Lets Chat: Competitive Versus Casual

[Panzer]

 

 

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.

 

 

^this

Points aren't perfect, but by design they are inherently more fair than power level.

[chapter master 454]

Points vs. Power level is one of those interesting things. I stand that I don't like power level as a means of list building but points raised have reminded me of other details needed in a game: learning curve.

Its easy to forget that the points table can look extremely scary at first and can even be difficult to keep track of (in fact it kinda is considering how popular battlescribe is and the like), along with the fact that not all units base equipment load outs aren't free, an example is a unit like pathfinders in Tau. In the codex they are 5 points but if you don't pay attention they also come with markerlights per model as well meaning their base cost in actuality is 8 points per model which is something easily missed.

 

Power level is an excellent teacher of list building for new players who may just want to get in and play games to get the feel of it. However it isn't perfect and can be a bit of a problem in terms of helping find balance in the game. After all, it now means that any unit like say...I don't know...the captain of space marines may have balance issues as his smash load outs are extremely powerful yet other loadouts are fine, how do you balance it with only one balance lever? After all, we all agree that the change for thunder hammers being 40 points for characters was aimed at smash captains.

 

Points however offer more flex to balancing things. It means you can bring a unit in line without affecting another unit.

[Goreshed]

I've had quite a few in depth discussions with others in my area over this very thing. A lot of it comes down to attitude. When a player shows little respect to another player it is in no way enjoyable to play against them. If every single rules call is questioned and brow beaten until one side gives in, that isn't something enjoyable and gives the entire community a bad rep. Given that many associate that with tournaments and other bad behavior I can see why there is more heat between the two play styles. There are multiple ways to play any game and GW has just finally given that option to its own line up of miniature games.

 

But at the same time you also have to think like GW (hard as it is, I know it is but bear with me here).

 

In Match Play you are looking at those who want to get into the nitty gritty of the game with its points, maximizing units and all the like. You want to bring a force that has the least weakness and best hitting potential. This is what -they- consider to be more on the competitive side now. You take the best units you can with the points you have and squeeze the list until the nurglings pop out of it and every point is accounted for. Here is where you are seeing all of the crazy combos and armies that fluff wise really push what has been standard. (Multiple Smash Captains in a tiny force with scouts and random custodes? Give me a fluff break here..might not be the greatest example but you get what I'm saying. Don't even get me started on the other editions of the games and the armies seen at the tournament scene.)

 

And then you have Power Points, the more casual side. In GW's eyes these are the people who just want to grab some models and throw them on a table and have a good time. And it is implied that -both- sides are doing the same thing. That they are playing 'fluffy' lists that make far more sense then what one would see in a tournament. When both sides are using it, in theory, you have a balance because it is assumed that both will take some units that aren't the best and will equip others with whatever they wish, right/wrong/indifferent as to how effective it will actually be against their opponent. So are power levels really that balanced? Not when you compare it to points, because in the eyes of GW you are comparing apples to oranges. They are two separate things.

 

The entire reason why we have these multiple ways to play is so that when you have people that are more competitive in theory they are going to go towards the points while your more casual gamer is going to lean towards the power points. Neither way is wrong, but this is what GW believes. But the attitude of the player is what makes or breaks a game.

 

I have absolutely no issue playing someone who is just a decent person to play with. I may or may not win, there is always a number of factors to each game with terrain and the dice gods, but at the end of the day I can still enjoy the game because of the company I am with.

 

I play casually but that doesn't mean I will always hold back or that I won't go for the jugular and gut an army. I play to have fun with the models I built and painted the way I wished them to be. When more people start respecting others you will see a happier and healthier community.

[Son of Sacrifice]

Power Level games are all about attitude. I find that keeping strict WYSIWYG generally curbs the abuse. If you're running your deathwatch kill team with all combi-plasmas and storm shields to abuse the system then you are the problem imo. Having said that the vast majority of my games are matched play, because it's what my opponents want to play.

 

Tournament results (in particular ITC) hold too much sway over 8th edition, even though I often play this format. I played competitive sports for years and feel no need to bring hyper competitiveness to my toy soldier hobby. If I was so inclined I think I'd rather play League of Legends or whatever and save myself the obscene cost of building new armies every 3 months.

[Bung]

 

And then you have Power Points, the more casual side. In GW's eyes these are the people who just want to grab some models and throw them on a table and have a good time. And it is implied that -both- sides are doing the same thing. That they are playing 'fluffy' lists that make far more sense then what one would see in a tournament. When both sides are using it, in theory, you have a balance because it is assumed that both will take some units that aren't the best and will equip others with whatever they wish, right/wrong/indifferent as to how effective it will actually be against their opponent. So are power levels really that balanced? Not when you compare it to points, because in the eyes of GW you are comparing apples to oranges. They are two separate things.

 

 

The problem is, alot of casual players did that already with the points system for ages. So why would you use Power Levels?

 

 

Power Level games are all about attitude.

 

Its not only Power Level, its all games you play. 

 

 

But i think the biggest problem is in the Company providing that game.

I play other games like Corvus Bellis Infinity and all the standard games are with their tournament rule set and nooone complains about that. But its a game designed around the narrative and doing te most cinematik actions.

There are no rules designed to sell models. 

I think thats the biggest problem which leads to the difference between competetive and casual.

 

Think about having an army from third Edition on par with the newest hot stuff in terms of rules, so why should anyone bother to buy the new stuff at release date?

 

So look for the guys that want to have fun with the same game mode as yourself and you have fun games. 

[Panzer]

 

In Match Play you are looking at those who want to get into the nitty gritty of the game with its points, maximizing units and all the like. You want to bring a force that has the least weakness and best hitting potential. This is what -they- consider to be more on the competitive side now. You take the best units you can with the points you have and squeeze the list until the nurglings pop out of it and every point is accounted for. Here is where you are seeing all of the crazy combos and armies that fluff wise really push what has been standard. (Multiple Smash Captains in a tiny force with scouts and random custodes? Give me a fluff break here..might not be the greatest example but you get what I'm saying. Don't even get me started on the other editions of the games and the armies seen at the tournament scene.)

 

 

But that's not true. Matched Play is for those who want their armies to be as evenly matched as possible at a base level per the core rules. Not necessarily for those who want to min-max the heck out of their army. You too are one of those who confuse Matched Play with hyper competetive tournament matches. They are NOT the same. GW knows this too, that's why they release tournament recommendations and don't directly errata the Matched Play rules all the time.

[Doctor Perils]

Late back to the thread, sorry: Just a reminder, the cost of upgrades are already baked into the power levels, at least in theory, so yeah, obviously there is _less_ balance, but since points are already only roughly balanced, getting a fair game will be more of a matter of both players being fairly minded about the game in either case.

 

 

For me, the objective of competitive gaming is to win; the objective of casual gaming is to have fun. Now it can be fun winning, and bringing the toughest list possible, but in a competitive game the loser will have _less_ fun than the winner (in my view) - in a casual game, losing is just as fun as long as the game was "elegant" (as in the example of the _Name of the Wind_ board game).

 

Now, on the other hand, one could argue that to get the most fun experience you should have a nail biter until the last turn, with no decisive lead ever taking place. Sure, most of the time. But I'd say that for me (on a personal level) the process of list building with points is such a chore that it actively reduces my enjoyment of the game: I find it long winded, I'm not very good at it so I always procrastinate on doing it and end up with a rubbish list that is barely usable and get crushed (and not in the fun way); and it feels like you are encouraged to have a "standard list" that you will you for many games with only little variation - whereas the saying "variety is the spice of life" fits my view perfectly, so I'd like to just throw down the models and army concept I want on a given day, something that power levels not only allows me to do, but actively encourages and helps me do.

 

_____

 

I'm not trying to convince you to play power levels, but I _am_ trying to convince you to stop treating power levels as a dum substitute for points: they are each their own beast and require different mindsets - in your example of 10 hammervets, then either that person wants to try out his cool looking unit that he painstakingly built and painted to be an awesome focal point of his army and is challenging you to crack that nut (which could be an awesome battle premise in my view); or they are trying to "game the system", which is entirely antithetical to the concept of power level play... unless you have both agreed to game the system and bring on the most ridiculous stuff you are allowed to, which could also be a fun game, in the knowledge it's not necessarily going to be the most balanced game but in which you might still be surprised at the outcome.

 

 

And all that's not to say you can't have great casual games with points too :)

[Cpt.Danjou]

My meta is very varied depending on which system to use, and I don't really care. I have had fun games with all three systems we use, points/PL/Narrative. When we have a new player we start with the point system as it makes them understand the system, and how most of us old timers think. The PL is more when we who have played against each other several times, and we are in a hurry to get a game started.

The matched games are usually better for pick up games, tournaments, and when you are in a hurry. When I meet players that I have never played against earlier, but know they are veteran players, I always want point system, getting a feel for the player. The guy I have played against the most, I never even look at his list trusting him completely. He and I do use the PL system, and have a silent agreement that we are trying to play it as fair as possible and always wysiwyg, and we know what we have in terms of minis. 

 

The narrative games, good luck trying to find anything fair about them, I have played roughly 500 vs 2500 point games, but in those games we have a GM that now and again throws in a curve ball. Like the game where my wolves was about to annihilate, the traitorous separatists, and suddenly the GM popped in TWO Great unclean ones plus several squads of plague bearers. A very fun game and it did feel more like a real scenario in the 40k universe, as in real life. War is not fair, and extremely seldom two sides fighting are on equal terms. 

[Bung]

 

Now, on the other hand, one could argue that to get the most fun experience you should have a nail biter until the last turn, with no decisive lead ever taking place. Sure, most of the time. But I'd say that for me (on a personal level) the process of list building with points is such a chore that it actively reduces my enjoyment of the game: I find it long winded, I'm not very good at it so I always procrastinate on doing it and end up with a rubbish list that is barely usable and get crushed (and not in the fun way); and it feels like you are encouraged to have a "standard list" that you will you for many games with only little variation - whereas the saying "variety is the spice of life" fits my view perfectly, so I'd like to just throw down the models and army concept I want on a given day, something that power levels not only allows me to do, but actively encourages and helps me do.

 

_____

 

I'm not trying to convince you to play power levels, but I _am_ trying to convince you to stop treating power levels as a dum substitute for points: they are each their own beast and require different mindsets - in your example of 10 hammervets, then either that person wants to try out his cool looking unit that he painstakingly built and painted to be an awesome focal point of his army and is challenging you to crack that nut (which could be an awesome battle premise in my view); or they are trying to "game the system", which is entirely antithetical to the concept of power level play... unless you have both agreed to game the system and bring on the most ridiculous stuff you are allowed to, which could also be a fun game, in the knowledge it's not necessarily going to be the most balanced game but in which you might still be surprised at the outcome.

 

Well i enjoy list building. Playing around with ideas having the books around you with alot of paper notices. But im an old p&p rpg player. 

 

But all the stuff you mentioned with Power Levels can and had be done with points or with an agreement between 2 players. 

So for me its one of the useless and dumbest ideas of GW ever wrote down in a book.

[Marshal Vespasian]

I think there is levels of competetive as well as of narrative.

Within my narrative group I am one of the more competetive players because I dont want to field non effective units and try to make the best of what I can field.

On the other hand I want to field an army that feels too gamey for Lack of a better word. I want my army to feel like something they would take down off a strike cruiser to assault someone.

[Son of Sacrifice]

I think there is levels of competetive as well as of narrative.

Within my narrative group I am one of the more competetive players because I dont want to field non effective units and try to make the best of what I can field.

On the other hand I want to field an army that feels too gamey for Lack of a better word. I want my army to feel like something they would take down off a strike cruiser to assault someone.

I think the vast majority of players have the same mindset as you.

[Doctor Perils]

 

 

Well i enjoy list building. Playing around with ideas having the books around you with alot of paper notices. But im an old p&p rpg player. 

 

But all the stuff you mentioned with Power Levels can and had be done with points or with an agreement between 2 players. 

So for me its one of the useless and dumbest ideas of GW ever wrote down in a book.

 

 

How lovely of you to do your best to understand the opposite point of view :) more seriously, yes, any game could be organised by an agreement between the 2 players to find a rough balance which would be good fun... Of course it would be a good deal of work and hassle, just for a single game, and power levels is just so much easier to get sorted. So I personally find it a rather elegant solution.

[Rik Lightstar]

There are a number of outlier units that dramatically skew the reliability of Power Levels, they tend to come from a certain codexes too as others don't have the variety of options.

 

The units that spring to mind for me as being particularly disruptive to PL are; Vanguard Vets, Wolf Guard, Deathwatch Vets, Chosen, Crisis Suits and Ork Nobz. All of these units have such a huge variety in effectiveness depending on the options you pile into them. In a points game you'd never expect to see 10 Vanguard with Thunder Hammers and Storm Shields. I think PL only works with strict WYSIWYG.

 

I don't play competitive 40k,largely because I think there are better games out there for Tournaments, I have done in the past though. The higher end of Tournament play with 40k tends to lean so much into specialisation that you're essentially playing Rock, Paper, Scissors.

 

Rik

[Atrus]

It it's heart, I believe PL is intended for WYSIWYG. These skew arguments of what one would see in a PL game- full units of the best possible most killy loadout and whatnot, all stems from a competitive mindset.

"What is the most effective way to field this unit at X pts or at X PL?" Is a competitive mindset.

 

When a casual gamer or fluff player approaches either of these, it's "What makes sense for these units?"

And then it's the juggling match of trying to write a list in the restrictive points system. Or jump straight in with the freedom of PL where they don't have to worry about the minutiae of points for wargear and instead throw in their characterful units that they've customised and kitbashed and come up with backstories for each squad member.

Slap the unit on the table and just get into it.

 

I've played a number of PL games with similar minded people, and not once have I seen anyone take the cheesiest options for a unit.

[DuskRaider]

PL gameplay is horrible and I don't know of a single person that utilizes it since it can make a game ridiculously one-sided when options are taken into account.

 

I don't agree that 8th is the best. I actually think FW got it right with the streamlined 7th rules. Trimmed out the unnecessary garbage, shot Formations into the sun (the thing that arguably ruined the Edition), and kept the tactical elements.

 

I don't inherently dislike competitive players. I quite like and have had great interactions with some of the folks that have already commented on being competitive. My experience in the field is less than stellar, however.

 

I really try not to judge an entire group based on the actions of a few, but my dealings with the competitive crowd as a casual / narrative player has gone from "well at least it was over quick" to almost getting into a fight. It doesn't help that the local scene became infested with WAAC players who bought the army of the month and ran whatever optimized internet list they could. They chased out the narrative players and soon did the same to each other until presently 40K Night is no more.

 

As I've said before, a lot of this is on GW themselves. Despite preaching "forge the narrative!" over and over, they continuously seem to cater to the tournament players. With one hand, they create cool (albeit somewhat bland) VDR, CDR, and Looted Wagon rules... in the other, they make them Open Play only, effectively ensuring they will never be used since even casual / narrative games use points to make sure everything is equal (unless the scenario calls for otherwise).

 

Furthermore, they've also more or less killed off the usage of FW models via insane point increases while simultaneously beating them to death with the nerf bat. While most tournaments nowadays DO allow FW, as many know this wasn't the case until this current edition.

 

As I said, most of this is on GW themselves. Between the aforementioned and their policy of "no model, no rules" I feel a lot of the life 40K had has been kinda sucked out. There's always homeruling and whatnot, but that only remedies games against friends.

 

I really do pine for the days of 3.5 where the world was your customizable oyster, your character wasn't the same thing everyone else was fielding, a Looted Wagon was really a Looted Wagon, and it seemed the game had more soul.

 

Edit: apologies if I went off on a bit of a tangent with this, I wrote it off and on for a couple hours while working so it was touch and go. The basic idea is that the immersion has been replaced with streamlined gameplay, too many people buy into it, and GW has a lot to do with the current mindset between stifling creativity and directing the game more toward competition and less toward narrative play.

Edited December 23, 2019 by DuskRaider

[Vykes]

Alright, it's late on a Sunday, it's a few days before Christmas, and this is usually the time of year for me that traditionally sucks the most in ways that are usually catastrophic... and seeing as I'm out both a $1k easy opportunity and a free all expense paid vacation to Switzerland and it's still not the worst, then I might as well wade in.  

 

So, Casual vs. Competitive and the nuances about it.

 

First of all I gotta state my background: 

I live in a very competitive meta with a tribal atmosphere in the gaming community that (as I have just come to know, becoming an Admin of a facebook group for the current local community and having the veil ripped off) is not only divisive but horrendously toxic to the point of legal actions. The local scene is extremely focused on tournament play with the goal of winning so that there is effectively Competitive Leagues, Tournaments, and Tournament prep games. This takes place in both 30K and 40K communities.

 

I am part of two small sub-communities: one is a small group of just my friends who happen to play for funsies, and it's great for me. We play a lot against each other, overwhelmingly 8^th edition and use a lot of the updated Chapter approved missions, or Open Play card options for certain aspects just to make a game fun and narratively exciting. We don't play with any 'meta' consideration and generally are just excited to get new and fun units on the board and try out something on a weekday afternoon on a day off. We don't use PL because we're used to points, but Open Play cards are totally cool, and Maelstrom Missions are our usual jam.

 

The second circle is a splinter faction of dissatisfied 30K players that are very narrative-based. We all exist inside the greater 30K circle and many are burnt out, dissatisfied, and frustrated with the way the mindset has evolved. This is getting to be close to the 'last straw' with some private invite tournaments and expressly mentioned events that are really trying to grow that circle in the absence of the more competitive elements, or to try and ween back some previously narrative players who have been 'corrupted' by the Smash or Die mentality pervasive to the environment (we had people who started with an enthusiastic narrative focus, but thanks to the community evolution, focused strictly on unit efficiency and list creation. It's not because it's what they wanted, but because it was the only way to avoid devastation at the hands of particular super-units or renown players in league and pick up games).

 

As for me: I spend probably as much time writing fluff about my forces as I do list building. My army's only goal as far as collections are concerned, is the creation of a legitimately sized Horus Heresy Sons of Horus line company several hundred legionnaires strong.

 

Long story short: I give my stay as Admin 2 months, tops.  

 

Viewpoint:

I play wargames where the purpose of the game is to have a fun social interaction with another living human being, where the objective of the match is to try to win. Frankly, I went 0-5 in my last league (I won 1 game by default of my opponent not showing up), I don't care. I don't have some predatory competitor vibe as my gaming record doesn't have the remotest link to my personal validation as an individual. I don't view gaming as something antagonistic, and I don't see the whole thing as a mental or logical challenge. It's not in me.  I'm not apathetic, I'm not even some push over (Blew apart a Pory Knight in one turn and raked some squadrons of tanks and ended up losing the whole game after a single snap shot hit nicked a jinking Storm Eagle, vector locked it, then caused it to crash killing all aboard which ended up tallying something like 8 VP in a 30K game just because the mission just happened to give extra points to a number of circumstances). 

 

I like the pageantry of gaming: the uniqueness of converted models, the colours, the drama of the units actions, which create an unfolding 'what if' style story that's as much collaborative as it is competitive.  Wargaming isn't a competition to me, it's a mutual and social storytelling medium dictated by the fickle whims of chance where even if we think we know how something should turn out, we get a laugh out of what ends up happening.

 

I guess I'm a super casual who is aware of how to make competitive lists (and do often possess the forces required to create such a hardened list), but lacks the dice luck* and will to ever want to approach the competitive pool in a serious manner. I'd hazard a lot of psychological guesses on why a lot of arguments take place, and in what communities they take place in, but in general just because a person says that they are competitive or casual doesn't reveal much about the person or even truly state what they act like at the table. More over, it's not a value statement: one player is not more worthwhile or better than another.

 

The casual vs. competitive thing is more about communication or the lack thereof. Gaining trust among fellow gamers is a good way to be able to try those things like new missions, fun units (who may or may not be super powerful without us knowing), missions, alternate lists, or even implementing things like power levels in your game.  

 

Really more divisive thoughts:

Points are an artificial comfort we've grown accustomed too. We know that a lot of units are mispointed and better/worse than their numerical value indicates, but because points are a more granular and long standing method, a lot of the community opts towards it as the default for a logical and fair gaming experience. To me, it isn't that simple. The table, the army synergy, the interaction and temperament of the player, opponent list composition in a vacuum and the smallest minutia from coordination, right down to pure blind luck, can massively affect everything. We tend to ball this into some mythic 'experience' and there's definitely some truth in it, but in a game of millimetres and random dice with such expanded and exploded variables, it's just about mitigation and hoping that everything's set up like you expect.

 

Power Level gives less granularity for sake of simplicity, but it requires that you trust your opponent not to overload the unit by dint of unrestrained opportunity. And why would they not? Well, it might just be that they trust you with less restrictions. I don't think there's any benefit to PL, I don't consider tallying up a battlescribe list as particularly taxing. If I was trying to explain the game to new players, then I might revert to PL just to say 'the models you have are about this good' and leave the worrying about perceived fairness out of it.  And in apocalypse sized matches I'm totally willing to give PL a go because then battlescribe can get taxing... especially when it freezes at the 12K mark. 

 

Do I go to tournaments and events? Yep. Mostly because I live in the country and it's just a way to get out and meet new people, grab a drink, have some fun while enjoying the social experience. Have I regretted it? Sure... lord Lupercal knows I've come up against some really REALLY vicious players, played what game I could, filed it away as a 'warning' and moved on. I'll generally play someone twice before I try to avoid any non-organized event with them. Likewise, I will say from my experience the competitive tournament field is more hectic, more rushed, and more demanding because it's very much the case of 'You're in our world'. Which is, frankly, fair. But it's also usually still the same sort in the casual pool, too.

 

But, I'm not talking some big definitive numbers, I don't want to give a percentage but more as an illustration: Casual might be a 5% rate of 'unfun' players after one game, Competitive Tournament players might be 10-12%? Somewhere in that range. And it's not always that persons fault, it might just be an off day, or 6 hours of tiring games, another brutal match where everything went wrong, etc.  Which is why I'm open to playing anyone at least twice.

 

I just think it's a matter of setting out clear lines of communication and actually addressing what you're expecting.  More over, it's about getting to know other players, building a rapport and seeing if you 'click'.  As for rules for them, frankly @Atrus has that covered, there really should be a more codified Tournament Play Set of rules. 

 

*If you don't believe in dice luck, you're free too. A few of my opponents did too... then they realized they'd uttered, “I have never seen that happen before in my life,” several times in the same game. It's gotten to the point that my reputation is fairly well known in the community and I've had a fair number of opponents offer to secretly 'degrade' their competitive fixed league lists or play alternate points levels against my force because... honestly, I guess I'm trusted as a sort to make it a fun and enjoyable outing in the guise of a wargame.

[Bung]

 

How lovely of you to do your best to understand the opposite point of view more seriously, yes, any game could be organised by an agreement between the 2 players to find a rough balance which would be good fun... Of course it would be a good deal of work and hassle, just for a single game, and power levels is just so much easier to get sorted. So I personally find it a rather elegant solution.

 

 

No, i fail tu understand, why someone would need Powerlevels for a game. Talking with your opponant about the game you want to play is one of the most basic things you need to play GW games to not get disappointed. After playing roughly 20 years 40k i dont have enough trust in players to hold back with loose rules like Powerlevels and on the other hand, we played such narrative stuff for ages with points or with anything goes, so personly i feel its wasted space in the rulebooks and the time should have been invested for playtesting. 

I play other games from other companies, where tournament rules are just the standard form of gameing and worldwide acceptet and used for any narrative, but that are games considered as games and not a marketing tool like 40k for GW.

 

When a casual gamer or fluff player approaches either of these, it's "What makes sense for these units?"

And then it's the juggling match of trying to write a list in the restrictive points system. Or jump straight in with the freedom of PL where they don't have to worry about the minutiae of points for wargear and instead throw in their characterful units that they've customised and kitbashed and come up with backstories for each squad member.

Slap the unit on the table and just get into it.

 

I've played a number of PL games with similar minded people, and not once have I seen anyone take the cheesiest options for a unit.

 

What you describe there had been done with the points system for ages in casual play with characterful units or eyecatchers in your army, thats something only depending on the player you met and not with different game systems.

[Panzer]

It it's heart, I believe PL is intended for WYSIWYG. These skew arguments of what one would see in a PL game- full units of the best possible most killy loadout and whatnot, all stems from a competitive mindset.

"What is the most effective way to field this unit at X pts or at X PL?" Is a competitive mindset.

 

When a casual gamer or fluff player approaches either of these, it's "What makes sense for these units?"

And then it's the juggling match of trying to write a list in the restrictive points system. Or jump straight in with the freedom of PL where they don't have to worry about the minutiae of points for wargear and instead throw in their characterful units that they've customised and kitbashed and come up with backstories for each squad member.

Slap the unit on the table and just get into it.

 

I've played a number of PL games with similar minded people, and not once have I seen anyone take the cheesiest options for a unit.

WYSIWYG doesn't excuse anything people criticise about PL though. If one player thinks his full Thunderhammer + Storm Shield unit is cool and the other player thinks the same unit but with just Chainswords is cool then PL still cause an imbalance between those two by giving them same value. No amount of WYSIWYG and good will changes that.

PL is ONLY for people who don't use an app like Battlescribe so they can write a list with minimal effort and people who really absolutely don't care about having the same chance to win as their opponent. Both are pretty rare. PL are a novelty most people simply don't care for.

 

 

 

When a casual gamer or fluff player approaches either of these, it's "What makes sense for these units?"

And then it's the juggling match of trying to write a list in the restrictive points system. Or jump straight in with the freedom of PL where they don't have to worry about the minutiae of points for wargear and instead throw in their characterful units that they've customised and kitbashed and come up with backstories for each squad member.

Slap the unit on the table and just get into it.

 

I've played a number of PL games with similar minded people, and not once have I seen anyone take the cheesiest options for a unit.

 

What you describe there had been done with the points system for ages in casual play with characterful units or eyecatchers in your army, thats something only depending on the player you met and not with different game systems.

 

 

^this

[FormelyKnownAsSmashyPants]

Second this.

[Claws and Effect]

I actually enjoy both aspects of the game. I'm just as happy going for the jugular in a tournament as I am throwing some dice with my friends for kicks.

 

I have an issue with the power level system, and it's mostly to do with the fact that an army with tons of weapons options has a distinct advantage over one with few when list building.

 

Example: A Tactical squad and a unit of Necron Warriors have a similar cost in power. The Tac squad has tons of weapons options, the Necrons have zero. It's not fair when one unit can load up on firepower when a similarly costed unit is stuck with one thing.

[Ahrimanjjb]

If the question is Casual compared to Competitive play - I'll say my preference is heavily towards Casual because I just don't see 40k as a balanced and fine tuned enough game to test out at a Competitive level. For me that would involve all races and most units to be 'viable' a majority of the time. At the moment we tend to see a lot of players at the tops of tournament tables, but the lists they bring vary almost monthly. Some see that as a good thing, but not me personally. Its probably more complicated than that, but that's one point.

 

 

 

If its a Narrative vs Matched question - I've always believed Narrative play to be tarred with a bad brush by many as being too unbalanced, so they stick with Matched. What I would say to those people is to play with points values, and the Matched play balance changes (psychic focus, strategic discipline ect) but please please have a go at a few Narrative play missions.

 

 

For me the missions themselves are the most important difference between the two styles of play, and going from a game where both you and your opponent are working towards the same goal, to one where you have different objectives to achieve brings the world (and game) to life.

[Trench]

Been a casual player for almost twenty years now, just never really enjoyed the mindset of taking war gaming super seriously, possibly because I used to get that out of my system playing football, possibly just because of the kind of gamer's I learned from as a kid. 

 

I briefly tried being competitive in my local scene for a few months and just hated it, despite doing quite decent with my army at the time, I just got no enjoyment from my evenings gaming. 

 

My only goal from a game is that everyone playing has a fun night, would rather lose doing something thematic, memorable and fun then win just for the sake of winning.

 

In the last year I have become more of a hobbyist then gamer, as while I liked a lot of the core elements of 8th, it has become a daunting prospect for someone like myself who might play once or twice a month at best.  

[Schlitzaf]

So interesting trivia about power levels; units do pay for upgrades. Power Level is roughly Points Divided by 20. A units power level is their cheapest option + expensive option then divided by 2.

 

So the fact you can do something like THammer on a dude is then average with fact you can do chainswords. So a unit w/o any options will have a lower power level than a base cheaper points unit w/ excessive amount of expensive upgrades

[Stofficus]

Many words

I don't know what it is, maybe something in the maple syrup, but Canada is a frightfully competitive place for 40k. I lived in Vancouver, Ottawa and in southern Ontario for a while, and with the exception of Kingston (a quaint little early 19th century city, where you can find 9 prisons, the Canadian version of West Point and one of the most elite universities in the country) they've all been hyper-competitive to the point of finding a casual group was quite challenging, and I heard much the same about Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City and so on. 

 

And this here comes the rub - 40k is a semi-niche hobby, and it doesn't take much for a specific area to ostracize players. As Vykes says, a lot of that blame falls on GW for not having a tight enough ruleset to allow casual and competitive players to co-exist without an enormous amount of friction. While 8th is better than 7th was for letting people play against one another (I wasn't getting tabled turn 1 anymore - that'd come usually turn 2/3 now), the overall trend is still that of worsening the divide between the two camps. 

 

To be frank, that shouldn't be the case - by re-designing the game fairly thoroughly for 8th, the focus should have been on ensuring a somewhat flat playing field - and the early days felt fairly smooth, but there was a pretty stark downward trend to polarization with the Knight codexes which has only reached ludicrous levels with some of the Marine supplements. I had stopped going to the store popular with competitive types some time ago as I got tired of fighting Kinghts + loyal 32, but having seen some of the stuff rolling around top tables now? Not a chance.  

[Subtleknife]

I am firmly a casual. I have played competitive sport to a reasonably high standard (largest crowd I played in front of was about 45000). In sport I want to win at all costs. However, 40k in my mind is not a sport so I dont see it as competitive at all. I like pushing my plastic army figures around the table and imagining it is a scene out of the books etc. I am not interesting about chasing the meta especially when GW isnt overly bothered about competitive either, ie model company first rules are secondary. I have played tournaments for 40k, but these are mainly doubles so lists were fairly tame. The objective was enoying the day with my mate rather than winning every game. Edited December 24, 2019 by Subtleknife