So you dislike Unbound?

[Quozzo]

I like to find a nice balance between fluff, fun and power of a list. Some people don't like the fluff or justify it in some other way, which is fine. They just are not working that aspect into their lists so it will skew in favour of fun and power. Other people like playing boring lists with only a handful of units too. They will forgo the fluff and fun aspect which keeps everything on the power side, as they consider fun to be winning. Everybody as an interpretation into what is powergaming and what isn't, we just all have different levels of what we consider a powergaming list or not.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

40k only "encourages smart list building" (where "smart" in this case means "optimized") if the goal is strictly to win. (If that sounds crazy to anybody reading it, that's where the difference between our views on the game lies.) Straight victory is too simplistic for me, especially since - more and more - it's less less about problem solving in 40k and more about "How many of these expensive models are you willing to pony up and buy?" Now, given some number of restrictions on list-building (e.g. any of the local solutions pitched above) optimized list building can be fun without purchasing more kits.

 

Thade, no one plays this game without the intention to win. Not even you. That's the point I'm making. 40k has clear victory conditions, and the objective is to achieve them and win. Therefore, regardless of format, people will try and write lists that win more reliably than others. 

GW could aid us a bit here, sure. They could add some formats, e.g. "Casual Format A: No fliers, no MCs, no Lords, no data slates, no [etc.]," enumerating all of the things that tip the scales so grandly, or they could restrict them, as others suggest. They could say "Here's a game format that involves chopping tons of stuff out for a somewhat more kind-of-balanced-without-player-effort experience," but - as you suggest - I bet there's a lot of corporate-flavored pressure against that sort of thing. Power creep exists in MTG, LoL, and other games like them for a reason: to drive sales. Instead they empower us to do so. The Golden Rule and The Spirit of the Game rule (the latter still in my sig) are just that. Each of the various partial solutions we've each shared above are 100% within the rules, because 1. we made them up to make the game more fun for our local games and 2. our opponents are on-board with them.

 

They don't have to add any new formats. We have plenty already. What we need are some FAQ's defining each very clearly, as just about any other game company does. They're actually really unusual in not doing that. Power creep is a thing, but it can be held in check by smart design decisions regarding the format they let new units/combos exist in. 

 

We're not empowered at all. GW don't have a monopoly on those ideas, they existed before GW did. They're simply too lazy to bother writing coherent rules, they'd rather just sell box sets to the new players. So, anyone who isn't a complete newb is left with the growing realisation there is virtually no real structure to 40k now, besides whatever you decide locally. GW have made one of the few consistent brakes on power creep (the Force Org chart) irrelevant, and Formations are an incredibly lazy way to A: sell underused or new kits and B: avoid HQ+Troops tax. The fact the 7th edition main rulebook FAQ (an edition which still has lots of loopholes or just nonsensical subjective interpretations due to poor wording) has three entries and not one of them matters, is indicative of their interest level in the game rules. They aren't even pretending to try anymore. 

The only point of yours I didn't speak to is your implication that GW's not addressing this issue directly leads to a fragmenting of and ultimate waning of 40k interest, with long-time vets walking away.

 

I don't have a ton of data on this. I have seen people leave the hobby because of mounting family or work obligations, but of those I've seen leave the hobby due to what the rules have become, I've seen many of them come back or never actually leave in the first place. "I'm gonna quit the hobby if this keeps up" is often just code language for "I'm really frustrated with the direction the rules seem to be headed in."

 

I'm not saying its anything new (it happens every edition actually). But my point is, 6th turned a lot of people off the game. 7th has fixed some of the issues of 6th (like toning down the new FMC unit type, and Flyers are less broken now), but introduced new ones (the new Psychic phase and power dice as just one of many examples of unintended consequences). 

 

My point being, people left because they could no longer field a list they'd actually wanna play. 6th was basically Revenge of the Xenos, and 7th is looking like the director's cut of that. If you're not playing one of the Power 4 (Necrons, Tau, Eldar, Daemons, in that order), you are at a severe disadvantage before you even start writing a list. That's what truly obnoxious about the meta these days. Nob Bikers, Paladinstar etc were annoying, but they were only individual unbalanced units in otherwise average armies. What we face now is a massive gulf in both internal and external balance between Imperial and non-Imperial. 

My addition the thread has been to introduce a format concept people are playing in Europe and at large events State-side that is very restrictive in principle, yet quite freeing in practice, known as the Highlander format, because there can be only one ... of each unit in your army. Even if played Unbound, a Highlander-styled army forces the player to make tough choices and to put a lot of thought into which units to bring when you can't just spam the best.

 

It kills competitive Eldar true, but Tau don't care (they can field a Riptide in every slot except HQ/Troops). Necrons wouldn't be that affected, they have plenty of unit variety and far more synergy than their old book. Daemons can't print Warp Charges, but they can still field a bunch of FMC's and smash face. 

 

Highlander reks every other army so much harder though. Forcing people to take bad choices because they're not duplicates is extremely bad design, and lazy as well. 

Agreed. This is a problem restrictions can't solve, if the people playing want only to play the OP stuff and dominate. This is why I keep harping on the social aspect to the game; there are social aspects not just to the table or to agreed upon restrictions, but to list building as well.

 

If the part of the game a given player enjoys the most is finding broken combos, they're going to continue seeking those out. Restrictions that amount to bans on units, books, or rules can't mitigate this on their own, as those only serve to either present additional constraints to a problem they enjoy solving anyway, or even risk spoiling the fun for that given player.

 

There's got to be some additional consideration on the part of the players, one that's not simply "What is or isn't allowed in this format?" That additional consideration's got to be "Will I have fun playing with this? Will my opponent have fun playing against it?"

 

Thade, that stuff works with friends, or at least regular opponents. But it's completely unworkable for a competitive event where total strangers are expected to face eachother. You can't got to Adepticon and say 'oh I don't like your army, I guess I won't play you'. You just lose and get thrown out of the tourney. GG. 

 

You can't change the competitive culture of 40k, its designed to be competitive from the ground up (not balanced, or with any kind of token brakes though...). This forum exists because people want advice on how to git gud at 40k. I'd guess probably half of all community discussion is centred around that. The hobby, painting, background etc are all aspects we all enjoy. But after we've done a sweet paintjob, or written some cool lore to explain our army...we wanna throw some dice and see if it actually wins. That's the end-goal of any 40k player's investment in the game, to see if their army of plastic dudes can beat yours. I'm not saying the other stuff doesn't matter (indeed, we wouldn't care about rolling dice and moving dudes around if there wasn't a 40k universe to get interested in, or sweet models etc). But it all feeds into the game itself. Without the game, all you're left with is quite pricey if nice models. 

[thade]

There's got to be some additional consideration on the part of the players, one that's not simply "What is or isn't allowed in this format?" That additional consideration's got to be "Will I have fun playing with this? Will my opponent have fun playing against it?"

Thade, that stuff works with friends, or at least regular opponents. But it's completely unworkable for a competitive event where total strangers are expected to face eachother.

Just to reiterate my stance on "competitive events" in 40k as quickly as possible:

• Here's my original post on why I believe balancing 40k is an NP-Hard problem. If that's true, it means it can't be done, period. I haven't proven it yet (it's hard to pin down a model that perfectly represents the balancing problem, much less solve the problem itself...building a graph to represent the problem space may in fact be NP-Hard, which is the same for our purposes) but it suffices to say that the computational complexity of balancing the rule-set is unfeasible: the more options they add, the more impractical (impossible, really) this problem becomes to solve.
• This game could only be balanced by hacking out portions of the rules, thereby reducing the computational complexity of the balancing problem and making it more practical to solve, but also reducing much of the value of 40k over other games. In particular, the vast number of possible army lists we can field.
• Given that it's likely impossible to balance (really, impossible even to prove whether the rules are balanced or not) it's patently silly to assign blame to GW for not making an effort to balance the game: since all the computational power on Earth couldn't solve the problem between now and the heat death of the universe, their only option would be to impose restrictions on what units can be taken, thus reducing their model sales.
• A game that can't be balanced is grossly inappropriate for "competitive events" where the focus is on winning.

Running tournies with random-comers is going to crash headlong into these problems, but the solution is the same: lay down the rules local to you that work for the meta, and do your best.

Besides, playing with strangers at the club should be a short-lived thing...as they shouldn't remain strangers for long if they're coming to the club.

Does even Thade play to win?

No.

Your opening assessment of me is incorrect. For my part, when I build a list, I'm not building a list To Win; I'm building a list that I'll enjoy. I often don't even play To Win, as I make overt tactical mistakes - with full awareness that they're mistakes going into them - in the interest of giving this or that model their tiny chance to shine; predictably this has cost me more than a few games, but since winning isn't my goal (and, fluff-wise, losing is more correct for my DIY chapter) I'm not deterred by these losses. Near losses and slow losses are far more fun for me than winning, as I learn more from them and that uphill battle is so much more fun than a downhill victory jog. Besides, each and every time my Terminator Libby took down a Dreadnought against odds, I had way more fun than I ever did winning a game.

Sometimes this small amount of unpredictability is advantageous to me...but not if I'm confronted by a list uniformly comprised of Riptides.

I suspect I'm not the only one who games like this, but their voices are often eclipsed by this kind of chatter we're seeing in here.

Speaking of chatter...

Is 40k hemorrhaging players?

I'd be curious to know whether the traffic on the B&C is significantly diminished (I suspect it's not) but I know that the pure 40k club local to me has only grown in membership in recent years, and from what I've seen myself the posts on here are really no different than when I first arrived.

When people complain about the rules or announce their resignation from the game, that's seldom representative of an actually retirement. In fact, not to point fingers, but a few of us here even announced at one time or another that "This is the last straw!" and, well, here we all, still talking about last straws.

I can see I won't sway your opinions but I've tried, haha. The crux of my point is that there's still fun to be had in the game and ways around the troubles, but I think you agree on both of those points, even if your approach them (like your views on the game) are radically different than my own.

++ EDIT. Clarification. -t ++

[Brom MKIV]

 

I'd like to be involved in this discussion but after a double read through I'm still not sure what the hell its about :P

One of the main issues people are having with 7th is the lack of structure in army building, which makes it difficult to build an appropriate army when your opponent can literally playing anything. The old method of dealing with poorly balance armies was forcing people to exclude controversial units from their armies, or down scoring their armies if not built to an arbitrary formula, aka composition or comp.

The point of this thread is that even when a Unbound is excluded as an option, you can still build a Bound list that approaches near Unbound levels of structurelessness. This has been countered by suggestion on how to make comp work without alienating players that rely on very points-efficient units to crush their foes, drive the broken before them, and hear the laminations of their ... you get the point.

My addition the thread has been to introduce a format concept people are playing in Europe and at large events State-side that is very restrictive in principle, yet quite freeing in practice, known as the Highlander format, because there can be only one ... of each unit in your army. Even if played Unbound, a Highlander-styled army forces the player to make tough choices and to put a lot of thought into which units to bring when you can't just spam the best.

Hope that helps.

SJ

Ah gotcha and thanks for the summary, kinda what I gathered. It just seems like there are valid points from everyone.

 

I like the idea of highlander and I'll probably test the waters on it just for something new and challenging. See I like restrictions simply because they require some form of sacrifice, limitation, different thought process what have you.. a new approach to this game I love. It's really the only beef I have with unbound. No restrictions is too easy. It doesn't feel like an accomplishment to me when there aren't any boundaries. Now it can be argued that limiting sources isn't much different and your right but it's just enough. That said I've never refused a game and never will. I game mostly with people I call friend so we can usually self regulate, but if some kid rolls in with his favorite parts of 5 armies in unbound style I'm not gonna judge that.

 

You guys have seen my lists here range from semi fluffy to epitome of busted. The fellas at TDC saw mostly fluffy lists from me, because I/we go through cycles of competitiveness. Don't get me wrong I always play to win but rarely ever at the expense of the guy across from me. I guess that's my point. This game requires players to take some responsibility for current gamestate. That's really why the larger scale events are successful. Don't hate the game hate the haters.

[Quozzo]

• • This game could only be balanced by hacking out portions of the rules, thereby reducing the computational complexity of the balancing problem and making it more practical to solve, but also reducing much of the value of 40k over other games. In particular, the vast number of possible army lists we can field.

 

 

It's not a computational problem. Making the game simpler wont make it more balanced. You don't need a supercomputer to know that reducing points for a NDK will make them even better. Increasing the points to PAGK will make them worse, taking away options and making one weapon useless for them is just adding salt to the wound. They have obviously altered the rules to sell the newest, priciest and as a result, OPest models to make some money, nothing more.

• • Given that it's likely impossible to balance (really, impossible even to prove whether the rules are balanced or not) it's patently silly to assign blame to GW for not making an effort to balance the game: since all the computational power on Earth couldn't solve the problem between now and the heat death of the universe, their only option would be to impose restrictions on what units can be taken, thus reducing their model sales.

 

 

Did you just say that GW don't try balance the game? Is that what just happened. Why even play if there's no skill involved. Just flip a coin at the end of turn 6 to see who wins.

[Brom MKIV]

The game is too complex to obtain much balance outside of a complete rewrite and probably a lot of dumbing down and standardizing of units across the board, something I know I would not prefer. I'd much rather the wide open terrain we have now WITH the imbalances. If I want the other i'll go play yahtzee or risk.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Just to reiterate my stance on "competitive events" in 40k as quickly as possible:

• Here's my original post on why I believe balancing 40k is an NP-Hard problem. If that's true, it means it can't be done, period. I haven't proven it yet (it's hard to pin down a model that perfectly represents the balancing problem, much less solve the problem itself...building a graph to represent the problem space may in fact be NP-Hard, which is the same for our purposes) but it suffices to say that the computational complexity of balancing the rule-set is unfeasible: the more options they add, the more impractical (impossible, really) this problem becomes to solve.
• This game could only be balanced by hacking out portions of the rules, thereby reducing the computational complexity of the balancing problem and making it more practical to solve, but also reducing much of the value of 40k over other games. In particular, the vast number of possible army lists we can field.
• Given that it's likely impossible to balance (really, impossible even to prove whether the rules are balanced or not) it's patently silly to assign blame to GW for not making an effort to balance the game: since all the computational power on Earth couldn't solve the problem between now and the heat death of the universe, their only option would be to impose restrictions on what units can be taken, thus reducing their model sales.
• A game that can't be balanced is grossly inappropriate for "competitive events" where the focus is on winning.

Running tournies with random-comers is going to crash headlong into these problems, but the solution is the same: lay down the rules local to you that work for the meta, and do your best.

Besides, playing with strangers at the club should be a short-lived thing...as they shouldn't remain strangers for long if they're coming to the club.

Thade, you're seeing the forest, claiming that because you can't see a single tree it's all too hard, then reaching a conclusion based off an assumption, not facts.

40k isn't meant to be mathematically balanced. That's not what I'm lamenting. I'm annoyed that BY DESIGN (as in, intentionally) GW made certain factions stronger than others, without any thought to balancing such things with other armies.

Let me give you a classic example, because this happens in game after game;

Tau are strong at shooting. They achieve this by having great platforms for guns (battlesuits, decent skimmer tanks), and a wide selection of weapon types, sometimes even on the same unit. Their firepower band starts at Strength 5 (which is usually mid-range for most other armies). This is fine, as Tau are defined by their preference for ranged warfare, as their biology and culture find melee combat unsuitable. They're not good at it, and don't pretend to be.

BUT

Overwatch exists. More importantly, Supporting Fire exists. Thus, any assault unit the enemy sends against a Tau gunline must not only eat Overwatch from the unit they charge (which is fine), they also have to eat Overwatch from any other nearby Tau unit. Combine this with random charge range (stupid change making all charges unreliable to begin with), and the need for the closest model to be within the charge range rolled (sometimes a single casualty can cost you this)...you virtually never make melee with a Tau army that's halfway-decently piloted. Either they killed your assault unit in their Shooting phase, or they denied their charge in your Assault phase, then shot them against in their following turn's Shooting phase. Barring a multi-assault to overload their Overwatch defense (no one fields melee armies anymore so that's not exactly likely). you'll get denied and picked off piecemeal.

This is what I mean. The balance here isn't NP-hard or whatever other abstract math you wanna conjure up. It's really simple. Supporting Fire is stupid, as is random charge range. Remove those two rules (or make Supporting Fire an Initiative test), and Tau are still good at shooting, but there is the possibility you can get into melee and turn the tables.

There are tonnes of examples of this kind of thing in 40k. GW don't need to make a perfect game, or even a balanced one. Every faction should by definition have a cool trick or two only they can pull, but have real drawbacks that prevent them being dominant in all phases of the game. That isn't how the Power 4 work at the moment. Due to bad core rules and their own insane codex upgrades (again, intentionally done to push model sales), they are able to dominate all phases of the game, and out-attrition other armies. Eldar being able to reliably outlast Imperial Guard or Tyranids is a travesty of design failure. Tau getting a Monstrous Creature is stupid beyond words. Necrons requiring an entire armies Shooting phase to remove one infantry unit of theirs is flat out retarded. And so on and so forth.

This doesn't require hard math to hash out. Look at tournament performance. Look at any local meta and tell me xenos aren't the problem.

Does even Thade play to win?

No.

Your opening assessment of me is incorrect. For my part, when I build a list, I'm not building a list To Win; I'm building a list that I'll enjoy. I often don't even play To Win, as I make overt tactical mistakes - with full awareness that they're mistakes going into them - in the interest of giving this or that model their tiny chance to shine; predictably this has cost me more than a few games, but since winning isn't my goal (and, fluff-wise, losing is more correct for my DIY chapter) I'm not deterred by these losses. Near losses and slow losses are far more fun for me than winning, as I learn more from them and that uphill battle is so much more fun than a downhill victory jog. Besides, each and every time my Terminator Libby took down a Dreadnought against odds, I had way more fun than I ever did winning a game.

Sometimes this small amount of unpredictability is advantageous to me...but not if I'm confronted by a list uniformly comprised of Riptides.

I suspect I'm not the only one who games like this, but their voices are often eclipsed by this kind of chatter we're seeing in here.

Speaking of chatter...

Then I don't know why you're in this thread mate. I know this started as a classic GML thread, but we're now into the dark wilds of '40k is pretty broke right now and nobody knows how to fix it'.

If you like playing your lists without caring about victory, power to you man. But thats not how 99% of people play. When they've bothered putting together an assortment of models, painted them, figured out a list that they like and is legal, and then finally throw down...after all that effort, do they really want to lose? No. I don't think you like losing. Sure, you learn things from defeat, and statistically you'll lose your first couple of games of 40k anyway (just due to the learning curve, which never ends actually). But I refuse to believe you honestly start a game and go 'I wanna lose this so bad, for teh funz'. Just like I refuse to believe victory doesn't mean anything, by the same token. Winning, especially if its a close victory, is extremely satisfying on a biological level to our species. It motivates us as a survival trait. It's why games are popular, because we're able to win despite not being the strongest or smartest or fastest (physically, I mean).

Look, I get what you mean about 'I'll do this with my hero, because it'll be funny/awesome/probably backfire but whatever'. Everyone has done that before. Maybe you're ahead, and you just wanna have some fun. Maybe you're losing horribly, and really it'll make no difference what you do at that point, so again, caution to the wind. But that kinda stuff doesn't help anyone else. Only you can say, at that specific moment, why you did it. It's not like it was some genius tactical insight. It's like advising people to build a list centered around a particular Warlord trait (looking at you, people who think Sanctic is good on Librarians). Sure, if things come together in that specific alignment of the moons, go for it. But that's not sound advice, it's just anecdotes. It would be like me recommending Fire Warriors as premier melee infantry, because one time they beat down a Terminator Rune Priest who charged them (not even kidding, that actually happened).

Is 40k hemorrhaging players?

I'd be curious to know whether the traffic on the B&C is significantly diminished (I suspect it's not) but I know that the pure 40k club local to me has only grown in membership in recent years, and from what I've seen myself the posts on here are really no different than when I first arrived.

When people complain about the rules or announce their resignation from the game, that's seldom representative of an actually retirement. In fact, not to point fingers, but a few of us here even announced at one time or another that "This is the last straw!" and, well, here we all, still talking about last straws.

Well I've already branched out into other games, to the eternal torment of my wallet haha. 40k is now far more about the lore for me. The game is still something I play, and I'm running a narrative campaign with my club to rekindle interest in 40k (as much for myself as others). I'm writing more now than I play, and I read a lot more too. The game itself...as I've been saying all along, it's fragmentation and lack of official structure mean any pick up game is fraught. Even with friends, you can be caught out so easily by new things.

I can see I won't sway your opinions but I've tried, haha. The crux of my point is that there's still fun to be had in the game and ways around the troubles, but I think you agree on both of those points, even if your approach them (like your views on the game) are radically different than my own.

I think 40k is salvageable. So, I haven't given up, in that regard. Fantasy I've completely written off, they Squatted my faction .

The game is too complex to obtain much balance outside of a complete rewrite and probably a lot of dumbing down and standardizing of units across the board, something I know I would not prefer. I'd much rather the wide open terrain we have now WITH the imbalances. If I want the other i'll go play yahtzee or risk.

No its not. GW need to get a grip and stop pushing every new release like they're going out of business (which based on their financial reports might not be so fanciful a proposition). This isn't rocket science. Really, it isn't.

Take our codex, for a classic example of ludicrous internal imbalance. All of our bad options got hit even harder with the nerf bat. Dreadknights inexplicably got cheaper, their two worst guns improved from 'situational' to 'auto-include' (heavy psycannon, now our best guns hands down) and 'god awful trash no one will ever take' to 'hilarious against the right target' (gatling psilencer). Purifiers got buffed. We lost Psychic Pilot, which is dumb because it was Henchmen spam that was the issue, not GK taking Razorbacks in small numbers. Purgators GOT WORSE (I'm still amazed by that, it's truly an accomplishment).

Now, none of those issues with our codex require NP-hard solutions. We're not even asking for any of our bad units to suddenly become OP Deathstars. We're just asking that GW make them relevant, so our lists don't all look the same (Libby, token Terminators, max DK's...flavour for taste with Purifiers/Interceptors/Ravens).

[Brom MKIV]

RD- fair enough I can't argue the codex imbalance. At all. I was thinking more of the core rules with my comments.

 

On individual dexes I agree completely and it IS lazy and unfair. I assume a lot of it stems from assigning different writers/designers to each codex while the company continually shifts design philosophy mid edition. For example I personally really liked ward and kelly's rules (ya I know) find vetochs work meh and I absolutely despise cruddace, like conspiracy theory level of despise. After so many years of this my solution is just to maintain multiple armies and shelf the ones that get smashed until if/when something good happens for them again. And utilize allies. The last used to feel like sort of a cop out on my favorite pure forces but now thats worn off. Titan has always maintained centurion devastator suits right? 

[Gentlemanloser]

 

 

GML, did you not see my post above yours?

 

I liked it. :(

 

 

 

I know this started as a classic GML thread

 

I think I'll take that as a compliment. ;)

 

I would like to say, that if you (generic you!) really, really, aren't playing 40k as a competitive wargame, with the design that players are competing against each other to win a set scenario, then you're not really playing 40k.

 

In no way am I claiming this is a bad thing.  You can use the 40k material to showcase whatever it is you're doing.  And that's great!

 

But it's not 40k.

 

Much like I could use all my minis to enrich a session of Deathwatch.  But that wouldn't be a game of 40k.  I could make a custom 10 Crimson Fist versus 5,000 points worth or Orks reenactment, and it might be amazeballs fun for all involved.  But it's not 40k.

 

Doesn't make it wrong, but this isn't what I'm, nor I'm sure others, are discussing.

[thade]

Primary reason I'm in here is to provide my counterpoint to discussions that revolve around "Look how imbalanced 40k is!" That counterpoint, in summary, is that "It can't be balanced for competitive play so just play for funsies in whatever way optimizes the fun for everybody you game with." Works for groups of friends; won't work for pay-to-enter tournaments with prizes.

 

I see a lot of players in this thread who really enjoy the competitive aspects of the game and they see those aspects suffering because GW has thrown caution (and any pretense of balance) totally to the wind. More accurately, GW's using power creep to increase sales, and that's making competition kind of a joke.

 

My points in summary:

1. There's more to the game than pure competition; and competition doesn't need to be the primary appeal or even the star anymore. Competition is still fun and okay to play to! But to make it work....
2. If you're going to play against somebody you know can't go up against your All DK Smackdown Unbound list, don't run it against them; challenge yourself by fielding PAGK and see if you can win with ankle weights on. There are other players you can throw that Imperial Knights list down on and get a good game instead of a slaughter.

Unimportant Addendum: game design is extraordinarily math heavy. That's where all of the point values come from for every unit in 40k and other games. Each point of Weapon Skill, Strength, etc. adds something to the unit's point value because of the probably killing power it contributes. Each and every tree has a very complex relationship to each other tree in the forest...and changing the stats or options on one tree changes the entire forest. That makes balancing the forest within a reasonable sigma (i.e. making the game "nearly balanced" or even "more balanced") totally unfeasible.

[Gentlemanloser]

 

 

There's more to the game than pure competition

 

No, there's not.

 

There's more to the 40k universe, or IP, than competition.

 

But 40k, as a wargame, is nothing if it's not competitive.

 

There's no a single scenario in any of the books that doesn't have a win/lose competitive completion condition (that was a mouthful!).

 

And ignoring all the win/lose scenarios turns 40k into something it isn't.

 

Again, not a bad thing.  But not a 40k thing. ;)

[Happy-inquisitor]

 

There's more to the game than pure competition

No, there's not.

 

Even in a game well suited for competition like chess there is more to it than competition. There are strong social aspects to games which make them appealing. You can enjoy being a chess player - and be pretty good at it - without ever entering a competition or tournament.

 

When I was young and quite good at chess we used to do things like agree not to use certain openings - it made us think more which in turn made us better players. Would you say we were not playing chess?

[Quozzo]

 

 

There's more to the game than pure competition

No, there's not.

 

Even in a game well suited for competition like chess there is more to it than competition. There are strong social aspects to games which make them appealing. You can enjoy being a chess player - and be pretty good at it - without ever entering a competition or tournament.

 

When I was young and quite good at chess we used to do things like agree not to use certain openings - it made us think more which in turn made us better players. Would you say we were not playing chess?

 

You cant get good at chess without trying to defeat your opponent. Whether you enter a tournament or not, 40k and chess is competitive. I play chess regularly with a few friends and although they are fun games, we still try to win or there would be no point.

[Gentlemanloser]

Even in a game well suited for competition like chess there is more to it than competition.

 

More to the IP of chess.  Sure.  As I said for 40k above.

 

But more to a *game* of chess.  No.

 

Come on, there really isn't.  Not a single game of chess (unless it is not actually a game, but a learning/teaching exercise) has been played, anywhere, at any time, that wasn't competitive.

 

With both players trying to checkmate the other first.

 

And that is exactly the same for 40k.

 

 

 

When I was young and quite good at chess we used to do things like agree not to use certain openings - it made us think more which in turn made us better players.

 

Self imposed learning exercise.

 

Using the Chess board and Chess pieces.

 

Were you both still trying to checkmate the other first?

[Happy-inquisitor]

 

 

 

There's more to the game than pure competition

No, there's not.

Even in a game well suited for competition like chess there is more to it than competition. There are strong social aspects to games which make them appealing. You can enjoy being a chess player - and be pretty good at it - without ever entering a competition or tournament.

 

When I was young and quite good at chess we used to do things like agree not to use certain openings - it made us think more which in turn made us better players. Would you say we were not playing chess?

You cant get good at chess without trying to defeat your opponent. Whether you enter a tournament or not, 40k and chess is competitive. I play chess regularly with a few friends and although they are fun games, we still try to win or there would be no point.

You can't get good at chess without challenging yourself. If you always use your 'strongest' opening you will be pounded by someone who has a better answer to that opening. Similarly in 40 k if you always use your strongest list you might think you are always being competitive but as a player your skills will be shallow and vulnerable to getting stomped - by a list or player or scenario that undoes your one-dimensional approach.

[Thoqqu]

On the topic of using apoc formations in 40k games... I'd love to field a vortex missile launcher formation with 7th ed rules thrown into the mix...

10" vortex bubble...mmm....

[Spacefrisian]

No, it's an apoc formation. Since when have apoc formations been ok for regular 40k?

Anything goes when its "Unbound", right?

[Gentlemanloser]

Well, you could include the same unit compositions, but you wouldn't get the same freebie bonuses.

[Happy-inquisitor]

 

Even in a game well suited for competition like chess there is more to it than competition.

More to the IP of chess. Sure. As I said for 40k above.

 

But more to a *game* of chess. No.

 

Come on, there really isn't. Not a single game of chess (unless it is not actually a game, but a learning/teaching exercise) has been played, anywhere, at any time, that wasn't competitive.

That is where our perspective differs, looking at this through the lens of only the next game is very short term and ultimately self limiting. I doubt if anyone ever got really good thinking that way.

 

Using a different opening on club nights lost me some games - games that my usual opening would probably have drawn. At the end of that I was a better player with a new tool in my mental toolbox for when I needed it. Being unwilling to risk losing a game that did not matter would have made me a worse player and a poorer competitor.

 

So my reaction to someone wanting to play unbound in a friendly game would be to take it as a challenge, to try to learn new tactics or even just see new possible weaknesses in my list or play style. Unless the other player is a jerk in which case the FoC or lack of it is not the problem.

[Quozzo]

 

 

 

 

There's more to the game than pure competition

No, there's not.

 

Even in a game well suited for competition like chess there is more to it than competition. There are strong social aspects to games which make them appealing. You can enjoy being a chess player - and be pretty good at it - without ever entering a competition or tournament.

 

When I was young and quite good at chess we used to do things like agree not to use certain openings - it made us think more which in turn made us better players. Would you say we were not playing chess?

 

You cant get good at chess without trying to defeat your opponent. Whether you enter a tournament or not, 40k and chess is competitive. I play chess regularly with a few friends and although they are fun games, we still try to win or there would be no point.

 

You can't get good at chess without challenging yourself. If you always use your 'strongest' opening you will be pounded by someone who has a better answer to that opening. Similarly in 40 k if you always use your strongest list you might think you are always being competitive but as a player your skills will be shallow and vulnerable to getting stomped - by a list or player or scenario that undoes your one-dimensional approach.

 

You are still challenging yourself by using self imposed restrictions, whether that's agreeing beforehand not to use certain moves like castling in chess or like I said earlier with fluffy lists. I never said otherwise, just that you don't need to enter a competition to be competitive. The restrictions are nothing more than rules that both parties need to abide by. The objective of the game is still to win and can still be challenging no matter where you play, or what you do to handicap yourself

 

edit: needed to Google how to spell castling xD

[Gentlemanloser]

 

 

Using a different opening on club nights lost me some games

 

Were you still trying to win those games?

[Happy-inquisitor]

 

Using a different opening on club nights lost me some games

Were you still trying to win those games?

Yes - but by using a more aggressive opening as black than was my 'strongest' option. I learned how to use a different option that was never really as strong but was needed when a draw would not be good enough. If one game at a time is your only measure of competitive then by comments up thread I was not playing chess at all because it was not my strongest opening and therefore I was not "competing". I disagree with that sentiment; always bringing your A game means never developing a strong B game and sometimes you need a strong B game to be a good match player.

 

Being competitive at a game is more than being competitive in one single game.

[thade]

I see people saying something like this: "40k is a two-player versus game where there's only one victor and victory is the goal; therefore, 40k is about competition."

I want to try to unpack this so people can see what I've been trying to say.

I don't disagree at all that "40k is a two-player versus game." That's what it is, haha. Easy enough.

Is there "only one victor"? I'm going to say yes to this too, eschewing "Everybody's a winner!" thinking, which has merit...but insofar as the combat rules are concerned, it's rare that more than one player at a 2-player 40k table meets the bullet-listed criteria for victory at the end, i.e. a tie. Usually one player has more kill points or objectives than the other, usually one player will meet the victory conditions and the other one will not. Suffice it to say, the victory condition is reducible to "The other player didn't meet victory conditions, and I did."

So...is "40k is about competition"? The rules are mostly about combat with only two rules (The Most Important Rule and The Spirit of the Game) addressing non-competitive aspects of the game, albeit even their applications has an effect on the competition in the game. They have more important effects though, on the social elements I keep blabbing about.

Not all rules are created equally, and I maintain these two are the the most important rules in the entire system. And not just because both of them have the power to trump or modify the rest of the rules.

Why?

The rules as a whole are a scaffolding to have fun by and they're only valuable insofar as they accomplish this. 40k is burdened by a (what I suspect is a corporate tone-at-the-top driven) push for power creep and too quick of a rules introduction and turnover (meant to increase book and model sales) for any semblance of of addressing the (stupendously complex) problem of game balance, so their safety net are those two rules, which are reducible to:

1. Do what's fun: if the rules make your group do something not fun, your group can ignore or change them. (Spirit of the Game.)
2. Don't be a jerk about it: don't use the rules in a way that only benefits your own fun; use 'em for the good of everybody playing. (Most Important Rule.)

Neither of those rules are going to help us when the game is considered "purely competitive," right? Surprising somebody with an Unbound list featuring only Lords of War with Tyranid air support and some Riptides is going to violate the second rule there; imposing restrictions on those players so they can't field any Riptides at all will violate the first. Self-imposing restrictions, either as ankle weights, for variety, or just to be polite, can fly under both of the rules.

As others have said, if somebody's rolling in to greet newcomers to the club with an Unbound list featuring IG Tanks and DKs, the problem is NOT the rules.

Competition is not the purpose or the whole of the game. It's just the stage on which the game is played. It's a game, first and foremost, and a fun one when both players at the table are on the same page.

[Happy-inquisitor]

Oops wierd double post removed.

[Gentlemanloser]

Winning can be fun.  Losing can be fun.

 

Fun is really far too subjective to quantify.

 

As for the Golden rule, that's actually the least important rule in the game.  It's a bland omnipresent cop out excuse.  If our rules are so broken they do not work, then play another game.  Is basically what the Golden rule is.

 

When you strip all the subjective connotation from it.

 

When the sportsmanship, camaraderie and fun (or whatever subjective feelings, enjoyment maybe) are all ignored, we are left with a rule that isn't really a rule.

 

It's an excuse to go do something different.  Something *not* from the 40k rulebook.  Something not 40k.

 

(Again, different is not bad.  It's also not unfun.  It's also not d-baggery.  It's just different.)

 

 

 

Competition is not the purpose or the whole of the game.

 

Sadly, it is.

 

There isn't a single non competitive resolution to any 40k game.  It's probably not possible for any traditional wargame.

 

The camaraderie that can come from a game, from an evening spent with friends, is part of the whole event.  But the process of the game itself is pure competition.