Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/15 11:39:55
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Boom! Leman Russ Commander
|
A classic: this is a non competitive way of doing things, but sometimes if we can't decide we simply roll a dice and see.
Then when all is over we sit down, take all the rules and calmly re-read to see who got it correctly. Most funny scenario is when none of you actually caught it correctly.
I think this will not be satisfactory if you are more into the competitive aspect because losing on a randomly resolved rule issue in that case can be frustrating. If you don't care to much that's a good way of speeding the process if the matter is becoming tedious.
I also imagine this could be the moment to see if you're opponent was bordering on or outright cheating or if he was simply grumpy because... You know how some simply don't like being pushed out of their habits.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/08/15 11:42:24
40k: Necrons/Imperial Guard/ Space marines
Bolt Action: Germany/ USA
Project Z.
"The Dakka Dive Bar is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure you might not find a good amasec but they grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for ratlings being thrown through windows and you'll be alright." Ciaphas Cain, probably. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/15 11:41:58
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Overread wrote:
Honestly just sounds like a local problem with your local gamers into 40K.
Sometimes you can get that were enough of a core of the local group dominates one game so that the "game" becomes an attitude of play and other types of player either leave outright or drift into other games.
You can change it, but it often requires bringing the people to you; starting your own 40K/Killteam games and promoting your style of play enough that either some of the current players shift attitudes or new people join in
Nah, that ain't a local problem. On many media online I have seen people use the "I am not a WAAC tournament player, who hates fun" after they were found out to be playing rules wrong or trying to pull illegal moves, units/gear combinations. I don't know when and how it started, but GW games are unique in the maner of somehow winning, playing with proper rules etc somehow being equated to anti fun. Fun is somehow doing wierd stuff, leting people do +X" charges, doing wrong moves or even bringing bad armies and expecting that others will do it too. No other table game is like that. And I think, GW can get away with many things, because some people exist who claim that the game should be played that way. And reading some old articles from old GW designers, some of them sound as if they hated the very idea of a game being a game, point costs, clear rules etc. Everything is suppose to be random dice rolls, changing rules in the middle of the game etc. It is as wierd as the people that claim that it is impossible to have a good game of w40k, if the armies, table etc are not painted. And when you check what someone of them accept as painted is the way they paint stuff, and the same people will scoff at even professional spanish or russian painters, same way they do at dudes playing grey models
|
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/15 11:45:55
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Boom! Leman Russ Commander
|
Karol wrote:
And reading some old articles from old GW designers, some of them sound as if they hated the very idea of a game being a game, point costs, clear rules etc. Everything is suppose to be random dice rolls, changing rules in the middle of the game etc. It is as wierd as the people that claim that it is impossible to have a good game of w40k, if the armies, table etc are not painted. And when you check what someone of them accept as painted is the way they paint stuff, and the same people will scoff at even professional spanish or russian painters, same way they do at dudes playing grey models
Sorry, can you elaborate, I didn't understand what you meant? Do you mean this is a an aspect of the strangeness of 40k player base?
|
40k: Necrons/Imperial Guard/ Space marines
Bolt Action: Germany/ USA
Project Z.
"The Dakka Dive Bar is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure you might not find a good amasec but they grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for ratlings being thrown through windows and you'll be alright." Ciaphas Cain, probably. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/15 11:55:42
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Well I come from a background of sports. I went to a sports middle and highschool, and I am at a sports university right now. To me, if a game has rules, then they are to be followed. Good or bad, you do that. The fix to a games problems should be "If you don't know how a rules interaction works, just roll a dice". I have sports history, I remember matches in various sport types ending with a roll of a coin. Riots would break out over such game fixes. Especialy in team sports like football or rugby. I can't imagine how someone could be paid with money, allowed to have their own projects, shaped the games not for the game quality , game players or game fans, but just for themselfs and then deliver what GW delivers. It goes beyond lazy, and enters the realm of , I can't explain it to myself. It is either not carrying, hubris, maybe some mental malfunction in understanding what games are. I can't remember people faces, maybe there are people who don't understand that games are better with clear, good or bad, rules systems. But then why hire such people. I get someone doing something one time, two time, maybe three times wrong. But some of the designers at GW have worked their for decades. And they are doing the same things over and over again. It drives away people from the game, makes player retention in GW games horrible. The company functions on sunk costs of players, nostalgia and being a monopolist. I get that the job of GW execs, unlike the GW design team, is to make money and not a good game. But good games that are fun to play sell better. Warmahordes when it had good rules and was fun to play, became an actual competitor to some GW games.
|
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/15 12:00:30
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Not as Good as a Minion
|
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
Sorry, can you elaborate, I didn't understand what you meant? Do you mean this is a an aspect of the strangeness of 40k player base?
it is more about how the game is written not the playerbase as some designers preferred a more RPG like rulebook were players make up their own story and the rules being open so everyone can adapt them to fit their needs and less being a game were the rules are taken literally
and this causes problem with the playerbase as some take this as advice to be more relaxed while others see this as additional restriction to play the game (like your Transport colours must match the chapter you play and you cannot use your Blood Angles Rhinos as for your Ultramarine models but must have 2 sets of different painted Rhinos, otherwise this is cheating)
because this is a game with exact rules that must be followed (which it is not because it was never written that way)
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:A classic: this is a non competitive way of doing things, but sometimes if we can't decide we simply roll a dice and see.
Then when all is over we sit down, take all the rules and calmly re-read to see who got it correctly. Most funny scenario is when none of you actually caught it correctly.
it gets complicated when people insist on the English rules to have priority but cannot decide on how to interpret them when the translated rules are much clearer but are not supporting their point of view
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/08/15 12:01:57
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/15 12:21:56
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Boom! Leman Russ Commander
|
kodos wrote: Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
Sorry, can you elaborate, I didn't understand what you meant? Do you mean this is a an aspect of the strangeness of 40k player base?
it is more about how the game is written not the playerbase as some designers preferred a more RPG like rulebook were players make up their own story and the rules being open so everyone can adapt them to fit their needs and less being a game were the rules are taken literally
and this causes problem with the playerbase as some take this as advice to be more relaxed while others see this as additional restriction to play the game (like your Transport colours must match the chapter you play and you cannot use your Blood Angles Rhinos as for your Ultramarine models but must have 2 sets of different painted Rhinos, otherwise this is cheating)
because this is a game with exact rules that must be followed (which it is not because it was never written that way)
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
A classic: this is a non competitive way of doing things, but sometimes if we can't decide we simply roll a dice and see.
Then when all is over we sit down, take all the rules and calmly re-read to see who got it correctly. Most funny scenario is when none of you actually caught it correctly.
it gets complicated when people insist on the English rules to have priority but cannot decide on how to interpret them when the translated rules are much clearer but are not supporting their point of view
Ok I get you.
Yeah I pretty much think at least for most of its history it was a game of RPG larger sacale of some sort and was heavily emphasised as such even in the rulebooks. But then this is a matter of simple human polite relationship and making sure you and you're opponent agree on the terms before starting. Personnaly when playing 40k I like pouring house rules in it as we play fully for the lore and tories but we al are okay with it. But playing BA we all agree on strictly following the rules and play in a more competitive fashion.
I would say this looks like bad faith to me. But then again in theory the best way to solve it is to make it clear at the beginning which version is the one you use.
Which boils down to: remember its a game and be a nice pal so everyone has a good time. Automatically Appended Next Post: Karol wrote:Well I come from a background of sports. I went to a sports middle and highschool, and I am at a sports university right now. To me, if a game has rules, then they are to be followed. Good or bad, you do that. The fix to a games problems should be "If you don't know how a rules interaction works, just roll a dice". I have sports history, I remember matches in various sport types ending with a roll of a coin. Riots would break out over such game fixes. Especialy in team sports like football or rugby. I can't imagine how someone could be paid with money, allowed to have their own projects, shaped the games not for the game quality , game players or game fans, but just for themselfs and then deliver what GW delivers. It goes beyond lazy, and enters the realm of , I can't explain it to myself. It is either not carrying, hubris, maybe some mental malfunction in understanding what games are. I can't remember people faces, maybe there are people who don't understand that games are better with clear, good or bad, rules systems. But then why hire such people. I get someone doing something one time, two time, maybe three times wrong. But some of the designers at GW have worked their for decades. And they are doing the same things over and over again. It drives away people from the game, makes player retention in GW games horrible. The company functions on sunk costs of players, nostalgia and being a monopolist. I get that the job of GW execs, unlike the GW design team, is to make money and not a good game. But good games that are fun to play sell better. Warmahordes when it had good rules and was fun to play, became an actual competitor to some GW games.
Also a lot clearer. I agree with you at heart.
However I think 40k's design at least for a long time was meant to be more or less tinkered with on purpose. But even tinkering you are right, you must establish clear conventions about what the new or modified rules are otherwise it can't be fair game.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2023/08/15 12:30:48
40k: Necrons/Imperial Guard/ Space marines
Bolt Action: Germany/ USA
Project Z.
"The Dakka Dive Bar is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure you might not find a good amasec but they grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for ratlings being thrown through windows and you'll be alright." Ciaphas Cain, probably. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/15 16:16:30
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Dudeface wrote:
What has directly "abused" you? What has been said that requires you to be aggressive and manipulative? Justify the lack of civility on a personal level please.
Anyone who's insulting me, or a group I belong to collectively.
Dudeface wrote:So you might say you just described someone who wins at all costs? Maybe you need to redefine your own terms.
CAAC is inherently derivative of the WAAC terminology, and defines people who have a similarly unsportsmanlike attitude but make a point of not identifying as tournament players etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote:
CAAC is about shaming competitive mindsets and enforcing game restrictions to enforce a particular play style to manipulate a local meta into being "casual" (green bit). TFG is someone who will be a harsh misleading person that will pick on and beat down people at their club to be the big fish in the little pond. WAAC is someone who will manipulate, cheat or abuse circumstances to ensure they win(red bit).
If you're telling me that someone is forcing certain comps and playstyles to club seals and get easier wins whilst telling people that it's fine because they're casual (lying), they're doing all they can to win at any cost.
All of this is largely irrelevant to the topic at hand and tbh it's absurd that someone is so offended at a mislabelling of a behaviour that wasn't targeted at anyone that they feel the need to break rule 1 and make a personal attack.
It's not absurd, considering the level of acrimony on this forum. Automatically Appended Next Post: Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
Also a lot clearer. I agree with you at heart.
However I think 40k's design at least for a long time was meant to be more or less tinkered with on purpose. But even tinkering you are right, you must establish clear conventions about what the new or modified rules are otherwise it can't be fair game.
It's not just about the tinkering - a lot of it has to do with the idea that you're only "allowed" to win by the social hierarchy of the gaming group you're in, and players who learn the rules and play well are somehow evil, WAAC, doing it wrong, etc. It's a toxic viewpoint, but I and others have pointed out that it comes from GW.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2023/08/15 16:24:48
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/15 18:05:59
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Of course ones wins are always baseed on superior skills, coolness, maturity, combined with a high level of personal culture and the understanding of the hobby. While everyone else who isn't a friend, is just an donkey-cave WAAC. Even if your list are different by one unit choice. Automatically Appended Next Post: kodos wrote:
it gets complicated when people insist on the English rules to have priority but cannot decide on how to interpret them when the translated rules are much clearer but are not supporting their point of view
Logic and GW rules should either not be used as a combo or used very carefuly. I am still waiting for GW to explain why the GK land raiders have different stats, then marine ones.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/08/15 18:08:15
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/15 18:09:00
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord
|
Hecaton wrote:Dudeface wrote:
What has directly "abused" you? What has been said that requires you to be aggressive and manipulative? Justify the lack of civility on a personal level please.
Anyone who's insulting me, or a group I belong to collectively.
So you're a particular member of the group owning 30 desolation marines? Honestly it's clear to pretty much everyone else no insult was intended.
Dudeface wrote:
All of this is largely irrelevant to the topic at hand and tbh it's absurd that someone is so offended at a mislabelling of a behaviour that wasn't targeted at anyone that they feel the need to break rule 1 and make a personal attack.
It's not absurd, considering the level of acrimony on this forum.
Maybe there'd be less acrimony if instead of breaking forum rules and trying to bait arguments, you offered helpful corrective comments to educate the people using the wrong terminology?
But yes, an obvious mistake in terminology isn't worth attacking people, or do you just pick arguments with anyone you meet who doesn't perfectly align with your beliefs in life?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/15 18:19:25
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Boom! Leman Russ Commander
|
Hecaton wrote:
It's not just about the tinkering - a lot of it has to do with the idea that you're only "allowed" to win by the social hierarchy of the gaming group you're in, and players who learn the rules and play well are somehow evil, WAAC, doing it wrong, etc. It's a toxic viewpoint, but I and others have pointed out that it comes from GW.
That would indeed be a toxic group and I'd run from it.
But since it's not a hardware you can't change and has a big deal of RPG elements, I think it stands within reason to add or modifiy things. However, the mandatory conditions are that everyone should be aware and agree. If someone does not agree to pmay on house rules then you ought to return to normal rules because even if you like it less you play on a ground that is equal for both and clearly defined.
To sum it up, I don't see inherent problem to modifying or houseruling, since it's but a game, however with strict limitations of good faith.
Again, not that I don't do it on BA, for exemple, considering it is not RPG tinted at all and a totally enjoyable set of rules to my our taste. But I know people who houseruled it to lean on historical accuracy. However if you ask them to play by normal rules they either decline politly or play you with the normal set of rules. That's a good exemple of how you can do it. I feel.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/08/15 18:32:54
40k: Necrons/Imperial Guard/ Space marines
Bolt Action: Germany/ USA
Project Z.
"The Dakka Dive Bar is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure you might not find a good amasec but they grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for ratlings being thrown through windows and you'll be alright." Ciaphas Cain, probably. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/15 18:27:24
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Dudeface wrote:
So you're a particular member of the group owning 30 desolation marines? Honestly it's clear to pretty much everyone else no insult was intended.
No, it can be extended outward to anyone who adds units to their army based on role rather than aesthetics.
Dudeface wrote:
Maybe there'd be less acrimony if instead of breaking forum rules and trying to bait arguments, you offered helpful corrective comments to educate the people using the wrong terminology?
Nah, the acrimony starts when people throw insults around and then don't want any of the smoke. It's not breaking forum rules to call that out, as much as some mods might disagree. Automatically Appended Next Post: Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
That would indeed be a toxic group and I'd run from it.
But since it's not a hardware you can't change and has a big deal of RPG elements, I think it stands within reason to add or modifiy things. However, the mandatory conditions are that everyone should be aware and agree. If someone does not agree to pmay on house rules then you ought to return to normal rules because even if you like it less you play on a ground that is equal for both and clearly defined.
To sum it up, I don't see inherent problem to modifying or houseruling, since it's but a game, however with strict limitations of good faith.
Again, not that I don't do it on BA, for exemple, considering it is not RPG tinted at all and a totally enjoyable set of rules to my our taste. But I know people who houseruled it to lean on historical accuracy. However if you ask them to play by normal rules they either decline politly or play you with the normal set of rules. That's a good exemple of how you can do it. I feel.
There's nothing inherently wrong with houseruling, I'd agree. In fact it can be a good thing - there were a few house rules for the last Crusade I ran, but I put that out in the open from the beginning.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/08/15 18:30:23
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/15 18:33:45
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Boom! Leman Russ Commander
|
Finally something we agree on! Good!
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/08/15 18:35:41
40k: Necrons/Imperial Guard/ Space marines
Bolt Action: Germany/ USA
Project Z.
"The Dakka Dive Bar is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure you might not find a good amasec but they grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for ratlings being thrown through windows and you'll be alright." Ciaphas Cain, probably. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/15 18:34:42
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Problem with house rules, is that they are hard to balance in larger groups, very bad to implement for pick up games. And can get REALLY bad, if someone uses their local status to buff one or two armies. And it somehow never happens to bad armies. It is always stuff like skimers on rooftops being invisible from the ground floor, buildings with no doors or windows full of models that can out of LoS shot be impossible to charge etc.
|
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/15 19:07:34
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Boom! Leman Russ Commander
|
Karol wrote:Problem with house rules, is that they are hard to balance in larger groups, very bad to implement for pick up games. And can get REALLY bad, if someone uses their local status to buff one or two armies. And it somehow never happens to bad armies. It is always stuff like skimers on rooftops being invisible from the ground floor, buildings with no doors or windows full of models that can out of LoS shot be impossible to charge etc.
In my group, I said it elsewhere I think in this topic but we actually managed to bang heads together and come up a somewhat improved ork dex  Not perfect nor anything but we finally made something quite enjoyable. Most of our rules are otherwise aimed at making the game quickier or simpler and adding profiles or rules to represent things related to a scenario.
In larger groups it's way trickier. the only way I can think of is to surrender the rule making to a single GM, but you need to trust him and moreover it only goes well with RPG like play. I am a 40k scenario player myself, so again, I'd gladly give in to this, but it must be a consensus that pleases all parties involved.
For pick up game, I'm quite sure it's not really possible if you're not long time opponents. Apart maybe from a few tweaks to fasten gameplay, otherwise it's safer to stick to the original rules. Then rule inteprretation comes into play and there trouble sarts because both think (or pretend) they abide by the rules why knowingly or unwittingly bending them one way or another. Apart from the dice resulotion method, I really can't think of a way to actually overcome it other than good faith on both parties.
What =ever the case, the game will always rely on all people involved to behave friendly and honestly.
|
40k: Necrons/Imperial Guard/ Space marines
Bolt Action: Germany/ USA
Project Z.
"The Dakka Dive Bar is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure you might not find a good amasec but they grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for ratlings being thrown through windows and you'll be alright." Ciaphas Cain, probably. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/15 23:54:14
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
It all gets a bit fiery when eve I look away from Thai thread for day.
Honestly Hecaton, no insult was intended and certainly none directed at anyone in here.
House rules, these are good but. Rely on a smaller distinct group of players that can all agree them it’s not a solution for a lot of people who play in pick up games etc.
Today I took my ORKS out for the first time in 10th and thoroughly enjoyed it.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/16 00:01:31
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Rogue Grot Kannon Gunna
|
Not true at all. A major part of why I left X-Wing was getting tired of CAAC types that would get really salty if I insisted on measuring range/arc and wouldn't let them take shots when they were a bit short or tried to place ships accurately when they bumped instead of just letting them drop it kind of close to where it should be. I can't even count the number of times I've seen "fly casual" used to complain about playing by the rules instead of its original meaning of "don't be a dick".
And then there's MTG, where god help you if you try to join an EDH group without carefully negotiating the exact power level of the decks you're allowed to play and all of the unwritten rules you're expected to follow for "fun". If you think 40k has a problem with people complaining about competitive lists try playing "casual" MTG. You'll wish you hadn't.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/16 00:08:57
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
UK
|
ThePaintingOwl wrote:
And then there's MTG, where god help you if you try to join an EDH group without carefully negotiating the exact power level of the decks you're allowed to play and all of the unwritten rules you're expected to follow for "fun". If you think 40k has a problem with people complaining about competitive lists try playing "casual" MTG. You'll wish you hadn't.
Best time I had with MTG was when I started at uni with a bunch of other people; we were all newbs and we were all mostly going at it the same way we did with other collectable card things as kids. Granted we had more disposable income so we could buy more packs, but in general we were in the "buy packs, build decks, have fun" avenue. The few pros (who converted us) regularly beat us and took a different approach, but it worked out for the most part because there was a core with the same attitude and approach.
But yeah MTG can be hard, partly because the variation in power between a "built it from random cards intermediate" deck and "built it from cherry picked cards online/vast numbers of packs bought and either at a high skill level or copied a high skill level deck) is basically where the lower tier deck only wins on the upper tier one breaking because of shuffling.
Skill and investment variation in MTG can be utterly vast. Of course the matches are also often fast (esp compared to wargames) so in a large enough group if you've got a spread of skills and such it can even out because the different groups focus on each other. Small groups its much harder.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/16 02:28:30
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader
|
Sure, but taking the best units in a codex isn't WAAC, it's just using your brain for the listbuilding stage rather than solely after dice start rolling. I wouldn't intentionally take a slower car to a race, a less accurate gun to a shooting competition, etc. Why would I take a less useful unit in my army if I have better choices available? Automatically Appended Next Post: ThePaintingOwl wrote:
WAAC is inherently an attack. Sometimes it's an accurate attack, like when you're talking about the guy that moves his models an extra inch when you aren't looking or cheats with dice. That is a clear example of Win At ALL Costs behavior. But someone who merely prioritizes in-game performance over aesthetics is not trying to win at ALL costs, they merely have different priorities from you. By calling them WAAC you are putting them in the same category as the cheaters, the seal clubbers, etc, and saying that their choice of priorities is equivalent to all of that.
To the garagehammer and fluffhammer advocates, anyone actually thinking about winning games while deciding whether to include a unit in their list is " WAAC". It's also comforting when you get tabled turn 3, you don't have to admit your misplays or do any self reflection on the fact that you haven't updated your army since 2005, you can just call the other guy " WAAC" and walk away feeling morally superior.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/08/16 02:31:16
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/16 03:47:04
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
Annandale, VA
|
Toofast wrote:
Sure, but taking the best units in a codex isn't WAAC, it's just using your brain for the listbuilding stage rather than solely after dice start rolling. I wouldn't intentionally take a slower car to a race, a less accurate gun to a shooting competition, etc. Why would I take a less useful unit in my army if I have better choices available?
Yeah, I never understood the idea that in order to play casually you need to just... slap together a hodgepodge list based on some ephemeral theme or models you like, or something to that effect, without regard for how it will actually perform on the table. The objective of the game is to beat your opponent, and the listbuilding stage is where you devise the strategy that will accomplish that goal. It's hardly WAAC to pick units and synergies that will contribute towards winning the game.
I don't play competitively, I have no interest in tournaments. But I can look at a codex, see that a unit has crap rules, and avoid it because I know it won't be fun to use units that don't do what they're supposed to. Or on the flipside I can see a standout unit and take it to shore up an otherwise weak list, or just because it does the job it needs to. Is that really an awful mindset? The whole thing strikes me as like playing casual pick-up basketball with your buddies, and then getting mad when someone shows up wearing no-slip sneakers instead of just picking the footwear they like the look of. Maybe there's a point where someone's taking it too seriously and being unsportsmanlike or just not fun to play with, but just putting in their A-game for an inherently competitive activity shouldn't be it.
I liked Warmachine- as much as Page 5 got twisted to justify all kinds of douchebaggery, the game was up-front about fostering a give-it-your-best mentality rather than the inherently contradictory 'it's just a silly game who cares (but also here are elaborate win conditions and listbuilding systems that incentivize optimization)' of GW.
Of course, the good games are ones where the fluffy/thematic lists are also the ones that are effective on the tabletop, so following the history or fictional background yields an effective fighting force and a 'competitive' list and 'narrative' list are one and the same, but GW has never accomplished that and likely never will.
Edit: One of my favorite examples of a game that is emphatically not competitively-oriented is AK47 Republic. Die rolls before the battle determine what units you can take, how many points you get, and whether or not your troops abandon your cause or your opponent gets reinforced with a platoon of shiny new battle tanks. Once the battle starts, there's a plethora of further random events that can shape the outcome. In my experience it's the sort of game that most 40K players (even casual ones) run away from screaming, because it does not have any pretense to providing a fair fight. The contrast to 40K really shows how many core conceits of the 40K gameplay experience are geared towards a fair, balanced, predictable, competitive game despite the prevalence of casual or narrative-oriented players.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/08/16 04:15:33
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/16 04:55:25
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Not as Good as a Minion
|
Toofast wrote:Sure, but taking the best units in a codex isn't WAAC, it's just using your brain for the listbuilding stage rather than solely after dice start rolling. I wouldn't intentionally take a slower car to a race, a less accurate gun to a shooting competition, etc. Why would I take a less useful unit in my army if I have better choices available?
because GW said so
hence all the discussion is going around because the company blames the players and not the game
and some gamers believe this and turn it ti 11, so the game is as balanced as a game could be (which is a lie but for some GW marketing is the only truth) and it is up to players for everyone to have fun
GW does not want to balanced the armies so they say the players have to chose an appropriate list that is balanced against a weaker army otherwise you are a TFG WAAC that wants to kill the fun
and this is were we are and why people thing that "matched play" is the same as "ultra competitive" and all tournament players are WAAC players simply because they take the best units in their army for a list
|
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/16 05:25:05
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests
Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.
|
catbarf wrote:The objective of the game is to beat your opponent, and the listbuilding stage is where you devise the strategy that will accomplish that goal. It's hardly WAAC to pick units and synergies that will contribute towards winning the game. "But I don't play to win!"
The amount of people I've heard repeat that line over the past decade makes me really wonder.
And it never made any sense to me in the first place. I mean, no one plays to lose, and no one plays to draw (forcing a draw on the other hand), so of course everyone plays to win.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/16 05:48:53
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Boom! Leman Russ Commander
|
kodos wrote:Toofast wrote:Sure, but taking the best units in a codex isn't WAAC, it's just using your brain for the listbuilding stage rather than solely after dice start rolling. I wouldn't intentionally take a slower car to a race, a less accurate gun to a shooting competition, etc. Why would I take a less useful unit in my army if I have better choices available?
because GW said so
hence all the discussion is going around because the company blames the players and not the game
and some gamers believe this and turn it ti 11, so the game is as balanced as a game could be (which is a lie but for some GW marketing is the only truth) and it is up to players for everyone to have fun
GW does not want to balanced the armies so they say the players have to chose an appropriate list that is balanced against a weaker army otherwise you are a TFG WAAC that wants to kill the fun
and this is were we are and why people thing that "matched play" is the same as "ultra competitive" and all tournament players are WAAC players simply because they take the best units in their army for a list
I think you kind of nailed an important issue on that particular part of the topic.
Having a RPG tinted and thus thinkable Game (sorry for repeating) is NOT mutually exclusive with having a balanced game to start with.
For that reason, even with the way I see 40k as I expressed above, I find no excuse to GW for not trying to balance the game. Achieving perfect balance in a game with such variety of rules might not be easy, granted. But when you live of the production of a game you must try to make it as balance as you can, it's what customers pay you for.
So while I agree that a game with such a setting as 40k, initially built as a sandbox, should be encouraged and allowed to houserule, it does under no circumstances excuse their level of no gals given regarding balance.
People should make this difference and ask more of GW, even if this light be a fool's errant.
|
40k: Necrons/Imperial Guard/ Space marines
Bolt Action: Germany/ USA
Project Z.
"The Dakka Dive Bar is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure you might not find a good amasec but they grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for ratlings being thrown through windows and you'll be alright." Ciaphas Cain, probably. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/16 05:57:17
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
catbarf wrote:
Edit: One of my favorite examples of a game that is emphatically not competitively-oriented is AK47 Republic. Die rolls before the battle determine what units you can take, how many points you get, and whether or not your troops abandon your cause or your opponent gets reinforced with a platoon of shiny new battle tanks. Once the battle starts, there's a plethora of further random events that can shape the outcome. In my experience it's the sort of game that most 40K players (even casual ones) run away from screaming, because it does not have any pretense to providing a fair fight. The contrast to 40K really shows how many core conceits of the 40K gameplay experience are geared towards a fair, balanced, predictable, competitive game despite the prevalence of casual or narrative-oriented players.
AK47 republic is good stuff. Huge fan of how that works lol. But I'd never play it with someone I wasn't already acquainted with, they wouldn't get it.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/16 10:21:00
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
H.B.M.C. wrote: catbarf wrote:The objective of the game is to beat your opponent, and the listbuilding stage is where you devise the strategy that will accomplish that goal. It's hardly WAAC to pick units and synergies that will contribute towards winning the game. "But I don't play to win!"
The amount of people I've heard repeat that line over the past decade makes me really wonder.
And it never made any sense to me in the first place. I mean, no one plays to lose, and no one plays to draw (forcing a draw on the other hand), so of course everyone plays to win.
That’s really not true, now to make something clear before I start to avoid any confusion here, I am not a ”casual” player I have invest thousands of pounds and untold hours into this hobby over 30+ years, t takes up huge amounts of my time and effort. But I am what I like to call a narrative player. It is ALL about the story.
So when I was playing my game yesterday my mate and I were both playing to achieve the objectives the narrative had set out but were both playing them in ways appropriate to our armies and in a fun way for each other “Winning” was not the object of the game but telling the story was.
In the end he “won” the game on VPs but the narrative outcome was much more interesting, he had achieved his goals but my army had had a very crucial narrative shift with an old stalwart warboss having been shown up by a newcomer and their being a shift in power in my ORKS.
During and after the battle we have discussions about what is happening narratively, what the story is. This takes as long as the battle most the time. We also discuss how things went tactically, how we played and what mistakes we made etc (mostly about learning the new edition at the minute).
Now this is very nuanced and different from how you would play in a pick up game for sure and it isn’t how everyone plays but we have known each other for a long time and been playing for a long time so we can play this RP style of game. Neither of us know the rules inside out and there’s an awful lot of going back to do things we forgot or suddenly remembering a rule the army or unit has that would have helped but two turns after the event. We would get battered by anyone who knows the rules well and is setting out purely to win the game so wouldn’t let us go back or re roll a shooting with the lethal hits we just remembered we had. But that is not how we do it.
So we don’t play to win. Our aims when we play are in this order of priority; BOTH have a fun experience, use our collections (as in we will pick units we won’t to use for lots of reasons, such as they are a new model, just painted or they are just cool), add to our narrative in universe. We don’t pull gotcha moments on each other, we discuss army composition while making our lists together so we can make our lists fit each others, if either of us are bringing something potentially powerful we let the other know so we can be prepared and not have it dominate the game in a boring way and we discuss any tricks or special abilities our units have.
There are others like me out there too, we don’t all play to win. It’s a big big hobby with lots of different motivations for playing a game.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/16 11:20:25
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Boom! Leman Russ Commander
|
Funny Andy, seems you play the same as we do with my group.
I totally understand you and that's really why I play 40k: to tell a story. It matters not if I win or lose, though I try to make intelligent battlefield choices of course. What matters is that it was fun and that we collectively push our imagined story further.
If I play for the competitive aspect, the "battle of wits" aspect, then I play Bolt Action or Project Z. 40k is too poorly balanced to make this take on the hobby worthwhile in my opinion.
But this is my way of enjoying this game and setting. I'd say it with a catch all phrase: there are as many ways to enjoy the game as there are players.
|
40k: Necrons/Imperial Guard/ Space marines
Bolt Action: Germany/ USA
Project Z.
"The Dakka Dive Bar is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure you might not find a good amasec but they grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for ratlings being thrown through windows and you'll be alright." Ciaphas Cain, probably. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/16 12:06:25
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Loyal Necron Lychguard
|
catbarf wrote:Toofast wrote:
Sure, but taking the best units in a codex isn't WAAC, it's just using your brain for the listbuilding stage rather than solely after dice start rolling. I wouldn't intentionally take a slower car to a race, a less accurate gun to a shooting competition, etc. Why would I take a less useful unit in my army if I have better choices available?
Yeah, I never understood the idea that in order to play casually you need to just... slap together a hodgepodge list based on some ephemeral theme or models you like, or something to that effect, without regard for how it will actually perform on the table. The objective of the game is to beat your opponent, and the listbuilding stage is where you devise the strategy that will accomplish that goal. It's hardly WAAC to pick units and synergies that will contribute towards winning the game.
Because my casual Votann list has no chance of beating your competitive Eldar list, so for me to have fun I need you not to build a competitive Eldar list. Slapping together a hodgepodge list is sometimes not even good enough, taking a hodgepodge list for the worst faction might be so bad that it's basically impossible for most factions to roughly match the power level and you might need to deliberately take a few overcosted Eldar units to power down your list if most of the datasheets are undercosted since a hodgepodge Eldar list might still generally be far better than a regular Votann list. If you want to play casually with a competitive list you can just say that, but it's not really a mystery why people don't want to deal with the unfiltered garbage that is GW balance.
Great if you can beat Votann in the list building phase with Eldar, congratulations, do you want a sandwich, high five or video proving how you stomped a casual Votann list with a competitive Eldar list? Now that's taking things to the extreme and I've come across casual players that were obnoxiously whining about my list, I get the hate towards those specific people, but there are tonnes of casual players that are pretty large with allowing you to take whatever list you like as long as you aren't trying to club seals.
Building a list with no restrictions is kind of silly, how often are you going to find a list that is better than a tournament list? Once, I think I came up with a list that was superior to what was being run in tournaments. Obviously, there's more to list building than trying to win, you could insist on including some number of datasheets or avoid bringing too much of something to forge a narrative or to see if something works.
Andykp wrote: H.B.M.C. wrote: catbarf wrote:The objective of the game is to beat your opponent, and the listbuilding stage is where you devise the strategy that will accomplish that goal. It's hardly WAAC to pick units and synergies that will contribute towards winning the game. "But I don't play to win!"
The amount of people I've heard repeat that line over the past decade makes me really wonder.
And it never made any sense to me in the first place. I mean, no one plays to lose, and no one plays to draw (forcing a draw on the other hand), so of course everyone plays to win.
That’s really not true, now to make something clear before I start to avoid any confusion here, I am not a ”casual” player I have invest thousands of pounds and untold hours into this hobby over 30+ years, t takes up huge amounts of my time and effort. But I am what I like to call a narrative player. It is ALL about the story.
So when I was playing my game yesterday my mate and I were both playing to achieve the objectives the narrative had set out but were both playing them in ways appropriate to our armies and in a fun way for each other “Winning” was not the object of the game but telling the story was.
In the end he “won” the game on VPs but the narrative outcome was much more interesting, he had achieved his goals but my army had had a very crucial narrative shift with an old stalwart warboss having been shown up by a newcomer and their being a shift in power in my ORKS.
During and after the battle we have discussions about what is happening narratively, what the story is. This takes as long as the battle most the time. We also discuss how things went tactically, how we played and what mistakes we made etc (mostly about learning the new edition at the minute).
Now this is very nuanced and different from how you would play in a pick up game for sure and it isn’t how everyone plays but we have known each other for a long time and been playing for a long time so we can play this RP style of game. Neither of us know the rules inside out and there’s an awful lot of going back to do things we forgot or suddenly remembering a rule the army or unit has that would have helped but two turns after the event. We would get battered by anyone who knows the rules well and is setting out purely to win the game so wouldn’t let us go back or re roll a shooting with the lethal hits we just remembered we had. But that is not how we do it.
So we don’t play to win. Our aims when we play are in this order of priority; BOTH have a fun experience, use our collections (as in we will pick units we won’t to use for lots of reasons, such as they are a new model, just painted or they are just cool), add to our narrative in universe. We don’t pull gotcha moments on each other, we discuss army composition while making our lists together so we can make our lists fit each others, if either of us are bringing something potentially powerful we let the other know so we can be prepared and not have it dominate the game in a boring way and we discuss any tricks or special abilities our units have.
There are others like me out there too, we don’t all play to win. It’s a big big hobby with lots of different motivations for playing a game.
If winning doesn't matter then why does your objectives have VP? Just try to achieve the objectives you find the most narratively satisfying as much as possible while trying to deny the objectives your opponent has that seem most narratively satisfying for you to deny him.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/16 12:17:30
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord
|
vict0988 wrote:
If winning doesn't matter then why does your objectives have VP? Just try to achieve the objectives you find the most narratively satisfying as much as possible while trying to deny the objectives your opponent has that seem most narratively satisfying for you to deny him.
The first half of your post was 100% spot on btw, just hopping in for this bit. I think you're almost there, people do that but with VP to use the rules. The "I don't care about winning" part comes in when the Ork player decides to go krump the warlord personally despite it not being efficient, or means abandoning a primary to fulfil the secondary - they're trying to win and score VP, but doing it in a matter they consider fun/honourable. It's incredibly subjective and not for everyone, but usually the "I don't care about winning" means that fulfilling a good time with their opponent or having a good narrative alongside a close game their way (ideally without forcing it on others) is the key.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/16 12:45:29
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Andykp wrote: H.B.M.C. wrote: catbarf wrote:The objective of the game is to beat your opponent, and the listbuilding stage is where you devise the strategy that will accomplish that goal. It's hardly WAAC to pick units and synergies that will contribute towards winning the game. "But I don't play to win!"
The amount of people I've heard repeat that line over the past decade makes me really wonder.
And it never made any sense to me in the first place. I mean, no one plays to lose, and no one plays to draw (forcing a draw on the other hand), so of course everyone plays to win.
That’s really not true, now to make something clear before I start to avoid any confusion here, I am not a ”casual” player I have invest thousands of pounds and untold hours into this hobby over 30+ years, t takes up huge amounts of my time and effort. But I am what I like to call a narrative player. It is ALL about the story.
So when I was playing my game yesterday my mate and I were both playing to achieve the objectives the narrative had set out but were both playing them in ways appropriate to our armies and in a fun way for each other “Winning” was not the object of the game but telling the story was.
In the end he “won” the game on VPs but the narrative outcome was much more interesting, he had achieved his goals but my army had had a very crucial narrative shift with an old stalwart warboss having been shown up by a newcomer and their being a shift in power in my ORKS.
During and after the battle we have discussions about what is happening narratively, what the story is. This takes as long as the battle most the time. We also discuss how things went tactically, how we played and what mistakes we made etc (mostly about learning the new edition at the minute).
Now this is very nuanced and different from how you would play in a pick up game for sure and it isn’t how everyone plays but we have known each other for a long time and been playing for a long time so we can play this RP style of game. Neither of us know the rules inside out and there’s an awful lot of going back to do things we forgot or suddenly remembering a rule the army or unit has that would have helped but two turns after the event. We would get battered by anyone who knows the rules well and is setting out purely to win the game so wouldn’t let us go back or re roll a shooting with the lethal hits we just remembered we had. But that is not how we do it.
So we don’t play to win. Our aims when we play are in this order of priority; BOTH have a fun experience, use our collections (as in we will pick units we won’t to use for lots of reasons, such as they are a new model, just painted or they are just cool), add to our narrative in universe. We don’t pull gotcha moments on each other, we discuss army composition while making our lists together so we can make our lists fit each others, if either of us are bringing something potentially powerful we let the other know so we can be prepared and not have it dominate the game in a boring way and we discuss any tricks or special abilities our units have.
There are others like me out there too, we don’t all play to win. It’s a big big hobby with lots of different motivations for playing a game.
First off, I see nothing wrong with how you are playing. Whatever way you play where you and your opponent have fun is the right way to play. However, I don't think you are really playing Warhammer 40K the game. More like you are playing a game with Warhammer 40K miniatures. You could literally pull any edition off the shelf--any TT ruleset for that matter--and have just have about the same fun time. I mean, you'd probably have an even better time adapting Fate to the TT.
So, I wonder, why so invested in a discussion about the meta for the new edition? Meta is crunch. It's for people playing the rules as written. As soon as you start playing by narrative fiat, all meta goes out he window. You might like the current edition, but I don't think GW could put out any ruleset that you couldn't have fun with due to the way you play the game.
(also lots of competitive people will let you rollback actions in games so long as you haven't moved too far ahead and it doesn't break the game state)
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/16 12:57:26
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
For me, I don’t play to win. It’s for fun, but the fun is doing the objective set by the game.
A narrative experience doesn’t normally mean you just wing it, you craft an objective that leads to that.
A last stand is the same as wining, how long can you last with the resources you have against what ever is set.
The end of halo reach has you fight an endless mode, ending with your loss.
But I think most people playing reach will fight it out.
Often I think the biggest reason we don’t really see much good narrative in 40K, is that the rules kinda suck for it.
They often have many rules that pull away from each other, balance is all over the place.
Making narrative within a meta more strained, with even now the game seeming massively lethal.
It’s not that you can’t, it’s that a lot of casual players will find it out of reach.
If your game time is a few hours a month, unless you are able to spend a few hours online before each game.
That default is just going to be the norm, and GW should be working on that.
It helps narrative and casual play a lot, even if the objective itself is have fun.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/16 13:09:42
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Loyal Necron Lychguard
|
Apple fox wrote:For me, I don’t play to win. It’s for fun, but the fun is doing the objective set by the game.
A narrative experience doesn’t normally mean you just wing it, you craft an objective that leads to that.
A last stand is the same as wining, how long can you last with the resources you have against what ever is set.
The end of halo reach has you fight an endless mode, ending with your loss.
But I think most people playing reach will fight it out.
Often I think the biggest reason we don’t really see much good narrative in 40K, is that the rules kinda suck for it.
They often have many rules that pull away from each other, balance is all over the place.
Making narrative within a meta more strained, with even now the game seeming massively lethal.
It’s not that you can’t, it’s that a lot of casual players will find it out of reach.
If your game time is a few hours a month, unless you are able to spend a few hours online before each game.
That default is just going to be the norm, and GW should be working on that.
It helps narrative and casual play a lot, even if the objective itself is have fun.
If you win the last stand battle by doing the chicken dance with your Terminators in your opponent's backfield then you have a badly designed mission for the kind of experience you're trying to get.
Dudeface wrote: vict0988 wrote:
If winning doesn't matter then why does your objectives have VP? Just try to achieve the objectives you find the most narratively satisfying as much as possible while trying to deny the objectives your opponent has that seem most narratively satisfying for you to deny him.
The first half of your post was 100% spot on btw, just hopping in for this bit. I think you're almost there, people do that but with VP to use the rules. The "I don't care about winning" part comes in when the Ork player decides to go krump the warlord personally despite it not being efficient, or means abandoning a primary to fulfil the secondary - they're trying to win and score VP, but doing it in a matter they consider fun/honourable. It's incredibly subjective and not for everyone, but usually the "I don't care about winning" means that fulfilling a good time with their opponent or having a good narrative alongside a close game their way (ideally without forcing it on others) is the key.
I don't agree, if your Warboss goes Krumpin and that leads you to losing the game because you have fewer VP than you need to win the game then you're disencentivised from doing it, which is bad game design for the purpose of having a narrative experience. But if you're not playing with defined numbers of VP for each thing, then you can just try to do them as much as possible and abandon the objectives when appropriate. Your opponent might not do any chicken dancing with their units and just destroy your units but then you'll have won the narrative victory of having completed your objectives. There is probably something I'm missing, I don't play narratively in 40k.
|
|
 |
 |
|
|