Lets Chat: Competitive Versus Casual

[chapter master 454]

Nice to see the conversation is healthy here.

 

Just want to throw in some other thoughts. Personally I am someone who builds lists with the intent to see how much I can squeeze out of something. Currently I will comment that I have multiple theory lists with various things I would like to test but can't, bit of a prolific list builder (I do have nearly all codexes on my Tablet...so yea) where one list is testing Iron Hands with chief Apothecary beside 18 devastator centurions, another list is trying to see if maybe I can make something work from triple Stormsurge and while another list for necrons is trying to make abuse of 5 C'tan (the points reductions pushed it to 5...used to be 4!)

 

However I do build other fun stuff. A 1k list I have is built around just a stormsurge in a supreme command detachment and another list for 2k points has 3 land raiders and a bunch of troops to put in them (in fact, the list has exactly the number of models that can fit in all 3 land raiders).

 

 

Suppose another topic to converse about is "level of rules". By this I refer to strictness and how tight to the line you play the game. Personally I am fairly flexible and run it however I need to depending on the player I face, when I face another player who is new I tend to keep things fairly loose on things like missing activations and such, no point being a jerk about it when we are having fun. Exception to that would be if they ask to help them improve their memory and the best way to do it is hard punishes, but I only do it if they ask for it or my opponent is wanting to practise for a tournament so we agree I should be as much of a stickler for the rules as possible (which I can do, just don't because that is what is called being a nether region individual!). Normally I can agree with my opponent about terrain fairly quickly and line of sight is rarely an issue (though I will admit I am loose with it on an honour system, i don't believe in flag poles counting but wings do...can't fly if I turn them into fish nets!).

 

For an extra comment: Is it agreeable between casuals and competitive players that the ITC "First floor blocks LoS" rule good or is there some out there who feel it is a bit of a silly work around for poor terrain?

[MARK0SIAN]

For an extra comment: Is it agreeable between casuals and competitive players that the ITC "First floor blocks LoS" rule good or is there some out there who feel it is a bit of a silly work around for poor terrain?

I would say it’s both. It’s a good work around for poor terrain and poor terrain/LoS rules.

 

The rule itself is good but the fact that it needs to exist in the first place is not.

 

In terms of strict rule following, I tend to be fairly relaxed. If someone forgets something I’ll let them go back and do it or I’ll remind them of a rule or bonus in their favour if they forget. I might even warn them that a particular move on their part might be really advantageous for me.

 

On the other hand I’m not going to allow them to move 7 inches instead of 6 or anything like that.

Edited December 26, 2019 by MARK0SIAN

[Ciler]

Suppose another topic to converse about is "level of rules".

Indeed, and it is often - in my area anyway - a subject of conflict between casual and "hardcore" players because the casual players will tend to play with the rules as they are in the book(s) whereas tournament players will often expect to play by ETC standard rules. I myself am a casual player, but I keep aware of the local tourney scene, and what has happened to me regularly is to play someone who starts with the ever classic "everything is standard GW ruins rules" and then once I start shooting at his units goes "oh but ground floor is blocking LoS" at which point I have to remind them that they can't assume a player will know ETC conventions.

[jaxom]

 

For an extra comment: Is it agreeable between casuals and competitive players that the ITC "First floor blocks LoS" rule good or is there some out there who feel it is a bit of a silly work around for poor terrain?

 

Depends on what the first floors look like. I think the hobby, particularly the tournament scene, has been around long enough that it's a separate entity compared to historical wargaming and dioramas. The interaction between miniatures, base sizes, unit movement, and terrain size are not mysterious. It's not hard to design a terrain piece with specific step sizes to allow for 2" intervals of movement and flat surfaces designed for X number of Y base size. Ditto for gaps/windows in walls to allow for firing while having cover. 

 

I'm low-key astonished that there hasn't been an ITC/ETC/whatever terrain-template pack for making standardized terrain from foamcore and cardboard or a tournament-involved terrain company that hasn't put out a line of "tournament standard" terrain. "Here are tank traps, they're based on a 1.5"x4" strips, and they're impassable to VEHICLES but provide cover to adjacent models and INFANTRY models on their base. In X mission map they're set up in a strip of 4 terrain pieces and in Y mission they're set as two patches of two terrain pieces each." "Here's a bunker. It's 3" tall, has a hatch on top and in the back for entry and exit. They're both wide enough that a 60mm base or 2 32mm bases could fit in at a single time. There's a firing slit along the front so up to 5 32mm based models can front-rank fire out of it."

[Claws and Effect]

For an extra comment: Is it agreeable between casuals and competitive players that the ITC "First floor blocks LoS" rule good or is there some out there who feel it is a bit of a silly work around for poor terrain?

We tend to go by actual line of sight.

 

If a dude is standing right in front of an open doorway it's pretty obvious that he's visible. We'll usually allow cover save bonuses in that instance.

[Evil Eye]

One of the things I prefer about "casual" environments is that issues like the above are generally speaking easier to resolve, as A: it's just you and a mate playing (maybe with a FLGS/FLGW manager to help) so it's much easier to just talk things over between you without worrying about having to go through an organizer, and B: the stakes are infinitely lower, so "Ah, I suppose he didn't have LoS after all, oh well, not a big deal" is far less of a problem than in a tourney with prize money.

There are plenty of other things I prefer about "garagehammer" but I don't want to sound like a broken record. But in short, the lower pressure, the (hopefully) friendlier attitude and the opportunity to have fun with the system in less strictly balanced ways is more appealing to me. But then I really don't enjoy the pressure of competition in general, so there's that!

[DuskRaider]

The nice part about casual is the experimentation you can do with friends. Without casual, there wouldn't be an Inquisimunda game at all.

 

I remember back in 5th my friends and I had made our own codices for forces that didn't have one. I had made Deathshroud rules and everyone thought they were overpowered because they were Terminators with 2 wounds, lol. My how times have changed.

[Dragonlover]

I apply the same ethos to 40K as I do to my Commander decks for MtG: build casually, play competitively. Do I want to win? Of course I do, winning is fun. Do I want my opponent to have a good time? Of course. Therefore, my Alpha Legion list with two Fire Raptors only comes out against people I know can deal with it and I usually give a heads up as well. I like my armies to look like an army too, which tends to curb certain issues.

 

That said, if I were to ever go to a tournament? Then I'll pull out the meta list, because that is the point of a tournament: be a good sport, but the knives come out and the top spot is the goal, exactly as if I were to decide to try and get on the MtG Pro Tour.

 

Then there's the narrative campaign me and a mate are playing: we're using points, but winging the missions based on what happened last game, and in fact the amount of points we both get. Next game, since his Sisters are going down into the tunnels my GSC live in, I'm getting more points than him to represent the home turf advantage. I'm also bringing some Purestrains for the first time.

 

Oh as an aside: that new Open Play method from CA19 where you randomly generate your Force Org? I wholeheartedly recommend it, used to do it in 6th/7th and it was great fun.

 

Dragonlover

[Atrus]

On that note of experimentation in casual; I have a friend that I game with and we like to use the Orders and Activation from Apocalypse and mesh them into our 40k games. We've found this to increase the enjoyment of our games immensely as there was nothing worse than seeing units blown off the table first turn and never getting to do anything with them aside from set them up.

Soon enough we'll implement the EXP system from CA18 and custom heroes growing from our games.

 

This to me is 40k. Story telling.

Netlisting and cutthroating is not. But that's just my mindset.

[Vermintide]

I think there's two camps, and a subtle but very important distinction in perspective.

Younger and/or newer players tend to be more competitive. If you joined the scene in a post-internet edition, you'll have been exposed to the competitive side of the hobby much more widely than any of the old guard will have been back in the day, you have your FLG podcasts and what have you focusing much more strongly on competitive play; whereas if you were playing in the 90s, you got your monthly White Dwarf and that was about it. The meta was only ever your local meta.

I think these types of player do indeed see the game as a totally different thing. They like fluff and fluffy armies, but they don't understand why you would inhibit yourself by actually using them. I think the older players are more connected with the game's role playing roots- If we trace it all the way back through the original WFB, you see how much DNA it shares with plain old fashioned Dungeons and Dragons. The more competitive, newer players may not be making that connection- They're seeing it as Magic: The Gathering with miniatures, or a hipster tabletop Starcraft.

Much like an old fashioned RPG, these non-competitive, narrative players view the rules as an abstraction method. The rules are a mechanical way of disconnecting the players decisions from the ability of the characters. The purpose of statistics is to weight the chances of outcomes, separately from the player's influence- As opposed to a traditional game of skill and dexterity, like say, pool, or darts, or basketball, or tennis; where the player and their own individual ability directly determines the outcome. While this type of old school player still wants to win, because of course you do- There's a key difference. There's very rarely any meta-gaming going on.

Metagaming is against the spirit of a role-playing game- Your level 6 Sorceror should have no way of knowing that his fates are really being decided by the roll of a D20, and therefore the knowledge of statistics and probabilities should not weigh into the decisions your level 6 Sorceror makes. By the same token, the Lord Commander of your Imperial Guard division should have no way of knowing that the fate of his units is decided by a fistful of D6. He should not be making the decision to deploy his troops differently because he knows the Tyranids opposite him get to throw X extra dice than his, or have Y inches extra movement, or because he knows they have that one special rule. He should be making decisions as a commander of troops, with the intelligence available to him, and then you use the dice rolls to represent that.

I think the question is, will these spirited competitive players ever see the light, and come over to the ways of the bebearded grognards? Will they listen to tales of the days of old where one used units they liked, not units that were the best? The days where so long as plenty of action happened, both players won?

Of course I'm making some vast, sweeping generalisations and simplifications here. I know it's not as simple and black and white as all of this. But this is the way I see it :)

[Panzer]

By the same token, the Lord Commander of your Imperial Guard division should have no way of knowing that the fate of his units is decided by a fistful of D6. He should not be making the decision to deploy his troops differently because he knows the Tyranids opposite him get to throw X extra dice than his, or have Y inches extra movement, or because he knows they have that one special rule. He should be making decisions as a commander of troops, with the intelligence available to him, and then you use the dice rolls to represent that.

 

Yes but also no.

Of course the Lord Commander doesn't know anything about dice and special rules controlling his fate, but he should know what his men and his enemy is capable of and make decisions based on that knowledge. So while you, the player, might think in dice and special rules, the Lord Commander thinks in experiences, reports and teachings that are likely to lead him to similar decisions.

Your example with the roleplaying wizard stops working there because while the wizard might do things based on emotions and personal preferences then Lord Commander on the battlefield should for the most part do things based on facts and odds because he has the lifes of hundreds or thousands of people in his hand.

 

Making subpar decisions like that only works when you have created your very own characters with background story and preferences and whatnot but people who do that for their regular games are very rare even among casual players.

[Vermintide]

 

By the same token, the Lord Commander of your Imperial Guard division should have no way of knowing that the fate of his units is decided by a fistful of D6. He should not be making the decision to deploy his troops differently because he knows the Tyranids opposite him get to throw X extra dice than his, or have Y inches extra movement, or because he knows they have that one special rule. He should be making decisions as a commander of troops, with the intelligence available to him, and then you use the dice rolls to represent that.

 

Yes but also no.

Of course the Lord Commander doesn't know anything about dice and special rules controlling his fate, but he should know what his men and his enemy is capable of and make decisions based on that knowledge. So while you, the player, might think in dice and special rules, the Lord Commander thinks in experiences, reports and teachings that are likely to lead him to similar decisions.

Your example with the roleplaying wizard stops working there because while the wizard might do things based on emotions and personal preferences then Lord Commander on the battlefield should for the most part do things based on facts and odds because he has the lifes of hundreds or thousands of people in his hand.

 

Making subpar decisions like that only works when you have created your very own characters with background story and preferences and whatnot but people who do that for their regular games are very rare even among casual players.

 

Yeah, of course- But that's just what I mean. The rules represent what he would be thinking, i.e "We've seen these xenos before, they're lightning fast and can destroy anything we have if we let them get up close." But when a player is meta-gaming, he's thinking purely in terms of "That's 40 S4 attacks, on average that's 20 wounds against my GEQ. The numbers say these 30 S6 AP-1 shots should do the trick in neutralising them." etc.

 

Making subpar decisions has nothing to do with it. It's not inherently fluffier if you do something non-optimal, or vice versa. But the distinction, and I will grant you it is a fairly subtle distinction in some circumstances, is why you are making those decisions. Are you doing what the character would do, or are you doing what you know is best within the rules system?

 

And we can also look at it the other way. Let's say you're a newbie, and take Robbutt to command your Ultramarines. He's a millennia old primarch, the very author of the codex astartes, with wisdom comparable only to the Emperor himself. He's almost certainly a better commander than you are a player of the game. So the rules are there to help abstract out the fact Robbutt knows what he's doing, even if you, the bumbling newbie player, throw away half your army turn 1.

Edited December 29, 2019 by Vermintide

[Panzer]

 

 

By the same token, the Lord Commander of your Imperial Guard division should have no way of knowing that the fate of his units is decided by a fistful of D6. He should not be making the decision to deploy his troops differently because he knows the Tyranids opposite him get to throw X extra dice than his, or have Y inches extra movement, or because he knows they have that one special rule. He should be making decisions as a commander of troops, with the intelligence available to him, and then you use the dice rolls to represent that.

 

Yes but also no.

Of course the Lord Commander doesn't know anything about dice and special rules controlling his fate, but he should know what his men and his enemy is capable of and make decisions based on that knowledge. So while you, the player, might think in dice and special rules, the Lord Commander thinks in experiences, reports and teachings that are likely to lead him to similar decisions.

Your example with the roleplaying wizard stops working there because while the wizard might do things based on emotions and personal preferences then Lord Commander on the battlefield should for the most part do things based on facts and odds because he has the lifes of hundreds or thousands of people in his hand.

 

Making subpar decisions like that only works when you have created your very own characters with background story and preferences and whatnot but people who do that for their regular games are very rare even among casual players.

 

Yeah, of course- But that's just what I mean. The rules represent what he would be thinking, i.e "We've seen these xenos before, they're lightning fast and can destroy anything we have if we let them get up close." But when a player is meta-gaming, he's thinking purely in terms of "That's 40 S4 attacks, on average that's 20 wounds against my GEQ. The numbers say these 30 S6 AP-1 shots should do the trick in neutralising them." etc.

 

Making subpar decisions has nothing to do with it. It's not inherently fluffier if you do something non-optimal, or vice versa. But the distinction, and I will grant you it is a fairly subtle distinction in some circumstances, is why you are making those decisions. Are you doing what the character would do, or are you doing what you know is best within the rules system?

 

And we can also look at it the other way. Let's say you're a newbie, and take Robbutt to command your Ultramarines. He's a millennia old primarch, the very author of the codex astartes, with wisdom comparable only to the Emperor himself. He's almost certainly a better commander than you are a player of the game. So the rules are there to help abstract out the fact Robbutt knows what he's doing, even if you, the bumbling newbie player, throw away half your army turn 1.

 

 

But whether one does something because the cold hard numbers say it's favourable or because the character would know from experience etc that it's favourable is pretty much exactly the same. It's just differently explained which outside of narrative reports really doesn't matter at all.

 

Also a small nitpick, Guilliman is not really millenia old. He was in stasis for thousands of years. Dante has literally lived longer than he did. However he's a Primarch so he's inherently more capable than most other beings.

 

Anyway, I don't really know where you are wanting to go with it. Why exactly a player makes a decision doesn't mean anything and the only noticeable exception would be when someone does something "because it's cool" because that's neither based on the odds dice and rules dictate nor on what a character would normally do. Casual doesn't automatically equal narrative.

Edited December 29, 2019 by sfPanzer

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Even though he didn’t age while in stasis he was alive still so technically he is millennium old.

[Panzer]

Even though he didn’t age while in stasis he was alive still so technically he is millennium old.

 

No, being in stasis is basically being frozen in time. Nothing moved. Literally. That's the whole point, otherwise the poison would've killed him seconds later.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

He was alive though.

[Panzer]

He was alive though.

 

In the sense that he was not dead, yes. However other definitions of alive also includes "not inanimate", "alert and active; animated" and "aware of and interested in; responsive to" which he definitely wasn't. Being in stasis is closer to being deathd than being alive, really.

 

EDIT: typo

Edited December 29, 2019 by sfPanzer

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

If you really want to argue it fine but I don’t agree.

[Vermintide]

But whether one does something because the cold hard numbers say it's favourable or because the character would know from experience etc that it's favourable is pretty much exactly the same. It's just differently explained which outside of narrative reports really doesn't matter at all.

 

Also a small nitpick, Guilliman is not really millenia old. He was in stasis for thousands of years. Dante has literally lived longer than he did. However he's a Primarch so he's inherently more capable than most other beings.

 

Anyway, I don't really know where you are wanting to go with it. Why exactly a player makes a decision doesn't mean anything and the only noticeable exception would be when someone does something "because it's cool" because that's neither based on the odds dice and rules dictate nor on what a character would normally do. Casual doesn't automatically equal narrative.

 

There's an important difference when it comes to situations where the opposite is true, and doing something non-fluffy or out of character is the optimal choice in terms of winning the game. Most players will choose the optimal gameplay choice, and make some kind of sheepish explanation as to why, for example, their Khorne Berserkers are suddenly overcome with tranquil restraint... So they can hold the objective they're stood on and score a few more points, instead of making an easy charge. We've all been there. We've probably all done it.

 

I'm not criticising or attempting to say one way is better than the other, but I'm observing where the difference in approach comes from. You're not really disagreeing with me for the most part here, so I'm not sure where you want to go with it either And no, real in depth narrative play requires a deep knowledge of lore and fluff. I wouldn't call it casual at all; it's just a natural counterpoint to the competitive play style.

[chapter master 454]

Taking a quick pot shot here.

 

Technically we never play true battles of 40k. The vast amount of the battles and wars waged in 40k are not pitched, equal positions but rather complete slaughters in one direction or another. A few sprinkles "sold dearly to achieve objective" lore for some flavour and you notice most lore refers to how brutal one side mauled the other with few and far between even battles.

 

By all accounts, what lore can we have for some of these lists? By all accounts the Tau Triptide list isn't all that against the fluff and could be considered fluffy really (A spearhead of the taus finest covered by shield drones to ensure their advance and safety). Then we have questions of "yo Ahriman...why you hanging with 90 plaguebearers?" "Hey Feirros...why you escorting air wings and not tanks?" "Hey Space Elves...why you all working together so often?"

Sometimes, star aligns and lists are fluffy. Most times, they aren't.

 

Also I would comment that Khorne Berzerkers can have a modicum of restraint. They don't attack each other and can grasp grander schemes and ultimate goals. They can understand the idea of "if we hold this, more blood will be spilled!". They aren't idiots nor mindless machines. Just marines with a slight, minor, possible anger issue. Otherwise to me, they aren't as appealing. (Did enjoy a novel for when it was fantasy battle. Had a Khorne Warrior who took caring for his injuries quite seriously, always making sure to stitch wounds he received).

 

The question does come down to enjoyment and it can be a bit of a grey question with no answer really. I enjoy playing to my fullest, no matter what that is (even if it pales in comparison to my opponent) and would consider it insulting to not do so. I do everything to have a Good Game. However I can also see the appeal of just sitting down, planking some models on the table and going "know what? Screw it, my Fire Warriors gonna charge your daemon prince. Good idea? The best, lets do it!" which can and do lead to those incredible stories of silliness where those fire warriors SOMEHOW killed a daemon prince with nothing more than rifle butts and harsh language!

Or when I managed to haggle for a cover save (6+) for my single marine behind a tree against a demolisher cannon, got it and past the save to which my opponent then removed the tree (the tree was only placed there on a whim during table set-up), I agreed it was fine, it didn't really matter as the marine was promptly gunned down by follow up.

 

It can be fun to have casual moments, having epic duels and saying screw the rules and instead imposing your own agreed ideas on the fly during more relaxed games. Had one game where we agreed our two main line breaker squads of melee lead by our captains were considered to have both charged into each other, even being placed halfway between the two squads for the combat. Is that how the rules work? No. But it may the final battle far more climatic! (My terminators fell but it was Lysander back when you could counts as any character for any army so...yea...he just did what lysander does...smash!)

 

On the whole however I tend to find myself more enjoying competitive environments and by all accounts that comes from where I play where that is the standard style and often even during those games fun happens. It may not be ad hoc rules but sometimes we find ourselves chuckling over silly moments such as lucky rolls or just outright outlandish match-ups.

 

I live by the maxim you find in my signature.

"The Objective of the game is to win. The point of the game is to have fun. Don't mix them up"

[Vermintide]

Also I would comment that Khorne Berzerkers can have a modicum of restraint. They don't attack each other and can grasp grander schemes and ultimate goals. They can understand the idea of "if we hold this, more blood will be spilled!".

Exactly the kind of sheepish explanation I was referring to. It goes against the entire grain of the fluff, you know it and your opponent knows it, but you both allow it because hey. Nothing saying you can't.

 

Older editions had rule mechanics that literally took control of your units out of your hands under some circumstances, and had you roll for a distance they'd blindly charge out toward the nearest enemy, or things to similar effect. Your modern competitive player would absolutely hate to work with an army that uses those mechanics, because taking control out of the player's hands is just giving them a disadvantage; and yet stuff like that is what so many people say was better about old editions.

 

The modern game is a different beast of course, and I like what they have done with separating matched play and narrative play. You describe a lot of fun moments late in your post, a lot of the stuff that makes Warhammer great to me, but that's definitely stuff that wouldn't go down at an ITC event. Horses for courses.

[Gederas]

Also I would comment that Khorne Berzerkers can have a modicum of restraint. They don't attack each other and can grasp grander schemes and ultimate goals. They can understand the idea of "if we hold this, more blood will be spilled!".

Exactly the kind of sheepish explanation I was referring to. It goes against the entire grain of the fluff, you know it and your opponent knows it, but you both allow it because hey. Nothing saying you can't.

It's not really a 'sheepish explanation' if recent fluff shows that. Legion of the Damned shows the Berzerkers waiting to commit mindless slaughter until after the combatants are killed. Khârn: The Red Path also shows all the Berzerkers using tactics. Hell, Khârn shows some pretty slick tactical know-how during the course of the novel (including totally punking some White Scars bikers :lol:)

 

Khorne Berzerkers may be blood-mad butchers, but they're still Space Marines. They can take orders and use tactics, they just prefer to go the simplest possible solution to their issues because it's the quickest (and as an 7'6" transhuman in power armour hopped up on Khorneroids, it's also EFFECTIVE)

Edited December 30, 2019 by Gederas

[Son of Sacrifice]

Taking a quick pot shot here.

 

Technically we never play true battles of 40k. The vast amount of the battles and wars waged in 40k are not pitched, equal positions but rather complete slaughters in one direction or another. A few sprinkles "sold dearly to achieve objective" lore for some flavour and you notice most lore refers to how brutal one side mauled the other with few and far between even battles.

 

Why I find it strange to play this game competitively at all. It clearly isn't designed to be. Eldar have great technology and all the rule bending benefits that brings from being the master race. When my 2000 points of Imperial Guard lose to them it's really a victory for me. When a guardsman dies nobody even shrugs, but when I kill an aspect warrior, I just ended an ancient bloodline. The game was never designed to be perfectly balanced at the cost of the fluff.

[Bung]

You can justify anything with the background of 40k, even the authors do that. 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Specially whenever eldar are involved.