Don't hate the playa...hate the game.....

[DoctorEvil]

After reading Darkwynn's "End of the Leaf Blower" article, I got to thinking......Is the tournament format really the best way to play 40K?

Tournaments by their nature are meant to be competitive and producer a definitive winner.

40K is primarily and foremost a hobby. That hobby consists of several different aspects....modeling, painting, fluff....oh yeah, and a set of rules that allows us to play a game :) We want to have fun with it. Yes we want some competition, but it's designed for fun. I mean would Adepticon need a 100+ page FAQ is the 40K rules were designed for intense competition?

Are these two types of things compatible? Is a tournament the best way to play 40K? Is there a better format to play 40K in that can allow for some competition but focuses on the "spirit" of the game?

[Melissia]

I hate playas for entirely different reasons. But not players.

[eldargal]

Personally I think story driven battles/campaigns are the best way to play 40k, tournaments are just a different, highly competitive way of playing it. Certainly not the best, but easy enough to avoid if one doesn't like it. So enough of the "how dare darkwynn (or whomever it may be) make a competitive list for a competitive tournament /nerd rage."

[Lord Azaghul]

Are these two types of things compatible? Is a tournament the best way to play 40K? Is there a better format to play 40K in that can allow for some competition but focuses on the "spirit" of the game?

I do believe that GW has repeated stated that neither its 40k nor fantasy games are designed to be 'balanced' at the tourniment level.

Personally I think the game is enjoyable, or most enjoyable outside the toury setting. However I do enjoy the occational touriment to 'test' my skill, see how I rank up when there is a bit of pride on the line! I also think that living in the tourney scene is not a good thing, players that do tend to lose sight of the hobby aspects (and I'm talking Ard Boyz here). I tend to favor tourneys that reward players for the effort they put into hobbing aspects rather then reward the strict 'hulk smash' approach of the game.

I think touriments are just part of human nature, we like competiion, we want to know who's best, why else would sports be so popular? In that same hand, how many people group up playing casual games of football with friends an family, simply because 'its fun', the winner wasn't important - that day, but other days, tourniment days, the winner is important! I do believe each as its plays, and players/hobbiest should strive to acheive that balance that makes them comfortable!

[Melissia]

I don't really care about the hobby aspect to begin with. Just the fluff and the game aspects... I hate painting.

[DarkLink]

I don't really care about the hobby aspect to begin with. Just the fluff and the game aspects... I hate painting.

The end result of painting can be enjoyable enough, but I sure didn't complain when I bought my first army fully assembled and 90% painted from a friend who was quitting.

[BuFFo]

After reading Darkwynn's "End of the Leaf Blower" article, I got to thinking......Is the tournament format really the best way to play 40K?

NO

40k is a hobby that includes four main aspects; Gaming, Painting, Collecting and Converting

40k, and Fantasy, has never, 30 years, ever been considered a tourney style game. No matter what a tiny minority of it's 'hobbyists' believe.

It is true that 40k was streamlined back in 1998 to help accommodate the tourney scene, as tourney scenes are a form of advertisement, but that was the closest GW ever got to doing so. After 3rd, the TRUE FLUFF hobbyists cried and clawed until GW stopped printing Pamphlet Codices and returned to thick, colorful and fluff filled books..

Sorry Chaos Marines, this excludes you.

Out of the 30 something 40k players that frequent my local gaming store, only 2 that I personally know of even visit 40k websites for any reason. That is including me.

40k is best played for FUN. Not to see who wins, but to see how the battle goes.

40k is about the road, not the destination.

[Commissar Lewis]

I agree with Buffo, for once. 40k is about the actual game and seeing zany, borderline impossible things happen and having fun for a couple hours, in my opinion anyway.

Then again, some people may enjoy a grueling, hard-fought competitive battle. Nothing wrong with that.

[BuFFo]

Then again, some people may enjoy a grueling, hard-fought competitive battle. Nothing wrong with that.

Yup, this is why I am excited about 'Ard Boyz!! :D

[Polonius]

GW might claim that it's not designing a tournament ready game, but the codices over the last three years have all been far more balanced, varied, and tournament ready than at any time. Even GW knows that there are a lot of tournament gamers out there.

The percentage varies a lot depending on what you define as the sample size. Of their overall customers, meaning people that buy any GW products, tournament players are a pretty small percentage. But I think the number of people that simpy collect GW product without every playing is higher than most people realize. As a chunk of the overall player pool, I think it's a decent percentage, and are among the folks most likely to build new armies from scratch.

Anyway, think of it like this: poker is designed for gambling, yet you can enjoy a rousing game with poker chips or penny ante. By the same token, 40k can be enjoyed in ways not intended by the designers. Tournament 40k clearly isn't for everybody, but it's hard to go to Adepticon, the old GTs, or even a major RTT and not be impressed by the hobby skills that go into tournament armies.

[Mystery.Shadow]

A short story, pehaps a tad off-topic, but here it goes anyway:

I am a M.M.O. Addict. I used to plug more time in MMOs than log hours at work. I farmed, I even SOLD GOLD online (and at times MADE more money than at work!)

I've played them all. I still play one. And hell no, it does not have a 'W' (or two) in the acronym!

As population dwindles (as it always does in ALL MMOs) the price and demand for gold has dropped. It's still there, just not as rabid as it once was.

But after playing 20 hours in a MMO what do you have? For most people nothing but a 'waste of time'. Now, when I put 20 hours into a 40k model (or squad!), what do I have? AWESOMENESS!

If I'm like many (most) of you, you will place your 40k minis on pieces of terrain and make 'pew pew' noises as if you were six years old playing with toy soldiers. This is all fine and dandy, but I'm 40....

There's a lot more to this than just playing the game. Admit it, you read the novels too!

[RocketRollRebel]

I don't really care about the hobby aspect to begin with. Just the fluff and the game aspects... I hate painting.

so true. I like the end result and I make sure all my stuff is painted for tournys but very little is beyond table top level. I do really enjoy painting faces tho for some reason.

But yeah I love tournaments, hard score or soft score (had to add "score" to quell the 14 year old in me).
and I love the fluff and coming up with neat conversions but painting is bottom for me.

[scadugenga]

Personally I think story driven battles/campaigns are the best way to play 40k, tournaments are just a different, highly competitive way of playing it. Certainly not the best, but easy enough to avoid if one doesn't like it. So enough of the "how dare darkwynn (or whomever it may be) make a competitive list for a competitive tournament /nerd rage."

Definitely. I miss the "experience" system for campaigns which allowed units to gain "veteran" status. Made for more flavorful stories/battles.



... I hate painting.

QFT

[Mauglum.]

Hi all.
WHFB and 40k are developed as co-operative narrative based games.The PV in the book are supposed to be a ROUGH guide for pick up and play games.

Unfortunatley , GW is a minatures company so use every oportunity to sell thier minatures,' every customer is right', so have thier own views re-enforced by the sales staff.

In the wider wargame hobby the 2000+ different games allow players to find the game that suits them best, and so like minded players pick similar games.

EG 'I i'ant been shot yet Mum,' and 'Slaughterloo' attract a differnt type of gamer to 'Advanced Squad Leader ' and 'Wargame Rules 1786 to 1854.' ;)

GW infer the thier core games are right for every one , even though the rule sets are limited in thier scope.

IMO, even the games that ARE ballanced for compatative play are more fun when used in a narative campain.

To cater to the wide range of 40k gamers properly ,40k needs to have multiple rule sets optimised for each style of play.IMO.

TTFN
Mauglum.

[BuFFo]

To cater to the wide range of 40k gamers properly ,40k needs to have multiple rule sets optimised for each style of play.IMO.

40K has plenty of alternate rule sets. Cities of Death, Planet Strike, Apoc, Battle Missions...

[joescalise]

I don't really care about the hobby aspect to begin with. Just the fluff and the game aspects... I hate painting.

I hate painting also, but what I hate more is when you go to a tournament and if your army is not painted great you cannot win overall general. I do not think we won WWII because of our clothes and how they looked.

[Paul]

I hate painting also, but what I hate more is when you go to a tournament and if your army is not painted great you cannot win overall general. I do not think we won WWII because of our clothes and how they looked.

No, but we also didn't win WWII with chainsaws, pistols, and jump-packs from space.

[joescalise]

No, but we also didn't win WWII with chainsaws, pistols, and jump-packs from space.

we had two of three

[Lerra]

I play 40k for the mental challenge. 40k to me is basically alternative chess with cool models, and the tournament scene is what keeps the game fresh and competitive. I enjoy painting too, but I consider that to be separate from the game aspect of 40k. I paint a lot of models that never make it onto a gaming table (display minis). I field a lot of unpainted minis because I don't care for the model and would rather paint some dwarves or something ;) Some people look down on how I enjoy the hobby, but ya know what? It's just a game. Whatever floats yer boat.

If I want to play a story-based game, I play Mordheim. It's one of the most fun games I've ever played, but it doesn't scratch that tactical itch because of the way the game is designed. It's about surviving more than winning, and it's much more luck based than 40k. Still, it's a great game to play alongside 40k.

[Mauglum.]

HI again.
@Buffo.
The expansions for 40k do not change the rules significantly enough to make them more suited to different play styles.

IMO 40k should have.
Competition rules set.(Generals )

Detailed narrative driven rules set.(Historians..)

Fun dice rolling game for ages 10 and up. (Casual .)

The gamer types are quite broard (and hopfuly innofencive.:D)

'Generals' want to play to win to prove who is best at playing the game.

'Historians' are more interested in the background of the game and the narrative.

'Casual;, just play for fun and are not overly bothered about winning or the background.

Currently 40k rules are suitable for 'casual play' .
An the other types of gamer are not realy supported .

Has this made my point any clearer?

TTFN

[Melissia]

The expansions for 40k do not change the rules significantly enough to make them more suited to different play styles.
Try playing a properly done Cities of Death game with a mid to long ranged massed shooty army.

You'll find that your statement is incorrect.

[DarkLink]

Try playing a properly done Cities of Death game with a mid to long ranged massed shooty army.

You'll find that your statement is incorrect.

Or almost any planetstrike game, for that matter. I mean, Grey Knights are actually really good in planetstrike!

[Zoa]

HI again.
@Buffo.
The expansions for 40k do not change the rules significantly enough to make them more suited to different play styles.

How many games of Cities of Death, Apocalypse and Planet Strike have you played? I've played enough of each to know your completely wrong.

Cities of Death heavily favors poor armour assault armies.

Who Planet Strike favors depends on who ends up being defender and attacker. My local Meta is heavily entrenched with treadhead IG players, any games they have rolled for defender was like pushing the I Win button.

Apocolypse should only be played with a 'GM' to decide a scenario and limit the strategic assets to what works in it anyway so I wont start out it.

[Mauglum.]

Hi all.
Sorry for the confusion.
My definition of play syle is not what army you take 'shooty -assaulty-hoard-elite.'

But playing to win excluding background conciderations.

Playing to background narrative .

Throwing some dice , and pushing minatures around while you get drunk:D.

NONE of the expansions for 40k addres the wide division in GW gamers 'ethos of playing'.

(Ill call it ethos of playing rther than play stles and confuse everyone again....:D)

GW want to sell to as many people as possible so do NOT clearly define the suitability or NOT of 40k to the different 'ethos of playing'.


TTFN

[Zoa]

Hi all.
Sorry for the confusion.
My definition of play syle is not what army you take 'shooty -assaulty-hoard-elite.'

But playing to win excluding background conciderations.

Playing to background narrative .

Throwing some dice , and pushing minatures around while you get drunk:D.

NONE of the expansions for 40k addres the wide division in GW gamers 'ethos of playing'.

(Ill call it ethos of playing rther than play stles and confuse everyone again....:D)

GW want to sell to as many people as possible so do NOT clearly define the suitability or NOT of 40k to the different 'ethos of playing'.


TTFN

I know what you mean now. Yeah there is no reason for GW to address these different ethos because as it is as long as they focus on writing the rules for the people who want tournament style play they are gold because the fluff players and the casual players will do their thing regardless, even if the game isn't suited for it.

[BuFFo]

HI again.
@Buffo.
The expansions for 40k do not change the rules significantly enough to make them more suited to different play styles.

Then you haven't played them.

[Melissia]

If you define "playstyle" as "play to win" or "don't play to win", then everyone in a tournament usually has the same playstyle.

Words fail me.

[DarkLink]

If you define "playstyle" as "play to win" or "don't play to win", then everyone in a tournament usually has the same playstyle.

Words fail me.

I think that while he's getting drunk he's too dazed to understand the difference between the different games:rolleyes:.

[Mauglum.]

HI again.
I appologised for using the wrong terminology.
As GW game devs DO NOT WRITE RULES WITH COMPETATIVE PLAY IN MIND!(Jervis and Alessio both say so;).)
Roughly ballanced for pick up and play games is not ''tournament'' suitablilty is it?

Then why would anyone belive that 40k and WHFB are suitable rule sets for ''compatative play''?

Because GW PLC want to sell Citadel Minatures to as may people as possible, and WAAC players are an easy target.;)

Everyone like tha idea of winning, BUT the importnace of winning is far higher priority to some gamers.

The objective of the game may be to win, the POINT of playing is to have fun.

Some gamers have 'fun' building a strong narrativley themed army, others just choose what they think is the most cost effective force as they only have fun when they win.

Gameplay for both would be best served by having seperate more focused rule sets.IMO.

(Using the term tounament and competative play in the context of strict competition to determine the best player.)

TTFN

[DarkLink]

HI again.
I appologised for using the wrong terminology.
As GW game devs DO NOT WRITE RULES WITH COMPETATIVE PLAY IN MIND!(Jervis and Alessio both say so;).)
Roughly ballanced for pick up and play games is not ''tournament'' suitablilty is it?

Then why would anyone belive that 40k and WHFB are suitable rule sets for ''compatative play''?

Because GW PLC want to sell Citadel Minatures to as may people as possible, and WAAC players are an easy target.;)

Everyone like tha idea of winning, BUT the importnace of winning is far higher priority to some gamers.

The objective of the game may be to win, the POINT of playing is to have fun.

Some gamers have 'fun' building a strong narrativley themed army, others just choose what they think is the most cost effective force as they only have fun when they win.

Gameplay for both would be best served by having seperate more focused rule sets.IMO.

(Using the term tounament and competative play in the context of strict competition to determine the best player.)

TTFN

First off, those who only have fun when they win are few and far between. They are the rare exception, and far from the norm.

Competive players do not play only to win. We play to compete. We are competitive. Yes, this means our goal is to win. And we will use efficient, cutthroat tactics to do so often enough. But that's how we have fun, is by seeing who can pull off the most clever maneuvers to achieve victory.

Competitive games have, I think, the most fun when playing other competitive gamers. But most competitive gamers can also switch off and play more casually if the situation calls for it. And they can have just as much fun playing non-competitively as competitively. Sometimes a non-competitive player will get curbstomped and neither player will have as much fun as they could have otherwise, but that is not the goal or intent of the vast majority of competitive players. Not by a long shot.



Secondly, I'm not really sure what any of this has to do with how GW expansion affect how the game plays;).

[Melissia]

Some gamers have 'fun' building a strong narrativley themed army, others just choose what they think is the most cost effective force
This is a stupid quote, because the two are not mutually exclusive.

[Mauglum.]

Hi folks.
'This is a stupid quote, because the two are not mutually exclusive. '
No to you Melissa, they may not be.

But how many competative playes freely select from ALL entries in a codex?
If ANY option is not seen as competative it is totaly ignored by some players.

WHY are most of the most succesful players only using a fraction of the options available?

The expansions to 40k do NOT suddenly make the 40k rules suitable for balanced competative play, or detailed enough to sustain a strong narative.(I mean in the same way other rule sets are geared towards one or the other.)

Perhaps the differences between fluff and competative points of view are not as visible on this forum, compared to other forums?

[DarkLink]

If you want to make a narrative, themed army, you get to pick what theme you want. If that theme involves using the rules for only good units, no one can really blame you, since you got to pick the theme.

For example, Goatboy loves pretty hardcore lists, but has such a unique twist that I don't think anyone can blame him for adding a bunch of stuff so he could jump on the BA bandwagon. And some people don't have the time or talent to meticulously convert so much stuff, so it is simply impractical for them to try and have such a strong theme.

And this doesn't really have to do with the expansion rules. In fact, an armylist made for a planetstrike game can and should look completely different from a list written for a normal game. Many units that aren't normally good suddenly become good. Armylists that would fail horribly in normal games eat face in planetstrike.

[Melissia]

But how many competative playes freely select from ALL entries in a codex?

Irrelevant. Not all unit choices match with everyone's theme, in fact many unit choices almost seem to not match the theme of the rest of the army to begin with (Repentia come to mind).

[Lerra]

It's strange how in 40k competitive players have such a bad reputation for some.

Compare 40k to a game like basketball. I play basketball to compete, get some exercise, and to have fun. I don't care if I win, but I want the game to be competitive. If I'm playing someone who is much more athletic than me, I don't expect them to play down to me, and I congratulate them for winning. I don't play down to others. I try to win because trying to lose is not fun. Playing your best is fun. If you were to play a game of basketball with one hand strapped behind your back and one eye closed, people would think you are kind of strange. If you then complained that the game was unfair they would think you were sorta crazy.

I bring that attitude to a basketball game and I'm considered a casual player. I bring that attitude to a game of 40k and I'm a WAAC player.

I wonder if it's just a cultural difference.

[Paul]

Irrelevant. Not all unit choices match with everyone's theme, in fact many unit choices almost seem to not match the theme of the rest of the army to begin with (Repentia come to mind).

It's not irrelevant. Lemme give you an example:

I only pick from Leman Russ variants and upgrades for my army. I am an armored company! I take the min. 2 troops and HQ, and that's that.

But out of the variants, my theme list is a list which excels in armor-hunting, so, fluffily, I put in three Vanquishers. There are five standard Russ hulls, and one unupgraded Demolisher.

This isn't the most effective 9-russ army by a longshot, but it IS the one I have the most fun running.

So some (not all) themes simply cannot be competitive, because the theme is fluffy and the metagame is not.

[DarkLink]

It's not irrelevant. Lemme give you an example:

I only pick from Leman Russ variants and upgrades for my army. I am an armored company! I take the min. 2 troops and HQ, and that's that.

But out of the variants, my theme list is a list which excels in armor-hunting, so, fluffily, I put in three Vanquishers. There are five standard Russ hulls, and one unupgraded Demolisher.

This isn't the most effective 9-russ army by a longshot, but it IS the one I have the most fun running.

So some (not all) themes simply cannot be competitive, because the theme is fluffy and the metagame is not.

And someone else can have the most fun running a list made up of more competitive units. Who are you to criticize them for choices that they have every right to make as they please?

[Zoa]

It's strange how in 40k competitive players have such a bad reputation for some.

Compare 40k to a game like basketball. I play basketball to compete, get some exercise, and to have fun. I don't care if I win, but I want the game to be competitive. If I'm playing someone who is much more athletic than me, I don't expect them to play down to me, and I congratulate them for winning. I don't play down to others. I try to win because trying to lose is not fun. Playing your best is fun. If you were to play a game of basketball with one hand strapped behind your back and one eye closed, people would think you are kind of strange. If you then complained that the game was unfair they would think you were sorta crazy.

I bring that attitude to a basketball game and I'm considered a casual player. I bring that attitude to a game of 40k and I'm a WAAC player.

I wonder if it's just a cultural difference.

It is, a sizable portion of people who make up the 40k player base are anti-social nerds who don't handle losing well, particularly with people watching like at a store or gaming club.

[BlacknightIII]

I am a very competative player.
I don't min/max or spam.
I get mad when I lose but I suck it up and shake my opponents hand out of respect.

To me the problem with competition in 40K is the internet. Instead of thinking and learning for yourself, you can just jump on the web and read other people stories, thoughts and tactics. There is no creative thought anymore and that makes the game dull.

[Melissia]

It's not irrelevant.

And let me give you a better example.


My Sisters of Battle army consists of nothing but units with the Adepta Sororitas rule, Exorcists, and Rhino transports. This is a very limited list. 1 HQ choice, 1 Elites choice, 1 Troops choice, 2 Fast Attack choices, and 2 Heavy Support choices.

It is a fluffy, thematic list. Inevitably, when you have a list like this and you want to have a good list that can still stand up to fifth edition lists, you will have units that look extremely similar, if not identical. Why should I run twin storm bolter Battle Sister Squads? That just wastes ten points and quite frankly it isn't as fluffy as meltagun/heavy flamer anyway. Repentia don't fit into the list because this is a military unit, whereas Repentia are not (They aren't a part of the Sororitas anymore anyway). Even if I were to get, say, a lot of Celestians, or a lot of Seraphim, that wouldn't necessarilly alleviate the problem much. What, am I going to sit there in the back with a single heavy bolter doing nothing on a unit that costs almost as much as a Space Marine tactical squad? That's stupid, and it isn't as fluffy as giving each of those Celestian squads a pair of flamers and frag grenades and telling them "charge those Orks".

[Schnitzel]

It's strange how in 40k competitive players have such a bad reputation for some.

Compare 40k to a game like basketball. I play basketball to compete, get some exercise, and to have fun. I don't care if I win, but I want the game to be competitive. If I'm playing someone who is much more athletic than me, I don't expect them to play down to me, and I congratulate them for winning. I don't play down to others. I try to win because trying to lose is not fun. Playing your best is fun. If you were to play a game of basketball with one hand strapped behind your back and one eye closed, people would think you are kind of strange. If you then complained that the game was unfair they would think you were sorta crazy.

I bring that attitude to a basketball game and I'm considered a casual player. I bring that attitude to a game of 40k and I'm a WAAC player.

I wonder if it's just a cultural difference.

You really can't compare sports to a table top game like 40k, they're completely different entities. Its not so much as you want to compete in a sports game, its that you're driven to. To loose results in pain and punishment. You might go out there and goof off a bit, like in hockey try something like the "flying V" (totally unplausable btw), but once you get jarred around a bit you're gonna grit your teeth and leave everything on the floor. Play till your heart drops.
With 40k, if you want to play a "fluffy" or "weak" list, you don't have the option of changing it mid-game. Once you realize that your opponent is here to win, you're pretty much stuck with the inferior list with the odds heavily stacked against you.
To play competitively, there are certain restrictions on units a player is willing to field. You're not going to see Choas Spawn out there too often ya know. This also screws over the player who loves Chaos Spawn. Not that I imagine there are many (if any) players that love Chaos Spawn, but I'm sure you get the picture.
In summery, to play competitively, one has to forgo the freedom of choosing any unit they like and consolidate with units that are known to work.

[Melissia]

Basically what he's saying, Lerra, is that this hobby is a breeding ground for scrubs.


I actually disagree with his final statement, by the way. There are very few units that are absolutely uncompetitive, and I could probably list them on one hand.

[Brithian Ranger]

I find narrative campaigns with friends the best way to play. Pick-up games are also fun, but the added story of a narrative campaign really just completes the game for me, otherwise I am left feeling a little empty.

I enjoy all aspects of the hobby, and think that they are all equally important to have a complete and fully awesome game.