successful lists

[Kol Saresk]

You need to be more specific, Kol. Because there are tournament players like me and my friends who bring balanced and effective army builds to tourneys (and still win), and then there are the crazy-WAAC folks who bring the "perfect" min/max armies that everyone hates.

Okay, is there enough of a tournament presence within the fanbase(period) that GW would actually stop and go "Hey, is there a majority of our customers like to play competitively that we should actually care about making the game more competitive-based?"

 

You know, out of everyone who plays the tabletop, what idea of a percentage is actually in it for the tournament or contributes to the tournaments?

 

I think that's what I'm asking anyways.

[Nehekhare]

I think that's a too easy way to see it.

 

first off: GW doesn't base it's buisness decisions off customer's tournament attendance. it's the other way around - they outright encourage so-called non-competitive gameplay, because they think the "hobby" should be about owning miniatures (which antecedes buying those miniatures from them), while freeing them of the need to produce a working, balanced set of rules or sponsoring tournament events, both of which cut revenue.

 

tournament play is nothing else than playing the game. "non-competitive" 40k is not an alternative - it isn't even possible. 40k is competitive by definition of a wargame, there is no way to play together but against each other. however, you can choose to play in a more or less competivive environment.

 

there are other parts of the hobby than playing the game (painting and fluff). none of those need rules.

 

playing the game is playing competitively. competitive play needs rules. you do not need rules to buy miniatures. hence GW doesn't care about rules or tournaments or the game.

 

p.s. I for one don't hate "perfect min/max armies". I consider them to be elegant and creative solutions to the problem that makes up the whole game by itself.

[Kol Saresk]

That does and does not answer my question. How much of the player base is actually involved with tournaments? Regardless of WAAC or otherwise. Is it a big percentage or a small percentage? If its a big percentage and GW is still going non-competitive, then 1.)GW is ignoring the majority of its customer base and 2.)that is not how GW envisions the game. If its a small percentage, then GW is listening to the majority of the customer base.

[the jeske]

IMO it is the wrong question. Most people dont play tournaments , the question is do they build their armies as if they were ment to be played in tournaments. Do new player start with buying a lord and some oblits+plaguemarines or do they go for 3 boxs of talons/raptors.

 

Also when do they stop . Do they do I need 40 pms 9 oblits 1 dp 3 rhinos some rhinos some havocks and am done with chaos or do they buy and buy and buy .

[Kol Saresk]

Except I'm not asking about the players. I think I would be right in thinking that most if not all of the people who have so far commented on this thread would prefer for their Codices to be able to produce more balanced, reliable and tournament level lists. So I do believe I am asking the right question when I ask, how much of the customer base are players who have that exact same concern so even if they just do tournaments once in a blue moon, they can go and feel they have a reliable tournament list? If it is a rather large percentage of the overall customer base, then either GW is ignoring you, or it is not how they envision the game. If it is a small percentage, then well, either GW is listening to the larger percentage of the customer base or it just so happens that a larger percentage of the customer base fits in with how GW sees the game.

[Nehekhare]

yeah who wants a theoretically refined and thoroughly playtested ruleset that is able to produce a diverse, competitive and balanced array of playable army lists, encouraging active gameplay and tactical skill rather than redundancy and random chance?

 

it would directly contradict ongoing sales revenue.

[Kol Saresk]

Apparently only a small percentage only cares about the game such a competitive manner or as I said, GW doesn't and apparently there isn't a large enough percentage in tournament customers to change their minds as the entire customer base is basically Tournament Players, Casual Players, Modellers and Commission-based Army Painters. In a bright ideal world, it would be 30% in each category with 5% being overlap from one category to the other. Realistically, that will never happen. Which means the exact same thing I have said two times already and will say for a third, either the percentage is too small or GW doesn't care. The fact they keep raking in money says that regardless of whichever one it is, people are still shelling out the ying yang for their product and as long as that happens, they don't have to change.

[zyl-]

Except I'm not asking about the players. I think I would be right in thinking that most if not all of the people who have so far commented on this thread would prefer for their Codices to be able to produce more balanced, reliable and tournament level lists. So I do believe I am asking the right question when I ask, how much of the customer base are players who have that exact same concern so even if they just do tournaments once in a blue moon, they can go and feel they have a reliable tournament list? If it is a rather large percentage of the overall customer base, then either GW is ignoring you, or it is not how they envision the game. If it is a small percentage, then well, either GW is listening to the larger percentage of the customer base or it just so happens that a larger percentage of the customer base fits in with how GW sees the game.

Well I think it's pretty easy to say that in this case the fan base is drawn to the company.. at least for newer players. People who are looking to pick up the game can EASILY see that the rule sets are broken. Therefore, the game does what it wants and the people who are drawn to that particular vision join up. There are plenty of alternatives to 40k, and people looking for balance and competition can look into them.

 

In the event that people don't notice that the rules are poorly balanced.. well those people don't stand a chance. When I started playing chaos in 5th edition, I single handedly built the mono list almost instantly. All I did was the math, then when I came to the internet community to see what everyone had to say about success with noise marines or 1k sons, it was somewhat a relief to see that my math was correct in a practical world.

 

So the whole "netlisting" argument is just not true imo. The rules of the game just generate certain lists, and those of us who are looking for an effective way to play will find those lists. Imagine if a new HQ were faq'd in that gave everything with a mark of nurgle 3" extra movement and fleet. It would completely change the chaos game (and sadly, I wouldn't be suprised if something this absurd were to happen). But everyone would start asking the same questions, which would lead to pretty much the same conclusions.

[Kol Saresk]

I'm not saying anything on the matter of "netlisting", "netdecking" or whatever else you want to call it in my previous posts. I'm just pointing out that maybe the tournament players are not the target base that GW is looking at for one reason or another. I think it was on the first page, Jeske said

You realy think that people that actualy play this game just for the game take their knowladge from what they read on the net ?

And that would force me to ask the inverse of "And do you think that no one in that category ever has?" while also pointing out that there is probably a noticable enough percentage of the customer base who never touches these forums or any others. And it is probably that percentage who plays the game just for the game that GW is looking at. Or, it just might be the modellers and the painters that they look at. They might not care what lists were taken to Adepticon because that's not what they are using as a sales model. They might just be using Golden Daemon as their sales model or how many fluff campaign supplements are sold versus rulebooks. I sure don't know. But at the same time, to try and go "See? GW needs to pay attention to this and do something about it!" might be as pointless as huffing in the wind not because the tournament players are unimportant, but because they are either not the overwhelming majority or they just simply are not the target customer base.

 

So in relation to the topic is, just how big of a deal is this? To the WAACers, obviously a huge deal. To people like Seahawk and Dues who play for fun and may or may not join up in a tournament and may or may not play the "underdog" lists, probably a big deal but not as big of a deal because they probably found a way around it. To the people who play just for fun, probably won't be that big of a deal. To the painters, modellers and commissions, I think I'd be more surprised if it was a deal to them.

 

The point is, as -zyl- pointed out, two people having the same list might not be a result of "netlisting." It might even just be someone came onto a forum and went "What kind of list should I build?" and someone really heavy into tournaments answered. It might be someone went "Go with your gut." or some other such. But at the same time, you shouldn't assume that everyone who asks for list advice on the interwebz is a tournament buff and just simply wants an idea of how to put an army together, not what is the most efficient list. The reality is, we should assume nothing about anything and if we do assume, we should not have an attitude that our assumption is the truth of the world.

[Hellios]

 

 

 

playing the game is playing competitively. competitive play needs rules. you do not need rules to buy miniatures. hence GW doesn't care about rules or tournaments or the game.

 

 

 

I disagree. I agree with what you are saying to some degree, and I see the point you are trying to make. That being said, their are two types of game I've played where I do not think it applies.

 

1) Beer and pretzel games. Now I agree some of these are competitive (even if they are at the lower end of the scale), but others really are about an excuse to drink and hang out with friends. No one cares about the result.

 

2) Narrative games. We are focused on making a cool story happen. Obviously we want to do as well as we can, but we often play with handicaps, highly themed armies or make in game decisions based on the rule of cool and not tactical thought. The game is the important part, not the victory (he outcomes are sometimes certain before a dice has been rolled).

[Nehekhare]

apparently there isn't a large enough percentage in tournament customers

Kol, the point I am trying to make is this: there are no "tournament players". those divisions only artificially isolate groups of people and drives them off from the community where they should be integrated to formulate customer demands that are backed up by sales numbers. thinking in terms like "WAAC" and "Fluff bunnies" only breaks us down into managable, individually ignorable subgroups.

 

people at tournaments just play the game. everybody playing the game should care about working rules.

 

1) Beer and pretzel games.

 

2) Narrative games.

both of those are still competitve (i.e. playing against each other). competitive play doesn't mean you mustn't have fun or "win at all costs". as long as you play the game, you are playing competitively. however, the game itself may or may not feature heavily in your evening plans.

 

another point is that you do not need miniatures or rules at all to drink or forge a narrative. Fantasy Flights RPGs are a good example for a purely narrative, non-competitive (i.e. co-operative) game set in the 40k universe which is not bound to miniature representation and thus has a much wider range of scenarios (imagination is awesome!).

 

you may integrate alcohol, bakery and RPG elements into warhammer 40k as much as you like, but that doesn't change the game itself. And good rules for the game make all those activities even more enjoyable.

[Kol Saresk]

Except that you're saying regardless of game style the point of playing the game is to win and thus it should be competitive. An then you just listed two styles of gameplay where most people don't care if they win as long as they hang out with their buddies and crack open a beet or make a cool story happen.

 

Which means there's more to the game than just winning it and that's what GW sees.

[Brother Amarel]

Except that you're saying regardless of game style the point of playing the game is to win and thus it should be competitive. An then you just listed two styles of gameplay where most people don't care if they win as long as they hang out with their buddies and crack open a beet or make a cool story happen.

 

Which means there's more to the game than just winning it and that's what GW sees.

I bet they do care if they win.

 

They may not consider it to be the be all and end all of playing the game, but if they didn't care at all then they wouldn't bother playing.

[Kol Saresk]

I play video games just to play video games sometimes. I could care less if win just that I get entertainment. I used to play chess with my grandfather because he had so many strokes that sometimes it was the only he noticed I was there. I could care less if I won or loss. By your logic I would never play video games. By your logic I never would have played chess. Can you honestly say that I am the only person who ever has, is or will do something like this?

 

When talking of generalities, such as people, only generalities apply. Hence why I didn't specify a difference between the various groups of players who contribute to tournaments, just those who don't and those who do. If I had actually gotten an answer I'd be surprised if someone claimed it was an exact number. I'd actually be even more surprised if there was even a rough estimate. It was a rhetorical question. I was making a point. You can't accurately represent people in such a manner by going "Everyone who looks at army lists on the interwebz is trying to play in tournaments" because its not true. There are people who have posted in the army lists saying "I'm not looking for a competitive army." So then there is the inverse, how many people don't come to the interwebz, regardless of looking for army lists or anything else. How many people do and don't come to the interwebz just to see what is happening? How many people do and don't come to the interwebz just to paint or model?

 

Now let's ask the big question again. What does GW answer when asked these questions?

[Brother Amarel]

I play video games just to play video games sometimes. I could care less if win just that I get entertainment. I used to play chess with my grandfather because he had so many strokes that sometimes it was the only he noticed I was there. I could care less if I won or loss. By your logic I would never play video games. By your logic I never would have played chess. Can you honestly say that I am the only person who ever has, is or will do something like this?

 

When talking of generalities, such as people, only generalities apply. Hence why I didn't specify a difference between the various groups of players who contribute to tournaments, just those who don't and those who do. If I had actually gotten an answer I'd be surprised if someone claimed it was an exact number. I'd actually be even more surprised if there was even a rough estimate. It was a rhetorical question. I was making a point. You can't accurately represent people in such a manner by going "Everyone who looks at army lists on the interwebz is trying to play in tournaments" because its not true. There are people who have posted in the army lists saying "I'm not looking for a competitive army." So then there is the inverse, how many people don't come to the interwebz, regardless of looking for army lists or anything else. How many people do and don't come to the interwebz just to see what is happening? How many people do and don't come to the interwebz just to paint or model?

 

Now let's ask the big question again. What does GW answer when asked these questions?

 

By my logic, people who play either a "Beer and Pretzels" or a "Narrative" game 40k care on some level about whether they win or not. Maybe because it simply means that they or their opponent will want to play it again, maybe because it means that the story of their characters has progressed better. The reason doesn't matter, just that they benefit in some way.

 

Please don't pretend people have said / written what they haven't so as you can try to make a point about it, its dishonest, rude and unnecessary.  

 

Computer games are a very different form of entertainment and the same types of logic often don't apply and playing chess with your grandfather was for a different experience entirely.

[Kol Saresk]

You said that "they" care on some level enough that you are willing to bet on it. So where have I added words? Your first post did not specify a single group, but rather a very large general group.

 

And a game is a game is it not? Whether it be tabletop, board, rpg, computer or console. So it does apply. If people only play a game to win, then it does not matter what platform the game is on, only that it is a game.

 

And actually you just highlighted the entirety of the point I'm getting across with the second half of your last sentence. How many people out there play 40k for an experience other than winning? Period. Any experience even if its just to pass the time. I'm not saying everyone doesn't care about winning, because that is a lie, nor am I saying that everyone shouldn't care about winning. What I'm saying is that perhaps GW doesn't see the game that way. Sort of obvious with the lack of good rules and such.

 

I'm also trying to point that either 1.) GW doesn't care as long as it hits the profit margin, 2.) GW does not envision the game in terms of winning or losing, or 3.) there is a larger customer base who doesn't care about winning and losing and GW is paying attention to that specific customer base because it happens to be the largest percentage or for some other reason.

[Nehekhare]

let's explain it like this:  when you were playing chess against your grandfather, you were aiming to get his king, because this is what chess is about.

if you wouldn't have at least tried to, you wouldn't have been playing chess.

this is in no way related to you caring or not, your emotions about it, why you were doing it or how you justify it.

it is simply the nature/rules of the game.

 

beer and pretzels are not warhammer 40k. they are an environment that 40k may be played in. they don't change how you play (competitively), only why and how drunk.

 

RPGs are not warhammer 40k. they are narrative, cooperative, non-miniature-based games set in the 40k universe. thus, they have different rules and goals than warhammer 40k.

 

Warhammer 40k is a tabletop wargame about opposing armies trying to destroy each other and achieving certain victory conditions. thus, by definition and design it cannot be played non-competitively. This is in no way affected by how much of a douche some guys may or may not be about it.

 

it is however affected by Tom Kirby's personal profit margin being superimposed on the design team.

[Kol Saresk]

And that right there is where you are wrong. I did not care if I got his king or not. I'd drag games out to four or six hours, not by taking forever to make a move, but by the moves I made. And against him, against someone who the only memory they consistently kept was how to play chess, that in and of itself was an accomplishment. But I didn't care. To you, I might not have been playing chess. To him, I was and that's all that mattered because I could sit across the table from him and not have to worry about being asked "Who are you? Are you really my grandson?"

 

So Brother Amarel, I apologize. It was not your logic that I was apparently thinking about. It was Nehekhare's.

[Jarulek]

let's explain it like this:  when you were playing chess against your grandfather, you were aiming to get his king, because this is what chess is about.

if you wouldn't have at least tried to, you wouldn't have been playing chess.

this is in no way related to you caring or not, your emotions about it, why you were doing it or how you justify it.

it is simply the nature/rules of the game.

 

Difference is that chess is a perfectly balanced game, where the moves are conclusive and not the models and the rules that comewith them.

[Nehekhare]

And that right there is where you are wrong.

naa, I rather think you just do not agree with my differentiation between the aim and the point of games.

 

because you caring or not doesn't really impact the definition of chess (or 40k), so I'd still be right ;)

[hornywingythingy]

Meh..... I'm not sure but I think you guys may have hit an impasse from the immovable object contacting the unstoppable force so to speak....

 

I'd consider myself a competitive gamer, for beer and pretzels (or tea and biccys for preference) and for tournaments, that's the environment that I'm in, and that's the way I game, one thing I will say, the guy who finished last in the tournie I won, after the tournie I saw he was looking glum, so I talked to him about his list and his games, suggested things to improve his list (like battlebrother allies, he ran mono guard) some he liked, some he didn't, but I pointed out the (imho) best units in his dex, and suggested synergies he might not have seen/thought of... I did suggest one of the netlists as a basis, because it would give him a robust core whilst he gained experience (blob with 4++ from the da special cha) I don't see anything wrong with him using that, either whilst he builds exp, or when more experienced.... At the end of the day, I want him to enjoy the games, not get disheartened, because its another person to play with/against.

 

Also, aside from that the fact gw continue to (grudgingly) release faq shows they are trying to balance the game, and at least think of it partially competitive?

[Kol Saresk]

Meh..... I'm not sure but I think you guys may have hit an impasse from the immovable object contacting the unstoppable force so to speak....

 

I'd consider myself a competitive gamer, for beer and pretzels (or tea and biccys for preference) and for tournaments, that's the environment that I'm in, and that's the way I game, one thing I will say, the guy who finished last in the tournie I won, after the tournie I saw he was looking glum, so I talked to him about his list and his games, suggested things to improve his list (like battlebrother allies, he ran mono guard) some he liked, some he didn't, but I pointed out the (imho) best units in his dex, and suggested synergies he might not have seen/thought of... I did suggest one of the netlists as a basis, because it would give him a robust core whilst he gained experience (blob with 4++ from the da special cha) I don't see anything wrong with him using that, either whilst he builds exp, or when more experienced.... At the end of the day, I want him to enjoy the games, not get disheartened, because its another person to play with/against.

 

Also, aside from that the fact gw continue to (grudgingly) release faq shows they are trying to balance the game, and at least think of it partially competitive?

I think what GW realizes is that there is a competitive group out there and so while they aren't shifting the entire game into that aspect, they are trying to somewhat appease them, or at least keep them playing, but I don't think that their view is that the competitive aspect is their primary goal, for whatever reason.

[zyl-]

Kol is right.

 

Think about how many people run a marathon, but only 1 can win. It's a competition, but there are plenty of people who just do it with no intent whatsoever of winning. They want to run 26.2 miles and they PAY to enter the race. I could run 26.2 miles down the road any day I felt the need to and it'd be just as much an achievement.

 

40k can be exactly as competative as a marathon if all you really want to do is get together with people who share common intrests and chat. Do you think my wife, mom, sister, father, or people at work play 40k, understand Star Wars jokes, or appreciate manipulation of statistics the same way I do? If I just want to appreciate jokes about quantum physics, it's not a competition because competition is an attitude. I know that's a foreign idea to some, but it does exist.

[nurglez]

I have to agree that there are different aspects to a game of 40k, depending on who is playing, ultimately, as long as both people are on the same page, a good game should be had.

 

One way I think about GW's approach to the game is to look at the events they run at warhammer world. Throne of Skulls used to be a  pretty competitive tournament from what I have been told, now it is rather non competitive. Of course some people bring their A game and some people don't, I attend to have fun and meet new people and play new armies, to further my experience and make myself a better gamer.

 

The weekend before I went to ToS in October last year, I went to one of the qualifiers for the UK grand tournament, and got spanked by a necron player. He also went to ToS and he said that he liked both because of the different levels of play, and I agree with him. He still won most of his games at ToS but he could take a more "fun" list.

 

I personally like to know what is best and how to counter things, but if I don't like units I wont take them, sometimes because they are the best unit (I rarely use oblitorators for my chaos, only 1 longfang squad in my logan wing and used DK's over psyrifle dreads in 5th for my draigowing army), I play by my standards but I don't expect everyone to play by them, thats why they are my standards. If I don't bring my A list to a tournament and get beaten by an A+ min maxed list, well thats my own fault for not bringing the best.

 

To end this post, I guess that ultimately the aim of a warhammer 40k gamer is to achieve their personal objective, and for some people, that is winning, for others, it is having a fun game with friends (apocalypse anyone?).

[hornywingythingy]

^ I must admit I hate apok games, they tend to devolve into verbal brawls in my club, so I have just avoided playing in them. It seems to bring out the worst in my local club, and also, why would I want to spend all day on.a stressful game when I can have a tournie and play three or four different people, and generally improve my game.