6 Nations take aways

[Sleboda]

3 hours ago, heywoah_twitch said:

 

I think this it a good thing - kinda. It means that my army now has good options for artefacts, whereas before they were trash. Now, it's true that everyone has access to these and so it's not really like I'm any better off relatively speaking, but it feels better at least.

 

This sort of highlights an issue I have with AoS. I own Malign Sorcery and it didn't even occur to me to check it when I was selecting my magic item for my Daughters of Khaine list yesterday. Too many sources/docs to check even for something as supposedly simple as making a 1000 pt list.

[Solaris]

46 minutes ago, chord said:

I think that's part of the problem.  You get high end players, who get free goods from GW.   They are interested in how they perceive the game should be played, etc. 

They need more scrubs

To expand on this, I think that the problems currently in the game will have a larger impact on mid tables than on top tables. I'd be happy to play against 64 damage Grots, because it's a gimmick that can be countered and rendered ineffective. Someone who doesn't know how it works and how to beat it may have a really ****** time playing against it.

I think command ability stacking needs to be stopped because it'll ruin the middle-of-the-pack gameplay, not because it's actually super strong and conducive to winning high-end games.

[JackStreicher]

1 hour ago, Solaris said:

This competitive-player-bashing attitude baffles me whenever I see it. Have you not ever considered that to some people, trying to play the game to perfection is fun? And that a part of playing the game to perfection is designing lists to perfection? I do it because that's what's fun to me. Why are you going around screaming out that my way of having fun is inferior to yours? The notion is absurd to me.

You are wrong, the game requires tons of skill to play.

There's nothing strange about taking the things you love seriously. You don't have to if you don't want to, but if some of us do, that's absolutely fine.

I never said my way was superior, I hinted that the power-gamer attitudeisn‘t good for this hobby. Know the difference.

It‘s not the competetive gaming itself it‘s too many of the people who are the issue; those of them who are toxic to this hobby in too many ways by raging about broken combos while using them themselves, by pushing away newcomers with their attitude. 

You might say: no that‘s a minority! That might be true for your gaming group but it‘s not for mine and I am sick of it. By maxing out imho you miss out on too many parts that make the game great.

 

my intend: make people see that there‘s more this hobby than powergaming - since I was powergaming for 15 years and in my experience it‘s destructive to the hobby while it only makes you experience a shard of the whole deal. 

[Infeston]

22 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

I never said my way was superior, I hinted that the power-gamer attitudeisn‘t good for this hobby. Know the difference.

It‘s not the competetive gaming itself it‘s too many of the people who are the issue; those of them who are toxic to this hobby in too many ways by raging about broken combos while using them themselves, by pushing away newcomers with their attitude. 

You might say: no that‘s a minority! That might be true for your gaming group but it‘s not for mine and I am sick of it. By maxing out imho you miss out on too many parts that make the game great.

 

my intend: make people see that there‘s more this hobby than powergaming - since I was powergaming for 15 years and in my experience it‘s destructive to the hobby while it only makes you experience a shard of the whole deal. 

I talked about this in another thread. I also don't think competitive gaming is bad - per sé.  But at the moment I think we are at a point where the competitive mindset spawns a lot of negativity and negative or toxic attitudes. 

People are forgetting what wargaming and tabletop gaming is about. It is about the fun and enjoyment of the hobby.

Have a look at Rule Zero for roleplaying and miniature games from 4Chan:

 

"Roleplaying games and miniature wargames are entertainment; your goal as a group is to make your games as entertaining as possible. If that means breaking the rules temporarily, or permanently as a house-rule, then so be it."

 

But "breaking the rules" never meant breaking them so far that the match will end up unenjoyable for your opponent, but instead only break the rules if they don't make the game enjoyable for both players. This also means not abusing powerful abilities or artifacts to completely destroy your opponent.

I know that the situation at tournaments is very different, but most AoS gaming groups propably have never seen a tournament at all. 

[JackStreicher]

1 minute ago, Infeston said:

I talked about this in another thread. I also don't think competitive gaming is bad - per sé.  But at the moment I think we are at a point where the competitive mindset spawns a lot of negativity and negative or toxic attitudes. 

People are forgetting what wargaming and tabletop gaming is about. It is about the fun and enjoyment of the hobby.

Have a look at Rule Zero for roleplaying and miniature games from 4Chan:

 

"Roleplaying games and miniature wargames are entertainment; your goal as a group is to make your games as entertaining as possible. If that means breaking the rules temporarily, or permanently as a house-rule, then so be it."

 

But "breaking the rules" never meant breaking them so far that the match will end up unenjoyable for your opponent, but instead only break the rules if they don't make the game enjoyable for both players. This also means not abusing powerful abilities or artifacts to completely destroy your opponent. 

 

I whole-heartedly agree.

 

[Solaris]

27 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

I never said my way was superior, I hinted that the power-gamer attitudeisn‘t good for this hobby. Know the difference.

It‘s not the competetive gaming itself it‘s too many of the people who are the issue; those of them who are toxic to this hobby in too many ways by raging about broken combos while using them themselves, by pushing away newcomers with their attitude. 

You might say: no that‘s a minority! That might be true for your gaming group but it‘s not for mine and I am sick of it. By maxing out imho you miss out on too many parts that make the game great.

The implication is that people with a different mindset than you are wrong. To me, your previous post was clearly toxic and your attitude damaging to the community.

I fully accept your way of having fun, and when playing you (or someone with a similar mindset) I'm happy to adjust my army and game to your expectations. That doesn't change the fact that I get the most enjoyment out of chasing perfection, and that playing with an inferior list feels like deliberately shooting myself in the foot and reduces my enjoyment. It's sometimes a fun tactical challenge, but usually not so much since there is little to learn. I get much more enjoyment out of playing a highly tactical game against a difficult opponent with sharpened blades than I get out of playing a game against a beginner with a blunt weapon. The latter can be a challenge as well, but to me it's a much less interesting one.

I think voicing concerns about broken combos while using them is the most proper way of going about it, really. You don't really understand how and why something is broken without experiencing it first hand, and by exploring it your feedback will be all the more relevant. Going all-out to push the boundaries of the game is also a way of stress testing the rules. If something is busted I blame the game, not the players.

I'd fully agree that raging and pushing newcomers away is harmful. To me, that means any kind of raging - raging against competitive players included.

I talked about this in another thread. I also don't think competitive gaming is bad - per sé.  But at the moment I think we are at a point where the competitive mindset spawns a lot of negativity and negative or toxic attitudes. 

People are forgetting what wargaming and tabletop gaming is about. It is about the fun and enjoyment of the hobby.

If you were at 6 nations, you'd know that everyone there had an absolutely fantastic time while trying to play the game at the highest possible level. Most of the raging buffoons aren't the actually competitive players ? They don't waste time on nonsense like that.

[JackStreicher]

8 minutes ago, Solaris said:

The implication is that people with a different mindset than you are wrong. To me, your previous post was clearly toxic and your attitude damaging to the community.

You misunderstood me as it seems. 

[Infeston]

@JackStreicher and @Solaris. The thing is that you are both now very confrontational with each other. But in the end you are both people who enjoy this hobby and I don't think that anyone of you is what is wrong about this community. 

I can understand both your points in this discussion. I can understand your point @Solaris that it is fun to try to get the "perfect list", but on the other hand I can also understand @JackStreicher who has a big problem with the min-maxing attitude that drives many people away from the hobby. I also am a little bit sad that all of the boards and forums are dominated by lists, points and competitive discussions. 

I don't think that the competitive mindset is bad, but I think the mindset has reached a point where the competitiveness has turned into toxicity and produced many conflicts in the community.

Edit: @Solaris The problem is that those events only portray a small minority of people playing AoS. You won't see most of the people affected by all the changes to the game. Many people also don't have the money or time to visit those events. So you will only see a small percentage of the AoS Community at those events. Even if the people at this event enjoyed themselves doesn't mean that the vast mayority enjoys the game at its current state. 

[Solaris]

I think netlisting is a bigger problem than min-maxing, to be honest. It's when big guns are wielded by and against people who don't understand them or how to counter them it becomes an un-fun experience. It's when top-tier builds trickle down into the general community that games can become extremely one-sided.

I think that the divide between "competitive" and "non-competitive" players is a big issue. Ideally, there should be room for everyone in this hobby, and it's unfortunate that people get mad at each other for enjoying the hobby in different ways.

[Karol]

16 hours ago, Vextol said:

I don't know why they didn't change it but I believe they must have had a reason because if they had wanted to hurt him they could have easily done it

IMO stuff like that should have been explained in the faction focuses. Articles done, not by some dude that started the army 1 month ago are not that useful, specially if those people from focuses didn't knew what they were talking about. It would be great to hear from someone who worked a lot of time on the new edition, what their plans are for the new edition. 

[Infeston]

13 minutes ago, Solaris said:

I think netlisting is a bigger problem than min-maxing, to be honest. It's when big guns are wielded by and against people who don't understand them or how to counter them it becomes an un-fun experience. It's when top-tier builds trickle down into the general community that games can become extremely one-sided.

I think that the divide between "competitive" and "non-competitive" players is a big issue. Ideally, there should be room for everyone in this hobby, and it's unfortunate that people get mad at each other for enjoying the hobby in different ways.

I think you are hitting a nail here. There is a strong division between competitive and non-competitive players at the moment. But the thing is that competitive players have a certain impact on the game, because they are selected as playtesters and can influence the direction of the game, while the other non-competitive crowd has no influence on the game whatsoever. 

This might also be a point where a lot of frustration might stem from. 

But I also have to say that I don't really know who tests the game. I just "heard" that competitive players test the game. So I am just speculating. In the end I don't want to state anything as a fact if it is totally different.

And the competitive and tournament players are very different from each other. While the competitive crowd might already have learned all the new rules, the non-competitive players propably still try to adapt to the new system or have never even played an AoS 2.0 game. So it has a huge impact if only the competitive players have a saying in the design of rules etc.

[Sleboda]

40 minutes ago, Solaris said:

playing with an inferior list feels like deliberately shooting myself in the foot and reduces my enjoyment

Amen. I'm not the most competitive (or skilled) wargamer, but I try my best. It irks me to no end when people trot out the tired old admonishment that"the game is all about fun" as a way to get folks like you to reduce their own enjoyment in order to increase their own - as if how you play (chasing perfection) is somehow not fun. Maddening.

The thing is, it's socially the easiest thing to do to take the stance they do. It's tough to defend winning as fun. In today's world (esp. here in the US, IME), it's seen as oddly noble to do less than your best, to deliberately underachieve, so that you don't hurt the self esteem of others or in any way impact their view of what's fun.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a liberal/hippy/softie/easy-going sort of guy. It's just that I think people who are in your camp get a needless amount of grief for simply playing within the rules to the best of their ability ... because that's fun for them!

[amysrevenge]

31 minutes ago, Solaris said:

I think that the divide between "competitive" and "non-competitive" players is a big issue. Ideally, there should be room for everyone in this hobby, and it's unfortunate that people get mad at each other for enjoying the hobby in different ways.

It's more than that, even, in some cases.  There are some competitive players who don't even believe that non-competitive players exist, let alone that they have a valid alternate way to play. 

Non-competitives think competitives aren't having fun the right way, competitives think non-competitives aren't wrong, exactly,  as they can't and don't even exist, as there isn't a way to play that way so right and wrong don't even come into it.

It's "my way is better than your way" vs. "my way is the only way there is".

Both wrong, but in different ways.

 

(ETA: There are posters from this thread who could probably watch one of my games down at the club and say "I don't even know what you're doing.  It has the trappings of a game, and at some points it almost looks like you're playing a game, but ultimately it isn't a game.  Why do you even describe it as AoS?  It's some other activity using the same models.  Some sort of weird out-of character roleplaying maybe?  I don't get it, and I don't like it.")

[Sleboda]

3 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

There are some competitive players who don't even believe that non-competitive players exist

I think, ultimately, that they don't (and I'm not all that competitive). I use an extreme example sometimes to get the point across when this comes up:

Two players are having a game. One is a self-espoused funner. The other is just some average player. The game is going along fine until round 3. The average player picks up a unit and sets them back down 3 feet across the table, in a better position.

The funner is like "Hey, what's with that? They can't just be moved to a new spot."

 

Avg guy says "Why not? Now they can blast your evil wizard, which is what they are meant to do. This is more in character for them and is enjoyable for me to do. Besides, what do you care? You always say it's not about the winning or losing, but about the enjoyment of two people creating a story together."

Funner: "Yeah, but, I mean ... That's just not even close to within the rules. You can't just make up new things as you go without us talking about it. I kept my evil wizard safe from that unit for 2 rounds and now that's like it didn't matter."

Avg guy: "Hmm. Not sure what to tell you. So, anyway, they get 10 shots ..."

 

 

It's extreme, I know, but it does help illustrate the idea that even the Funner gamer had certain expectations of what is fair in the game, and fairness is an outgrowth of rules - rules that govern (wait for it) a competition.

[amysrevenge]

But it's not a direct opposite situation - "funners" know that there are more ways to play, and it's a spectrum, and some things are "the rules" that you always follow, and some times you step on the gas and push for a win and other times you take the worst units and make deliberately bad decisions and don't go for the win.

"Winners" (is that a good name?) don't accept for a second that any person would ever take a foot off the gas, would ever knowingly take a sub-optimal unit, would ever knowingly make a tactical mis-step (you could make mistakes, but never deliberately).  That isn't how you achieve the only reasonable goal - winning the match.  Anything that lessens your chances to win the match is by definition less fun, 100% of the time.

 

Again, it's an opposition between "I recognize that there are many ways to play, and I choose to stay over here at this end of the spectrum" vs. "there is no spectrum, the way I play is the only way there is".  NOT an opposition between "my way is better than yours" and "no, my way is better than yours". 

 

 

[Solaris]

17 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

(ETA: There are posters from this thread who could probably watch one of my games down at the club and say "I don't even know what you're doing.  It has the trappings of a game, and at some points it almost looks like you're playing a game, but ultimately it isn't a game.  Why do you even describe it as AoS?  It's some other activity using the same models.  Some sort of weird out-of character roleplaying maybe?  I don't get it, and I don't like it.")

That probably includes me ? I'd be curious about it, but ultimately unable to understand it. I'd agree that both attitudes are wrong, in different ways. I'd just prefer it if people promoted their own way instead of bashing other people's way.

3 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

"Winners" (is that a good name?) don't accept for a second that any person would ever take a foot off the gas, would ever knowingly take a sub-optimal unit, would ever knowingly make a tactical mis-step (you could make mistakes, but never deliberately).  That isn't how you achieve the only reasonable goal - winning the match.  Anything that lessens your chances to win the match is by definition less fun, 100% of the time.

I think there's more to this. For me, as a competitive-minded player, it's also about integrity. I don't intentionally make tactical mis steps unless the game is already decided, because that is akin to pitying my opponent. For me, it's not really about winning or losing, it's about chasing the perfect chain of decisions. If I don't try to win, the game is pointless to me. If I ultimately end up losing after trying to win, I don't mind - it's the opposite really, because I get the chance to learn new things. That is exciting to me. If I'm not even trying, I don't give a rat's ass whether I win or lose - the excitement just isn't there. I don't know if that makes sense? It's not about winning or losing, but rather about the thrill of pushing the boundaries of your own ability that is exciting.

[JackStreicher]

For me It‘s again not about the ways to play themselves I see myself as someone inbetween: Trying to build thematic strong armies and at times we also try out what the army can do if you max it out. 

My issue is however with SOME of the people going only for the compete part. In my experience they are the majority of players and most of them are neither fun to play against (obvious cheating to win, playing the time game when they realize that they‘ll lose etc.) they tend to have really bad habits while being just annoying people (overly serious, getting mad when rolling bad, destroying the fun with their behavior like shouting whenever they roll well). Again I am not talking about all players and not about every gaming group I am talking about those in my area. 

 

Also so another issue is the following: people attend tournaments in order to be able to play (since they rarely get the chance to play vs other opponents). These players then are getting massacred by the powergamers who are out to win and nothing else.

I also had fun games against other competetive players which were awesome and compelling, but those are few and in general those CPs or powergamers are poisonous, toxic and just the worst which is one reason why I stopped playing in the comp scene.

[amysrevenge]

 

3 minutes ago, Solaris said:

I think there's more to this. For me, as a competitive-minded player, it's also about integrity. I don't intentionally make tactical mis steps unless the game is already decided, because that is akin to pitying my opponent. For me, it's not really about winning or losing, it's about chasing the perfect chain of decisions. If I don't try to win, the game is pointless to me. If I ultimately end up losing after trying to win, I don't mind - it's the opposite really, because I get the chance to learn new things. That is exciting to me. If I'm not even trying, I don't give a rat's ass whether I win or lose - the excitement just isn't there. I don't know if that makes sense? It's not about winning or losing, but rather about the thrill of pushing the boundaries of your own ability that is exciting.

And I can entirely empathize with that sentiment, and in the right setting I can even play that way and have a great time.

But I also have the ability to go the other way.  Something that, I think, a lot of competitive players just can't do.

[Solaris]

5 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

For me It‘s again not about the ways to play themselves I see myself as someone inbetween: Trying to build thematic strong armies and at times we also try out what the army can do if you max it out. 

My issue is however with SOME of the people going only for the compete part. In my experience they are the majority of players and most of them are neither fun to play against (obvious cheating to win, playing the time game when they realize that they‘ll lose etc.) they tend to have really bad habits while being just annoying people (overly serious, getting mad when rolling bad, destroying the fun with their behavior like shouting whenever they roll well). Again I am not talking about all players and not about every gaming group I am talking about those in my area. 

I also had fun games against other competetive players which were awesome and compelling, but those are few and in general those CPs or powergamers are poisonous, toxic and just the worst which is one reason why I stopped playing in the comp scene.

I'm sorry if that is your experience. Mine is entirely different, and I'm sure that goes for everyone that attended 6 nations. The weekend was a blast.

8 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

And I can entirely empathize with that sentiment, and in the right setting I can even play that way and have a great time.

But I also have the ability to go the other way.  Something that, I think, a lot of competitive players just can't do.

No, I agree on that. I'd have a hard time playing that way, but I'd definitely be open to trying it out. Either way, we have derailed this topic, so we should probably not take this discussion any further here.

[Sleboda]

33 minutes ago, Solaris said:

I don't intentionally make tactical mis steps unless the game is already decided, because that is akin to pitying my opponent.

Bold mine.

A thousand times this. Yes.

When you choose to do less than you could have, you run the very high risk of insulting your opponent. "Yeah, I can win against you without really even trying."

Not a risk I like to take. I like the people I play against too much to belittle them in that way.

It's like the first time I beat my dad in chess after many, many losses. I was elated and then suddenly like, uh oh. 

"Dad, did you let me win?"

Nope, he didn't.

Yay!

It would have crushed me if he had said yes. I never want to do that to someone else.

 

More quote (because I still have no clue how to break up a quoted post here ... tutorial anywhere?) 

"It's not about winning or losing, but rather about the thrill of pushing the boundaries of your own ability that is exciting."

I'm the same way. I'm less interested in beating my opponent than I am in knowing I did the best I could. 

The best I can do is to win a given game, so that's what I'm shooting for when I play.

 

[Infeston]

@Sleboda I think there might be a misunderstanding what narrative and open play is about. It has nothing to do with pitying your opponent. It is more about forging a narrative or writing a story.

But it might be hard to explain this. I don't think those players see this as "limiting yourself" or "pitying your opponent". I can understand that in a competitive mindset it might look that way,

But to really understand what this is about, you have to move away from the competitive mindset and try to emphasize in a different mindset.

[Sleboda]

Narrative I totally get. It's the story. Honestly, I don't even see that as a "game" in the truest sense of the word since a game is, by definition, a competition. Narrative play is just a table top version of the old Marvel "What If" comics. Let's see what would happen if this army fought that army in this setting. We need two people to make that happen, so we get together and let the story unfold.

Open, though, is still a game. It's just one where you and your opponent are less restricted in your model selection. Now, it can result in a highly unfair game, but it's still a game. ?

[TheOtherJosh]

4 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Narrative I totally get. It's the story. Honestly, I don't even see that as a "game" in the truest sense of the word since a game is, by definition, a competition.

Narrative could be a story campaign. (Think the Firestorm expansion.) It can still have substantial competition associated with it and a totally undefined end state.

Narrative campaigns are there to tell a story of some form. While one could use them in a “marvel-what-if” type of game. (And that is common in some of the early source material pre-GHB 2016.) They're just as valid in a map based game where each of the players is playing a faction vying for control over an area. (Kind of a tale of Warlords.)

A ... “If x Battle is won, do Y battleplans next, else play Z” 

Just because something has a story, doesn’t make it less of a game. It just isn’t a “pick the most competitive force and duke it out at X points”.

[Skabnoze]

8 hours ago, Chikout said:

Thanks for the explanation. I agree that putting 5 or 4 command points on one unit is overkill. I guess I'm not convinced that these rules are unintended. The double stack on the grots makes the army good, but I don't think it makes it broken. Do you think people will be winning tournaments with this strategy? I see it as a good way of making a grot list a competitive contender and as such a good thing.

Maybe I am jaded from playing GW games for a quarter century and watching the army books and core rules evolve and shift over time.  I don't claim to be a mathematician but as an engineer I have a better grasp on math than most.  I am continually impressed by Game Designer's collectively poor grasp on math.  This is not confined to GW and happens across various games.  Privateer Press makes games that heavily revolve around bell curves and they continually astound me with how insane some abilities are and how they hand those out and cost them.  Those guys really ought to take a probability and statistics class...

In regards to the Moonclan Grot command ability I highly doubt GW intended for this ability to stack.  This type of effect is exactly the sort of thing they have tried to avoid for a long time.  In general you don't often see multiplicative effects in games.  When you do they tend to be carefully implemented because that is one of the easiest ways for unintended effects to balloon.  And what you never see are exponential effects because those just become bonkers.  I am extremely doubtful that GW intended for grots to get easy access to exponential damage increases.  If they did intend for that then I am afraid to see what else they start adding into this game.

[JackStreicher]

34 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Bold mine.

A thousand times this. Yes.

When you choose to do less than you could have, you run the very high risk of insulting your opponent. "Yeah, I can win against you without really even trying."

The way we do it is that you try to build a strong list which is thematic while not including abviously broken combos/units.

you still give your best but lists more often turn out to have an equal powerlevel