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.

Voss wrote:

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.

A) you must have some seriously selective attention.
B) I have tried to explain it numerous times already, so now just chew on the most extreme example I can think of: chess is the most tight, competitively oriented wargame out there, and has exactly zero narrative capabilities. Ruleset capabilities and ruleset balance are two separate things, which are notoriously conflated into one by tournament players to play the card of „balanced ruleset benefits everyone”. It doesn’t, if you have to sacrifice narrative capabilities in the sake of balance. Take a concept of Von Clausevitzan friction as an example - tournament players will curse and moan about any mechanics, that takes away their absolute control, while many narrative players won’t even consider games without friction element as proper wargames to begin with.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
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.

Since you're a greybeard, you know all about it, don't you? You remember the Rhino rush, the wild ride of Army of the Month releases when 3rd came out.

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 should clarify that no one is suggesting you personally are a hyper-competitive tournament-influenced player, so your denials are unnecessary.

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.

What if they feel like winning? What if that's all that they want?

With every edition release, new factions are created and people flock to them to see what game-winning combination they can squeeze out. I know this because it clogs the internet boards.

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

The topic of the thread isn't "Do I get to play the games I like," it's whether the tournament mentality is a problem for the hobby and I think it is. It is not the biggest problem (that's GW's approach to game design), but it is an issue.

With every edition release, new factions are created and people flock to them to see what game-winning combination they can squeeze out. I know this because it clogs the internet boards.

GW isn't creating a ton of new faction each edition, they do like one and even then it is often a reset of the line. 8th had no new faction, just sob in plastic. 9th had the votan, 7th had the ad mecha come out. It is hardly "clogging" anything. w40k is a game, it is not a story, it is not a painting or writing competition or a showcase of those. On top of that it is a game which has rules that decide who wins or loses, so people ask the core question for such a situation, what should I do to get the positive result of winning and avoid the negative result of losing.

The topic of the thread isn't "Do I get to play the games I like," it's whether the tournament mentality is a problem for the hobby and I think it is. It is not the biggest problem (that's GW's approach to game design), but it is an issue.

So what should happen? close down the internet and forbid outside of game talking at stores? Because the only way for people to not be able to find the anwser to the question of what is good and what is bad, is to not allow for people to post their armies, battle reports, tournament data etc.

But even if that happened, tournament style game play isn't really the problem. The problem is that GW makes a game, which is expensive, which involves a lot of time and more money, if someone wants to paint the models. And then the same GW produces rule sets full of traps for new and unsuspecting players. You picked army X, because you like Y? Well too bad because GW decided to make both broken, and there is no garentee they will fix it even through out an edition. Your opponents army is too good, now you have to convince him to buy more models, just so he can play you and you have fun or vice versa. If GW didn't have a practical monopol on table top gaming, the company would be dead after a single edition. But instead it expects the players to fix a problems. And it would maybe make sense if GW was some new indy company, the rules were for free and the game was 10-15 models aka cheap to play. But it isn't any of those things. We are buying a supposed high class car, PC, etc and then expected to repair it on our own.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
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.

Since you're a greybeard, you know all about it, don't you? You remember the Rhino rush, the wild ride of Army of the Month releases when 3rd came out.

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 should clarify that no one is suggesting you personally are a hyper-competitive tournament-influenced player, so your denials are unnecessary.

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.

What if they feel like winning? What if that's all that they want?

With every edition release, new factions are created and people flock to them to see what game-winning combination they can squeeze out. I know this because it clogs the internet boards.

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

The topic of the thread isn't "Do I get to play the games I like," it's whether the tournament mentality is a problem for the hobby and I think it is. It is not the biggest problem (that's GW's approach to game design), but it is an issue.

Well, the position taken by the OP was that the biggest issue was trying to balance in any meaningful way for competitive play. He stated that the "points changes, nerfs and rules changes were unfun" for virtually everyone. I am saying that the effort to balance for competitive play benefits all, even if there are some drawbacks which I have previously pointed out.

I am not worried if you think I am a competitive player. I was using me as an example and then saying that even if I was very competitive I would not be looking for wins at pick-up games. The top tourney players are not doing that as its not worth their time. The balance updates do help mitigate the effects of those who do take power-lists to pick-up games, however, and they are a welcome change from previous times when they ignored the tournament scene and refused to make balance updates.

Regarding "unfluffy" rules, I did not find the Rhino Rush to be non-fluffy, assuming that fluffy means in accordance with the accepted vision of the lore. It could be NPE (negative play experience) for opponents, but I am not sure what the lore objection is to infantry moving forward in their APCs?

The real "non-fluffy" stuff I recall from 2nd Ed was how armies were composed. As GW tourneys came into being, they noted in White Dwarf that someone had brought an all-Pulsa Rocket list. They called it a "theme" list and seemed to be in wonder about it. I played against it in 1997 and it was not fluffy nor was it fun to play against. Then there was the Wolfguard Terminators list where each model had an Assault Cannon and a Cyclone Launcher. It was legal, since Codex writing was not very tight. That went around the circuit, aided by the dawn of chat boards etc. So 3rd Ed came out with the much more restrictive FOC. Those won't really "unfluffy" rules but rather rules written under the assumption that people would not try to game the system.

So tournament play brings out issues that the designers did not anticipate. Such is life with games played by people who have imagination and agency. It is good that the Devs now try to go in and remove/soften the things that are revealed by tournament play. Tournament play these days has data that can be turned into information upon which to make changes. It's not perfect, but it is better than anecdotes.

I think its a problem that some folks do not honestly communicate their intentions regarding a pick-up game with a stranger. Sometimes returning or infrequent players bring a lovingly-crafted list with all sorts of fan-fiction surrounding it yet also expect to win against someone who put some thought into how their list would operate on the tabletop and has some experience playing it. So feelings get hurt. That is not the fault of the tournament scene.

PenitentJake wrote:

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.

So, in other words the premise of this thread is "The people who play the game in a way I don't want to play it are the biggest problem with this game."

Seems like a way to get lost venting frustration when a person's time would be better spent discussing how to talk to others and convince them to give other ways of playing a chance. I don't think it's a coincidence when you see a number of different companies organize what are essentially "Come play and we'll give you treats" events.

 solkan wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

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.

So, in other words the premise of this thread is "The people who play the game in a way I don't want to play it are the biggest problem with this game."

Seems like a way to get lost venting frustration when a person's time would be better spent discussing how to talk to others and convince them to give other ways of playing a chance. I don't think it's a coincidence when you see a number of different companies organize what are essentially "Come play and we'll give you treats" events.

It's more "this one small aspect of the game ends up dominating the larger aspect of the game, for reasons unknown, and nobody seems to care". Because that's what happens. Tournament play tends to become the dominant de-facto gameplay mode, for reasons nobody seems to know, it just is and shut up and deal with it.

I usually play Tempest or Open War, as pick up games.

Wayniac wrote:
It's more "this one small aspect of the game ends up dominating the larger aspect of the game, for reasons unknown, and nobody seems to care". Because that's what happens. Tournament play tends to become the dominant de-facto gameplay mode, for reasons nobody seems to know, it just is and shut up and deal with it.

It's not for reasons that nobody knows though, it's because balanced tournament-style games give a good baseline level of play and are easy to set up and play against anybody so long as everybody knows it's the standard. It's the least effort for an enjoyable game or two of 40k. It dominates for the same reason fast food does, it's easy and good enough.

 Tyran wrote:
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.

The real thing, they aren't. They are utterly hostile to *other people* playing to win.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:
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.

Don't put words in our mouths.

Also, the 40k ruleset is not simulationist.

The casual at all cost crowd is what pushed me more into the competitive scene of 40k.

Unbearably toxic, entitled, gatekeepy, authoritarian oh and they complain about balance and unfairness more than anyone else.

 Bosskelot wrote:
Unbearably toxic, entitled, gatekeepy, authoritarian oh and they complain about balance and unfairness more than anyone else.

That does seem to be a good description of the competitive scene, you're right.

 Tyran wrote:

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.

I like this answer.

Creating a narrative driven gameplay is very time intensive and requires a group that knows each other and their limits. However, it is also a bit like gamemastering a group where every individual could be pitted against each other which means people can often easily be offended, hurt, or disappointed with the outcome. It's such a subjective experience that it is almost impossible to cater to, although GW has tried with Urban Conquest, Crusade, and what not. I mean, they are throwing money at the wall and seeing what sticks(so far Crusade which is positive), but overall it's a hard playerbase to please. I have honestly more or less given up on the narrative thing for now as it was just too time consuming and annoying to organize for my group in the long run.

I would also add that the problem with "casual"(not necessarily narrative) is that it is such an open question that can't really be answered properly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Unbearably toxic, entitled, gatekeepy, authoritarian oh and they complain about balance and unfairness more than anyone else.

That does seem to be a good description of the competitive scene, you're right.

What town do you live in? I have a group of friends who go regularly to the UK to compete and they have just had good experiences so far, except maybe one or two bad apples. I wonder if this is regional.

Wayniac wrote:
It's more "this one small aspect of the game ends up dominating the larger aspect of the game, for reasons unknown, and nobody seems to care". Because that's what happens. Tournament play tends to become the dominant de-facto gameplay mode, for reasons nobody seems to know, it just is and shut up and deal with it.

I think GW have become as successful as they are due to 2 main reasons.

1. Visibility. Having branded stores on the high street in the UK and in other locations around the world helped to raise awareness of the brand, to the point that many people outside the hobby view GW as the entirety of the hobby.

2. They created a game with a framework that allowed for easy pick-up games. Before GW it was much more common that games would require some (or a lot of) negotiation and communication beforehand to set the parameters of the game. By providing an increasingly standardised way to play GW allowed more people to get involved without the requirement for that interaction. This has gone from the Mission Cards of 2nd edition, through the multiple mission types and FOCs of 3rd to where we are today with 2k GT-style missions being the norm.

If that's the popular way to play then maybe there's a reason for that? Being able to go down to the store or club and get right into a game quickly with a common understanding is something many people value. For a lot of people, being able to show up at a store or club with a 2k army and have a good shot of getting a game, even against people you've never met before, is a major benefit. We can tell that by the popularity of that style of game. Other people prefer different types of games and GW do provide support for that. It's simply not been my experience that nobody ever wants to play Tempest of War, for example, or games below 2k. If that is the case where you live, that's unfortunate, but I don't think it's GW's fault.

We know why tournament style play is the most common, even if you refuse to accept the reasons.

Slipspace wrote:

2. They created a game with a framework that allowed for easy pick-up games. Before GW it was much more common that games would require some (or a lot of) negotiation and communication beforehand to set the parameters of the game. By providing an increasingly standardised way to play GW allowed more people to get involved without the requirement for that interaction. This has gone from the Mission Cards of 2nd edition, through the multiple mission types and FOCs of 3rd to where we are today with 2k GT-style missions being the norm.

If that's the popular way to play then maybe there's a reason for that? Being able to go down to the store or club and get right into a game quickly with a common understanding is something many people value. For a lot of people, being able to show up at a store or club with a 2k army and have a good shot of getting a game, even against people you've never met before, is a major benefit. We can tell that by the popularity of that style of game. Other people prefer different types of games and GW do provide support for that. It's simply not been my experience that nobody ever wants to play Tempest of War, for example, or games below 2k. If that is the case where you live, that's unfortunate, but I don't think it's GW's fault.

This is the real reason.

Playing a game requires a shared language and the more that shared language covers every detail the easier and more accessible it becomes.

Also, it isn't just Games Workshop that is approaching games like this. You see it more and more in other games where every single aspect of the game language is worded so as to not have to debate endlessly before playing a game. Marvel Crisis Protocol is very rigid, so is Masters of the Universe: Battlegrounds. Hell, even Star Wars Legion.

And the reasons for that are very straightforward: Everybody has their own of what a casual game is. It's a target that is essentially vague and two people can argue endlessly into the night over which casual play is right nor not. Hell, I don't even think anyone here can properly define what casual play is without using ill defined and vague words for it.

 Eldarsif wrote:

And the reasons for that are very straightforward: Everybody has their own of what a casual game is. It's a target that is essentially vague and two people can argue endlessly into the night over which casual play is right nor not. Hell, I don't even think anyone here can properly define what casual play is without using ill defined and vague words for it.

Exactly. Plus even within one group and even down to one person what's casual one week is different to what's casual next week.

So its infinitely easier to build a game for the competitive system with a view toward having multiple balanced options within armies and between armies. That's the foundation; the core; the body that everything else is built upon. With a balanced system with known variables you can mess around with it and get predictable results. This means you can go totally wild with casual and narrative play and have some degree of understanding before you start, what kind of game you are going to get. This means you can unbalance things yourself and have an idea what results you might see.

This all means you can have casual games with known expectations on both sides. That last stand in a fort with one player having 50% less models than the other in points tells both that the player with less is likely going to lose. That their object is to last as long as they can; or take out a specific hero on the enemy side; or just see how much they can kill etc.... They go into the game with a known understanding because the foundation of the game is solid.






Even RPG games, which run through a DM and are thus totally open to modification on the fly, aim to have a degree of balance to them so that DM and players can have an understanding of how the game will progress. Because you have a balanced system you know if your level 5 party fights a band of level 3 kobolds, chances are those kobolds are going to die really easily. Unless you swarm them with a vast number etc... Similarly you know that the level 10 dragon is likely going to wipe the floor with you if you get into combat.
These elements setup expectations and predictions. Yes actually playing things out is the only way to be sure, but it allows people to go into the game and understand what kind of game they are going to get out of it; what the experience is and such.



Almost every time we get into this debate the people who raise issue against it are often raising issues that aren't a problem with narrative or casual games working within a competitive game foundation, but rather identifying weaknesses and problems within badly, poorly or very limited scope competitive systems. Ergo competitive systems that are not well designed and do not benefit the competitive market as a whole.

 solkan wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

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.

So, in other words the premise of this thread is "The people who play the game in a way I don't want to play it are the biggest problem with this game."

Seems like a way to get lost venting frustration when a person's time would be better spent discussing how to talk to others and convince them to give other ways of playing a chance. I don't think it's a coincidence when you see a number of different companies organize what are essentially "Come play and we'll give you treats" events.

I've had more success convincing people who like narrative games to give 40K a try than to convince existing 40K players to try different ways of playing.

A surprising number of people I meet in other hobbies have a 2nd-5th edition army in their closet and are pleasantly surprised to find that 40K has returned to catering to their playstyle.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Regarding "unfluffy" rules, I did not find the Rhino Rush to be non-fluffy, assuming that fluffy means in accordance with the accepted vision of the lore. It could be NPE (negative play experience) for opponents, but I am not sure what the lore objection is to infantry moving forward in their APCs?

It was "unfluffy" because it was absurd to think that units could drive across open terrain, climb out of their APCs and charge into melee combat without a shot being fired at them. There were all sorts of oddball elements like that - tanks that couldn't fire the main gun on the move, or if they did, the sponson weapons didn't work. Troops preferring to stand out of cover rather than in it because it didn't help all that much. I'm sure you recall.

The real "non-fluffy" stuff I recall from 2nd Ed was how armies were composed. As GW tourneys came into being, they noted in White Dwarf that someone had brought an all-Pulsa Rocket list. They called it a "theme" list and seemed to be in wonder about it. I played against it in 1997 and it was not fluffy nor was it fun to play against. Then there was the Wolfguard Terminators list where each model had an Assault Cannon and a Cyclone Launcher. It was legal, since Codex writing was not very tight. That went around the circuit, aided by the dawn of chat boards etc. So 3rd Ed came out with the much more restrictive FOC. Those won't really "unfluffy" rules but rather rules written under the assumption that people would not try to game the system.

The Space Wolves codex was the first one produced. Naturally it had problems and tournaments were not necessary to point them out.

However, the notion of using an all-terminator force was very much part of the 40k concept and carried with it some significant liabilities in terms of mobility and providing adequate coverage for the front. The subsequent force org charts at first stopped it, but then legitimized it be means of army special rules, which proliferated wildly, along with strategems and other rules.

So tournament play brings out issues that the designers did not anticipate. Such is life with games played by people who have imagination and agency. It is good that the Devs now try to go in and remove/soften the things that are revealed by tournament play. Tournament play these days has data that can be turned into information upon which to make changes. It's not perfect, but it is better than anecdotes.

Right, but has this data actually been used to make a truly balanced, stable game?

I mean that's the core of what we might call "tournament apologetics": because of data harvested from tournaments, we get a better system for all gamers.

If that's so, I'm not seeing it. I see the same rules churn, same faction/unit/weapon bloat and a mentality that is utterly alien in any other wargaming environment.

When you play any other sort of wargame, the assumption is that you both share an interest in the topic and while you're obviously competing, the game itself is a primarily social activity.

40k is the only game where that's not always the case - the person across from you may just be using you as a test bed for the next GT. You're just a face and an arm moving things for them to kill. It's a very strange sensation, and reminds me a lot of card games, which of course have a huge tournament scene because cards are well-suited to that sort of thing.

Indeed, I took a hiatus from 40k at one point just to explore cards because in terms of competition, they are much, much better than trying to use miniatures. That's why cards exist. Miniatures exist to be admired and sometimes used on a tabletop.

So you have a situation where tournament gives you an inferior form of competition and instead of producing superior balance overall, it creates friction within the gaming community.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
Right, but has this data actually been used to make a truly balanced, stable game?

I mean that's the core of what we might call "tournament apologetics": because of data harvested from tournaments, we get a better system for all gamers.

If you were to strip the mission system from 9th the whole game would fall apart. It'd be like old 40K games where people would take the best shooty stuff and you'd see the results and viable units change dramatically -- look to 8th when it was popular to sit Repulsors on top of landing pads in your DZ ( or on top of other buildings ). The problem with the GT pack is that it requires a whole bunch of stuff that atm is really difficult to process for a new player.

So now we have a card system that 1) streamlines mission selection and 2) incorporates playstyles that suit more of the fanbase.

That's a direct concrete example of tournament play helping to balance the game.

40k is the only game where that's not always the case - the person across from you may just be using you as a test bed for the next GT. You're just a face and an arm moving things for them to kill. It's a very strange sensation, and reminds me a lot of card games, which of course have a huge tournament scene because cards are well-suited to that sort of thing.

I've never had such an experience. It might be a great time to engage in discussion about decisions you're both making so they mentally re-engage instead of 'going through the motions'. In a tournament game you're quite limited on time so making quick decisions and being hyper-focused is sometimes required.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I am saying that the effort to balance for competitive play benefits all, even if there are some drawbacks which I have previously pointed out.

I'm a pretty big proponent of improving balance in casual play, but I will always challenge the three assumptions inherent to the idea that balancing for competitive play benefits everyone:

1. It assumes that the competitive and casual metas are aligned, because otherwise balance changes that improve competitive play may not actually result in better casual balance. I've seen this come up repeatedly with units that overperform when used with a particular subfaction or particular buff combo, and the resulting nerfs tone them down for competitive play but gut them in casual lists that aren't going for the wombo-combo. Similarly, there are units where taking one is just okay but three at once are overpowered, and a nerf that makes the trio okay for competitive play probably makes the singleton bad in quasi-highlander casual. Or, if you have one faction dominating tournaments and every other army has to adjust to counter them, that's going to produce odd results for counter-meta armies (see: hordes doing better when Knights were the meta in 8th) that may not have any applicability to more casual play.

2. It assumes that the fundamental structure of competitive play is the same as casual, and often that isn't the case. Competitive players build lists in a vacuum with no idea of what they'll be up against; casual players in small gaming groups quickly get a sense for what their buddies are likely to field. High-level competitive players often build lists and then buy and paint the models to suit them; casual players often assemble lists based on what they already have in their collections. I'm painting with a broad brush here and there's a lot of overlap, but the people at the extreme ends aren't playing the same game. Being able to list tailor or having only a limited collection to work with both have massive balance implications that tournament play does not account for.

3. It assumes that improving balance for competitive play doesn't come at the cost of anything casual players value. It is well known that points alone can only do so much for balance; it's design changes first and foremost that contribute to balance, and historically that often takes the form of reduced unit options, arbitrary but gameplay-driven restrictions, predictable mission design, player-chosen kill objectives, more deterministic mechanics, and so on. Points are one thing, but changing gameplay has the greatest risk of being contentious.

A game designed, redesigned, or optimized for competitive play isn't automatically going to be a great ruleset for casual play too. Warmachine is a good example of a game that (at least when I played it) made for a tight and well-balanced competitive ruleset, but the balance broke down if you chose armies based on fluff or collection rather than mechanical synergy, and the ruleset's suitability for narrative was poor. It gradually leaned harder and harder into competitive play as the only way to play, because that's all it was ever designed around.

I don't consider competitive play a 'problem'. I just think it needs to be recognized that competitive tournaments, casual pick-up games, and hobby club narrative campaigns are all different play environments with different design and balance implications. It's not a zero-sum game, but it's not perfect alignment either, and using tournament results alone to drive development would be a mistake.

Anyways, you asked for examples of un-fluffy competitive-oriented rules, so I'll throw in my two cents and nominate Hammer of the Emperor: A transparent band-aid fix for a competitively underperforming army that requires logical backflips to justify why Guardsmen do more damage to tanks than Marines. Frankly, it killed my interest in playing my Guard, because it felt like such a hack.

My one grump is when vocal tournament players demand anything more random than the regular dice throws involved are removed.

As a Sad Old Git, I love my charts and tables and entirely unforeseen and unpredictable occurrences. As a Sad Old Git, they’re an inherent part of what makes 40K, well, 40K.

Now, from an ease of play perspective? Yes there is absolutely such a thing as Too Much Randomness. And it doesn’t suit every army thematically.

But when I see people complaining that using Orks is too much like herding Cats, I do kind of despair. It needn’t be the Rogue Trader complexity (such as skid tests for Warbikes, because their guns aren’t that well linked, and of frankly inadvisable calibre), but I want it to be more than the old Zzaap Kannon (where the 2D6 roll for Strength represented how long the Grot was holding on to the lever for). Let’s just say I want Shokk Atak Guns to recover their former brilliance. Not just whacking a Tank, but filling it with terrified, wildly and uncontrollably defecating, suddenly completely insane Snotlings, grinding it to a complete halt as the crew are overwhelmed.

And note I said some vocal tournament players. I’m not claiming this a widespread or even more than niche within that sphere.

Just….don’t try to change the spirit of 40K.

 catbarf wrote:

Spoiler:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I am saying that the effort to balance for competitive play benefits all, even if there are some drawbacks which I have previously pointed out.

I'm a pretty big proponent of improving balance in casual play, but I will always challenge the three assumptions inherent to the idea that balancing for competitive play benefits everyone:

1. It assumes that the competitive and casual metas are aligned, because otherwise balance changes that improve competitive play may not actually result in better casual balance. I've seen this come up repeatedly with units that overperform when used with a particular subfaction or particular buff combo, and the resulting nerfs tone them down for competitive play but gut them in casual lists that aren't going for the wombo-combo. Similarly, there are units where taking one is just okay but three at once are overpowered, and a nerf that makes the trio okay for competitive play probably makes the singleton bad in quasi-highlander casual. Or, if you have one faction dominating tournaments and every other army has to adjust to counter them, that's going to produce odd results for counter-meta armies (see: hordes doing better when Knights were the meta in 8th) that may not have any applicability to more casual play.

2. It assumes that the fundamental structure of competitive play is the same as casual, and often that isn't the case. Competitive players build lists in a vacuum with no idea of what they'll be up against; casual players in small gaming groups quickly get a sense for what their buddies are likely to field. High-level competitive players often build lists and then buy and paint the models to suit them; casual players often assemble lists based on what they already have in their collections. I'm painting with a broad brush here and there's a lot of overlap, but the people at the extreme ends aren't playing the same game. Being able to list tailor or having only a limited collection to work with both have massive balance implications that tournament play does not account for.

3. It assumes that improving balance for competitive play doesn't come at the cost of anything casual players value. It is well known that points alone can only do so much for balance; it's design changes first and foremost that contribute to balance, and historically that often takes the form of reduced unit options, arbitrary but gameplay-driven restrictions, predictable mission design, player-chosen kill objectives, more deterministic mechanics, and so on. Points are one thing, but changing gameplay has the greatest risk of being contentious.

A game designed, redesigned, or optimized for competitive play isn't automatically going to be a great ruleset for casual play too. Warmachine is a good example of a game that (at least when I played it) made for a tight and well-balanced competitive ruleset, but the balance broke down if you chose armies based on fluff or collection rather than mechanical synergy, and the ruleset's suitability for narrative was poor. It gradually leaned harder and harder into competitive play as the only way to play, because that's all it was ever designed around.

I don't consider competitive play a 'problem'. I just think it needs to be recognized that competitive tournaments, casual pick-up games, and hobby club narrative campaigns are all different play environments with different design and balance implications. It's not a zero-sum game, but it's not perfect alignment either, and using tournament results alone to drive development would be a mistake.

Anyways, you asked for examples of un-fluffy competitive-oriented rules, so I'll throw in my two cents and nominate Hammer of the Emperor: A transparent band-aid fix for a competitively underperforming army that requires logical backflips to justify why Guardsmen do more damage to tanks than Marines. Frankly, it killed my interest in playing my Guard, because it felt like such a hack.

Catbarf wins . . . Again. 100% agree

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
My one grump is when vocal tournament players demand anything more random than the regular dice throws involved are removed.

As a Sad Old Git, I love my charts and tables and entirely unforeseen and unpredictable occurrences. As a Sad Old Git, they’re an inherent part of what makes 40K, well, 40K.

Now, from an ease of play perspective? Yes there is absolutely such a thing as Too Much Randomness. And it doesn’t suit every army thematically.

But when I see people complaining that using Orks is too much like herding Cats, I do kind of despair. It needn’t be the Rogue Trader complexity (such as skid tests for Warbikes, because their guns aren’t that well linked, and of frankly inadvisable calibre), but I want it to be more than the old Zzaap Kannon (where the 2D6 roll for Strength represented how long the Grot was holding on to the lever for). Let’s just say I want Shokk Atak Guns to recover their former brilliance. Not just whacking a Tank, but filling it with terrified, wildly and uncontrollably defecating, suddenly completely insane Snotlings, grinding it to a complete halt as the crew are overwhelmed.

And note I said some vocal tournament players. I’m not claiming this a widespread or even more than niche within that sphere.

Just….don’t try to change the spirit of 40K.

For me the big thing with random that falls down with GW a fair bit is the severity of the random impacts on the game.
A big clear red target with GW is the Double Turn in AoS which can basically mean that one dice roll defines the win/loss situation on the whole game where if you get a double turn its very likely you will win the game; or at least gain a vast advantage over your opponent.


For me random like that is bad random for casual or competitive because its putting way too much power in a dice roll and taking away the choices, thoughts and player from the game.


For me good random is small random that adds up to big changes. Those handful of saves that shouldn't pass, but do and suddenly that squad of rippers holds the line against a Chaplin for another turn. Those kind of things where little changes and small events then add up to bigger changes on the battlefield.

Not much to disagree with there.

The only thing is you have to make sacrifices. People might play the way they want, but there can't be a reasonable expectation that every single combination of units will be viable. It's literally impossible.

I think GW has kept an eye on the narrative and casual side of things with the mission set so far, but out of the changes GW has released, which are only competitive minded changes and why?

It's always admirable to strive to improve balance, but if pursued zealously its very easy to forget that it's all for nought if you take out the things that make the game fun.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Spoiler:

 catbarf wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I am saying that the effort to balance for competitive play benefits all, even if there are some drawbacks which I have previously pointed out.

I'm a pretty big proponent of improving balance in casual play, but I will always challenge the three assumptions inherent to the idea that balancing for competitive play benefits everyone:

1. It assumes that the competitive and casual metas are aligned, because otherwise balance changes that improve competitive play may not actually result in better casual balance. I've seen this come up repeatedly with units that overperform when used with a particular subfaction or particular buff combo, and the resulting nerfs tone them down for competitive play but gut them in casual lists that aren't going for the wombo-combo. Similarly, there are units where taking one is just okay but three at once are overpowered, and a nerf that makes the trio okay for competitive play probably makes the singleton bad in quasi-highlander casual. Or, if you have one faction dominating tournaments and every other army has to adjust to counter them, that's going to produce odd results for counter-meta armies (see: hordes doing better when Knights were the meta in 8th) that may not have any applicability to more casual play.

2. It assumes that the fundamental structure of competitive play is the same as casual, and often that isn't the case. Competitive players build lists in a vacuum with no idea of what they'll be up against; casual players in small gaming groups quickly get a sense for what their buddies are likely to field. High-level competitive players often build lists and then buy and paint the models to suit them; casual players often assemble lists based on what they already have in their collections. I'm painting with a broad brush here and there's a lot of overlap, but the people at the extreme ends aren't playing the same game. Being able to list tailor or having only a limited collection to work with both have massive balance implications that tournament play does not account for.

3. It assumes that improving balance for competitive play doesn't come at the cost of anything casual players value. It is well known that points alone can only do so much for balance; it's design changes first and foremost that contribute to balance, and historically that often takes the form of reduced unit options, arbitrary but gameplay-driven restrictions, predictable mission design, player-chosen kill objectives, more deterministic mechanics, and so on. Points are one thing, but changing gameplay has the greatest risk of being contentious.

A game designed, redesigned, or optimized for competitive play isn't automatically going to be a great ruleset for casual play too. Warmachine is a good example of a game that (at least when I played it) made for a tight and well-balanced competitive ruleset, but the balance broke down if you chose armies based on fluff or collection rather than mechanical synergy, and the ruleset's suitability for narrative was poor. It gradually leaned harder and harder into competitive play as the only way to play, because that's all it was ever designed around.

I don't consider competitive play a 'problem'. I just think it needs to be recognized that competitive tournaments, casual pick-up games, and hobby club narrative campaigns are all different play environments with different design and balance implications. It's not a zero-sum game, but it's not perfect alignment either, and using tournament results alone to drive development would be a mistake.

Anyways, you asked for examples of un-fluffy competitive-oriented rules, so I'll throw in my two cents and nominate Hammer of the Emperor: A transparent band-aid fix for a competitively underperforming army that requires logical backflips to justify why Guardsmen do more damage to tanks than Marines. Frankly, it killed my interest in playing my Guard, because it felt like such a hack.

Not much to disagree with there.

The only thing is you have to make sacrifices. People might play the way they want, but there can't be a reasonable expectation that every single combination of units will be viable. It's literally impossible.

I think GW has kept an eye on the narrative and casual side of things with the mission set so far, but out of the changes GW has released, which are only competitive minded changes and why?

I don't think anybody has ever made the demand that "every single combination of units will be viable", especially in the competetive sense. Or if they have, they're in a crazy minority. Not just crazy small, but actually crazy.

But also, wording the question as looking for "only competetive minded changes" runs disingenuous too. Things like reductions of unit options could also easily be explained as "business minded" to reduce third party traction, but defenders will claim "but it improves balance!" at the same time.

I don't think I'm being disingenuous in asking that. There's sentiment that 10th is a game designed 'for tournaments'. What is it exactly that provides that impression?

The combi-weapon thing is a potential angle, but we don't have a lot of context for that one yet. There's a new sternguard unit coming and they appear to have a melta and a plasma among what is modeled. We all sort of assumed that they would de-facto replace all combi based on them eliminating options on the librarian, but that could wind up being the wrong assumption.

40mm cylinder of nothingness smells like tournament to me

Racerguy180 wrote:
40mm cylinder of nothingness smells like tournament to me

Actually it strikes me as casual / narrative, because you can make purpose built objectives with stuff like this and you no longer have to worry about it affecting the game itself.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:


40k is the only game where that's not always the case - the person across from you may just be using you as a test bed for the next GT. You're just a face and an arm moving things for them to kill. It's a very strange sensation, and reminds me a lot of card games, which of course have a huge tournament scene because cards are well-suited to that sort of thing.

Kind of sounds that your local gaming group is relatively unfriendly to players.

I just know that in my gaming groups - some who can be very competitive - people are always chatting and getting to know each other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:
40mm cylinder of nothingness smells like tournament to me

I'm with Daedalus on that one. It allows players to create cool objective markers within the tournament ruleset. Something I'd think casual players would like. I at least like it for narrative gaming.

So, you guys are saying that it's perfectly narrative to have a 40mm cylinder of nothingness in the center of the battlefield that you cannot fly over?

I have plenty of objective markers that are very narrative and can be flown over.

Just fail to see how this can be spun as narrative.