Lets Chat: Competitive Versus Casual

[chapter master 454]

KEEP IT CIVIL

 

So I am doing it, lets have a conversation (not an argument) regarding the casual vs. competitive sides of the game because there are clearly some strong opinions out there and it may be good to get them aired out here and maybe shed some light on things and what better time than to do so before the new year hits so we can all start fresh!

 

I fully expect all the mods to have meltas primed, ready and aimed at this thread so lets just remember rules of engagement when it comes to debating your points, key ones being attacking the argument, not the person and lets try and keep strawmans and slippery slopes out of this best we can.

 

 

I will open as a player with a competitive axe in hand. Since my beginning days of card games, my first tournament in a small anime convention (it was Yu-gi-oh and it was fun) I developed a strong desire to be competitive but not blindly. Despite following top tiers, I always played around with my own creations and by all accounts in my local shop between me and my friends (who I also put the competitive edge into), we were regulars in top 3 out of tournaments with 8 players (and and there were only 2 other more novice players really, the rest weren't pulling punches).

 

Coming back to 40k, this carried over. I am a competitive player and enjoy playing the game at the highest level I can and seeing others do the same. To me, there is no game more great than both players giving it there all and not holding back. This can often seem negative for people but for me, to hold back is to be rude, an insult of "you aren't worth the effort" sort of thing. To me, playing hard is the way to go as seeing something flounder around and not have impact just makes me feel...bad. I can see the fluff, I can even enjoy a fluffy list now and then but ultimately I find it sad not seeing a unit live up to its full potential.

To me, the matched play rules enhance the game for not just competitive players but for casuals too. I can understand however it can be frustrating when the game style you like to play isn't the MO of your group at the time (trust me, I get that).

 

Some common ground I think we can see eye to eye on, or at least a little:

Power levels are dumb and horribly executed. "Don't fix what ain't broke".

8th edition IS an improvement from prior editions, not arguing for best but it shows promise and improvement overall unlike prior editions.

Some matched play rules have had positive impacts on both competitive and casual games.

 

I would like to hear, see and get a proper understanding from the community about this matter rather than a sparked discussion de-railing another thread that already loaded emotions. Lets talk and keep it level, civil and above all respectful of how players like to play their games.

 

After all, some people like their Tea sweet, some like it without milk, end of the day don't let it ruin a perfectly good day!

[gideon stargreave]

I like narrative games, and like my armies to have themes.

That said I don't want a pretold narrative so expect my oponents to actually play.

That said. Back in 7th,when I ran an all jump pack, all veteran blood angels elite army and my opponent brought 5 knights I didn't even bother taking my models out of the case

[FormelyKnownAsSmashyPants]

I'd say I'm a cusual player who plays to win, but not at all costs. The enjoyment of myself and the other player/players comes first. I have no quarms about using a smash captain, as its entertaining when that relatively cheap character takes out my opponent's big and nasty unit. Just the same as when my opponent does the same to me. I try not table anyone too early, but don't like being table early either. I feel the best games played are when it comes down to that do or die move in the final parts of the game than ROFL stomping my opponent. Having said that I tend to try to keep to the rules and don't really alter or house rule things because I tend to play pick ups at the local GW.

[MARK0SIAN]

I think competitive and casual can coexist and both contribute to the game overall, even if I do believe tournaments are allowed to have a disproportionate influence on the overall direction of the game.

 

The only thing that I really have an issue with is Matched play being seen as competitive/tournament mode when in reality it is simply ‘balanced mode’. Naturally this means it’s used for tournaments but it is not only for tournaments.

 

With that in mind, narrative/open play should not be seen as alternatives for people who aren’t particularly competitive because those people still want to play a balanced game.

[FormelyKnownAsSmashyPants]

I won't handicap myslef during a game, but generally I do play handicapped because I'll take units I think are cool rather than the latest meta hotness, intact sometimes my units aren't even optimal and I'll play a RAS with an eviscerator because jump Marines with giant chainswords are :cuss ing cool.

[m_r_parker]

If I’m being honest, I’d say I’m a casual 40k player. I prefer to play with models and units I find enjoyable from a lore and design perspective rather than pure competitiveness. For me, the “the rule of cool” is the most important rule of all.

 

I have been to a tournament, last year at the AoS ToS doubles at WHW. We placed mid table and it was a genuinely fun event; we didn’t take an Uber-competitive list, most of our opponents had varied and fun armies, and everyone was up for having fun rather than being massive sticklers for the rules and gaming for advantage.

 

That being said, from what I’ve heard from numerous people - AoS is different from 40k in the competitive scene. There’s one guy in my local store who games competitively, is always going to tournaments, and is regularly putting together last-minute armies which are generally spamming a single type of unit (usually Guard tanks). I often see more angry / unhappy gaming on the 40k side rather than the AoS side, which I think has a more relaxed viewpoint. Maybe it’s because there’s a hardcore group of 40k gamers at my store that’s been there for many years, versus a fledgling group of AoS players (where the veteran WHF players left years ago).

 

This is partly why I enjoy 30k to 40k; there’s less ‘flavour of the month’ net-list builds based on new codex releases, and the price-point of FW pits off most people from throwing a bundle of money at a new list knowing it’s going to be obsolete in 6 months time. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a competitive 30k scene (if anything at times it’s the pinnacle of gaming to win attitudes), but the players as a whole are more relaxed.

 

From a mechanics point of view, I only play Matched Play. I grew up with points, and it’s the only way I see lists being balanced. Power Level was introduced to me as “See those Vanguard Veterans, they cost the same with twin Lightning Claws or Thunder Hammer and Storm Shield as they do with Bolt Pistols and Chainswords”, and my brain burst a blood vessel because those two load-outs are very unbalanced. Give me points everyday of the week!

 

I appreciate people getting the rules right, and I don’t mind correcting people that have made a genuine mistake and give them another chance at what they were doing. I draw the line at people who throw the line “Technically, the rules are <badly written rule>, so...” as an excuse for poor gaming, and I make a note of not playing them again. I get few enough games in as is, I don’t need to be playing against people who aren’t fun. Difficult games can be fun, from bad dice rolls to unexpected lists, even being outfoxed on deployment - those are great games that I remember, and are fun because of the people playing them.

[FormelyKnownAsSmashyPants]

Yes exactly this. I don't even see a point to open play as a system, because you could always just throw models on a table and battle out anyway. And as far as narrative goes I just don't think PL are balanced enough in all but the largest of games like those mega Apocalypse hames we read about. And thats a moot point now tga apoc is its own district game.

[Panzer]

And as far as narrative goes I just don't think PL are balanced enough in all but the largest of games like those mega Apocalypse hames we read about. And thats a moot point now tga apoc is its own district game.

 

Nothing forces you to use PL in Narrative Play. It's for points as well as PL. What makes it different from Matched Play is that you have no limitations on Stratagems, Psychic powers, abilties that create new units and such. Also the missions but we do occasionally play those with Matched Play rules as well.

[Ciler]

From a mechanics point of view, I only play Matched Play. I grew up with points, and it’s the only way I see lists being balanced. Power Level was introduced to me as “See those Vanguard Veterans, they cost the same with twin Lightning Claws or Thunder Hammer and Storm Shield as they do with Bolt Pistols and Chainswords”, and my brain burst a blood vessel because those two load-outs are very unbalanced. Give me points everyday of the week!

But why should lists have to be balanced ?

[Doctor Perils]

I am 100% a casual gamer, but I'm also really happy that GW does _try_ to accommodate both competitive and casual gaming: I agree with Markosian in that competitive and matched play style gaming are not one and the same.

 

I'm sorry though, @chapter master 454, but I don't agree with your point that power levels are dum. List building induces way too much stress in me which I find both unpleasant and completely unnecessary when I just want to have a fun game - especially if you consider WYSIWYG, as you should be in that case doing a list build which won't budge, then make your models according to that.

Power Levels definitely need updating (badly), but the attitude of saying "power levels are dum" means that two opponents who would feel better off using power levels just end up being bullied into using points because that's what the rest of their gaming club and the internets want them to do.

Basically, casual gamers have let you have your toys (points) for the last twenty years, just let us have ours without judging us for it :). (Note: I don't mean to say that that is what you are doing, but in general this kind of remark can be interpreted that way)

 

 

With that said, from what I understand, the rules for Apocalypse would be right up my alley, but I've never had the opportunity to try so couldn't really say

[Panzer]

Basically, casual gamers have let you have your toys (points) for the last twenty years, just let us have ours without judging us for it . (Note: I don't mean to say that that is what you are doing, but in general this kind of remark can be interpreted that way)

That's not quite the right perspective either though. Casual gamers and points aren't mutual exclusive so they didn't "have let you have your toys (points)". I'm a casual player and I don't touch power levels with a stick. Points all the way.

[Cpt_Reaper]

I don't consider myself a casual player. I want to win. However I want to win with lists and armies I enjoy using.

 

I prize theme over brute force, and that extends to every aspect of the game. MSU for the sake of MSU ticks me right off.

 

I also strive to obey the rules. No bending and certainly no breaking. It may be a game, but obeying the rules ensure fairness.

[Atrus]

I a casual player straight up. In my early days of 40k I did go to a couple of tournaments- even won the first tournament I went to but drifted away from them as it did not align with my time slots well. I remember that it was a fun tournament held by the local GW. I remember the weeks leading up to it, buying a new army (tyranids) because I wanted to do something different. Pouring over the book to see what I could do. Buying everything I needed and spending every night practicing tactics and painting the models till I had everything down pat and 95% of the army painted by the tournament day.

It was an interesting experience and it was a fun day.

 

Went to a tournament for the first time in over a decade last year- just a local gaming group one. It was the most unfun experience of 40k I have ever had in my life. The whole day I felt rushed to get anything done and especially in my last game against a veteran tourney player; from the get go I felt absolutely rushed- and it was a terrible game against a tzeench tide of smite spam net listing.

It drove home to me that that scene is not for me.

 

Now I can appreciate there are those that somehow get some kind of enjoyment from that. My guess is they have boring work and need some sort of stressful environment to thrive in and create it in game. Who knows. Tourney players seem to be a different breed. But they like it. It is no more or less a part of the hobby than any other part.

 

My main consternation is the near automatic association people have of tournament play with matched play. So much so that if I approach someone at the local GW for a game and utter the words matched play, immediately they're going to start thinking rule of 3- which is not matched play. But because it is so ingrained in the tourney scene, it infects the average gamer.

I have a friend who got chewed out for wanting to take 4 hellbrutes to a game once at the store because it broke rule of 3 and it was in the rules that he couldn't have 4.

 

What I'd like to see, is a clearly defined Tournament Play rule set. Give it a nice bold heading and underline it. In there goes all the rule of 3 stuff and other tournament related stuff and keep it there.

This way a person can rock up to a store or club and say "yo, whose up for some tournament play?" Instead of the current matched play set we have infected with tournament stuff and getting people confused.

Matched Play to me is what I call Structured Play. It is essentially open or narrative play, but with points. That's it.

 

I like to field whatever I feel like. If I want to have a heap of inquisitors on the field to represent my inquisitorial enclave working together to defeat a particularly dangerous threat, I'll have them there. My friend wants to have 4 hellbrutes all done up in a different chaos god and a black legion one because it's cool and looks cool, then he can.

The rules are a guideline to me for what is ultimately a fun garage game used to chill and tell stories with our plastic toys.

[Axineton]

I couldn’t give two figs about competitive personally. Give me that casual fun any day of the week. 

[Doctor Perils]

 

Basically, casual gamers have let you have your toys (points) for the last twenty years, just let us have ours without judging us for it . (Note: I don't mean to say that that is what you are doing, but in general this kind of remark can be interpreted that way)

That's not quite the right perspective either though. Casual gamers and points aren't mutual exclusive so they didn't "have let you have your toys (points)". I'm a casual player and I don't touch power levels with a stick. Points all the way.

 

Indeed, and that's the beauty of having the two systems :)

 

I am curious as to why you don't want to touch power levels?

[Bung]

 

I am curious as to why you don't want to touch power levels?

 

 

Cause its mostly not considered fair if upgrades for units are free.

 

We had similar stuff in older Editions of the game, like play the chaos god chosen numbers and get upgrades for free or 4th Edition Space Marine Kodex where you took a small disadvantage that didnt affect you and get a free bonus.

Now play power levels and you can get nearly any bonus / upgrade for free if you have the model. 

 

Sorry i cant consider a game with power level a fair game on an even level.

 

I think the most question is how someone does define competive and casual.

For myself i even try to win in what you consider a beer and pretzel game, if you dont try to win its just boring.

 

The other side is if you go to an event with a prize there will be people that want that price at any cost. So called WAAC- Players (WAAC - WIn at all Cost) which are the most unfun players i have met in 20 years gaming.

 

But casual isnt just throw any rule for force organisation etc. out of the airlock. Its more about haveing a good time hanging out with your friends etc.

 

And for the narrative, you could have done anything you want, just talk about it with your opponent.

I have played a pure Terminator BT Force in 4th and 5th Edition after talking with my mates and getting their ok. Realy fun games at that time. There had been no need for rules for that stuff, just talking. But that werent simple pick up games at a store.

 

I didnt play any tournaments since 4th Edition after encoiuntering the for that time infamous 2 Demon Prince with Lash / 9 Kyborgs sprinkeld with T5 Nurgle Marines List 3 times in a row.

Most unfun tournament ever playing 3 times against the same netlist. 

 

So, i would rather ask whats your definition of competetive? 

Playing to win in a game that pits 2 people against each other? Sorry thats the main part of wargames.

Or is it the attitude some of the players with a strong desire to win? (for me it is).

[Ciler]

Cause its mostly not considered fair if upgrades for units are free.

Again, I must ask, why do you feel that the only way to achieve "fairness" is having exactly the same amount of points ?

[Gederas]

I'm more of a casual player. I don't mind losing, but I mind losing when I'm bringing your average, fluffy list that works well and someone rolls up with a cheesed out, optimized Tournament list (something like that was why my Dark Angels got shelved for now).

 

Also:

My main consternation is the near automatic association people have of tournament play with matched play. So much so that if I approach someone at the local GW for a game and utter the words matched play, immediately they're going to start thinking rule of 3- which is not matched play. But because it is so ingrained in the tourney scene, it infects the average gamer.
I have a friend who got chewed out for wanting to take 4 hellbrutes to a game once at the store because it broke rule of 3 and it was in the rules that he couldn't have 4.

What I'd like to see, is a clearly defined Tournament Play rule set. Give it a nice bold heading and underline it. In there goes all the rule of 3 stuff and other tournament related stuff and keep it there.
This way a person can rock up to a store or club and say "yo, whose up for some tournament play?" Instead of the current matched play set we have infected with tournament stuff and getting people confused.
Matched Play to me is what I call Structured Play. It is essentially open or narrative play, but with points. That's it.

I like to field whatever I feel like. If I want to have a heap of inquisitors on the field to represent my inquisitorial enclave working together to defeat a particularly dangerous threat, I'll have them there. My friend wants to have 4 hellbrutes all done up in a different chaos god and a black legion one because it's cool and looks cool, then he can.
The rules are a guideline to me for what is ultimately a fun garage game used to chill and tell stories with our plastic toys.

THIS. ALL OF THIS.

 

Competitive RECOMMENDATIONS infecting non-tournament Matched play is just mindbogglingly enraging for me. GW should have just made a subset of Matched for Tournaments. This would have prevented this whole issue....

[Warhead01]

I feel like I have 2 or 3 modes of play. Casual and not as competitive as I "wish I still was". I have a friend I enjoy playing against but it's very casual and more cooperative where were playing and not worried really which one will win. We use points or PL what ever. He's a funny guy and some might say a little slow/disabled. We've been friends for like 20 years and our games are for fun and the one up's-menship. He can bring what ever he wants but knowing him I build my lists to play at his level. I want the game to be a roller coaster of ups and downs.
And a good time. the standing rule is that if he isn't having fun I offer to call the game and we can just hang out. beating him isn't important in the least. This isn't to say he can't win, he can and does beat me when he has a mind to but I take no joy from crushing his soul. 
The next lever is just a little more competitive with other friends where I turn the dial up in my list, usually they're build on the same list I would use in the first example with a little fat trimmed out. Those games are also cooperative in that we chat about the choices we can make during our turn but still play to win. Those are a lot of fun and I prefer to play with friends I have been gaming with for again nearly 20 years or more. 
And lastly, once upon a time I was really into the preping for tournaments and playing as best I could with the best list I could create. So 3.5 and 5th edition.  I did fairly well in 5th and even came in 4th of 48 in a local Ard' boys qualifier. very proud of that. I try to hit the top 10 or top 5 but it's either that of the very bottom. just how it seemed to go. 
However, the competitive players and lists seemed to have changed about then to some form of competitive play that was very different to what I was used to. it became more about the lists being as openly op and in my view cheesy and not much fun to play against.  I've pushed a leaf blower my self at one point but it wasn't anything of anew concept having played a las-plaz razor back list in 3rd and seeing it wan't really a fun game after a few.  I wen't back to foot orks but my games would run too longs and create weird situations at least once or twice and that brought that to an end. 
My most competitive friend beats me 95+ out of 100 times now days and those games are not a lot of fun as he chases the meta, he's been this way for 20 years but it's only gotten more insufferable.  
What I like in a game is a draw or a near win or near loss. I don't want a one sided win or loss ever. Obviously in tournaments I prefer a total victory but I attend so few my last was a year ago and was in the top 25%, 6th place with only 1 loss.... Having nicely trounced my competitive friend nearly getting him to tap out at the start of his first turn... If only. lol. 
But for games I would more actively like to ply I want a roller coaster of ups and downs that I will remember and will get me excited to play again.  (That isn't happening this edition.)

I might have been a table top adrenaline junkie when I was able to play several games a week. 

[Bung]

 

Cause its mostly not considered fair if upgrades for units are free.

Again, I must ask, why do you feel that the only way to achieve "fairness" is having exactly the same amount of points ?

 

 

Its not about points, its about what you get for your points.

 

Short: If you use Powerlevels you will end up in games that will look like a a super heavyweight boxer beating up a 5 year old girl in a wheelchair. Both ar boxers so would you consider that matchup fair? It should be cause its a one on one box fight.

 

Longer: 

Chess is consideres fair, cause everyone has the same amount of pieces with the same abilities and a match are normaly at least 2 rounds as one has to go second the first time.

No imagine chess reduced only to the number of gameing pieces.

The first one brings a standard setup and the second one brings 16 Queens. Would it be still a fair game? I doubt it.

 

Thats Powerlevels for me.

 

As said if you want to do something else you are always free to do it, but thats nothing that would need Powerlevels in my opinion. You are always free to do house rules or give your oponent anohter advantage, but that should be anounced before and known by all players participating.

 

To be honest, playing 40k since third Edition, doesnt make me believe i will ever find a game i would consider fair with such a loose ruleset as Powerlevels. To much bad experience here and i am sure i am not alone with this.

[McElMcNinja]

I enjoy both the casual game and the tournament scene. I have been playing since rouge trader and only recently (within the last couple years) started playing in tournaments. The closest place for me to get in a game is over an hour away, so what better way to get in 3-6 games in a weekend and not have the wife calling wondering when I'm going to be done. She even travels with me and goes shopping/site seeing, heck she signed me up for LVO and booked everything.

I would be ok if GW just focused on making the game the way they wanted it to be and if something is too powerful in the tournament scene, then let the TO's put in their own mechanics to balance that out. I know some already do and as long as they are clear about it up front so everyone is on the same page, then cool.

[jaxom]

These sorts of discussions remind me of A Wise Man's Fear. Two characters are playing a board game; one is a master, the other a novice. The novice thinks they're playing as a competition and aims to win.

 

 

"No," Bredon said. "That's not it at all. Tak is a subtle game.... Right now you are stomping about like a thug. If anything you're worse than you were two days ago." 

"Admit it," I said. "I nearly had you that last time."

  He merely scowled and pointed imperiously to the table. I set to it with a will, smiling and humming, sure that today I would finally best him.

  But nothing could be further from the truth. Bredon set his stones ruthlessly, not a breath of hesitation between his moves. He tore me apart as easily as you rip a sheet of paper in half.

  The game was over so quickly  it left me breathless.

 

 

"The point is not to play as tight as you can. The point is to be bold. To be dangerous. Be elegant." .... He gestured at the brief and brutal lay of stones between us. "Look at that. Why would I ever want to win such a game as this?"  

  I looked down at the board. "The point isn't to win?" I asked.

  "The point," Bredon said grandly, "is to play a beautiful game." He lifted his hands and shrugged, his face breaking into a beatific smile. "Why would I want to win anything other than a beautiful game?"

 

The question being, what does one player consider a beautiful game? Or perhaps, in our particular community, what is the scale of trading off mechanical advantage for aesthetics? For example, I rather dislike seeing a conga-line of Ork Boyz or Tyranid 'gaunts extending to the backline to the aura character hiding in the rear. However, I understand that it is the "better play" compared to endangering a lynchpin aura character or giving up a presence in the deployment zone.

 

I think this is the key difference between casual and competition play. The social contract between players in the former is to have a pleasing game; going with what feels right even if it's a little tactically/strategically stupid (show-down between warlords, vengeance charge into overwhelming odds, etc.). It's exhibition sparring. The social contract between players in the latter is to have a brutal (i.e. severe) game. It's a knife fight. That is not to say the players are mean or rude, but that the goal is to win (minimize risks, maximize rewards, both in unit selection and play). One can be a very polite and great person to play with even as one tables the opponent on turn three.

 

Competition gaming is not mutually contradictory to pleasurable aesthetics or that sense of exhibition sparring, but it's rarer because the differences in meta-list design and player skill can create some odd combinations which are exacerbated by the brutal nature of the environment. The same factors can lead to two amazing players having to use every bit of cunning and experience to pull out a tight win during turn six after some Holmes-Moriarty level of unit interactions. 

[Closet Skeleton]

I'm a casual player who basically only plays tournaments. Don't bother with good lists because I can't afford to be constantly buying the new hotness.

 

There's no reason why you can't be competitive in settings with actual list building restrictions rather than the effectively unbound nonsense that's currently considered the norm.

 

The only thing that I really have an issue with is Matched play being seen as competitive/tournament mode when in reality it is simply ‘balanced mode’. Naturally this means it’s used for tournaments but it is not only for tournaments.

 

But its not, there's literally nothing balanced about points in itself. There are ways that power level is more balanced than points and ways that it isn't.

 

On the odd situations where I've ended up playing some kid in a store my army is usually over-powered at the same points level because I'm old enough to realise that stuffing random upgrades onto things doesn't actually help as much as just bringing more bodies. Power level evens the playing field in that respect. Complaining about 10 thunder hammer vanguard vets costing the same as 10 chainsword ones is forgetting that in most editions of the game 30 chainsword vanguard vets would beat 10 thunder hammer ones every time. Lascannon devastators are often just too expensive to take in matched play but somehow that unit being the same cost as any other kind of devastators is over-powered? Really?

 

Its irrelevant to compare chainswords to thunderhammers because under points you never take maxed out thunder hammers and under power level you never take maxed out chain-swords. Optimization is still a factor in both its just the answer that changes. 40k is full of trap wargear that makes your army worse if you take them, there's nothing 'unbalancable' about just giving you that stuff for free and assuming everyone has it. The biggest problem with power level is that some stuff becomes un-usable if you're not taking the optimum equipment but that happens all the time with points as well, its just that its different stuff that becomes optimal.

 

Points don't guarantee that two 2000 points lists are going to be equally powerful. With stuff like subfaction traits, warlord traits and relics it doesn't even guarantee that two identical army lists are going to be equally powerful.

 

If points were balanced list building wouldn't be a thing, squeezing extra efficiency out of your points limit is an important skill for competitive play but its also an admission that points aren't a framework within which you try to exploit the game's lack of balance rather than an actual balancing factor.

 

I have been to a tournament, last year at the AoS ToS doubles at WHW. We placed mid table and it was a genuinely fun event; we didn’t take an Uber-competitive list, most of our opponents had varied and fun armies, and everyone was up for having fun rather than being massive sticklers for the rules and gaming for advantage.

That being said, from what I’ve heard from numerous people - AoS is different from 40k in the competitive scene.
 

 

Doubles is always different to singles. I had a pretty miserable time at last year's warhammer world AoS tournament.

Edited December 21, 2019 by Closet Skeleton

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

The only thing that I really have an issue with is Matched play being seen as competitive/tournament mode when in reality it is simply ‘balanced mode’. Naturally this means it’s used for tournaments but it is not only for tournaments.

But its not, there's literally nothing balanced about points in itself. There are ways that power level is more balanced than points and ways that it isn't.

 

On the odd situations where I've ended up playing some kid in a store my army is usually over-powered at the same points level because I'm old enough to realise that stuffing random upgrades onto things doesn't actually help as much as just bringing more bodies. Power level evens the playing field in that respect. Complaining about 10 thunder hammer vanguard vets costing the same as 10 chainsword ones is forgetting that in most editions of the game 30 chainsword vanguard vets would beat 10 thunder hammer ones every time. Lascannon devastators are often just too expensive to take in matched play but somehow that unit being the same cost as any other kind of devastators is over-powered? Really?

 

Points don't guarantee that two 2000 points lists are going to be equally powerful. With stuff like subfaction traits, warlord traits and relics it doesn't even guarantee that two identical army lists are going to be equally powerful.

 

I have been to a tournament, last year at the AoS ToS doubles at WHW. We placed mid table and it was a genuinely fun event; we didn’t take an Uber-competitive list, most of our opponents had varied and fun armies, and everyone was up for having fun rather than being massive sticklers for the rules and gaming for advantage.

 

That being said, from what I’ve heard from numerous people - AoS is different from 40k in the competitive scene.

 

Doubles is always different to singles. I had a pretty miserable time at last year's warhammer world AoS tournament.

Of course points doesn’t guarantee lists will be balanced against each other, for a start the codexes themselves aren’t balanced.

 

However we will just have to disagree about points versus power levels. A points system where each unit and its upgrades are individually purchased (providing the points costs are accurate) has much more potential to be a balanced match between similar players than one with a blanket power level for the unit.

 

In your example your army is overpowered because you’re a veteran player, not because the points system isn’t balanced. As for the chainswords versus thundehammers, 30 chainsword guys would beat 10 thunder hammer guys. But that would t happen with power levels because I could match your 30 chainswords with 30 Thunder hammers and stormshields for exactly the same power level.

 

I would also say that yes, being able to field squads of lascannons for the same power level as heavy bolter ones is overpowered. Those lascannons will delete much more valuable targets over the course of a game than the HBs.

 

Points aren’t perfect but as a system they’re definitely more balanced than power levels.

[Panzer]

 

 

Basically, casual gamers have let you have your toys (points) for the last twenty years, just let us have ours without judging us for it . (Note: I don't mean to say that that is what you are doing, but in general this kind of remark can be interpreted that way)

That's not quite the right perspective either though. Casual gamers and points aren't mutual exclusive so they didn't "have let you have your toys (points)". I'm a casual player and I don't touch power levels with a stick. Points all the way.

 

Indeed, and that's the beauty of having the two systems

 

I am curious as to why you don't want to touch power levels?

 

 

Because I personally care about having a balanced matchup and have the narrative play itself out over the course of the game instead of having one side having a native advantage. As much as I care about the narrative, it's still a game for me.

It doesn't feel good when I win because I have a native advantage and it doesn't feel good when I lose because my opponent has a native advantage. That's all. 

Edited December 21, 2019 by sfPanzer