came up with the ideas of doing some sort of competition with the game.

What sets GW apart is the way in which the "tournament circuit" has become its own thing and has in many ways redefined what it is to play 40k.

As us greybeards like to say: "Back in the day, people picked armies because of the fluff, not the win probability." There is a sense that tournament players look at army lists not as something that appeals to their aesthetic, or speaks to them in terms of lore, but with the same cool, calculating eye of a player selecting the best gear for the upcoming match. The selection of shoes, racket or pads - these are based on function, not sentimentality.

And GW loves it. They celebrate it. Indeed, it's very clear that as far as GW is concerned, narrative players and the old "mates at the club" model are not who they are interested in serving. Those are the 'legacy customers,' who probably won't buy the latest and greatest. That's why people whinging about unfluffy rules are ignored, but as soon as it looks like there's a tournament skew, GW is on it.

Hope that helps explain things a bit.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
[
And GW loves it. They celebrate it. Indeed, it's very clear that as far as GW is concerned, narrative players and the old "mates at the club" model are not who they are interested in serving. Those are the 'legacy customers,' who probably won't buy the latest and greatest. That's why people whinging about unfluffy rules are ignored, but as soon as it looks like there's a tournament skew, GW is on it.

That's why they devoted a big chunk of the 9th ed. rulebook to Crusade and released a bunch of narrative expansions through the edition and are doing the same in 10th edition.

I'm happy playing narrative 40K with the tools available in the last few editions. I've also played in a fair few tournaments and enjoyed those too.

Neither detracts from the other, and many (most?) players have varied interests and tastes and can't be pigeonholed into an archetype.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I still struggle to see why the so-called casuals get so upset about tournament play. The players who play in the big events are not coming to your FLGS pick-up game night to smash some random player. Close friends and family playing in their basement or garage can do what they want and have really wonderful narrative games. People at a local tournament know what they are getting into and having balance updates from the tourney scene makes for a better experience.

Because the same mindset from those others at big events infests pick-up game night. That's the issue. Not tournaments themselves, but "tournament style" always, without fail, becoming the assumed default standard for all games, whether prepping for a GT at a convention, trying something for a local RTT, or even just a " friendly " game at game night. It doesn't matter what, the baseline assumption, wrongly IMHO, is no different than a tournament round. Tournament play can a d should be a viable option. It should not be the default and yet it always takes over and pushes everything else out.

That's where the frustration comes from. The tournament players seem to always "get their way" while pushing anything not based on tournament type play is a Sisyphean battle. Even something like non-GT matched play is looked at like something insane to even suggest, rather than the default and keeping the tournament play as an option. Instead tournament play is the assumed default and asking for non tournament play immediately brings up accusations of wanting some "unfair" advantage.

nou wrote:
Just to address one common misconception tournament players believe in, even in this very thread, that narrative players somehow don’t need rulesets and can just make pew pew noises.

In my experience (even in this thread) that attitude is far more common among narrative players. Most balance arguments come down to people pointing out that a good, balanced system benefits narrative players too.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Narrative games require two players with the same vision. This is very hard to realize in pick-up games. I play historical games as well, and it can be very hard to find opponents who want to recreate the same era/battle that I might want to. That is part of the strength of 40K - it is a lingua franca, if an imperfect one.

I sense some condescension from anti-tourney crowd here. I play multiple styles and systems, but I am not going to look down my nose at people who have fun a different way than I do.

I think it's important to put all this in context. In the pre-internet era, it was often very difficult to find opponents who were into any kind of wargaming. That's why conventions became a thing.

Once they began to catch on, game companies had to think of ways to lure people to their booth/event, because game cons were the most pure, distilled form of their target demographic on earth. Many companies (not just GW) came up with the ideas of doing some sort of competition with the game.

What sets GW apart is the way in which the "tournament circuit" has become its own thing and has in many ways redefined what it is to play 40k.

As us greybeards like to say: "Back in the day, people picked armies because of the fluff, not the win probability." There is a sense that tournament players look at army lists not as something that appeals to their aesthetic, or speaks to them in terms of lore, but with the same cool, calculating eye of a player selecting the best gear for the upcoming match. The selection of shoes, racket or pads - these are based on function, not sentimentality.

And GW loves it. They celebrate it. Indeed, it's very clear that as far as GW is concerned, narrative players and the old "mates at the club" model are not who they are interested in serving. Those are the 'legacy customers,' who probably won't buy the latest and greatest. That's why people whinging about unfluffy rules are ignored, but as soon as it looks like there's a tournament skew, GW is on it.

Hope that helps explain things a bit.

Since you are Greybeard-splaining, can you give an example of an unfluffy rule that you whinge against? Fluffy might be in the eye of the beholder.

I've been playing 40K since '96 and I was playing historical tabletop miniatures before then (I might have a grey beard and some turret-time). At that time I enjoyed pickup games on Thursday evenings at the GW store and I also played in the first Canadian Grand Tournament. I wouldn't "tune-up" my GT list against a random opponent on Thursday evening. I play local tourneys now, and even then I would not bring a power list against a stranger at a pick-up game. But let's say I did. GW actively balancing the game reduces the damage if I can't help myself. Or if I come up against an ITC shark that decided to hunt in the shallows. Not that they would! Not enough nutritional value.

I think most people pick their faction based on how it makes them feel, but they also want a fighting chance against a given foe. An army is a big investment, and its hard to pivot. Balancing around tournament data can help with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I still struggle to see why the so-called casuals get so upset about tournament play. The players who play in the big events are not coming to your FLGS pick-up game night to smash some random player. Close friends and family playing in their basement or garage can do what they want and have really wonderful narrative games. People at a local tournament know what they are getting into and having balance updates from the tourney scene makes for a better experience.

Because the same mindset from those others at big events infests pick-up game night. That's the issue. Not tournaments themselves, but "tournament style" always, without fail, becoming the assumed default standard for all games, whether prepping for a GT at a convention, trying something for a local RTT, or even just a " friendly " game at game night. It doesn't matter what, the baseline assumption, wrongly IMHO, is no different than a tournament round. Tournament play can a d should be a viable option. It should not be the default and yet it always takes over and pushes everything else out.

That's where the frustration comes from. The tournament players seem to always "get their way" while pushing anything not based on tournament type play is a Sisyphean battle. Even something like non-GT matched play is looked at like something insane to even suggest, rather than the default and keeping the tournament play as an option. Instead tournament play is the assumed default and asking for non tournament play immediately brings up accusations of wanting some "unfair" advantage.

I hope you and your friends can play how you like? Seriously, play how you and your opponent want.

Do you play pick-up games with the Balance Dataslate?

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I still struggle to see why the so-called casuals get so upset about tournament play. The players who play in the big events are not coming to your FLGS pick-up game night to smash some random player.

Except they do and they are hence why folks get frustrated and see it as a problem. In my 20 years, I've see more than my share of tournament players who can't or won't dial it back or leave their power lists at home occasionally and who treat every game as practice for the next tournament. Its pigs and dodos, at its worst expression.

And for the record- it's not 'being upset about tournament play'. It's bring annoyed tournament play can't stay in its own lane and needs to hog the while road

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Close friends and family playing in their basement or garage can do what they want and have really wonderful narrative games. People at a local tournament know what they are getting into and having balance updates from the tourney scene makes for a better experience.

GW paying attention to the competitive scene to make balance adjustments mitigates problems at pick-up games. I recognize that updates can make it a challenge for folks who do not check the GW site to stay up to date - these updates should have the lightest touch necessary and with the least frequency as possible. But from what I read here, it seems that some "casuals" want to have overpowered stuff? Else why worry about balance updates in your so-called casual games? Why shouldn't GW tone down overpowered stuff when the data is there?

Narrative games require two players with the same vision. This is very hard to realize in pick-up games. I play historical games as well, and it can be very hard to find opponents who want to recreate the same era/battle that I might want to. That is part of the strength of 40K - it is a lingua franca, if an imperfect one.

I sense some condescension from anti-tourney crowd here. I play multiple styles and systems, but I am not going to look down my nose at people who have fun a different way than I do.

I don't disagree with anything here.

TangoTwoBravo 809603 11525680 wrote:

I hope you and your friends can play how you like? Seriously, play how you and your opponent want.

Do you play pick-up games with the Balance Dataslate?

yes, of course. The balance dataslate is matched play "errata". It's not really optional. Asking to not use it is like asking to not use points or playing a different game and pretending it's 40k. You'll get looked at like you have three eyes.

The people locally, and by "locally" I mean a 30 mile radius across like 4-5 stores, will only play matched play (2k but most are at least willing to play lower if you say that's all you have; some will turn down games not 2k though. They'd rather not play or wait for 2k than play less) using the current GT pack. Anything else, including things like tempest of war, you have to basically debate with them to get them to agree. And God forbid you try a crusade or open war deck. The former, well you need to actually be playing in a crusade to play a crusade mission, and the store "endorsed" event organizer* (see below) usually doesn't organize crusades so... the latter, you'll just get looked at weirdly and probably counter debated on why not just use the GT mission instead.

* Every store I've seen has one longtime regular who is designated as the only person who is "allowed" to set up events there for a particular game; nobody else can do events at the store. Sometimes it's two guys: one for tournaments and one for everything else. So even if I wanted to do something, I'd have to convince the store it's worth allowing there, and then get the approval of whoever is the "event guy" for the game since they have to actually run it or at least oversee it