Can Theme Survive Against Competitive Play?
Tue, 08/11/2009 - 01:40
I'd like to start off with the usual disclaimer.... that this is clearly MY opinion on this heavy subject, and that I personally have nothing against any other gamer(except those with excessive "gamer funk", you know who you are). Each person is free to enjoy the hobby in thier own way and for thier own reasons, regardless of how others feel.
That being said, I'd like to share my thoughts on the subject of theme, or more specifically how theme compares to competitve play. Theme, at least for me, plays an important part of my hobby and collecting. I think back to what made me get into the hobby in the first place... cool models and a great story behind them. Now, I've personally not given much thought to this subject until recently, and I'll share with you what changed:
Some weeks ago, while visiting GW London(which, for those that know me is my usual haunt) I happened across a familiar sight... a game being played. An Iyanden Eldar army faced off against Chaos army played by a staff member, and one who is frankly one of the best players of 40K or Fantasy that I know. After a hard game the forces of Chaos won, and while packing up the Eldar player was a little disappointed, asking those around watching "what can I change to make my army better?". At this point I'll point out that his army of Iyanden Eldar contains no less than 30 wraithguard, and some really cool looking spiritseers/farseers. Clearly he has a theme, and one that wasn't too cheap to put together. Why the long face though and the need to question all that he's worked so hard to put together? I asked him why Iyanden, and he said that for years he's really liked the story behind them and wanted to bring that to life(at least in small plastic model form). We talked for a bit, and I left to brave the hour drive home... which gave me time to think about my current hobby project that I'm working on for the Warmasters Challenge: Crusade Era Emperors Children. How will they hold up against the competitve players out there? Will they just be a cool army(at least in my opinion), or can they actually win? Would I too suffer from disappointment after my games?
It's worth noting that not everybody cares about theme. Some players are perfectly content to play games to win, especially in tournament play. I too am guilty of this, having collected an Eldar army that I built only for tournaments, and which I rarely use. Some build armies around good(re: broken) units, or ones that maximize the "math" of it all, often at the expense of theme. There are also players who "collect" an army more than "build" one, purely interested in the theme, or how cool the models themselves are. Regretably, I find these players rarely win games, though they don't seem to mind, being more interested in people complimenting thier hard work. While speaking recently with Greg Evers(aka Whiteraven) at a Woodstock tournament we came to the subject of 'Ard Boyz coming to Canada, and I commented on how I disapprove of thier lack of painting/comp and sportsmenship, being purely a competitve venue. Greg responded with the hard truth: namely, that long ago those things vanished from the tournament scene, and GW is just providing a venue for those players who just want to win, and it appears that they are a majority.
Where does that leave players like myself? Those of us that love theme, but also want to win? Can these things co-exist?
I think we can, though it won't be easy for us. Take my project for example. I was dead set on bringing the Emperor's Children to "life", as I've always been a fan of them, both "good" and "evil". I already own a Heresy Era Chaos army which is heavy on the Emperor's Children, though it doesn't fair well competitively(no Daemon Princes, Defilers, Obliterators, Greater Daemons, ect). Armed with the novel Fulgrim, the Index Astartes books, and any info I could find online I set out to build a list that would satisfy both my love of theme, but also win enough games to keep me wanting to play them.
I have some bases to cover here, namely: shooting, close combat and mobility, the 3 keys to success in 40K, or at least in my opinion. I wanted a mix of the 3, bringing together a "balanced" list that can take on a variety of foes. What to include though? The space marine codex is full of great units, though not all are suitable for a crusade era Emperor's Children army(namely razorbacks, scouts, bikers, librarians, whirlwinds, techmarines, ect) and others are gonna be limited like jump packs and terminators. While I'll not cover the list here, I settled on 30 tactical marines, some drop pods, dreadnoughts, land speeders, and not to mention a Vulkan conversion to stand in as Fulgrim. Even managed to fit in 10 assault marines with a chaplain, kinda the "elite" of the legion.
It wasn't easy to finalize a list that I was happy with, and I know that I'm missing out on some of the "must have" units in the codex, but that's ok. I really wanted a theme, and I think I have it. Now I just have to get them painted in time for the second day of the Warmasters Challenge.
Now, at this point you may be asking "what's the point of this whole rant?"... and to be honest I myself don't really know. I guess it's just my thoughts on what is perhaps a dying aspect of the hobby, at least from the competitive standpoint of things. Luckily, events like the Warmasters Challenge and League offer players who actually care about things other than winning a place to bring those fantastic armies. I hope to see some great themed armies this year when I attend, especially at the doubles.
Cheers. James.
Wed, 08/12/2009 - 11:12
#2
Another faction that seems to have led us to this point would be Games Workshop itself, having done away with the 3 colour minimum rule it once required in it's stores to play even on hobby nights.
I know that the idea behind "your hobby" is that if you don't want to paint an army why should you be forced? I guess that concept is true, but for me that was the motivation for me to paint, was so that I could use those new units. And guess what, I found that I really liked to paint, and now spent days on something that once would have taken me an hour. Things like this I think have interupted the "natural progression" of the gamer... Most people seem to start off with thier first army, learn how to use it, worry about winning games and having a "good army" and THEN move on to painting/theming your forces. I know that's how I did it. Now that you don't have to bother painting at all for the most part how many new "gamers" will actually move on to become "collectors" in the years to come?
Oh well, as long as people still put on events where this has some kind of priority I'm gonna be a happy person I guess. Congrats to the guys who showed up at Woodstock on Saturday past, as a good amount of the armies I saw were painting to a good gaming standard, some complete with some pretty cool boards and stuff. I didn't really see 1 army that totally lacked a theme or good concept. If any of you guys are reading this, keep up the good work!
Wed, 09/16/2009 - 11:18
#3
I agree with the Idea that theme and game should not be to different things. But GW has left very little wiggle room for those that want to play on the edge of the bell curve of games and units. This in my mind is to satisfy tournement play. How many Harlequin armies do we see these days? It all seems to have been done to make it easy for the bean counters of the comunity to sort out a list based on maxing out power to point cost instead of putting together a unit. Go to any gaming site and the first thing you see are the links to the tried and tested power lists. All that is left for the theme player is Apocalypse games. Here theme is king and techno heresies are encouraged if not welcome. Now days I am not interested in a game under 2000 points and particulary limited by the new wave of codex's were the only difference offered between army lists seems to be the colour you paint your figs. So how do we bring theme back into games with out all running out and becoming new wave Space Wolves? Like minded gamers need to get together and get ear time with the developers and tell them we want doctrines and traits back so that regardless of codex no two armies need look the same to be killy. Lets get back to winning games on the board and not by calculation.
Wed, 09/16/2009 - 16:28
#4
I think the Southern Ontario Tournament scene has little in the way of top end patterned lists and even less of people who use them and actually win tournaments.
I haven't once this year (outside of 'Ard Boyz where it should be expected) seen a Double Orc Nob biker list (arguably the best list in the game with realistically only one counter...Land Raiders) at a tournament.
What I have seen is a lot of people playing competitive lists with varied units. I have witnessed Nate win a tournament where 2/4 wins came because he managed to kill something on bottom of turn 7 with Tau!
Our current community does have a very strong theme streak still running through it. Many players I know self police on which armies they will and won't play. I know 2 that have retired their Fantasy Daemon armies because of power issues (these are very good players with good armies who have voluntarily turned the easy button off)
From a tournament perspective, no matter the comp system/soft score system you put inot place, competitive players will always attempt to optimize their scores. If dialing down their list a notch will net a gain in overall points due to lower battle but higher scores in other area's, they will do that.
GW has no incentive what so ever to make a balanced game. There are no profits in it. Latest greatest is a marketing tool that is used to drive sales and it works well, as competition is a natural driving factor for most tournament players. People not interested in competition are happy with their rules no matter what (thus buy anyway) as long as the fantasy of the universe is maintained.
Later,
Greg
Who's online
There are currently 1 user and 16 guests online.
Online users
- Lanwarrior
I think the answer to your question lies in the community of players themselves.
If the community wants themed events and armies at tournaments they will pressure organizers to include grading for those elements in their tournaments.
I believe that a large number of gamers don't want to turn their hobby into a number crunching WAAC (Win at all Cost) type of game. I see this because tournaments like Warmasters, Astronomi-con and even Adepticon Team Tournaments are wildly popular with all 3 events having seen growth in recent years. And each of these events include a large number of points to be earned from things other than how you do in a game.
The problem with competitive play is not the lists for most people. It is the attitude that a WAAC game brings. Too many people stop being conscious of the 1st rule of the game, have fun, in pursuit to win a game that doesn't penalize them for being bad sports. Don't beleive me? Hop over to Dakkadakka's boards and look at the Ard Boyz Round 2 Results thread...examples of people being tossed from tournaments, near fist fights breaking out..and other drama.
It is my opinion that the very nature of a war game is to compete. However, there are frameworks you can put in place to change the nature of the competition from one of number crunching to one that factors in theme, the fun your opponent had (sports), painting and other aspects of the hobby. This still lets the competitive people compete (I know the paint scores framework forces Nate to paint in order to try and win overall), but allows the people who just want to be relaxed and roll dice against some opponents and see what their armies are like to still have fun at the event.
The one adjustment I would make to the Ard Boyz, in order to dial up fun is to add a sportsmanship element to it. I would work it like this. Provide a number of questions to each player about their opponent. If you get too low of a mark you get 1 strike (it may be an oddity). If in another round you get too low of a mark you lose some battle points (2 people are now creating a pattern about your sports)...the more subsequent rounds you fail to get over a minimum sportsmanship score the bigger chunk of battle points you lose. This way you aren't rewarded for sportsmanship, but you are going to be taken out of contention if you cannot maintain a minimum level of civility through the tournament.
That said, I'm glad I have the Warmasters to look forward too this fall. I enjoy the prep that goes into it as much as the actual event, making it more than just 1 or 2 days of fun.
Later,
Greg
"It is not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory." - W. Edwards Deming
"Nick. The reason to sleep with your eyes open." - Netter
The difference between theory and practice is that in theory there is no difference, but in practice, there is.