Lyraeus

On 9/3/2021 at 10:10 AM, Brother Glacius said:

So I was watching a Battlereport on W+ yesterday and it really struck me how rerolls are kind of ruining the game. Whether its from some unit/character ability to a command point thingy...rerolls just suck the random out of the game. Not sure who at GW decided to add that nonsense to 40K, but it was the worst. It makes me feel like if/when I ever play again, I'm going to have to have house rules out yin-yang just to make the game playable. I'm going to have to go back and look at one-page rules again. maybe that is the way to go.

The game is not supposed to be random though. There is supposed to be a sense of some reliability. 

GW also removed MOST rerolls. Orks have almost zero rerolling outside of a charge and even then its all dice rolled so still random. Space Marines are just silly because everything gets core. 

Hell, my Thousand Sons only get rerolls from a few sources 

On 9/1/2021 at 8:24 AM, Tao Tsê-Mung said:

Exactly! @scottshoemaker How many Ork heads would you guess fit on a build plate?

50 or so... if I got creative and did multi layers, over 100

Had my last game tonight. Was a great game against Oscar. Thank you for everything!

I will be there. I should have up to 750pts of Crusade. Will be my last night

4 hours ago, Tallarn Commander said:

One solution is to play Chaos Space Marines. When I show up at a venue and someone wants a game once they learn I play CSM they often say, "Oh, you play Chaos Marines, let me tone down my list by taking out units X and Y."

As a result the games are more balanced and fun. 😊

HAHAHA until you find that person who enjoys smashing your face in.

I think CSM can be fun to play against. Games done need to be insta defeats. Just something interesting. That is the most difficult to achieve though

As some may know already, I am moving out to Florida. For some this will be older news but for others it will be new. 

I have been in Portland almost 10 years. It is the longest I have stayed in one place in my entire life. There have been moves throughout Portland but it has still been me here. 

For various reasons, that I will not go into, life has tossed me another curve ball as it does and I have decided to move somewhere with family. Now I am not moving back in with my parents. First off it would be a race between who would commit homicide faster, my mother or I so that is not an option but I do have family in Florida. 

As of September 5th I will no longer be in the state of Oregon. I may visit at some point in the future but it wont be any time soon. I will treasure the lessons I learned here, especially at Ordo and I will treasure the people I have met along the way. Thank you one and all, for each of you have helped me learn a lesson, good or bad, it still helped this Asperger addled brain to be a somewhat better person. 

I will still be on the forums but next Thursday will be the last game of 40k for me at Ordo, and Tuesday I will be picking up my Adeptus Titanicus titans ( @Jay I know you thought that would never happen 😛 ).

Thank you all again for everything. I hope I left a better impression than when I first started going to this club but I know for some that is not the case. Still, it will be sad to leave. 

17 hours ago, Dark Trainer said:

And this is your final answer. If playing someone who isn't hardcore looking to stomp faces isn't your style, then you should avoid those matches. Simple. You know your style. The consequence will be fewer opponents as you're unable to interact with 100% of the audience, but at least you'll enjoy it more. It's that simple.

Accepting players for who they are and being a sportsmanly player is huge and what the Ordo mentality is about. This person can be ROFLstomping hard lists or squishiness all the way. @Ish said it well, “socially awkward but friendly” versus “socially awkward and an asshole.” These are things people have to do for themselves, no one can tell or do it for you.

I play Brian, he isn't a hard core gamer BUT he wants to improve and gets better with every game. That makes me want to play him more. It's fun to watch his growth and what he will come up with next.

To watch that mixmash of fun playstyle plus the desire to be a better player. Not just for competitive play or anything but for normal games as well.

Hmmmm should I post my crusade roster here for people to see and critique. I really don't want to be accused of being competitive. Especially since my codex has only 24 data sheets to pull from (2 are special characters, most I don't own yet.... I will have you some day 5++ rhinos.... some day)

1 hour ago, Sgt. Rock said:

Question. What size board will the games be played on? In my experience, small sized games on the new GW recommended board size skew so heavily towards melee infantry that it's pretty much not fun for anything else to play on. I'd like an excuse to dust off my 40k and give another go, but while I like the idea of small games, I feel like in the current state of the game, they're hopelessly imbalanced.

I personally recommend combat patrol games (500pts or less) on the 44x30 while everything larger is on the 60x44. 1000pts is too tight on the smaller board and it makes it just a game of who charges first.

20 hours ago, Ish said:

It’s inherently a subjective thing, they’re asking people not to bring cheesy lists… But everyone has a different threshold for what that means.

Hence my original answer to this question: Don’t be a dick. 

Its crusade, the games get unbalanced regardless

16 hours ago, Brother Glacius said:

I find it hard not to play to win. That is not to say that I bring competitive lists or the current meta. Regardless of my attitude before hitting the table, once I hit the table, I play with the hopes of winning. Now, that does not mean I won't have fun if I lose. I go up when things go well and I can go down when things don't. I wish I could be one of those guys that just has a smile on his face regardless. That isn't me. Once I'm playing, then I do try to figure out how I can win the game and will play to my best ability. Being that these games are won or loss by die rolls at times...I'm hoping that I've gotten better and being less frustrated when things go south. I find I can typically still enjoy a game if there was at least some chance that I could have won. And that is where playing competitive is no longer for me. There are ppl out there that squeeze every ounce of power out of the meta and you can tell by the end of turn 1 that I had no chance. At that point, I don't see a reason to play the game.

So for me, casual play is a game where either side has a reasonable chance to win. I can enjoy those games regardless of outcome. Its weird, don't ask me to explain it. I think many casual players feel the same way. They want to know that there was a chance. If they had just done A, or if the dice had rolled B, then the game would have been theirs.

If I get stomped and see that there was zero chance of me winning, then I don't see the point of that game and it really feels like a complete waste of time. I don't see how you have fun in that scenario. And the chance of that happening goes way up in competitive games. So why not just learn to play better? because honestly, the latest editions require too much time and effort. I wish I had the bandwidth for that...but I don't anymore.

 

1000% this. You encapsulated my feelings on this 

17 hours ago, Ish said:

I interpret that as “bring a legal list, but don’t worry too much about making it a finely tuned, tourney stomper.”

 

But that is not what it says and makes no sense when you are dealing with games at 500 and 1000pts. Sure, your interpretation would be correct IF the games were 2000pts by at 500? At 1000?

32 minutes ago, Munkie said:

Winning is the validation of the goal of improvement. Closely related, and easily mistaken by someone who doesn't know you (like me!).

 

That's why communication is really important. "Competitive" and "casual" are loaded terms and if you say you're looking for one, your opponent is primed to feel some way about it. If you said something like "hey, my goal is to be the best player I can be so I'm hoping to have a game where we're both trying to win and I'd love to have a post-battle conversation about improvement. Is that the kind of game you're looking for?" ...perhaps you'd be better off?

 

They can negotiate if there's something they have questions about or walk away if that sounds completely wrong for them, but hopefully they'd at least respect the clarity of intent. If they accept and then proceed to have a bad attitude then all you can do is attempt to de-escalate a little and wash your hands of it if you get pushback.

I have no issue dialing a list down if it will led to a good game, the issue comes in when there is not that communication and people say "Yea I will play you" but nothing else. 

One can learn from using a sub par list, in this threads context though we have the new Crusade League which has a line 

I am sorry but.... what?

6 minutes ago, Munkie said:

People of both camps get lost in the debate about winning and whether or not it matters and should matter.

I think regardless of your gaming persuasion the proper mentality towards playing to the mission with intent to win it if possible is:

Endeavor to finish the game a better player than you were when you began.

For competitive players, winning more games is a byproduct of adopting that mentality. You learn to formulate a path (or several) to victory pretty early on in competitive gaming. Your opponent and random chance want to derail that plan and learning how to stay on course is the long process. Opponents are a variable you cannot control, so don't try. Just keep getting better than yourself and you'll find you're getting better than others too.

For casual gamers, "better" can mean a lot of different things. We play an artistic game, a social game, and a competitive (in the sense there are 2 people competing, regardless of how seriously you take that). Learn about your opponent's color theory, technique, or basing tips and become a better hobbyist. Learn how to be a better communicator, how to find common ground with them, how to calibrate your behavior to what they are responding to. Or just learn to be better at the game in whatever incremental way. 

I really feel that the breed of gamer who truly does not think of winning and losing at all is exceedingly rare. Most of us will try to win because the game tells us how to. It is a puzzle to be solved and human minds want to solve them. The level to which a win or loss affects us varies greatly, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's how we react that causes trouble.

It can be tedious for a casual player to be ground to dust by someone who only cares about winning. It can equally tedious for a competitive player to spend several hours playing against someone not even trying to play the mission.

However, if both players can just focus on getting better at something, they'll be operating on common ground even if the specific "something" is very different. You're getting better than you, so you can spare your opponent whatever gamer angst you'd otherwise lay at their feet.

See the issue is people think I just want to win. I just want a challenge. Give me a tough battle that has lot to learn. If I lose I learn far more than when I win but improvement as a player is vital to me enjoying this game. The me of now isn't the same person as a year ago, and I hope the me in the future will be better still as a player.

For anyone who may get that co fused, a player is one who does all things mentioned here, strives to improve, strives to have fun, and strives to be a good sport about the game.

1 minute ago, Ish said:

I think what you aren't quite picking up on, in general, is that "let's play a game" can mean very different things to different people. You seem to come from the "Game means an activity described by a set of rules, often competitive or having an explicit goal" definition and without knowing it are becoming frustrated with people who are operating on the mindset that "Game means a playful activity, amusement, or pastime." You're playing poker, they're playing go fish.

Neither of these points of view are wrong, but they can cause friction between players who don't quite get where the other person is coming from.





 

I understand that but you are adding in a sea of different shades of Grey and you don't seem to understand the basic issue. 

The issue is simple. If there are grey in how people play, how can I as a player know what is or is not allowed? 

Please go back to page one and refer to  Munkie's post on here. 

5 minutes ago, Constyx said:

Yeah that was me! 
 

I didn’t hear the end of match discussion between you and Brian last night. While watching your match I didn’t get the impression he was frustrated or not having a good time. Both of you seemed to be having fun and I thought it was interesting hearing you discuss the new Thousand Sons codex. 

Brian is my FAVORITE opponent. He does get frustrated but he doesnt give up and he is always learning. He has the energy I can draw off of and it is always fun.

1 minute ago, Constyx said:

You are right that a player has those choices if they want to get better, but one thing to keep in mind is what makes them frustrated? Is it losing, or the overall experience of their game? I think your disconnect comes from not realizing that there are players who do not care about winning. It doesn’t enter their minds at all. So with a player having that as their mindset, giving them free unsolicited advice about stratagems and what units to bring doesn’t give them anything to work on. They want to improve their experience, not their win rate. And improving the win rate may not be what improves that specific players experience. 

In my opinion your head is in the right place. You’re asking people what their intended experience is and trying to figure it out. We talked last night and it’s evident you’re more than happy to help people improve and get into competitive play. Which makes me want to at least try it. A good step you could take communicating with people is asking if they would like to hear your thoughts on what improvements they could have done from a competitive standpoint. That way it’s clear to them that you’re looking to help vs unintentionally coming off as lording the win over them. 

Hmmmm were you the one painting Custodes last night? If so, did you feel my game against Brian went that way?

2 minutes ago, Ish said:

John Kreese is the villain in The Karate Kid, y'know, the "There is no mercy in this dojo!" guy?

 

Ahhhh. Well there is no way you would know unless you played me and the last time that happened was with orks vs your custodes.

11 minutes ago, Torg said:

As far as someone explaining tactics to me after I loose?  no thank you - if I wanted a class or some instruction I would ask for it (IMO).  I painted and build my own army - I can learn from my mistakes (either my army build, my strategies, or my choice of a "fun" opponent ). If my opponents or the local meta was win at all costs ... I wouldn't be playing 40k at all. Luckily, WACC and Casual play never seems to dominate for too long - after 30 some years ... I can remember lots of things changing with GW ... 40k, the rules and the fluff. But one thing that hasn't really changed is this exact discussion lol.

-d

Sadly for me, that would not be a fun game. It could very well be. You could be tactically savvy and quick to action that is needed for a strong player but in my experience of games, the game you are looking for is not fun for me. Its like taking a Mustang and telling it to drive only on windy hilly roads, beautiful to drive and, relaxing, enjoyable, but not in a mustang where you really just want a nice long straight to let loose on. 

I dont watch a ton of battle reports, I dont read a ton of articles, maybe when there is something interesting sure but in general I just play a lot of games. 2-4 a week. 

Playing a game that has no value in it after the first few times is why I stopped playing magic. Too easy to predict means it had no value outside of who got lucky. In 40k, I roll bad but I make up for it in strategy and planning. That is how I work and so a game that wants none of that... well its not a game to me.

17 minutes ago, Ish said:

Which is a noble intention… But how are you executing it? 

On a scale from John Kreese to Mr. Miyagi?

I have no idea who the first is and I dont have the serenity of the second. 

1 minute ago, Ish said:

That’s where the thing about being magnanimous in victory comes in. There’s a wide spectrum of approaches between giving someone friendly advice on how to improve their gameplay and making mockery of them and saying “Get good, newbie.”

There’s such a thing as “being a sore winner.”

 

I never make fun of people. I just want better opponents so giving advice on a play or strategy is very important. Sure there are armies you will have problems against but in 75% of your games the loss is due to bad tactics, not a bad list. I want to help with the tactics

41 minutes ago, Ish said:

Be fair, be nice, play by the rules, be generous with your opponent, be gracious when you lose, and be magnanimous in victory.

“Games give you a chance to excel, and if you're playing in good company you don't even mind if you lose because you had the enjoyment of the company during the course of the game.” – Gary Gygax

I try to do all of that. I like to think I do but I know I have issues with it.

41 minutes ago, Tamwulf said:

To add to what Dark Trainer said- if you are WAAC/Competitive Player and ROFL Stomp a casual player, don't pick apart their entire list, or tell them how they could have played better, or what their mistakes are unless they ask or seem inclined to want to know. All you are doing is trying to make them into a WAAC player. "You could have won if you had brought the Succubus instead of that in your list. On turn 1, you should have shot at this unit, not that unit. Why didn't you bring this unit instead of that unit? Don't you know about X,Y and Z combo with this strategem? Player X won World Champion GT with this list."

 

I disagree with this statement a lot. 

If a player is losing, and they are losing consistently, all the while getting frustrated then they have a few choices. They can learn by playing a person better than them, they can learn by asking for advice, or they can learn from the free advice given. 

Telling someone "That succubus is ok, but have you tried this out? It might help you in melee a bit more" is not making a person a WAAC player. 

In fact people who play Competitive are currently RARELY WAAC. WAAC involves hiding dice, hiding information. A WAAC player plays Gotcha Hammer so if you have a strat or something that could impact the game and you DONT do the courtesy of informing your opponent, you not only are breaking GW's Code of Conduct, you are playing WAAC.

WAAC is not all competitive players and the fact you insinuate that is insulting.

43 minutes ago, Ish said:

To me, the issue is almost never a question of rules, units, special abilities, or whatever. It’s almost always a question of the artistes of the players.

If someone plays with a sense of good sportsmanship, friendliness, and fair play then it doesn’t matter if the list they are using is the latest and greatest tournament winning curbstomp bomb or a suboptimal pile of poo. Contrariwise, if someone plays with a bad attitude, poor sportsmanship, or cheats… Well, it could be a list whose fluffiness is as pure as the driven snow.

We don’t play against models or lists. We play with people. 

I have aspergers, I don't cheat but I will never claim to be a "good sportsman" I just don't know what that is for me. Sure people can tell me what it means but it is that elusive thing that I chase but never catch.

So I dont get much of the Ordo philosophy on casual play. I understand the idea, I have casual (to me they are casual) lists, I play non competitive games where there are take backs, I help my opponents out, I teach them, etc but there seems to be a hang up I am seeing on the idea of "good" / "Broken" models.

I get confused here as in a game of 40k, 1 good model doesnt mean you auto win. 

Are some models "Underpriced"? Yes, the Drukhari Succubus is underpriced, but only if you take her in certain loadouts (Your Triptych Whip and Blood Dancer, your Razorflails, Black Lotus Toxin, and Precision blows come to mind) but her efficiency drops when you dont take those so she is then well worth her points. Still killy, still hard, but not back breaking good.

The issue I have and this came up yesterday when we were discussing a new Crusade ran by others who want a more casual and narrative format (which I am all for) is that they dont want "good" units to be used. This bothers me because many books are NOT Space Marines, 30 odd Flavors of HQ's, etc. 

If the standard of what is "good" is what is used in a tournament winning list, you cant play Drukhari, you cant play Necrons (Warriors, Overlords, and Crypteks would not be allowed), you could not take a ton of units because of some amalgamous idea of what is "broken/good"

Here is another example. In the new ork Codex there is a Character that is VERY killy. Mozrag is the guy riding the Great White Squig and he is seriously a monster in Combat. He does have a few draw backs that people tend to ignore. First he is locked to a faction that some enjoy but most agree is not the most competitive faction, and that he is not as flexible as his unnamed version. Sure he packs a punch but if the rest of the punch is weighted down at the elbow preventing a full swing, is it really that good? Is there internet knee jerk reactions? Yes, and to me, as an ork player, who does competitive play, I would never take this model. Its too limiting. So why would he be so "good" that he cant be played casually? Are we to say Tau cant play Commanders or Battlesuits then? 

The last piece of this, and I thank you for sticking with this thread and providing answers to this, how do we equate player skill into this? It was brought to my attention that I bring all the hardest hitting lists, blah blah blah. Lets say that is true. If I was to give that list to a new player does anyone actually think they could play that to a 10th of the same level? (this is not an ego trip, this is an actual question) If not, then how are we determining what is good then? Is it by the player playing that model, or is it the model itself? Is it the list that makes the model good due to synergy or is it the player that has a good strategy? 

One last anecdotal piece of evidence to this. Tau are considered the weakest codex next to maybe Genestealer Cult. They have low win rates, and a hard time playing 9th ed as a whole. A player by the name of Richard Siegler, took said Tau and went 7-1 with them. Now why is this important? To get to 7-1 you are playing in a tournament with well over 150 people. You have 8 rounds of games and typically the last 3 are a cut off so if you don't make it you don't play. So a person, mind you, he is regarded as one of the best in the world, took an army that is underperforming universally across the board and won 7 games with them against some of the other strongest players in the world. So, does that mean his list is "too good" to play at ordo? Does anyone think they can recreate that feat (I could not)? 

So please keep the comments polite and the critiques pleasant enough to digest and lets figure this out because my autistic mind is having a hard time trying to figure this out.