Battleground Games Forum
Games Workshop => Warhammer 40K => Topic started by: Benjamin on May 14, 2014, 10:58:49 PM
-
It should be clear by now Games Workshop has achieved its goal in creating a decidedly casual game (versus a competitive game). Therefore, for future events I believe it makes sense to embrace that notion, rather than fight the tide and shoehorn the game into competitive events.
Initially, I'm thinking of events that place the greatest emphasis on Best Overall / Renaissance Man. For those unfamiliar, this system would reward players equally for performance as well as for painting and conversion. I'd love feedback on this particular point.
Because of the greater importance in painting/conversion, multiple paint judges could score armies, rather than one. Whether an average or cumulative score, those results would be less subjective. (Note: Currently, BG uses a painting rubric to score armies, which is the least subjective method, and we could have three judges all score using rubrics.)
It could be too that the days of competitive-style events are behind us for now. Or they'll resemble more 500 point games and low-value Attacker-Defender style events. Perhaps more Kill Team games, Campaigns, Tanksgiving/Monster Mash events are in order.
What would you like to see?
-
I think you may have something im curious to what others say.
-
I would like to see Ben decide that he dislikes his current job and wants to make half as much (or less) working for BG.
-
I would like to see Ben decide that he dislikes his current job and wants to make half as much (or less) working for BG.
i voulnteer myself as tribute
-
I think you will lose a good portion of your tourny player base if you focus on this. Competitive games is what had 30-40 people coming to BG for the tournies. The more casual tournies were much lower in attendance. To jump the shark and say competitive tournies are no more is a huge mistake.
Also I think it is to early especially without seeing the 7th edition rules to claim this. BG made a statement on the competitive scene with multiple high attendance tournies to ignore that and push it to the way side is a mistake
Or so I believe.
-
I think you will lose a good portion of your tourny player base if you focus on this. Competitive games is what had 30-40 people coming to BG for the tournies. The more casual tournies were much lower in attendance. To jump the shark and say competitive tournies are no more is a huge mistake.
Also I think it is to early especially without seeing the 7th edition rules to claim this. BG made a statement on the competitive scene with multiple high attendance tournies to ignore that and push it to the way side is a mistake
Or so I believe.
Agreed.
That's not to say that there can't be both, or that competitive tournaments can't be comped in the future.. but to abort them entirely is a mistake.
I did very much enjoy the Storm & Shadows Campaign that we had last summer, and that was also very competitive. So I would definitely like to see more of those, because I really enjoy strategy games that have more then just battles, but also economic & travel components that give the military part far more strategy and depth. It's like it justifies where & why the battles are taking place. Like if an enemy army is too big to confront head on, but a player can blow up their starport to slow them down. Or if an enemy army is getting too big, a player could capture their generator to take away some of their resources. Or build an anti-air battery to deny enemy air support at a critical choke point. It gives the player more options.
So I would heavily lobby for those types of games.
-
I agree with Troy. Maybe we should look at the sky before we decide it's falling.
-
People should only be allowed to win if they actually painted and converted there own models, I know I am sick of "ringer" army's winning best appearance 90%of the time.
-
And how would you enforce that? How could you argue that someone didnt paint their own models? Also if someone paid their own money to have it done then by all means they should be able to reap the benefits.
Now mind you I am biased in this purely because Dean painted my army. But tell me why I couldnt get best appearance reward when I spent months converting my army, months coming up with the concept, months building a mountain to display this army.
Now would you consider that a ringer army? Because I wouldnt. But back to my point unless I told you Dean painted my army how would you know? Thinking from a TO stand point how could you verify that without having personal knowledge where I got it? Hindering awards for people just because they had someone do something they couldnt isnt beneficial to the tourny scene. It doesnt help anyone.
I personally feel that regardless who painted an army etc if you have a great looking army then I would much rather play you then someone who has 3 color mins or primed models.
-
Well, there might be something to the idea of a limit on how many times the same army can win best appearance. We want to keep people painting and innovating, knowing the same guy always wins might stifle that. Im not saying poorly painted armies should win, but it's nice to see that award go to new people too. But that's not a 7th ed specific discussion.
-
Rob that's a great point and I can see the merits of that much more then I can see out right negating someone due to how it was painted.
-
Yeah, I mean, it would work out better for me if there was some sort of requirement that all armies be completely made by the person playing, but, I still don't like the idea
- it just encourages people to lie about who painted what
- the REAL motivation is to get more beautiful armies on the table in the event, right? Beauty is beauty even if it's something someone else made
- yeah, are we really going to ban the Mountain from participating in appearance awards because one part of it (the paint) was applied by someone else? This is not uncommon, like my old Necrons (now someone else's necrons) were originally an army I bought from PaintedFigs and then I started modifying it heavily from there.
I do like the idea of saying something like... an army can only win an appearance award once every 6 months at BG. We don't want people to say, "well, Erich is going to be at that tourney, so I guess best painted is off the table".
-
I'm a gamer, not a hobbyist. Which means I never paint my own models, I always hire someone to do it for me.
-
I'm a gamer, not a hobbyist. Which means I never paint my own models, I always hire someone to do it for me.
Who do you hire? I'm looking for a reasonable price to paint my stuffs.
-
[Disclaimer: I know I'm not a BG regular, so please take anything I say here with a grain of salt.]
As part of a group with much more limited resources and a more niche community, I have a lot of envy for the situation at BG. A big beautiful store with excellent tables, great staff, gorgeous terrain, open late enough that any day is a viable game day, and all that. I can only speculate from my position, but in all of those things, I see a lot of opportunity as far as 40k is concerned. Speaking strictly from gameplay's side, I don't think it is a good idea to limit yourselves to what I've called "THE ONE TRUE GAME" approach. There's lots of ways to play 40k; there should be lots of ways to have events if you really want to take full advantage.
I learned a long time ago that if you try to put on the brakes and modify to please everyone you will fail (it's not possible to please everyone, period. Please the largest amount you can and move on). Having a definitive standard that you follow through on and reuse allows people to become familiar with the event style and the approach, and it becomes habitual.
More firm stances on required painting would probably cut back a lot on WAAC netlisting drama (not a hard requirement, but a lighter partial one would do the trick, just so that people can't just build the hot new list the week before and show up with an army of unfinished models or stinking of Simple Green). This would in turn clear up a lot of perceived negativity about "that guy" at tournaments and make the final score listing look less lopsided toward the power builds.
Also, the idea about limiting consecutive painting awards is a good one, there is already little motivation to bother painting up for a BG event if there is no requirement; even less when your effort would be wasted.
Most of you see me as a person who doesn't play at BG events, but I see myself more as a person who USED to, and wants to again. I have a club to deal with and rarely get to play at all, nevermind in an event. So BG events used to be my time off, I would like to see them have a resurgence so that I can have that back.
-
Just want to make a note about 7th edition rules rumors so far:
With the notable execption of Unbound, every rumor I've heard SOUNDS like an improvement over 6th edition to me, from the perspective of clarity and balance. In fact, many of the rumors are things I've specifically wished for out loud in these forums (e.g. getting -2 to hit when snapshotting rather than just always needing a 6, and Ignores Cover being less powerful than it currently is).
And, you could easily just ban Unbound armies from most events.
-
And how would you enforce that? How could you argue that someone didnt paint their own models? Also if someone paid their own money to have it done then by all means they should be able to reap the benefits.
Now mind you I am biased in this purely because Dean painted my army. But tell me why I couldnt get best appearance reward when I spent months converting my army, months coming up with the concept, months building a mountain to display this army.
Now would you consider that a ringer army? Because I wouldnt. But back to my point unless I told you Dean painted my army how would you know? Thinking from a TO stand point how could you verify that without having personal knowledge where I got it? Hindering awards for people just because they had someone do something they couldnt isnt beneficial to the tourny scene. It doesnt help anyone.
I personally feel that regardless who painted an army etc if you have a great looking army then I would much rather play you then someone who has 3 color mins or primed models.
There is this thing called honesty. I know you've never tried to hide that you had help Troy. And I certainly don't think that having some help = unable to win. But a line has to be drawn somewhere.
I am not a fan of contracted out paint jobs winning store prizes for appearance. Certainly having a kickass army is reward in itself no? Or do you think you should win best general if I write your list and tell you what moves to make during each game?
You have a great army. Cool. Didn't you do it to have a great army? Or do your feelings get hurt because you can't win prizes for dean's paint job? Look, plenty of people have cool ideas or cool convertion thoughts, and might not have the cash to pay someone ELSE to help it become a reality. That doesn't mean you didn't do work, but it also doesn't mean we should reward YOU for something someone ELSE did.
-
To clarify. I think that "paid for armies" in terms of painting shouldn't ever be banned, and should be able to compete and win almost every award. Except best appearance.
-
To clarify. I think that "paid for armies" in terms of painting shouldn't ever be banned, and should be able to compete and win almost every award. Except best appearance.
agreed, I am in awe of what Troy did, and that's where a "players choice" comes into play, I'd love to see an honest declaration around what went into the army, and I believe Troy would be spot on with that. Players choice would provide that balance between painting/conversion and display and be voted on by the players.
Best painted can be similar, but doesn't worry about the display board and is concerned with who did the work.
Of course adding another award could be a problem, but just a thought.
As for the overall concern over competitive 40k, I remain very optimistic for this release. I really do. Don't let me down GW, I've heard enough "I told you so's" to last me a good number of years yet.
Cheers,
Alan
-
I'm a gamer, not a hobbyist. Which means I never paint my own models, I always hire someone to do it for me.
Who do you hire? I'm looking for a reasonable price to paint my stuffs.
PM sent.
-
You could do smaller awards for Best Painter and Best Army, respectively. The problem here is that they would often bleed over into each other, though.
Still. It doesn't matter how awesomely painted an army is -- winning an award for something you didn't do, especially if you are vocal that you didn't do it, would probably sour a lot of people. Though the "can only win it once" aspect might remedy that itself.
-
I don't think people like me should be punished for publicly coming out to the world, I play the game for the rules.. not to be in a painting contest. At the end of the day it's my money and I'll spend it however I like, if I want to hire someone to do something for me then I will. I personally think painting should be left out entirely of any type of game tourney scene, have a separate hobbying contest without any gaming at all if that's what you're shooting for.
Either way there's no way to enforce this type of thing, and if I cared about winning a painting award then I never would've said anything at all.
-
Painting awards are really just a bonus, they often have no bearing in the event themselves, so I don't see why it is a problem. Whether or not it "belongs" at a tournament is really not up for debate; tradition is massively, massively against it and, frankly, a lot of BG's problems probably come from the lack of a painting requirement (I have fought guys who took models out of Simple Green and rinsed them off in the BG sink during deployment, and once faced two people who were in only their second game ever with incomplete models, and of course, the usual corner-case super-lists are all hindered by someone having to take the time to paint them).
It isn't a punishment, it is a way of rewarding the people who did the work themselves instead of relying on the services of others.
Besides...if you allow paid-for armies to rake up the painting award you are essentially ensuring the people with the most spare money who put the least effort (as far as the actual act of painting goes) will win it all the time.
I mean, if the award is literally to the person who painted the best, do you really think you deserve an award for work you didn't do (to the point where you are insinuating you would just lie for the prize)? I mean, that's the rub, I guess: is the award for the army, or the person who painted it?
I mean, hell. I'd just get rid of it entirely, if people are this adamant about winning an award and prize money for something they didn't even do it's not worth opening the can of worms every event. There is no paint req at BG events anyway. Giving it away is a waste, especially if there is a split. I mean, why worry about it, right?
-
I mean, hell. I'd just get rid of it entirely
That's exactly what I was saying man
-
Something you guys are forgetting. The award for best appearance is a rubric with conversions, basing, painting, and display etc..
I converted the entire army, I built and painted the display except for a base coat done by Sam everything else was painted by me for the display, I painted and scratch built every single base in my army, I painted guys in the army as well to match Deans paint, I came up with the creative vision for the entire army.
Now mind you im playing devil advocate here im up front about my army. I put months in creating painting etc. Technically I put paint on every single model and dean painted the core army and details. So the painting price was paid because I have paint on them.
In the advent of a restriction like this how can you say I didn't paint the army? Either way im fine I love my army and Keith is right that is its own reward. However its not like someone like me just bought the whole thing on ebay and is trying to reap the rewards of appearance.
The reason I state all this is honestly how can you differentiate, how would you know if I didn't tell you guys? There Is no real way for a TO to know this either. So out right banning rewards for something like that isn't going to help.
Now a change to the players choice way that it is scored and awarded compared to best paint may be a better thing to follow through with. because the way players choice is now is who ever got lucky and their opponents score all 5s which should never happen. Doesn't have much to do with the overalls players choice of super cool fantastic ultimate awesome blah blah army.
-
I agree with everything you said for sure, but you've got to realize that you're the exception, not the rule. Most people just pay folks egregious money to assembly line models for them. It sucks that it would bring you down when you've put a good amount of effort in, but it would also cut out a lot of people just out to straight-up cash grab on the painting awards.
You know, in a funny way, paid painted armies that win Painting awards kind of...lets people launder their paint payments through Battleground + other stores, heh.
At the risk of sounding rude (which I'm not trying to be...I've seen photos of that army, and it clearly has love put into it), you still accomplished what you accomplished with help. So, I think the thought is, suppose you and a guy show up, and he did everything you did plus what your paint service accomplished, deserves to get the award more, technically. So that is all I'm saying. It sucks that any attempt to change policy would take away from such a sweet army that obviously had a lot of effort put into it besides the final coats of paint.
For reasons like this I think it is easier to just not open the can of worms and either forget the whole appearance score or not award money for it and have it be just a recognition of the best looking army of the day. After all, SOMEONE painted it, so there's that.
Sort of like recognizing the nicest army, rather than trying to reward the guy who brought it. Though it's still probably best to just can it...otherwise BG gets to deal with eternal war between guys like you who get shafted by restrictions and guys who never win because the same kick-ass armies come down all the time.
-
... frankly, a lot of BG's problems probably come from the lack of a painting requirement (I have fought guys who took models out of Simple Green and rinsed them off in the BG sink during deployment, and once faced two people who were in only their second game ever with incomplete models, and of course, the usual corner-case super-lists are all hindered by someone having to take the time to paint them).
Dude..... I wish you would just stop trying to fix what you see as "BG's problems". It's pretty hard for someone who is not involved with a given social circle to understand it, or to enact any sort of beneficial change. We can put up a poll about whether people find wisdom in these kinds of observations from afar if you like :)
-
After all, SOMEONE painted it, so there's that.
Lol I laughed so hard when I read this, so true brutha so true.
Also how many painted armies are 2nd hand armies bought from another player using BG store credit system? In fact MANY painted armies are bought 2nd hand at a generous discount from a veteran player that is just trying to free up some hobby space. Those armies are very well painted too.
-
So we will cater events toward competitive players who no longer play a game that is no longer competitive, and we will abolish all paint scores to avoid any and all impropriety.
-
just to play devil's advocate here a bit, think of the painting thing this way: there are millions of people who make a living providing services to others, and i don't see how this is any different. if someone spends 40 hours (i have no idea how long it takes a pro to paint an army, it would certainly take me a lot longer than this) painting your mandolls and you pay them $400, they aren't making much more than minimum wage. there are plenty of other competitive things that work like this. does football player doing well get invalidated because someone else made his pads for him? does a beauty pageant participant lose points because she didn't do her own hair? i'm just saying, if the prize is 'best appearance' it should go to the army that looks the best. if the prize is 'best painter', that's different.
now, devil's advocate mode disengage: i wouldn't mind seeing a few less repeats. if two armies are extemely close in appearance i don't have a problem giving it to the guy who hasn't won a whole bunch.
-
Most people just pay folks egregious money
Well they're certainly not going to do it for free, plus I like to drink in my leisure and I can't do both at the same time.
-
I don't think people like me should be punished for publicly coming out to the world, I play the game for the rules.. not to be in a painting contest. At the end of the day it's my money and I'll spend it however I like, if I want to hire someone to do something for me then I will. I personally think painting should be left out entirely of any type of game tourney scene, have a separate hobbying contest without any gaming at all if that's what you're shooting for.
Either way there's no way to enforce this type of thing, and if I cared about winning a painting award then I never would've said anything at all.
Who said anything about punishing you. I don't think anyone suggested you shouldn't be able to play or win certain awards.
-
So we will cater events toward competitive players who no longer play a game that is no longer competitive, and we will abolish all paint scores to avoid any and all impropriety.
Ben this is where I have to strongly disagree with your assessment and train of thought. These are your opinions that the game is no longer competitive. There are hundreds of players like myself who consider themselves competitive that still play. BG has not had a true competitive event in a while so you tend not to see them. Relying on thursday game numbers cant give you a true count of how many people like me are out there. The very nature of the game is competitive regardless if some rules are trying to make it otherwise.
I wont deny there has been a decline in gamers but that has more to do with the timing, lack of solid tournies etc. It is fairly easy to make 40k a competitive game by not allowing titans etc. Im not going to get into those details here as I am not trying to address that directly. But to outright deny a large player base the tourny structure they desire is a mistake.
For instance BG has a good event this saturday. Will it have a large player base probably not for several factors. Another store in CT is running a competitive event on this same day. Where do you think players like myself and other competitive players are going to go?
This area in general has one of the best GT going communities I have seen. GT's are the epitome of competitive play and they are selling out left and right. So this proves on some levels that the game is still competitive and still has a large competitive player base.
As for painting I think the best way to do it is limit the amount of time someone can win in a row if this is an issue. I personally don't see that as one but I am a small fish in a big pond and of one mind because I am a reaper of the awards. Do I think that Matt's rat daemons are super badass and deserve best appearance? Hells yes I do but brother needs a display!! LOL
Long winded I know but my point is BG had a great player base and is losing that player base because of so called non competitive views of the game. Look at tournies like NOVA, Adepticon, Templecon all of these were able to take the game make minor adjustments and make then super competitive awesome events. To outright ignore that and only do events that cater to non toruny friendly formats is a mistake. It has been proven regardless of specific armies having advantages that this game can and will remain competitive. I mean hell I took SW to Adpeticon and was able to compete with all the grav star and super tigerius SM armies out there and I claimed Best Imperial showing. Something I am super proud of and got mad props on because I did it with an older codex.
BG's format of doing events for all competitive and non competitive is the way to keep going. Ignoring one or the other will lose your player base. Do I wish there were more competitive events hells yes BG is super local and I prefer this store over all others. But to get rid of competitive events will make it hard to justify me coming to BG and I am sure that is the same for people who have the same mind set as I do.
-
Who said anything about punishing you. I don't think anyone suggested you shouldn't be able to play or win certain awards.
I know, I was just trying to emphasize the role painting should play ;)
So we will cater events toward competitive players who no longer play a game that is no longer competitive
I would say many national tournament organizers would disagree with you. Here's a good article from gamers that make a living selling GW products, as well as organizing competitive events.. and why they're not worried about any upcoming changes. http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2014/05/15/zen-and-the-art-of-edition-maintenance/
-
A good read for sure and an important part to note.
If this edition is good or bad, the wheels will roll on and and we will continue to come together to enjoy the camaraderie of our hobby. We can make adjustments to any rules we truly don’t like, and we can alter how we play to accommodate. We can also just choose to play other games, too. The friendships we share with one another are what make table top games special, the actual games we are playing are really just window dressing.
-
This really isn't an issue. Whether or not there are painting requirements for tournament entrants is not even on the radar of reasons related to attendance. In fact, NOT having painting requirements for entrants has historically only helped attendance. Allowing people to begin playing with their purchased merchandise right away is a positive thing. It takes time to paint an army, as you all well know, and I don't want anyone to not be able to play in an event because they ran out of time to finish painting that last unit.
In my opinion, painting awards should continue to operate as they always have. It provides an encouragement for people to paint their armies, while not telling people they can't play until they finish doing so. So you don't like playing against somebody's unpainted army (especially when they end up beating you)? I get it, but you'll live.
Undeniably, modeling is an inseparable part of the hobby we're talking about here. Creating awards to promote that part of the hobby is totally appropriate, and really hasn't ever been an issue. Nor has it been an issue where the same person wins over and over and over again. More than once, we've had someone who was going to win "Best Appearance" not submit their army for grading because they had won the previous time and were playing with the same army again. That's sportsmanship.
This is one of those self-policing type of situations and is usually handled in a conversation on the day of the event. If someone wants to win a painting contest with an army they didn't paint, that's basically their problem. If it's one of your friends submitting it under false pretenses, you should be busting their balls for it and publicly outing them so they can be properly ridiculed.
-
The very nature of the game is competitive regardless if some rules are trying to make it otherwise.
I found some of those rules trying to make the game less competitive.
"Your job isn't to follow the rules, it's also to add your own ideas, drama and creativity to the game. Much of the appeal of this game lies in the freedom and open-endedness that this allows; it is in this spirit that the rules have been written." - BRB, Page 8
"At its heart, a game of Warhammer 40,000 is a shared experience between two fellow hobbyists - and it should be as enjoyable and fulfilling for both players as possible." - BRB, Page xv
-
I bet my 40k experience with Troy is way more fulfilling than yours.
-
I bet my 40k experience with Troy is way more fulfilling than yours.
I don't even know what that is supposed to mean or even infer. All I get from that statement is somehow now gaming experiences are becoming competitive, whose time was more fulfilling than someone else's.
ETA: It occurs to me that this may have been a joke?
-
I am just going to leave this here.
I am not fan of what 40k has come to or where the game is right now on the GT scene. I still however love competitive 40k at BG because the meta is completely different and it isn't all absurd deathstars, with a couple notable exceptions. I can bring an army I think is cool and still feel like I have a chance as opposed to a GT I need to bring something specific.
I haven't been to BG is a while because it has been a long time since I have seen a standard, competitive RTT event. Pull from that sentence what you will. I am sure Derek and Chase will know what that means. I also haven't been buying GW from products from anywhere else so they can take from that sentence what they will =P.
As far as appearance awards; I have armies I have painted myself and armies I have had others paint. I DO accept appearance awards for the ones I have painted but I DO NOT for those that I have had pro painted despite any work I may have put into them. Troy is clear that he did not paint the lions share of his army and it is at his discretion if he wants to receive an award and it is at the discretion of the TO to decide if he should be in the running so this discussion is irrelevant.
-
Bill, I know many players who share those sentiments, almost exactly.
It's just an unfortunate time in which for as many people want to play competitively, there are that many conflicting ideas about how to make it so. I figured with so many people fighting the tide and each other, they'd be as tired as I am of that struggle. This thread I suppose has shown there's still plenty of fight, though.
Really, someone just needs to pick up the competitive ball and run with it. It's pretty obvious to all involved that I don't know what the competitive ball even looks like any more.
-
It's pretty obvious to all involved that I don't know what the competitive ball even looks like any more.
From what I understand, it resembles a giant katamari ball.
-
It's pretty obvious to all involved that I don't know what the competitive ball even looks like any more.
How can anyone know what the competitive ball looks like if *no one* has played with the new 7th ed rules yet? :o
-
I've been playing elsewhere lately, where the air is more mellow and the competitive urges suppressed. The angst I'm seeing on these boards is missing. I did speak to another long timer though. We agreed that as long as we've been involved in 40K, there has always been a crisis due to the perception of non-competitive unbalanced rules, and there is always an impending crisis as GW management is so lousy that the company can't possibly survive much longer.
And yet, here we are.
I'll note that three of my 40K armies were once one. My Guard, Marines and Demons were once cultists, marines and demons under one force org. I've been looking for an opportunity to reunite them...
-
It's pretty obvious to all involved that I don't know what the competitive ball even looks like any more.
How can anyone know what the competitive ball looks like if *no one* has played with the new 7th ed rules yet? :o
Because it's not just about the rules. The past year did a great deal of damage to the community.
It is very true with the competitive events I've seen at BG, the more, the merrier. We all want the rooms with 40+ players again. It's going to take a long time (and at least $85) to bring each player back, if they decide to come back at all. There's a lot of "wait and see and save money" vibe among the players with whom I talk.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/7U5UqmV.png)
-
I've been saying what Ben is saying the whole time, the rules of the game or the approach of the company really do not matter. It is the players and the attitude and approach that put models on the table in social situations.
The last year hurting anyone happened because people decided to let it, it was the most different year in 40k history, but the game had things added to it, all of which were optional...they really didn't hurt. A game growing doesn't mean it's ruined. What hurt was no one being able to establish a competitive standard. And all the vinegar-pissing that went on instead of that establishing process.
The same old topics came up during that vinegar-pissing, too. The stuff I've heard for years and years now. "GW is so stupid! They are ruining the game!" Completely unsubstantiated claims of personal preference that get turned into "facts" by the Warhammer 40k echo chamber. The fellow from earlier is right -- I have heard this since time immemorial. Why, the first post on the 7th Ed launch party is someone flipping out that they are quitting.
Ben is right -- it really isn't about the rules. It is about the attitude and approach. Magic isn't such a popular tournament game because people stand around patting each other on the back about how bad it is, or about how their declining tournament attendance is the game/developer/latest add-on's fault.
Talking about the "competitive ball" and how he supposedly haven't got a grasp of it -- Hey, maybe not. But he is attempting to do what needs to be done -- trying to move forward and get some consistency established. For that, at least, he'd be commended, because all I ever see anyone else do (at least on these boards as an outsider looking in), is talk talk talk -- shooting things down, nay-saying, etc. People rarely have suggestions or initiative; they just tell you why it will all fail, and frankly it's rarely true.
This is the way the 40k community is. Anything that doesn't fit their narrow personal mold is hand-waved away as the all-but-certain doom of the game.
I learned a long time ago the hard way that you have to have conviction to make this work. This is 40k -- you can't take a breath without alienating someone. You have to try and do what you think serves the most interests, and accept that 70% or 80% happy playerbase is better than 0%. It's good to prompt the discussion and take those first steps.
-
The fallacies in that post are astounding.
-
I think maybe you should play at an event or two at BG. It's like you're summing up things other people have said and then inserting your thoughts like they're group consensus, when to my knowledge you haven't participated in anything with this group in person in at least two years.
-
when the new edition comes out ill be enjoying re-enacting battles with Derrek of Necrons vs Minotaur Space Marines.
-
To many people complain about 40k people should just play and have fun!
-
The fallacies in that post are astounding.
And I see you have not mentioned any of them because they are so obvious.
I think maybe you should play at an event or two at BG. It's like you're summing up things other people have said and then inserting your thoughts like they're group consensus, when to my knowledge you haven't participated in anything with this group in person in at least two years.
There is a reason for that, and it's been pretty obscured by the fact that everyone seems to think I am just some intruder instead of a person looking to reconnect and get things back to where I enjoyed them.
Since I came to this forum, the discussions wildly alternate between referencing the whole game as it ever existed EVERYWHERE and the bubble in which BG playerbase exists anyway. It's very effective because at any time I make a perfectly valid statement folks can just bring up that I haven't been there in a minute and discard it.
I log in, see people discussing about some aspect of the game or event planning or what have you...then I offer my thoughts on those very same things everyone else is talking about, and people get all like "Whoa bro what issues? What complaints? Who do you think you are? You don't play here, you don't know."
Like I said before: I am a semi-competitive player who used to come to the events, and stopped. Isn't the opinion of that sort of guy what you want/need? And even if not...what, so everyone else gets to generalize about the game and be given the benefit of the doubt, but I don't?
If you get nothing else about me, this is the one thing to take away: I care about THE GAME, not the store. And THE GAME needs some sensibly-run, inclusive, FUN local events. Battleground events are the centerpiece of the local event scene (or were, anyway). I want that back. I want a reason to support this store instead of avoid it (or worse, convert people away from supporting it, which would frankly be easier at this point than trying to be helpful). It is the ONE thing I can't do with my own club, because it is just too much work for one person. This means, other than the odd Pandemonium or Dorka Morka event, there pretty much are none other than BG's. So why wouldn't I legitimately want to try and be helpful?
Regardless, playing there before means nothing going forward; on May 24th, we're all newbies again (I wonder if my opinion will be considered any more or less legitimate at that point). I know nobody cares about my opinion, but my last word on the subject regardless is this:
A new edition is a clean slate, and people shouldn't waste that opportunity.
-
I've been saying what Ben is saying the whole time, the rules of the game or the approach of the company really do not matter. It is the players and the attitude and approach that put models on the table in social situations.
Here I need to clarify something. I have focused on the community aspect, because that's one thing I can hope to affect.
However, the rules and a company's approach do matter a great deal. What has happened to the 40k community is simple cause and effect. Rapid-fire rules changes drastically impacted the game, while distribution seemed determined to nickel-and-dime the customer. Players argued about which changes needed to be made, and more changes came before anyone could breathe. As frustrations hammered down and prices went up (AGAIN), disregard for the changes fed into a disregard for the community. I hoped changing expectations would alleviate some of those frustrations, but that was clearly a misjudgment on my part.
There is cautious optimism that 7th can be a return to form, that the game can accommodate competitive play as easily as it can casual play. So maybe by June, a new direction will emerge that can lead all players to a better game.
-
You're wondering aloud about your disconnect with people here, and then you write this.
If you get nothing else about me, this is the one thing to take away: I care about THE GAME, not the store.
You will need to understand that people here care about the store, because the store and the community are to us one and the same. We're not here out of self-interest. Our interest is in the other people in the BG community.
An equivalent to what you've said here would be someone going to the Evil Dice forum and posting, "I don't care about Evil Dice, only about what Evil Dice can do for me." You might commend the honesty, but I do not believe you would appreciate the sentiment.
-
It might not be a bad idea to look at running more league type events. With the way the rules are supposedly going to be you could have different types of leagues like an unbound armies league, a war forged or whatever it was called league, super heavies league etc. You could do a newbs league or a veterans league. It gets people in the store playing 40k in a competitive setting without the stress of organizing and running a tournament.
Honestly I don't think the whole concept of unbound armies has to make the game less competitive. If you use a positive komp type system you could come up with some pretty interesting events. Like a mechanized type event where you get bonus komp points for having 50% of the points in you army comprised of non flyer/ dedicated transport vehicles. Or something like the power armour event. A person whose army doesn't normally have access to vehicles or power armour could still do this by running an unbound army. A type event where you are given a certain amount of extra points to bid on various models and wargear form various codexes in an auction type setting. The possibilities are endless.
-
It's like you're summing up things other people have said and then inserting your thoughts like they're group consensus
How is that different from the opening post?
-
It's like you're summing up things other people have said and then inserting your thoughts like they're group consensus
How is that different from the opening post?
From my post? Really? I made it pretty clear what I putting out there were my ideas and the direction I wanted to take. I asked players for their thoughts and feedback, a question from which one implies I don't invoke their opinions as authority. Everything is framed as "could/would happen," and distinctly not "will happen."
If any sort of group is implied, it's only from my drawing inspiration from my observations of the community and my personal conversations with players.
-
Pardon good Ser I meant no offense, I just failed to see a difference. The opening post assumes that the game is "no longer competitive" and insinuates to players to not "fight the tide". Perhaps a BG poll would be more effective at making your point to people whom are not regulars at all the BG tournements and weekly gatherings. However it would be best to gather that data AFTER the release of the new edition.
-
It's the internet, no one will agree.
@AstartesXXVI it's obvious you care about 40K. You should start a club or something. Or come to BG once an ever.
People complained it was 4 years between editions, now it's two. People complained about only 4 Codexs a year, now we get 8. Boo-hoo. GW doesn't share information. Now we have Youtube videos about the new edition.
The important part is put on your big boy pants and bring and play your plastic mans.
-
Perhaps a BG poll would be more effective at making your point to people whom are not regulars at all the BG tournements and weekly gatherings.
I'm not dumbing things down. If you want a say, be active, be involved.
-
See that's just the problem, I'm not going to be active or involved if someone dictates on what type of events are and aren't played, while censoring other people's opinions. I already stated the I played the entire Storm & Shadows 40k Campaign last year and really enjoyed it. I will continue to play competitive 40k no matter what anyone else dictates.
-
Who's dictating? Who's censoring? I don't think you know what either of those words truly means.
-
It has become incredibly clear that people long ago stopped really reading posts and instead are finding anything they can to be outraged about.
At this point it is clear that discussion goes nowhere with those so often involved in these irrational debates. It may be best for those seeking productive dialog to ignore persistent offenders or set up an alternative venue for discussion.
The arguments are circular and useless. I can't even distinguish threads from one another anymore.
-
It's like a broken record
-
It is incredibly important to note that there are a large number of people guilty of this; many of which consistently fail to recognize their own participation in and promotion of these arguments.
-
Why don't we all just wait a week and see if anyone is even going to care about 40k?
-
I care about rolling dice and drinking beer. Can't we all just get along?
-
Can't Chase starting serving beer?
-
Can't Chase starting serving beer?
Can we have "21+ events" please Chase!?!?
-
hm, BYOB tournaments, do we need a shuttle bus too?
-
Can't Chase starting serving beer?
Can we have "21+ events" please Chase!?!?
i'm all for it
-
Can't Chase starting serving beer?
Can we have "21+ events" please Chase!?!?
i'm all for it
+1
-
I'm thinking about an event that put equal emphasis on pretzels as well as beer. Thoughts?
-
What about people who don't brew their own beer or bake their own pretzels? Should they be eligible for prizes?
-
brew their own beer
yes.
bake their own pretzels
no.
screw consistency.
-
Any 21+ event would have to be on a Sunday night.
-
I'm thinking about an event that put equal emphasis on pretzels as well as beer. Thoughts?
:)
What about people who don't brew their own beer or bake their own pretzels? Should they be eligible for prizes?
;D
-
Any 21+ event would have to be on a Sunday night.
Which would be fabulous for those of us with Mondays off... *ducks*
-
Any 21+ event would have to be on a Sunday night.
I whole heartily endorse this and would definitely be on board. Not much of a Beer and Pretzels guy, but Vodka and Pretzels I can do.
-
Any 21+ event would have to be on a Sunday night.
Saturday for those of us that work in the corporate world! lol
-
No he means that we would have to do it sunday because he would have to shut down the store to do this. Too many <21 in the store during the rest of week