Does competitiveness ruin AoS?

[wayniac]

2 hours ago, BunkhouseBuster said:

I am reminded of Warmachine/Hordes, which is a whole other mess of a wargame.

I got into wargaming (started with Warhammer 40K) in 2010.  After a few years, I decided to give Warmahordes a shot, and see what all the hoopla was all about.  See, I was constantly being told by other players Warmahordes is 1 - "super balanced", 2 - "designed to be competitive", and 3 - "Privateer Press is so much better than Games Workshop'".  I played it for about 7 months, and finally quit on it because I realized just what kind of a game it is, and what my local players are like.

It is not "super balanced", at all.  If it was, then my chose faction would be able to stand a chance at winning with sub-optimal units, because they wouldn't BE sub-optimal.  I ended up falling for the marketing though, and spent hundreds of dollars on "chasing the meta" and getting the models that were supposed to be "balanced" and have a chance of winning.  I ended up winning 3 games out of about 50 or so, and one of those was my first demo game where my opponent showed me exactly what to do to win.  Also, there is no Narrative play at all, just competitive play - no custom Warcaster options for the rules, you are playing THAT character each time.

And don't even get me started on the misogynistic tagline of "play like you've got a pair".  In hindsight, that line should have kept me out of the game, as it epitomizes the WAAC attitude that so many Warmahordes players have and try to instill in new players.  In spite of the fact that I have to try to explain to my daughters and wife how to play the game, that line is just stupid and serves nothing more than to convince the community that there is only one right way to play the game.

Warmahordes in Mark 2 was 1 - NOT balanced, 2 - does not want to have anything to do with Narrative play, and 3 - now that Privateer Press is the large game company that doesn't want input from customers, screwed up an edition change, and is cracking down on online retailers, while GW has done the exact opposite nowadays, the PP fanboys are now just raving hypocrites and do not know what they are talking about.

I don't know what the "meta" looks like for my local Warmahordes scene.  All I know is that they did the damage to themselves.  Their ultra-competitive, WAAC attitude drove me and several other players away from the game, and we are not going to play with them anymore.

Ironically, I picked up Warmahordes BECAUSE it was a competitive game, but over time I found that the mess of complex interactions gave me a headache and it was complicated to the point of being an exercise in frustration.  The rules are still bar none IMHO, but it's a totally different game than Warhammer with a totally different mindset.

Also no the original Page 5 and even the revised one boiled down to "Don't cry cheese if you lose" which at the time was a big thing in the GW community; it was the concept that you should play to win and not pretend moral superiority for playing a "fluff" list if your opponent brought the filth, you should learn to play better and overcome it (a nicer way of the traditional "git gud" mindset). 

However, playing both has given me insight to the styles.  Warmahordes the fluff was basically meaningless; it was there, it was even pretty good in some cases, but hardly anyone gave a damn about it, it was all about the game.  Warhammer is more focused on the backstory and while it can be competitive, it's not intended to be and is kinda shoehorned into being competitive by competitive-minded people who choose to play Warhammer (the same happens with casual/narrative play in Warmahordes)

[BunkhouseBuster]

2 hours ago, wayniac said:

Ironically, I picked up Warmahordes BECAUSE it was a competitive game, but over time I found that the mess of complex interactions gave me a headache and it was complicated to the point of being an exercise in frustration.  The rules are still bar none IMHO, but it's a totally different game than Warhammer with a totally different mindset.

Indeed, the rules and the mathematics behind their dice mechanics are pretty cool, and could scale in some use of d8s and d10s without disrupting the core rules.  That said, the complexity of all the rules interactions and the absolute precision required for the game was tiring.  Plus, the models are completely unnecessary, as the base size determines its height; just mark facings on the bases and play on terrain that is made of mouse pads!

2 hours ago, wayniac said:

Also no the original Page 5 and even the revised one boiled down to "Don't cry cheese if you lose" which at the time was a big thing in the GW community; it was the concept that you should play to win and not pretend moral superiority for playing a "fluff" list if your opponent brought the filth, you should learn to play better and overcome it (a nicer way of the traditional "git gud" mindset).

I only played Mark 2, where it was "play like you've got a pair".  The original "don't dry cheese is you lose" as you described it is still not a good attitude to have (IMHO), and it is almost identical to what I have seen said by the WAAC 40K players in my area.  As such, playing for fluff and lore is about the only way us less-competitive players can have any sense of accomplishment.

2 hours ago, wayniac said:

However, playing both has given me insight to the styles.  Warmahordes the fluff was basically meaningless; it was there, it was even pretty good in some cases, but hardly anyone gave a damn about it, it was all about the game.  Warhammer is more focused on the backstory and while it can be competitive, it's not intended to be and is kinda shoehorned into being competitive by competitive-minded people who choose to play Warhammer (the same happens with casual/narrative play in Warmahordes)

All Warmahordes had to do was give the players an option to build their own Warcaster/Warjack/Warlock/Warbeast.  I mean, with the modularity of the Warjack and some Warbeast kits, that would not have been hard to do - swap a gun here, an axe there, and enjoy!  If the points were a bit more granular, they could have pulled it off, but that might not be "balanced" enough for some players.  But then again, I am almost fully a Narrative player anymore, and don't worry about being competitive.

[TheAntsAreBack]

For me, wargaming and especially AoS is all about getting two good-looking armies an the table and playing out a cool scenario or battle with a mate. It's all about the setting, the fiction, the background material and the models. The more you go down the competitive road the less interested I am in the game to be honest. I don't mean that for all games of course. Shadespire looks to be designed as a competitive game out of the box and I'm really looking forward to it but AoS isn't designed with that in mind and works so much better as a hobby game.

I've been listening to  the Heelanhammer and Facehammer podcasts and ended up deleting both of them because all the chat about taking this that or the other unit in some mixed list that seeks to min-max the game just mystifies me. When they talk about their lists I'm just left scratching my head wondering why you'd play the game like that. We are all free to enjoy the game in whatever way we choose of course, but for me it's all about the models, the setting and the hobby.

[Mayple]

I think the advantage of competitive gaming in age of sigmar over old warhammer (and do correct me if I'm wrong here, because I never got the opportunity to play warhammer back in the day) that Age of Sigmar is objective based, and doesn't require you to table your opponent. This prevents (at least to some extent) people from absolutely demolishing somebody elses army, because target prioritisation should first and foremost be along the lines of: Can this unit move onto an objective>Can this unit prevent me from moving onto an objective>Can this unit kill me if I move onto an objective>And so on, and so on. As opposed to "Gosh, that guy way in the back there that is no threat to my objectives because he is a sub-optimal pick looks cool, better kill him) 

tl;dr: The objective of the game is not to murder the enemy army - Unless blood for the blood god waaagh - but to take control of certain objectives. Sure, you can bring a nuke and make sure your opponent has no chance of hurting you at all, because he'd be dead, but it is not required that you do that just to remain competitive, as long as you have some way of preventing total annihilation in the face of an opponent who brought a nuke (Which smart positioning solves, to a degree) 

Just some rambling. Maybe it's helpful to the discussion, maybe not  

 

As for WAAC - You can always just refuse to play against them. I find their presence inspiring, if only because I (as mentioned in a previous post) enjoy the mental excercise of breaking the game. I do agree that they're often crossing a border though, but moreso in behaviour than what they bring to the fight. I'll happily fight the most broken list on the face of the planet if it is brought by a cool individual. 

[Sleboda]

9 hours ago, BunkhouseBuster said:

I find going back and hitting the Quote button multiple times is a good way to break up posts to respond to them

*1*

1) I would answer "No" to all your questions, so no worries there (though I do use much more orange than my painting buddies!)

*2*

However, tournaments are not always about "being competitive" or "trying to win".  As I mentioned, I only play in "tournaments" that are not competitive - they exist, and they are here to get people together to play and enjoy the game, not to try to foster a victory-seeking attitude.

When the tournament specifically states on its event page that it is a CASUAL tournament, with limitations to army constructions in order to curb the cheese and shenanigans, then who is playing against expectations?

*3*

The WAAC players opted into the event, understanding what the event was for, and still bent the rules of the event in order to maximize their chance of victory.

*4*

My hobby budget is almost non-existent, so travel to one of the big conventions impossible for me.  Besides, I don't want to travel long distances to mingle, I want to PLAY THE GAMES WITH OTHER PLAYERS and actually participate in the hobby with others who share the same interest, and to me, that means playing the game with others who want to play the same game as me.

*5*

Matched Play is not equal to Competitive playing.  It may be particularly well-suited to Competitive games, but it is not the same thing. 

*6*

Even just "eye-balling it" is an amount of effort, and is what I suggesting.  We agree on something!  Hooray!

Ok, srsly, how the eff do I break up a quote?

First off, thank you for your reasoned reply that did not assume the worst. TBH, I sorta expected that out of you (the reasoned reply, I mean) as I've got a vibe from your other posts that you seem like a sane, nice person.  Some folks here just wanna leap on any morsel they can chew on to get their slobber going.  Ah well, that's on them.  Anyhoo...

*1* 

Err mer gerd I love orange for painting.  I have used it on lots of stuff.  I will edit this post shortly (update: added) to share a few images, especially from my Night Horror Legion Chaos Marines.

*2* 

Tournaments that are not focused on competitions for wins are misnamed.  Really, they are. Words mean something, and if you are going to use a word that means 'compete over multiple instances toward an overall win', then that's what it should be.  I have long, btw, wanted to run a Grand Get-together. Five guaranteed games, painted required, etc.  Just no tracking of wins or losses.  That's a tale for another day, though.

A comparison - If I invited you to go see the play Romeo & Juliet with me and then took you to a movie theater that was screening the movie version of Romeo & Juliet, you would have every right to say "Dude, you said 'play' not 'movie.' This is a movie. I like the live energy of a play. Movies are totally different." I can't just say to you "Play, movie - whatevs.  It's all the same."  It's not.

A tournament that doesn't have winning as an objective isn't a tournament.

But, I hear (read) you say (because you did ) what about the ones that specifically say to go all casual?  Great! Awesome!  Go all casual! A WAAC player who abuses that needs to be slapped. (WAAC in general needs to be toast because it implies cheating is ok - which it is not). That said, if the TO cannot be bothered to define the parameters of acceptability, it's sort of hard to fully blame the players who brought their best within the rules. For decades GW has tried the whole "be excellent to each other" approach and it has failed time and again (up until initial release AoS pre-GHB, which was a golden era of peace and kindness). I just really struggle to get upset with players who follow all the rules (of the game and the event), attend something labeled as a tournament, and then try their best to win it.  How are they wrong?

Side note - I once won a tournament with a record of 1 win and 5 losses because the event rewarded painting, sportsmanship, and "bring the least powerful stuff you can" approach. It was still a tournament because it was, in fact, a competition.  I just understood the scoring system better than most.  So, yes, you can have a casual event that is a tournament, but if you are not trying to win it, then you (the general "you") misunderstand what a tournament is.  Again, words matter.

*3*

Really.  ****** those guys.

*4*

You totally can play games.  Pretty much every event I've been to has open gaming.  You can go and get evvvvvverything out of the event that you would get from being in the tournament without disrupting the competition.

*5*

I disagree. The entire point of Matched Play is the competitive nature.  It's the defining characteristic.  Narrative is "Let's create a story together.  Ideas like balance, fairness, equality, and so on are not important at all. It's the story we make that matters." Open is "Bring your cool stuff and play the system, but there is no real story going on.  It's more about the models.  Hell, it's ALL about the models.  I just want a game with my favorite stuff." Matched Play is "We need to make sure it's a fair fight, at least at the base line. Why? Well, because it's a game and we each want reasonably equal chances to win it."

That's not to say you cannot, for instance, use points in a Narrative game to create a story where the outcome is dicey, or that you cannot layer a story onto your Matched Play games, or that you can't use your favorite models in a points-driven game.  Not all. All I'm saying is that the defining characteristic of the three modes are Cool Model, Brah! (Open), That Was an Epic Tale, My Friend (Narrative), and Well Fought, Sir. I Tip My Cap to You (Matched Play).

*6*

I suspect we agree on much more than we don't.

[Sleboda]

19 minutes ago, Mayple said:

I think the advantage of competitive gaming in age of sigmar over old warhammer (and do correct me if I'm wrong here, because I never got the opportunity to play warhammer back in the day) that Age of Sigmar is objective based, and doesn't require you to table your opponent.

A-freaking-men.

In 8th, Tomb Kings suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucked. However, in Blood and Glory or Watch Tower, they had a chance.  Why? Because those two were not about killing the enemy army.

AoS is a very much welcome change to pretty much all-objectives, all-the-time.

[TheAntsAreBack]

1 hour ago, Mayple said:

I think the advantage of competitive gaming in age of sigmar over old warhammer (and do correct me if I'm wrong here, because I never got the opportunity to play warhammer back in the day) that Age of Sigmar is objective based

Well, the six matched play scenarios from Generals Handbook are, but they are just six from a pool of nearly a hundred scenarios so far. Age of Sigmar and it's pool of scenarios is about much more than those six.

[Mayple]

1 minute ago, TheAntsAreBack said:

Well, the six matched play scenarios from Generals Handbook are, but they are just six from a pool of nearly a hundred scenarios so far. Age of Sigmar and it's pool of scenarios is about much more than those six.

Aye, but I assume very few of them revolves around tabling the opponent, which was my point

[BunkhouseBuster]

14 hours ago, Sleboda said:

Ok, srsly, how the eff do I break up a quote?

Here is my method:

1 - Hit the quote button of the post you want to quote,

2 - Delete the portion you are not responding to,

3 - Type your response in under the quote,

4 - Scroll back up to the post you are wanting to quote,

5 - Repeat as necessary.

I hope that helps!

14 hours ago, Sleboda said:

First off, thank you for your reasoned reply that did not assume the worst. TBH, I sorta expected that out of you (the reasoned reply, I mean) as I've got a vibe from your other posts that you seem like a sane, nice person.  Some folks here just wanna leap on any morsel they can chew on to get their slobber going.  Ah well, that's on them.  Anyhoo...

Lol, thanks.  I think that I annoy people with how nice I am sometimes, and I can't help it.  Besides, there is enough toxicity and vitriol being thrown about on forums these days, and I would rather foster positive, constructive conversation and promote niceness as a whole in all things.

14 hours ago, Sleboda said:

Err mer gerd I love orange for painting.  I have used it on lots of stuff.  I will edit this post shortly (update: added) to share a few images, especially from my Night Horror Legion Chaos Marines.

If I could access these forums from home (Internet is down ATM, posting from work) then I would share some pictures of my orange Space Wolves

If you have ever been in the Mid-Missouri area or the Chesterfield, MO GW, you may have seen them around.

14 hours ago, Sleboda said:

Tournaments that are not focused on competitions for wins are misnamed.  Really, they are. Words mean something, and if you are going to use a word that means 'compete over multiple instances toward an overall win', then that's what it should be.  I have long, btw, wanted to run a Grand Get-together. Five guaranteed games, painted required, etc.  Just no tracking of wins or losses.  That's a tale for another day, though.

A comparison - If I invited you to go see the play Romeo & Juliet with me and then took you to a movie theater that was screening the movie version of Romeo & Juliet, you would have every right to say "Dude, you said 'play' not 'movie.' This is a movie. I like the live energy of a play. Movies are totally different." I can't just say to you "Play, movie - whatevs.  It's all the same."  It's not.

A tournament that doesn't have winning as an objective isn't a tournament.

But, I hear (read) you say (because you did ) what about the ones that specifically say to go all casual?  Great! Awesome!  Go all casual! A WAAC player who abuses that needs to be slapped. (WAAC in general needs to be toast because it implies cheating is ok - which it is not). That said, if the TO cannot be bothered to define the parameters of acceptability, it's sort of hard to fully blame the players who brought their best within the rules. For decades GW has tried the whole "be excellent to each other" approach and it has failed time and again (up until initial release AoS pre-GHB, which was a golden era of peace and kindness). I just really struggle to get upset with players who follow all the rules (of the game and the event), attend something labeled as a tournament, and then try their best to win it.  How are they wrong?

A valid point, and one I almost made myself, in that names are powerful things.  Alas, there isn't really a word for "non-competitive tournament" at this point, maybe we should change that?

In my cases, the "casual 40K tournament" was thrown together really quick and not a lot of planning was put into it by the organizer aside from basic army construction limitations (no Formations, just a CAD).  This was exploited by the WAAC players, one in particular, who brought the absolutely cheesiest list possible he could, and he dominated (like always).  After the tournament, he literally (not figuratively) criticized my SM army for not being cheesy enough, and I didn't even play him that day.  The prizes at this tournament were some old used minis the organizer was wanting to get rid of, and the WAAC players ended up giving back their prizes since it wasn't store credit.  The other instance I use for "casual tournament" is at my local GW that is held every month or so, but it is laid back and designed to teach new players how to play the game and has absolutely no prize support.

But yes, I agree.  We need another word in our vocabulary for "casual tournament" that doesn't break expectations and cuts down on shenanigans and hurt feelings.  If you want to watch a play and not a movie, we should be clear in our definitions.  However, the reason those guys were "wrong" is not in their bringing their hardest lists, but in their WAAC attitude that has divided our local 40K community - the tournament I mentioned is only a symptom of the bigger problem.

14 hours ago, Sleboda said:

Side note - I once won a tournament with a record of 1 win and 5 losses because the event rewarded painting, sportsmanship, and "bring the least powerful stuff you can" approach. It was still a tournament because it was, in fact, a competition.  I just understood the scoring system better than most.  So, yes, you can have a casual event that is a tournament, but if you are not trying to win it, then you (the general "you") misunderstand what a tournament is.  Again, words matter.

I got 3rd place in a tournament with bringing some mild cheese once, and that was because I tabled a narrative Tau player (he had Breachers and Hammerheads for his entire army) with my mild Space Marine army backed up by a Knight, and I felt like ****** for it.   I scored so many points in that game that it placed me in 3rd for the day despite my losing both other games.  I also used to score Best Sportsman back in 5th Edition, but the local tournament guys have all changed since then, and it goes to one of the clique anymore (again, divided community).

14 hours ago, Sleboda said:

Really.  ****** those guys.

Well, I wouldn't go that far as to say anything like that.  I just refuse to play them and make it clear why I won't, and stand my ground.  When the game is a chore, it isn't fun anymore.

14 hours ago, Sleboda said:

You totally can play games.  Pretty much every event I've been to has open gaming.  You can go and get evvvvvverything out of the event that you would get from being in the tournament without disrupting the competition.

If I ever have the money for it, I probably will.  I was hoping to go to Adepticon last year just to try it out, but seeing the costs just scared me out of it.  It's a financial and logistical issue right now, and that can't be fixed quickly (unless I get a winning lottery ticket ).

14 hours ago, Sleboda said:

I disagree. The entire point of Matched Play is the competitive nature.  It's the defining characteristic.  Narrative is "Let's create a story together.  Ideas like balance, fairness, equality, and so on are not important at all. It's the story we make that matters." Open is "Bring your cool stuff and play the system, but there is no real story going on.  It's more about the models.  Hell, it's ALL about the models.  I just want a game with my favorite stuff." Matched Play is "We need to make sure it's a fair fight, at least at the base line. Why? Well, because it's a game and we each want reasonably equal chances to win it."

You are correct in the GW definition of the terms.  I look at all the forms of play and see Narrative opportunities, hence why I said earlier that Matched Play is "particularly well-suited to Competitive games".  But this is just a subjective distinction of semantics, or something.  I am purposefully being more broad in my wargaming vision, and have been trying to work on an informal academic analysis of miniature wargaming as an encompassing hobby, and I look at "play styles" and "game modes" from that perspective.  I'm using the terms in a much bigger scope that GW intended, I guess.

14 hours ago, Sleboda said:

That's not to say you cannot, for instance, use points in a Narrative game to create a story where the outcome is dicey, or that you cannot layer a story onto your Matched Play games, or that you can't use your favorite models in a points-driven game.  Not all. All I'm saying is that the defining characteristic of the three modes are Cool Model, Brah! (Open), That Was an Epic Tale, My Friend (Narrative), and Well Fought, Sir. I Tip My Cap to You (Matched Play).

Why not all three characteristics? 

14 hours ago, Sleboda said:

I suspect we agree on much more than we don't.

More than likely.  After all, we can definitely agree that miniature wargaming is awesome (and expensive), and that Age of Sigmar is awesome (and expensive)

14 hours ago, Sleboda said:

Nice!  I see some old school models in there!