Has the internet ruined 40K? Can it save it?

[DevilUknow]

Reading Goatboy's article (here (http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2009/08/goatboys-40k-thoughts-quick-and-dirty_23.html)) really got me thinking about the role the internet can, does and should play in our hobby.

It is easy to point out the effect of instant, world wide communication has had on competitive play. Hard lists can often be described using one word cliques (Nob Bikers, Nidzilla, Lash, etc) as dominate strategies and powerful builds spread around the world instantly. If you seriously plan on being competitive, you had better keep on top of these. Imbalances certainly exist in 40k, and certain builds enable victories without the same degree of effort and chance that other builds require to achieve the game goals.

So if 40k is ONLY a competitive tournament game where it is often the player willing to spend the most money on models who wins, then the internet will definitely hasten the arms race.

However, the net can enable far more than simple net decking (as it is known in Magic: The Gathering). It can also enable more meaningful, persistent hobby play.

Wizards of the Coast's RPGA system or Privateer Press' Call to Arms League are great examples of meaningful, long term play. You get persistent rewards (treasure, veteran units, one off stratagems and bonuses, etc), there are custom scenarios and rules released monthly (or even weekly) that impact how your play and it encourages people to get involved in more friendly ways (terrain building sessions at your FLHS for example).

I'd personally love to see GW put together something like an online Planetary Empires League, where players can accrue points, earn stratagems, opt into special challenges, participate in special events and generally have something do beyond planning and painting for the next cut throat tournament rumble.

Hell, throw in a system where other players can give you points for painting, theme, fluffiness, etc.

And to top it off, make these League meaningful for players. Release limited edition models that support them. Have the results of top players impact the 40k Universe and give them attention in WD.

Of course, players don't HAVE to wait for GW to put something together.

[Levitas]

"If you can't win without taking the toughest list in the book, you aren't a particularly good player."

I actually really liked this comment from Paris in that article. It sums it up for me.

Now, i'm a decent player winning about 75 to 80% of my games. But at 'super-list level' I simply can't field a strong enough list, and waste a few hours of my time rolling dice and thinking about what I should have for dinner.

The thing is, that we can all play casual lists. But finding opponents who think the same is rare. Loosing is fine, but you want to feel you have a winning chance at least. I strongly believe that sub-standard players hide behind auto-win super lists, like tekken newbies who pick Eddy and mash buttons. Frustrating, but unstoppable.

It's debatable how much GW knows and cares about the growing problem in its premium game. Tournaments are to blame initially, but in any game you get competitive eventually as you get into it. I think they should split 40k up and have multiple classes almost.

[Aldramelech]

I don't play in tournaments anymore, haven't done for years. I walked away from it all about 6/7 years ago as even then I found the whole scene jaded and depressing. I play 40k at my local wargames club and nowhere else. Playing 40k is supposed to be fun and if it ain't fun then I don't want to play.

I think the problem with the internet and sites like this is that many people like myself don't bother with them (Two of my regular opponents wouldn't dream of being on here) so you get a slightly biased view of the hobby from them.

I'm quite sure for every hard core tournament player on sites like this there are two or three 'fun' players keeping thier opinions to themselves and playing just for the enjoyment of the hobby.

I don't even look at many of the army lists here, I'm not looking for the 'Killer' army, I'm after the army that looks like I imagine it to look and operates the way I would imagine it to operate weather this puts it at a disadvantage or not.

I think that there are far more people like me then people would imagine and consequently the hobby is in safe hands.

[Chumbalaya]

I strongly believe that sub-standard players hide behind auto-win super lists, like Tekken newbies who pick Eddy and mash buttons. Frustrating, but unstoppable.

If you really believe there are auto-win lists, maybe you should go back to tiddlywinks.

The internet is a great place for butthurt casuals to cry about their last beating and how cheesy the attractive and successful tournament players are.

See, I can make sweeping blanket generalizations too.

the internet has made mass communication people to one can find people to identify with anywhere. It's no longer the lone fluff player in the lion's den of competitive players or the ostracized competitive player looking for a challenge in Jervis's "you're doing it wrong" utopia. People can share ideas and improve their enjoyment of the game. People who like to play competitively can find like-minded people and organize challenging games while fluff players can exchange ideas.

[warpcrafter]

I tend to ignore the whole tournament scene. I pick army lists that I think might be interesting to play, and I put them out there regardless of the opponent. That means I lose most of the time, but I don't care. As far as the internet goes, I don't think GW cares what we think. They will go on doing whatever will line their shareholders' pockets regardless of whether or not it's good for the hobby.

[mcl]

I think on balance the internet helps the hobby.

The wealth of information provides a huge leg up to prospective and actual members of the game.

The down side is the often rather 'clique-ey' communities that exist where newcomers are often treated with disdain and outright contempt. Unless said newcomer is wise to the ways and wiles of the internets communities, then they will be put off.

Personally I find these sites - Warseer, BOLS, etc - very useful for all aspects of the game/hobby. I respect the serious players tournament list building and single-minded desire to win. And I respect the folk who just want nice fluffy armies to put on the board and play - for the pure fun of it. These sites support both perspectives and types of player and if these players respective philosophies lead to the occasional conflict... well. See previous comment regarding the ways & wiles!

Mind you the next time I see a vet tell a newbie to search first then ask - I think I might scream. Unless you know google very well, then the basic forum search capabilities just arent good enough. Unless the site admins are on the ball many of the typical abbreviated search terms will not have been added to be indexed. Case in point - try searching for 'SM' or 'IG" here within the BOLS Lounge. Two and three letter words are not indexed on most boards. Specific terms have to be added... (true for VB at least)

And while we are on, where are the Tags & Tag Clouds? :p

Anyway I am digressing. Internet? On balance - good thing!

[DevilUknow]

To say that GW "doesn't care" I think is wrong. If players (ie customers) are getting pushed out of this (very expensive) hobby because they're not finding any games since there doesn't happen to be a local saint putting on exciting events beyond simple tournaments then I think GW cares a-lot.

GW should be thinking of their games not as a tourney sport or as just a product, but as a service; enabling exciting fantasy battles that hook players into playing more (with models that just happen to cost an arm and a leg but thats OK due to the good times). This means doing more to enable small operators and their own stores to rope in players with more just stand alone games, even if all they do is link stores together with meaningful events and provide things like Campaign Kits, prizes and a bit of free advertising in the form of WD coverage.

RPGA for D&D started as a simple, one off competitive tournament into the "Living" systems they use now, and by all accounts I've heard from people who run and participate in them, they're a great success. I think GW could similarly expand into providing this kind of service by running events at high profile events like PAX, Gen Con, Comicon and expanding them into their own and 3rd party stores from there.

I think it would hook a lot of people who've considered playing but haven't or quit due to a lack of events that interested them.

[Nabterayl]

I think the internet can be used by gamers to hurt their own experience of 40K. It's easy to come onto a forum, read or receive advice about the game that contrasts with your own experience, and feel like you must not be a good player because Everybody Knows that the list, doctrine, tactic, or unit that you've been using all this time is stupid and newbish.

It's easy to forget that most of the people whose thoughts you read on the internet are not people you're ever going to play with, and it's the people you play with that matter. I think that when people forget that, they have used the internet to hurt their experience - but that's not really the internet's fault; it's a result of people not having a handle on their insecurities.

I think the internet is useful for providing information, whether it's information about what the tournament scene looks like, how people actually play a particular rule, hobby advice and inspiration, or whatever. The trick is to make sure that you know what you actually care about, and then make sure you're using the internet for that, and not letting the rest of it bother you.

[Ignatius]

I feel it's the user of the information that is at fault not the posting of it . If someone plays with little or no sportsmanship it makes it an ordeal for me insted of fun. It is the lack of manners and sportsmanship that makes for bad gamers not the lists they play with. Please and thank you go along way in making a game enjoyable. just my opinion. (I know everyone has one :rolleyes:)

[Nikephoros]

Its a fact that competitive play moves product. If GW was smart they would encourage it more and fully support the GT scene rather than retreating from it. Without the Pro Tour Magic the Gathering would have probably died or at least collapsed into a tiny fan base a decade ago.

I don't think anyone wants 40k to turn into Magic the Gathering, but from a basic sales perspective GW should do everything they can to support competitive play without ignoring casual play. 'Ard Boyz is a step in the right direction, but instead of annually, it should be quarterly and the prize support should be better. Give the competitive players something to do on a regular basis and they wont spend time massacreing casual players.

[Kahoolin]

The only thing that worries me about the internet's role in 40k is the effect it has on new players, particularly young ones.

Kids today (I can't believe I just said that...) spend a hell of a lot of time online and so they are going to quite reasonably assume that everyone who plays 40k is also on a message board talking about it, like they are. I've abandoned a few forums over the years because they wold start to develop "styles" of list or tactic particular to that forum as a result of more respected/high posting members believing it was the best list. Anyone who disagrees was told (sometimes very bluntly) that they were wrong by the popular member's lackeys, or the member themselves. This is not a good thing. New players can easily be influenced by these little fashions and misled into thinking they have to buy certain models or they will have zero chance of ever winning a game.

Say for example you're a 14 year old just getting into the hobby. You visit a forum to get a feel for it, you read everyone loudly saying guard is a strong army and all guard armies need multiple vets with meltas in a transport. So you go and buy exactly that. Where was your choice? Do you even like Guard? Even if you liked the look of Eldar better, you now have Guard because you believed the hype.

I guess my point is statements like this damage the hobby:

"Tau are fail"
"Put 3 meltas in a chimera, rinse and repeat."
"Only an idiot would field ogryns."

Just because something is a popular viewpoint doesn't mean it's correct, and I think that's the biggest danger of the net. Individual thought gets swamped by fashion.

Sorry for the long post, I've thought about this a lot.

[Levitas]

If you really believe there are auto-win lists, maybe you should go back to tiddlywinks.

The internet is a great place for butthurt casuals to cry about their last beating and how cheesy the attractive and successful tournament players are.

See, I can make sweeping blanket generalizations too.

the internet has made mass communication people to one can find people to identify with anywhere. It's no longer the lone fluff player in the lion's den of competitive players or the ostracized competitive player looking for a challenge in Jervis's "you're doing it wrong" utopia. People can share ideas and improve their enjoyment of the game. People who like to play competitively can find like-minded people and organize challenging games while fluff players can exchange ideas.

The game was actually built on casuals. Having been around for Rogue Trader that's just what the game was - casual.

I've played in several tournaments, and they are fun. I like competitive play as much as the next man. But my issue is that it is starting to dominate and influence younger gamers, who will miss out on what made Rogue Trader great in the first place. Players picking lists because they know they will win, not because they like any other part of that army.

Agree that there is a place for everyone, its just that some places are getting bigger and more dominating than others. I am in no way generalizing or saying that one mans way of enjoying the hobby is bad, I just think there needs to be balance.

The internet is a great place, opening up to all aspects of the game. Thats not at fault, the division between casual and competitive is. I wonder what would happen if 40k split off into 2 separate ways of playing, and 2 different books. Have a tournament edition, with tighter rules and an open edition that restricts the more powerful tools/lists.

[vman]

like tekken newbies who pick Eddy and mash buttons. Frustrating, but unstoppable.



I actually laughed when i read this... its so true

I hate Eddie Gordo and Christie Montero! Urggghh sif thats martial arts... more like a panzy dance but yes i hate it with a passion

[DevilUknow]

I don't think its a good idea to split the community into lowly lol-casuals and the lions that eat them when there's not enough GT happening.

I'm not convinced that just providing MORE tournament play will offset the lost revenue from people quitting because tournament play doesn't interest them (even hardcore players aren't going to buy and build a new army for every event they attend if they're going to something new every other month).

Not saying that there SHOULDN'T be tournament play, just that there should be something else to hook people long enough to want to try the tournament scene.

[Psyberwolfe]

...I guess my point is statements like this damage the hobby:

"Tau are fail"
"Put 3 meltas in a chimera, rinse and repeat."
"Only an idiot would field ogryns."

Just because something is a popular viewpoint doesn't mean it's correct, and I think that's the biggest danger of the net. Individual thought gets swamped by fashion...



Not Really.

Tau aren't fail, but I failed to see any Tau playing at BoLS con. I comment on your first "quote" because these comments don't come about because there is a myth surrounding them. There are reasons and evidence as to why they are being said. You state that comments and ideas such as you presented are damaging. How? To me, the idea of damaging commentary is commentary that would cause people to not play.

Much of what is said by "hardcore gamers" is plain fact. Certain builds will just perform better, but a string of bad dice rolls will hurt them just as much. Also if they are facing a more capable player the uber build will also fall apart.

[Heroka Vendile]

They will go on doing whatever will line their shareholders' pockets

That is something GW hasn't been able to do very well (or at all) for the past few years, they've had a lot of ups and downs and their only really recovering properly now.

[Kahoolin]

Tau aren't fail, but I failed to see any Tau playing at BoLS con. I comment on your first "quote" because these comments don't come about because there is a myth surrounding them. There are reasons and evidence as to why they are being said. You state that comments and ideas such as you presented are damaging. How? To me, the idea of damaging commentary is commentary that would cause people to not play.

Much of what is said by "hardcore gamers" is plain fact. Certain builds will just perform better, but a string of bad dice rolls will hurt them just as much. Also if they are facing a more capable player the uber build will also fall apart.I get what you're saying, and I'm not arguing that some builds are better than others. What I'm saying is that new players who might be more into painting/modelling/fluff whatever (which no-one can deny are at least as much a part of the hobby as the actual game) might get the impression from the internet that these things are secondary to winning, and that if they don't choose an uber list from a powerful faction there's no point in them entering the hobby. That's just not true, it's a misrepresentation because hardcore gamers are the loudest and proudest GW gamers online. There's nothing wrong with the hardcore style, but if I was a new player going by what I could easily find on the internet I would think there was no other style.

Tau may very well suck BoLS but there are a lot of game groups where that doesn't matter at all. It shouldn't be a reason for a newbie player not to choose them if they like the look of them is all I'm saying.

Edit: Plus, every hard build is eventually invalidated by some sort of edition or codex change, or even just a change in the tournament meta-game. I just have this image of little Johnny buying a netlist he doesn't like because a bunch of people on the net told him the army he did like sucked, and then having it fail miserably sooner or later. It's one of those things where it's not the older more experienced gamers fault that happens, but I just wish sometimes we could all be a bit more responsible about how we talk to potential players online. I'm not saying BoLS is guilty of this in particular, I'm talking about net culture in general.

[imperialsavant]

I play 40k at my local wargames club and nowhere else. Playing 40k is supposed to be fun and if it ain't fun then I don't want to play.

I think the problem with the internet and sites like this is that many people like myself don't bother with them (Two of my regular opponents wouldn't dream of being on here) so you get a slightly biased view of the hobby from them.

I'm quite sure for every hard core tournament player on sites like this there are two or three 'fun' players keeping thier opinions to themselves and playing just for the enjoyment of the hobby.

I think that there are far more people like me then people would imagine and consequently the hobby is in safe hands.

The only "Tourny" I have played in after 8 years playing 40k was one our own Club organised locally.
I play for the "Fun" but do like to win when I can, however ALL my armies are built to a Theme & are very balanced & sometimes I restrict myself of more powerful entries if the "Fluff" requires it.
I play against some mates regularly & whoever is on for a game at the club.

I really enjoy Warhammer on line Groups like Yahoos IG, Battle Sisters & my own Black-Templar Group.
I think the BoLs Lounge is a great place to exchange ideas etc with other Gamers.
Go get those mates of yours to join up as Iam sure they will enjoy the experience

[Nabterayl]

Edit: Plus, every hard build is eventually invalidated by some sort of edition or codex change, or even just a change in the tournament meta-game. I just have this image of little Johnny buying a netlist he doesn't like because a bunch of people on the net told him the army he did like sucked, and then having it fail miserably sooner or later. It's one of those things where it's not the older more experienced gamers fault that happens, but I just wish sometimes we could all be a bit more responsible about how we talk to potential players online. I'm not saying BoLS is guilty of this in particular, I'm talking about net culture in general.

I second this. The trouble I have with discussions of lists and the meta-game online is that it tends (in my experience) to be dominated by discussions of math, either implicitly or explicitly. There's nothing wrong with 40K being an education in statistics (or heck, even in how to use Excel), but it's only one dimension of play. When people discuss tactics, they tend to pay lip service to it with vague statements like, "What matters is how well you know your army" or they discuss only very specific gimmicks.

There's nothing wrong with any of that as far as it goes, but I hate the thought of players not learning how to think about tactics in a systematic way (i.e., in a way that is transferable to other wargames that don't use the 40K rules) because he's too busy thinking about the theoryhammer and the tournament meta-game. More specifically, I hate the thought of players not having the intellectual toolkit to make the army of their choice work for them, or adapt to the next codex or meta-game wrinkle.

Isn't it a firm grasp of tactics, and the ability to apply that grasp to 40K (rather than a grasp of tactics that is limited to 40K, or worse, limited to one particular codex) that really makes a player we recognize as skilled? I know not everybody has a formal educations in tactics (I certainly don't), but not everybody is skilled at theoryhammer, either, and I see the internet educating a lot more people about theoryhammer than tactics.

[Norbu the Destroyer]

The internet only hurts the hobby to those who let it. People will post their opinions (X unit is the greatest/worst unit ever.) People read it and go "Jeez that person must know what they are talking about." Odds are its some kid in his basement who barely plays the game and just reads codexs with very little gaming experience.
I think the two lists that were posted by Jwolf that won 1st and 2nd at BOLSCon are perfect examples. Neither list looked particularly impressive to me. There are units I would have dropped in an instant. The players obviously used them in a certain manner that made the lists work. Had those lists been posted in some forum like this someone would have undoubtedly written comments like "Drop the hormagaunts, they suck take genestealers, or too many boyz in the ork list, you need more lootas, burnas, battlewagons, etc..." I think people need to play what works for them and not worry what everyone thinks of their list. Posting lists is only theoryhammer not warhammer. Part of gaming is the list but the rest is set-up, reaction to opponent, luck, staying focused on objectives, and a nice mix of offense and defense. These are the attributes that make a competetive army, the list is only part of it.
As far as tourneys, there are A LOT of *******s or cheaters at tournaments I agree, but there are good friendly players as well who enjoy the game. I think people who are overly competetive will be *******s with any game of 40k they play be it a thursday night or a saturday at a tourney. If you have a friendly store to play at with no *******s god bless ya, but the world is full of *******s be it stores or tourneys. I think the competition at the tourneys is fun but the beer and pretzels 40k is just as fun. I dont think the inernet has hurt the hobby at all. If anything it has strengthened play because people can discuss rule discrepencies of rules or get questions answered from a variety of opinions.

[darth_papi76]

I think the net has been very positive for the hobby by connecting players and creating a gaming community larger than just your area. Granted, you have your obnoxious players who take next "super list" because they've seen it online. However, those people have always been around anyway. (I'm reminded of the old Rhino rush Blood Angels from 3rd Edition) I find the blogs, and the modeling and painting articles to be very inspiring. It's a great hobby, and its nice that there are many people who enjoy it. (Of course I do dread all those super-melta Vulkan lists:D)

[TheKingElessar]

I used to be crap at the game. I theoryhammered for hours on end, literally, because I didn't have the money to buy al the **** I wanted...I was young.

Since the discovery by Chris Columbine (too soon?) of Internets Wargaming I've steadily improved, it revitalised my interest in the hobby. It's all very well and fine playing fluff lists against each other, with some hard elements and some basic Tactical nous, but the Internet is simply the greatest teaching tool since the printing press.

Without the Internet, our game would have stagnated and died by now. Possibly. At the very least, I'd probably not play, so you'd all miss out on that.

[Jwolf]

There are a lot of variables that go into what is good for a situation. For example, in our local very competitive environment with tournaments of 3 rounds, a high draw on round 1 tends to yield a better chance of placing for the day than a massacre. Mechanized lists are fairly standard, so killing mechanized lists is the basic requirement. Thus the rock to the scissors is killing anti-vehicle lists, and so forth.
There are a lot of internet players who don't get the games in and think that the best lists are stagnant and consistent, but that's simply not true in an active gaming community. Nob Bikers were unbeatable here for almost a month, then disappeared for a long time, and now are coming back sometimes.
The internet has no more ruined 40K than it has ruined politics. Blindly following some internet guru in either is foolsih, though. Get out there and play games.

[TheKingElessar]

Nice. Subtle.