Three ways of gaming: discussion

[Fajita Fan]

To spin things back on the original topic – and I do apologise that it wasn't all that clear – I was hoping to provoke some discussion on how successfully GW's new approach will have on breaking down the traditional 'either/or' mentality that's crept into the game.

 

As I say in the opening post 'Gaming is often split into diametrically opposed groups – competitive gamers and casual gamers; tournament games and friendly games; beer-and-pretzels and serious business; painters and gamers'; and that's borne out by the comments here, with some mentioning things like 'team points versus team power level.'

 

It's clear that there is a lot of entrenchment in how gamers view themselves, and this is mainly expressed in binary terms.

 

The topic in question is 'how successful do you think 9th edition's 'three ways of gaming' will be at getting people to try new ways of gaming'?

Okay.

 

Open or narrative games where you reenact story battles or just dump a shoebox or minis on a table to play with friends probably won’t appeal to new players who don’t already have friends in the game or care about the lore. Historical war gamers who do reenact Waterloo probably don’t have much interest in a Blood Angels boarding action against Sons of Horus to relive the battle on the Vengeful Spirit over the imperial palace. Is there a large demo of people without friends in the hobby looking for a way to spend large chunks of disposable income and roll dice with strangers?

 

Power Level gaming is kinda like Whose Line is it Anyway? where the points don’t matter and the whole thing is made up to have a laugh. This is probably nice for kids who get to expand their army one box at a time and don’t plan to convert anything as choice is taken out of the equation when the options are limited by the bits in the box.

 

Matched play with traditional game points is probably closer to the other game systems I’ve seen out there but the rules bloat we’ve seen in 40k over the years makes balancing points between a couple dozen army books a moving target at best. Does this appeal to more newer gamers? I would think most gamers coming to 40k are doing so from DND style RPG gaming, video games, or card games like MTG, no? Those systems are built upon at least the illusion of balance and that’s all GW has to sell: the illusion of play testing, player feedback, tournament result analysis, and buffing newer armies to keep selling new boxes.

 

Tournament result analysis is at best sketchy and at worst downright useless. People bring min/maxed or whatever they feel gives them the best chance at winning so balance becomes a race to the bottom. Is the average person who walks into a GW store by mistake looking to buy Pokémon cards or Madden and is convinced to buy a 40k starter set interested in whatever List of the Month won the last tournament? I’d assume not.

 

Run-what-ya-brung heads up play is a great way to blow a couple of hours with friends but I’d probably never do it with strangers. Power Level gives you some illusion of balance but it’s just an easy way for gamers with small collections to organize their boxes into detachments without the need to worry about where their plasma guns go. Matched play with points is the most traditional way for blind matchmaking and the illusion of balance between books probably appeals to those who come from other gaming systems where balance is important.

[Schlitzaf]

Someone mentioned it in other post facts some units like DW Veterans are 9 PL points for 5 Models. That is essentwlly “180” points. Or in words. Each model js valued at 35 (if curious. Too lazy to look up DW Points so gonna use Stern/Vanilla Marines).

 

16 Points Base. Cheapest Upgrade SBolter and Power Sword. So 23 Base. If you take Thammer. 32 and and a CombiWeapon 43-45. 23+45 = 68. Then divide by 2 = 34. Its 11 points off either direction. But do note. You often don’t want to fulkt arm entire Squad with Thunder Hammers or have them take Combi Weapons.

 

Its better to do a mix of weapons. If I was playing a Power Level and I saw someone do this kinda “of taking every super exoensive upgrade because free” I’d laugh. Sense its bad listbuilding.

 

I dunno, just think power level gets a bad rap. Like the reason 1 10 Man cheaper than 2 5 Mans. Is because the Man has 1 Less Sgt (so for Marines. Its difference of 10 points on average. And Special-Special-Heavy is cheaper than Special-Heavy.

[ThePenitentOne]

 

To spin things back on the original topic – and I do apologise that it wasn't all that clear – I was hoping to provoke some discussion on how successfully GW's new approach will have on breaking down the traditional 'either/or' mentality that's crept into the game.

 

As I say in the opening post 'Gaming is often split into diametrically opposed groups – competitive gamers and casual gamers; tournament games and friendly games; beer-and-pretzels and serious business; painters and gamers'; and that's borne out by the comments here, with some mentioning things like 'team points versus team power level.'

 

It's clear that there is a lot of entrenchment in how gamers view themselves, and this is mainly expressed in binary terms.

 

The topic in question is 'how successful do you think 9th edition's 'three ways of gaming' will be at getting people to try new ways of gaming'?

Okay.

 

Open or narrative games where you reenact story battles or just dump a shoebox or minis on a table to play with friends probably won’t appeal to new players who don’t already have friends in the game or care about the lore. Historical war gamers who do reenact Waterloo probably don’t have much interest in a Blood Angels boarding action against Sons of Horus to relive the battle on the Vengeful Spirit over the imperial palace. Is there a large demo of people without friends in the hobby looking for a way to spend large chunks of disposable income and roll dice with strangers?

 

Power Level gaming is kinda like Whose Line is it Anyway? where the points don’t matter and the whole thing is made up to have a laugh. This is probably nice for kids who get to expand their army one box at a time and don’t plan to convert anything as choice is taken out of the equation when the options are limited by the bits in the box.

 

Matched play with traditional game points is probably closer to the other game systems I’ve seen out there but the rules bloat we’ve seen in 40k over the years makes balancing points between a couple dozen army books a moving target at best. Does this appeal to more newer gamers? I would think most gamers coming to 40k are doing so from DND style RPG gaming, video games, or card games like MTG, no? Those systems are built upon at least the illusion of balance and that’s all GW has to sell: the illusion of play testing, player feedback, tournament result analysis, and buffing newer armies to keep selling new boxes.

 

Tournament result analysis is at best sketchy and at worst downright useless. People bring min/maxed or whatever they feel gives them the best chance at winning so balance becomes a race to the bottom. Is the average person who walks into a GW store by mistake looking to buy Pokémon cards or Madden and is convinced to buy a 40k starter set interested in whatever List of the Month won the last tournament? I’d assume not.

 

Run-what-ya-brung heads up play is a great way to blow a couple of hours with friends but I’d probably never do it with strangers. Power Level gives you some illusion of balance but it’s just an easy way for gamers with small collections to organize their boxes into detachments without the need to worry about where their plasma guns go. Matched play with points is the most traditional way for blind matchmaking and the illusion of balance between books probably appeals to those who come from other gaming systems where balance is important.

 

 

 

To spin things back on the original topic – and I do apologise that it wasn't all that clear – I was hoping to provoke some discussion on how successfully GW's new approach will have on breaking down the traditional 'either/or' mentality that's crept into the game.

 

As I say in the opening post 'Gaming is often split into diametrically opposed groups – competitive gamers and casual gamers; tournament games and friendly games; beer-and-pretzels and serious business; painters and gamers'; and that's borne out by the comments here, with some mentioning things like 'team points versus team power level.'

 

It's clear that there is a lot of entrenchment in how gamers view themselves, and this is mainly expressed in binary terms.

 

The topic in question is 'how successful do you think 9th edition's 'three ways of gaming' will be at getting people to try new ways of gaming'?

Okay.

 

Open or narrative games where you reenact story battles or just dump a shoebox or minis on a table to play with friends probably won’t appeal to new players who don’t already have friends in the game or care about the lore. Historical war gamers who do reenact Waterloo probably don’t have much interest in a Blood Angels boarding action against Sons of Horus to relive the battle on the Vengeful Spirit over the imperial palace. Is there a large demo of people without friends in the hobby looking for a way to spend large chunks of disposable income and roll dice with strangers?

 

Power Level gaming is kinda like Whose Line is it Anyway? where the points don’t matter and the whole thing is made up to have a laugh. This is probably nice for kids who get to expand their army one box at a time and don’t plan to convert anything as choice is taken out of the equation when the options are limited by the bits in the box.

 

Matched play with traditional game points is probably closer to the other game systems I’ve seen out there but the rules bloat we’ve seen in 40k over the years makes balancing points between a couple dozen army books a moving target at best. Does this appeal to more newer gamers? I would think most gamers coming to 40k are doing so from DND style RPG gaming, video games, or card games like MTG, no? Those systems are built upon at least the illusion of balance and that’s all GW has to sell: the illusion of play testing, player feedback, tournament result analysis, and buffing newer armies to keep selling new boxes.

 

Tournament result analysis is at best sketchy and at worst downright useless. People bring min/maxed or whatever they feel gives them the best chance at winning so balance becomes a race to the bottom. Is the average person who walks into a GW store by mistake looking to buy Pokémon cards or Madden and is convinced to buy a 40k starter set interested in whatever List of the Month won the last tournament? I’d assume not.

 

Run-what-ya-brung heads up play is a great way to blow a couple of hours with friends but I’d probably never do it with strangers. Power Level gives you some illusion of balance but it’s just an easy way for gamers with small collections to organize their boxes into detachments without the need to worry about where their plasma guns go. Matched play with points is the most traditional way for blind matchmaking and the illusion of balance between books probably appeals to those who come from other gaming systems where balance is important.

 

 

I agree that a lot of new players probably have other gaming experience of some kind- often RPGs or MMO's. But I think those players would be most attracted to Crusade, which is a PL game as written. And being new players, they really aren't going to have big-picture awareness of intra-faction granularity, or tournament meta, or any of the other aspects of the hobby that are better suited to points.

 

They're going to be used to systems that start with a template character/ unit that is weak, but gets stronger gradually as they defeat enemies or complete quests, because that is exactly how RPG's and MMO's work. They will LOVE the fact that not only does their cookie cutter template army grow, but new units join, and then they start to grow too.

 

As for balance, in RPG's and MMO's it's largely under player/ GM control with defaults within a certain range to accommodate for most tastes. They do generally allow you to grind kill sewer rats rather than face any real challenge to level at one end of the spectrum and near suicide missions at the other. The exact middle of that spectrum could probably be defined as balanced, but so much is up to the players that it really is a crap shoot.

 

New players won't venture into points unless a) peer pressure or b) until their crusade army has reached tournament size.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Power level is fine for a campaign where say you start with one HQ and two troops and build up from there.

[Fajita Fan]

 

 

As for balance, in RPG's and MMO's it's largely under player/ GM control with defaults within a certain range to accommodate for most tastes. They do generally allow you to grind kill sewer rats rather than face any real challenge to level at one end of the spectrum and near suicide missions at the other. The exact middle of that spectrum could probably be defined as balanced, but so much is up to the players that it really is a crap shoot.

Entire libraries of drivel have been written about balance in MMOs and even mild RPGs like Destiny.  Good GMs in pencil paper RPGs like DnD or GURPS are supposed to incentivize players to build balanced characters that work well with their teammates and not min/max lest one person die and you no longer have anyone who can use a shield.  It's the players' choice but it can likewise be their downfall.

 

I liken this to the balance I think GW believes exists between their codices - if every player built internally balanced take-all-comers lists (say 2 HQs, 4 Troops, 3 Elites, 2 Support, 1 Fast Attack) then most codicies might sooorta be balanced between each other.  It seems impossible to really balance a min/maxed tournament Dark Eldar list against a min/maxed CSM list against a min/maxed Tau list with either Power Level or traditional points. How many 40k codicies are there now?

 

I guess I enjoy traditional game points with an army list as I try to fit some fun units to use, I can't really bother with optimizing lists but rather go for rule of cool within the points to give the semblance of balance. Because I don't need to grow an army slowly box by box I can't really see Power Level being useful to me.  

 

 

Power level is fine for a campaign where say you start with one HQ and two troops and build up from there.

Totally - and maybe I missed this somewhere - but is Power Level different/better than a traditional escalation league you go from 500->750->1000, etc?  Is it just easier because the points are so much more straightforward at smaller games?

[ThePenitentOne]

I'm a rule of cooler too. 

 

I do tend to like toys though, and I often load my squads up on the gear even when I pay for it. One of the things I like about PL in a roster based campaign is that you may alter load out for specific missions and opponents, but since equipment isn't assigned a value in PL, you don't have to rebalance the list to hit the desired PL as you would if you were playing points.

 

And you're right about RPGs encouraging parties that incorporate a balance of character types, but they do encourage min maxing in stats. If you're a fighter, they virtually tell you to put your best roll in Strength and your worst in Intelligence. Thieves are Dex, Bards are Charisma, Priests are Wisdom and Wizards are Intelligence. The mins aren't as distinct, and they tend to give players their RP hook; if you've get a low dex, you RP clumsy; if you've got a low charisma, you annoy NPCs in social encounters with awkwardness or outright rudeness.

 

So in D&D, your Max stat determines how you fight, your min stat is your most identifiable character hook. Balance has a different meaning in an RPG because it's more cooperative than competitive. Having said that, I've won a fair number of prizes for roleplaying at various conventions. But generally, players vote for who was the most entertaining, or most in character- very rarely the person who does the best in combat encounters.

 

Crusade is similar. It isn't just escalation; your units earn experience and get to earn special abilities for accumulating various XP totals; your army can find unique gear that becomes a part of the army. The escalation part is in addition to all of that! It is an incredible storytelling tool, and all of the 9th ed codices are supposed to include faction specific skills, gear upgrades and story hooks.

 

No one knows how far GW is going to take it, but it has huge potential, and even if all we got was what we've seen in the leaks, it would still be the most in depth campaign system for Warhammer 40k since the original Rogue Trader. The fact that you micromanage your entire army by tracking experience for each unit and control the growth of the army by spending Requisition Points means that micromanaging equipment is a bit of overkill, though as many have said they are planning to substitute points for PL as a home brew option.

 

I almost went that way myself, and then I actually read the rules. Maybe I'll change my mind back again after I play a few games, but I really think I'm going to get more joy out of telling the story of how this squad of Seraphim gained a particular skill, and whether or not my Order can recruit a new unit of BSS from the Convent Prioris or they have to content themselves with a handful of basic bolter girls to increase the size of an existing squad.

 

Worrying about whether to trim a piece of equipment here to pick up an extra body there because of the way numbers happen to crunch just doesn't sound as entertaining.

Edited July 24, 2020 by ThePenitentOne

[Fajita Fan]

I feel like that works way better among friends than in pickup games among strangers. Do you see yourself playing more campaigns with people you know or general gaming?

 

Sadly enough years of GW’s decisions have driven all of my friends away from 40k and I don’t see power level convincing them to buy back in. Some moved on to Xwing or away from mini wargaming entirely :(

[ThePenitentOne]

Many of the folks I used to play with regularly no longer play, but I attribute that more to adulting than any GW mistakes.

 

I do prefer to play with people I know, and I still have a few people in the circle. It helps that I have a big enough collection that I can supply armies to anyone who wants to try the game without investing in it. You are right though that there is definitely a different standard when playing pickup games with strangers, and even some folks who are acquaintences.