How is 40k 7th edition "less competitive" than 40k 5th edition

[Mr Mystery]

I think it's more that those gaming for spectacle are less invested in the overall outcome.

I can only speak for myself, but whilst I enjoy a win as much as the next nerd, as long as I feel I gave a good account of myself, I'll still enjoy the game I just played.

All games have their idiots who take the competitive angle far, far too seriously. X-Wing has Fortressing, where you perform no manoeuvres, let alone manoeuvres of spectacular cunning. You just park up from the outset, with a near 360 fire arc from your ships. How bloody boring must that be to fight? You've taken a pretty simplistic rules set (there's really very little to the rules), and you've managed to break it, because winning means that much to you.

I'm not terribly familiar with other games, but I suspect the same kind of idiocy can be done.

GW rules are arguably more open to abuse, but the cause and effect is the same. One player puts their precious win record over and above all else, making the game piss poor lame for their opponent. As a company, they've made the design choice to have as open a system as they can manage. Unbound, Allies, Random Charts - these are not decisions made when you're designing a game intended for strict play.

Another common factor used to bash GW rule sets? How long a game takes to play. What a bogus argument. It's a hobby game. When my mates and I get together for a Heresy game, it's played out over an evening, at a relaxed pace. That is how the designers designed it. Tournaments apparently require three or four games a day. So by introducing a time limit, you straight away shift what is going to work. Massive hordes of infantry? Probably not. Smallish squads in transports, perhaps half a dozen composite units to your army? Yeah, less to move, more effective dice rolling.

[daboarder]

For some reason it's viewed as not worth the effort by our pals at corporate. I'm thinking they threw their hands up and proclaimed it impractical so they wouldn't have to invest $ in it. Well structured rules must have a very low ROI in their data analysis.

well Gw doesn't do market analysis, so that would likely be a byproduct of that

[eosgreen]

my most enjoyable games have been, for me, my crappy list of "units i thought were cool" vs my friends army of "whatever he thought was cool". i also tend to find hyper competitive tabletop gamers to be obnoxious more than anything else

in terms of competitive gaming heres my take from someone whos done this for a while with massive success and then kinda grew to hate it with a bit of reserve left in me.

- competitive people sometimes have a hard time enjoying humble things or doing things "poorly". When i play certain video games i cant help but get slightly annoyed when i just rofl stomp everyone around me. It isn't fun (for me some ppl like this... losers imo) to destroy someone. when you show up for a game with the "fun list" and the "good list" ****s on you, im sure it wasnt fun for anyone since you never got to "do the fun lists gimic/thing/use the damn thing" and he was just rolling dice and making obvious decisions to slaughter you

That being said since this game has dice and no way of balancing it in a million years, i personally don't think its even fit for competition. calculated risk is fine but sometimes one dice roll can cost you a game and for me any dice rolling is ****ty (again just for me) let alone you must work within the confines of your list/army (tho with allies isnt that kinda "fixed")

arent tabletop competitive gamers just the same brand of person who competes in sports or anything else? you have an ego and a drive for competition. no one gets mad at baseball or basketball players who "do the same moves" as the pros?

[40kGamer]

well Gw doesn't do market analysis, so that would likely be a byproduct of that

I wonder if their ROI data is more based on top management's feelings rather than an analytical process.

- - - Updated - - -

That being said since this game has dice and no way of balancing it in a million years, i personally don't think its even fit for competition. calculated risk is fine but sometimes one dice roll can cost you a game and for me any dice rolling is ****ty (again just for me) let alone you must work within the confines of your list/army (tho with allies isnt that kinda "fixed")

While dice insert an element of 'luck' into the game you can absolutely balance things through probabilities and expected outcomes. At the end of the day the dice may hand you a beating or a victory but the probability of the outcomes can be evened out in the statistical world if not the real one.

[daboarder]

I wonder if their ROI data is more based on top management's feelings rather than an analytical process.

I dont know specifics, but based on Kirby's statements then yes I think its entirely based on upper management. In fact from the sounds of it GW suffers drastically from over fiddly upper management who could really learn how to delegate and not sweat the small stuff (like eddy)

[40kGamer]

Math and statistics lives at the core of any rules balance debate which may explain why it is impractical for creative people to achieve. Good or bad it's typically not in their wheelhouse.

[Charon]

my most enjoyable games have been, for me, my crappy list of "units i thought were cool" vs my friends army of "whatever he thought was cool".

Tell that a friend of mine.
He loves Dreads and he loves his Terminators. Another friend of mine loves his Executioners and Knights.
Battles tend to be so one-sided that it is neiter enjoyable to play or to watch just because some "cool" units are way better than other "cool" units.

[40kGamer]

Tell that a friend of mine.
He loves Dreads and he loves his Terminators. Another friend of mine loves his Executioners and Knights.
Battles tend to be so one-sided that it is neiter enjoyable to play or to watch just because some "cool" units are way better than other "cool" units.

Hence the inherent math and statistical probabilities behind those builds. Some match ups are so one sided in probable outcomes that the game was really decided in the list building phase.

[eosgreen]

except we are not rolling equal dice. some races have more dice/dif types of dice effects and this further makes it impossible imo for it to ever be taken seriously. i think people would enjoy the game more (again i think this) trying to win with a NEW list. i always derive the most enjoyment being theunderdog and outthinking rather than doing the same thing better. the problem is with some codex, there just are not any good options

I wonder if their ROI data is more based on top management's feelings rather than an analytical process.

- - - Updated - - -



While dice insert an element of 'luck' into the game you can absolutely balance things through probabilities and expected outcomes. At the end of the day the dice may hand you a beating or a victory but the probability of the outcomes can be evened out in the statistical world if not the real one.

[Defenestratus]

Clearly the end times are upon us.

My mother posted to Google+ today, and I'm agreeing with all of what Mr Mystery is saying in this thread.

I'll be back in a bit, need to stock up on canned goods and insulin.