Has Games Workshop Lost Their Minds?

[@itsallfunandgames723]

Could WarCom just put out an article that says, "99% of our customers will never actually play in a single organized tournament, and even if they do and get really good, women and sponsorship companies don't care. So now might be time for you to stop dreaming. In that vein, we're releasing a new series of narrative play campaign books."

[@lordsofwargamesandhobbies3905]

Normalize normal? Yea would be WILD

[@jarydf]

Beers and One Page Rules

[@darnokx9277]

I'm really into competetive casual play these days. I am WAY better at playing casually than all those normies around me, I absolutely CRUSH the local meta when it comes to being casual. I just have fun BETTER than anybody else, a true casual professional!

[@lordsofwargamesandhobbies3905]

Great comment

[@omegavulture8379]

I think Ash put it well, the people now in charge at GW are the old tournament players who never knew any other kind of play and for them the tournament play was the fun one and the only way to play. They are working from what they know without bothering to find out if it’s fun for others.

[@WBenIB]

The difference between "Casual Matched Play" and "Open Play" feels roughly like the difference between a friendly game of "Standard" and "Kitchen Table" in Magic: The Gathering (MTG). If you're playing a casual game of Standard MTG, you're still following the deck-building restrictions that you'd find at a tournament, while a Kitchen Table game can use any cards in your collection. So by the same token, "Casual Matched Play" follows the same basic structure as a tournament game, just... y'know... in a casual setting. The naming convention maybe leaves a bit to be desired, but it's not a bad idea to provide players with an explicit framework for how to set up their friendly games, especially for pickup games with strangers. Not only that, but for new players who might never have played a wargame before, having a standardized way to play (that is explicitly NOT tied to tournaments) provides a safe space for them to learn the game and get comfortable with it. Like with RPGs, if you tell a player they "can do anything they want" you'll often run into decision paralysis. If you instead set some boundaries and say they "can do any of these things" the player will have an easier time of it, particularly when they don't have any experience.

[@jessiechen279]

I've felt the reason its gone the way it has, is becuase the "Upper" parts of the company have lost touch as you say with the way the company was created and came into being. I've even seen it as far down the chain as even store managers, many of the staff have NO Interest in the tabletop, painting, sculpting, making scenery or lore. Every person ive met who loves the game usually finds the segment they love, but if you have no intrest in it there will never be any passion to it or and so your just churning out a product you have no love for.

[@r31n0ut]

I don't think anyone actually gives a damn about tournaments. I think only 1-2 percent of the warhammer customer base goes to tournaments, and that small fraction only goes once or maybe twice a year. But GW (and tbh society at large) is so focused on performance and data and 'what is the best' that they feel the need to keep talking about that. You'll always have some idiots who keep buying new army to chase the latest meta, but most people really can't afford to focus on more than one or 2 main armies, so they don't care. But that's what the conversation is about, and tournaments are really the only way GW can get data on what factions perform well in the game, so that's what they talk about.

[@rahjar]

I heard the fist few minutes of the video, and just thought: "GW just realized 'normal' casual play can't ban proxies or 3d printed, so they needed a new 'less casual than casual' that has matched played in the title that they can control." I'm reminded of the Hasbro kerfluffle where the shareholders had profit expectations based on player counts. As if the company was doing more of the work, and players third parties were doing none. Whereas ttrpg and ttwg the players does so much of the work, those expectations are hostile and harmful.

[@jamesespinosa690]

The problem is that the culture of the modern world is creating really really soft individuals. Who will take no risks. And never speak up with conviction when they see their leaders doing bad things. We're too busy teaching children that the German Socialists are somehow "right wing".

[@Havok448]

In my circle of 40K play groups, no one plays matched play. We are loose on army building, far from WYSIWYG, throw terrain anywhere, and ignore rules we don’t like. And somehow have fun. I didn’t see this article, but I need to go read it now.

[@mherrj]

Sounds awful. So i dont like my opponents rules. You cant use them. Huuurrr durrr.

[@Havok448]

You missed the “we” in my statement?

[@bryanvestal3923]

Sounds fantastic. I play GW games solo myself.

[@UrinFal-Gur]

@@bryanvestal3923 awesome, do you use any system to assist you? I really want to get some solo gaming for when I cant go out to play

[@jackrogers5712]

​@mherrj it sounds awful for your group. His group is having a blast. That's what matters.

[@tanen7264]

GW have lost their minds. They cater to the same relatively small player base that are the same people that spend loads of actual cash to open virtual card packs for sports video games. Those people are the ones spending the money and GW has created editions of 40k around that because those people throw money at keeping up with the meta. I tried to get back into the game this year with Astra militarum. The army lists were so bland and boring, they have always been my favorite faction but I just couldn’t find a way to like them. I’ve started looking at other game systems and it’s really refreshing to find some that are open to creativity or personalization with interesting scenarios.

[@MurderousMiniatures]

Gw focuses on competitive over casual because they control the meta and can use stats to boost purchases of particular products.

[@peterclarke7240]

It also gives them near-total control over the types of miniatures and rules that can be used, forcing people into thinking they HAVE to buy GW products. I suspect they'd do the same with paint if they could work out how to enforce it.

[@MurderousMiniatures]

You’re right especially at GW tournaments, no 3d printed proxies. It’s a purchase products to enter system

[@peterclarke7240]

@@MurderousMiniatures Not just tournaments. GW have the same closed ecosystem rules regarding playing at their stores. Not every manager obeys, but the rule still exists.

[@iceniwargames6347]

Spearhead is actually the best way for tournaments, no broken list building elements, pick your army and learn how to play with it? Fixed lists would be much easier to balance against each other.

[@Octarinewolf]

Basically the Star Fleet battles tournament style where they have specific Tournament Cruisers for the various factions.

[@itsPandaOp]

Just described Kill Team. Maybe I am being pessimistic, but Spearhead will end up the same as Combat Patrol and be left behind in time. Every battle report or piece of media surrounding Spearhead presents it as a stepping stone to larger "real" games of AoS.

[@MrLeviathan40k]

I love the GW worlds and IP, but all the matched play/tournament focus and also the last couple of editions in their rules structure etc. changed much for me. Now I just'dont care for the rules and games anymore. I play with their miniatures, sometimes specialist games systems, but I can not and will not bother with main 40k oer AoS.

[@JMACCSArmiesOfMiddleEarth]

Not played much since 4th edition but I rly don't get 40k now. It's arguably the most beautiful looking minature game, yet people play on the most god awful looking boards. Just corners of buildings and big red objective circles. Makes no sense to me.

[@lordsofwargamesandhobbies3905]

Yea the terrain really triggers me lol

[@JachymorDota]

"Why is no one playing casually? I explicitly ordered you to do so!"

[@dominicmetzger3246]

As someone who was on the US Events team and very much involved with the people who eventually took over matched play writing I know that those people have never cared much for any kind of fun way to play. I broke off and started my own store and on own thing now and those in charge simply have a strong desire to control how we play

[@theAV8R]

The silver lining to all this is that a whole lot of grown (mostly) men in the world can empathize with people who struggle to leave abusive relationships.

[@lordsofwargamesandhobbies3905]

Em...pa..thy?

[@zenosAnalytic]

Yeah. I think a good thing they could do to draw a hard line btwn "matched" and "casual" play would be to release a casual mission deck based on the old 90s (extremely unbalanced)missions, and explicitly presenting itself as inspirations and a jumping off point for your own casual play. Like: a "defend the fort" mission where all the objectives are in one player's starting zone, which is heavily fortified, and the other player has to assault them(maybe having special rules for bringing destroyed units back), or a "looting" mission where a bunch of objectives are stacked around the map and you have to pick them up one at a time and get them to a specific zone on your board edge, or to a specific vehicle unit, or an "assassinate/gauntlet" mission where one player gets hidden deployment and the other has to move across the map long-ways, keeping a particular character alive. Just some vaguely balanced stuff that's more thematic and coherent than the current "competitive" version of the game.

[@GlennGriffin]

One observation I’ve made is that when I was trying to look up KZbin videos related to 40K Crusade, there was very little content online for that. Even the big KZbinrs who review codex’s either ignore the crusade pages entirely or they quickly skim through it. And my local store has a discord and the 40K crusade thread is empty. No discussion at all. They also hold a monthly 1000pts casual 40K event, and me as a 40K beginner I tried to check out their link to it and you basically have to fill in very detailed forms electronically to submit your 1000pts army. That’s a big barrier for entry for a so called casual event. What happened to just showing up with a hand written or printed list and play?

[@lordsofwargamesandhobbies3905]

It all flows from the top. How many warhammer community articles are written about crusade or combat patrol vs match play?

[@supfreshitsourturnbaby]

it never ceases to amaze me how they continue to send clear messages that gamers aren't wanted.

[@Shadowknightneo]

We played our first 4th edition AoS and we were shocked that the game tells us where to place scenery. It was also so random, a small piece here, a large piece here with no thought. Me and my opponent like creating scenery for the objectives, so it feels like we are fighting FOR something, not just an arbitrary 6 inch circle randomly on the board. We just ignored the scenery set up rules in the end!

[@earnestwanderer2471]

Just one other quick point. When did even the FLGS start using BCP to manage participation in small local events? 12 person “tournament”... just let the manager know, pay your fee (if any) and your name gets written in a notebook by the register. That’s how old I am. 🙂

[@lordsofwargamesandhobbies3905]

somewhere in the last 6-7 years it became a standard where by an event would not get attendance if there were no BCP points to gain

[@daeamiralis]

I will fly the casual/narrative flag as long as I'm around in the hobby. Events over tournaments, theme over waac.

[@uniteallaction]

The bottom line is, you'll always get the tournament players-they're already invested, and the game will be made to suit them regardless. You don't need to focus so heavily on them. But if you shift the focus to the casual "beer and pretzels" players, the ones gaming on weekends in their garages, they're the ones more likely to go out and buy new stuff. They're the backbone of the hobby, and catering to them could drive more consistent engagement and purchases.

[@dougmcswaine4796]

As someone who got into the hobby last year, my main focus was finding the army that was always in the top meta. A year later, I havent gone to any tournaments and have been sticking with meeting up with people at a local shop to just play games for fun while learning the new 4th edition. The focus on finding the best army is exhausting when it really is just about finding an army that you find fun to play.

[@eric-q9b]

The top army will always change every few months anyway so it's a pointless chase. Just go with what you like and feel drawn to

[@Lafrono]

I think thats a big problem with modern 40k/aos: people who get new into the hobby are bombarded with tournament news, so they think thats the normal way to play it. And you cant blame them, GW spoonfeeds everyone, even the big announcements force you to open a livestream that covers some random tournament in the USA before and after. "Make your own narrative"-play with some friends and snacks just got tossed to the side. And my guess is it will take many years more for GW to get back to it.

[@reubenmccallum3350]

I saw that article very differently. From my view, it was an article recognising the reality of the world - most games of Warhammer are matched, and most aren't in tournaments. I think it was around creating an explicit permission structure to use Legends warscrolls in the games most people play. I don't play tournaments, but I was veering away from using legends stuff reflexively. I've stopped doing that, so the article was good for me. Recognising that matched is not just tournament play is a great step towards bringing a focus back to casual gaming, imo.

[@kevinhowes9496]

Casual play is alive and well everywhere I go. GW routinely balancing weaker factions helps a ton as the guys who don't meta chase aren't languishing at the bottom forever because of a weak codex. You don't need GW to define what a casual game night is for you with marketing. Just call your buddies and play however competitively/non competitively you want in the garage, its really easy. I've not participated in a single tournament and am having plenty of fun with the hobby playing 1-2 times a month.

[@HB2K-h8m]

The main difference is legends are allowed in causal matched play as you have noted. Beyond that and the confusing name, I think this is quite an interesting development, the first move to separating out competitive meta chasing tournament play from casual games that still need a set of rules everyone knows and doesn't need anyone to do anything. beforehand like narrative campaigns need. This is useful for gaming clubs when you often play someone you don't know very well. The video is a bit long-winded but explains this quite well I think. I hope 40k goes the same way.

[@specialmeats]

I know this is specifically referring to Sigmar, but It's really comical to me that Goonhammer made the Tabletop Battles app and scooped GW's data collection in their own format, because ITS A GOOD FREE PRODUCT THAT IS EASY TO USE. Friends and I use it at the local shop even if we're playing casually because it's just better at tracking how scoring works in Pariah Nexus. And as a result, Goonhammer gets stats on what is winning and losing, from top tables to even at the casual level. lol, lmao etc.

[@UrielVentris1984]

you guys are really interersting and your buisness partner looks like gav thorpe from 1998 when i started. thanks for doing those btw where is your shop it looks great do a video on what it looks like! keep up the cool videos!

[@lordsofwargamesandhobbies3905]

lol Gav.. Were are here: 124 Kerr St, Oakville, Ontario, Canada lordsofwargames.com [e-mail]

[@marekskyrim]

I think you're nailed it : the fact they needed to call it "casual matched play" really tells they don't know - like most of the online competitive crowd - what casual play means. To me, the only current GW game that is close to casual play is Warcry. Easy to learn, easy to play, easy to settle. And the fact there's barely anything about Warcry outside of previews / advertising before the pre-order date of a Warcry product is telling a lot. They had to talk about "Warcry balance" not so long ago and trying to apply the same shitty formula from AoS / 40k. To me, that's the proof all of their game designers are so dependant of data collecting algorithm that they're completely lost when they have an actual casual game in their hands.

[@lordsofwargamesandhobbies3905]

That's just it, they crave 'data' so much that they need to inject all of these metrics into games that don't need or want it.

[@balemoran3168]

Warcry is ace, I hope GW does not roll out a new edition and ruin it

[@Colorcrayons]

Well said. It's both amazing and telling how Warcry is so successful, despite GW's best and worst intentions. It's a bona fide good game design, not because it is air tight, but because it isn't. Narrative just elevates the design to levels of satisfactory gameplay the likes of which GW have never offered before, and I have played nearly all of their games.

[@balemoran3168]

@@lordsofwargamesandhobbies3905 I think that's because it's common for wargamers to be nuro divergent. I can see why preset rules, routines to follow and clearly defined social interaction. That comes with a tendency to want to see the data and an uneasy relationship with the ill defined "fun" list.

[@TheTobaccoman]

No, GW have just hard pivoted to competitive or don’t play. It’s really odd to watch. I think we only wanted better balance it didn’t need to be total video game scale balance patches. It’s draining the soul out of the experience. There really isn’t casual anymore it’s all just tournament minded match play as that’s really all they push.

[@tobyjohnson9136]

What's sad is that model was based around a certain era and type of video game where devs stopped asking "Is this fun?" and instead listened to "influencers". The games themselves seemed more like terrible skinner boxes than fun games. Everything is full of RPG mechanics and and stats taking place outside player action. And playing LoL or Gachca games is a clinical condition. Social media has caused this since it's easier to constantly create "content" around rule changes and list building so that's all people see. The new players import all the toxic dimensions from modern video games into 40k. GW need to highlight a cool old-school table or their own employees conversions/armies more often on the site. Release more scenarios online for free, detail a narrarive campaign in the studio.

[@gideongallant1185]

I agree with a lot of the points you guys laid out. The long term issue ai think is they’re trying to speak the language of today’s younger geeks and gamers so they’re heavily leaning into competitive play, plus I bet their legions of analysts say that the most profit comes from targeting the group of competitive players over more casual oriented folks

[@MemphisRaines436]

Would love your thoughts on if AMG has lost their minds. They just released “not 2nd edition” of Star Wars Legion over the weekend. New rules, new branding, new unit cards (for about half of existing units), new objectives, a new measuring tool and objective components. No physical components are being released until Q3 2025, at which point updated unit cards will be released. No new core/starter boxes that contains the new rules/components were listed on their product release road map that goes through Q1 2026. Everything from unit cards to tokens and objective cards is print and play until then. Would love your thoughts on a big overhaul like this not being accompanied by physical components.

[@lordsofwargamesandhobbies3905]

Will do!

[@markspooner2027]

So Skaventide is the first time since 3rd 40K and 5th Fantasy that I haven’t bought the GW launch box for the newest edition. I am not a competitive player, it’s not my jam, fine if others like it. I started feeling like the game just isn’t for me anymore and jumped ship to OPR. I still buy a lot of paints, dice, rpg books and BattleTech from my FLGS, but don’t buy any GW stuff anymore.

[@bruced648]

as someone that's played/collected 40k since 1987, you've stated some incorrect information. the game was introduced as Rogue Trader in 1987 (first version). this was presented as a role-playing game with skirmish rules. the game was designed for 1 or 2 squads of troops that could 'individually' be improved by spending points earned from completing missions. 2nd version was the first box set. this helped clean-up aspects of the skirmish rules. they removed most of the role-playing elements and took away the ability to create your own hero's. this was still not designed for competitive match play. in the mid 90s, GW released the 3rd version box set. at this point, the focus towards matched competitive play and tournaments take hold. the game has been going thru nearly 10 years of growing pains. 37 years of this game and 10 different versions, not to mention faction rewrites, nerfs, bans, restrictions and removals. GW finally comes to a realization that the vast majority of 40k players (over 95%) will never play in a tournament. clearly shows that GW has never truly listened to their fans. personally, I stopped playing at 3rd version. the IGYG rules format is completely broken. I've been collecting the miniatures and models since the first space marines, in two mini's blister packs first arrived in stores. and still have my original rogue trader and other first version books.

[@davidbigboutay782]

Eh, 3rd through 5th at least still were going for the vibe of casualness. If you look at internet discussions of the old Warhammer tournaments, the "best player" essentially came down to people at the tournament voting on who was the most fun to play against and had the best army comp. The person who won the most matches was "Best General" which was a smaller trophy. The tournament push is a recent thing starting around 8th when they were trying to get away from 7th's reputation for being horrifically unbalanced.

[@bruced648]

@davidpearson6916 I'll agree. his comments in the video about the game always being about the competitive play, was what I was addressing. you actually help make my point.

[@spnked9516]

GW not listening to their fans has been their modus operandi for decades, so that shouldn't come as a huge surprise. As a Fantasy player, I remember people complaining and begging all the time, in game stores and online in the 2000s/2010s, about how GW needed to stop cranking prices up and start spreading updates out more evenly and pushing more basic QoL features. It's no wonder Fantasy sales floundered like they did when GW never bothered giving any attention to a solid chunk of the factions and seemed to actively push players towards cheaper 3rd party alternatives.

[@JMACCSArmiesOfMiddleEarth]

This

[@JuliusCaesar888]

Dude nobody cares about your CV of oldhood and your constant declaration of being around since the stone age. Do you HONESTLY THINK you're the guy GW has in mind when releasing products these days? Guys from your era complain about EVERYTHING. Your generation ruined the planet, and it's up to the young crowd to fix your mistakes. Nothing you say is valuable, just retire from the world and go back to your Rogue Trader book with the rest of the boomers shouting at us to get off your lawn. Ridiculous.

[@MekBoooooi]

This is why i stopped playing Kill Team. It's very sweaty ns competitive and half the players are always preparing for their nevt tournament (that they'll lose)

[@danielc-s8056]

I saw so many people getting into the previous version of KT when they could cherry pick cool minis. This current KT edition killed my local scene.

[@GarredHATES]

I feel that, I stopped playing online for that reason. Casual games with a friend and play weird compendium teams is great tho

[@kudosbudo]

​@@danielc-s8056huh. Maybe I missed the right game. I've painted a few teams for killteam but my favourite is a deathwatch team I made from spare marines from the betrayal at calth boardgame sprues with some custom heads. Every model has the exact weapon I chose and I chose them based on what would fit each marines previous chapter identity. Even kitbashed some weapons for them. KT just feels more like it should be a fun narrative game than a meta chaser.

[@danielc-s8056]

@@kudosbudo you should definitely check out the previous edition of KT. You might like it a lot.

[@owl800]

The three modes of play are almost certainly inspired by the player categories that Wizards of the Coast uses for MTG (Spike, Johnny, Timmy).

[@lordsofwargamesandhobbies3905]

Timmy moddddde

[@DeathInTheSnow]

I am going to be honest here. I think 10th has been a disaster for GW. It has its pros, but they are far, far heavily outweighed by the cons. A lot of people say they like 10th, but I posit that they just like Warhammer. The core aspects of the game, such as the lore, turn order, phases and so on, are still the same as before. But the core rules changes, the factions rules, the fact that none of the codices transferred between editions, the constant swingy patches... The game is a mess right now. I know a lot of people online, such as big YT channels, Redditors, and some of the forums, have seen people talking about making past editions become their primary focus again until 11th rolls around. That's _tragic_ from a business perspective. I see more people doing 2ndEd battle reports online now since 2023 than I ever saw in person back in the 90s! I'm not worried about the game per se. But I am worried that GW aren't likely to change soon enough. Maybe this will be a "New Coke" type thing where they deliberately made a bad one so that the new edition can come out looking miles better? We can only hope. Until then, well, I'm just going back to drinking Kofola.

[@astreick]

I am kind of conflicted about this. I was a really diehard infinity player for years. We played "casually" but always used ITS missions and followed the latest FAQ etc. What made the games casual was the attitude we played with and not going so hard into the lists and understanding when someone wanted to try sub par units. I like playing pickup games and knowing the game is structured and relatively balanced.

[@uniteallaction]

I've been into Warhammer for about 30 years, but I haven't played since 8th edition. I recently picked up the new edition rulebook, and I barely recognize the game anymore. I listened to a podcast where they mentioned that the people working at the studio are in their 30s, designing the game they want to play. That's why some editions focus more on casual play, while others are aimed at tournament play. However, the current focus seems to be heavily on tournament stats, which leaves the more casual "beer and pretzels" players somewhat forgotten. Price is also a big factor. Warhammer is starting to feel like Magic: The Gathering, where you're constantly chasing the meta by buying expensive core units, only for them to get nerfed later. Magic is in the same situation-Standard is basically dead, and now it’s all about Commander. My friends and I just print off whatever cards we want as proxies for our Commander decks, so there's no need to buy anything anymore. There's no point in constantly chasing the newest products. Both games seem to be caught in a cycle where the companies are chasing their own tails with these business strategies. It feels like there's a ceiling to this model, and while we may be in the golden era of both games, I hardly recognize Warhammer anymore. Now that I’m in my mid-40s, I actually don't know who these hobbies are for anymore the money just seems to be endless and the burnout ratio must be big.

[@lordsofwargamesandhobbies3905]

Ultimately, games workshop has morphed into a large corporation. It now does all the large corpo stuff, where profitmaking and growth are ascendant. That is where the quick edition turnovers, seasons of play, fast pace of releases etc all comes from. I think all consumers need to just be aware of what they are entering into and if they are OK with it. There are lots of small companies that don't act this way, that you can seek out if you are looking for something resembling an 'older or classic' gw experience. Good luck and thanks for sharing

[@phoenixguy101]

I actually really like playing “casual” matched play (in 40K, I’m new to AOS here so I haven’t played a game outside Spearhead). The rules are tight enough and well known enough to pick up and play with a wide variety of people. And the mission decks add interest through making the player modify their plan and thinking on the spot, something that is inherent to dice rolling wargame design. When playing a dice-rolling wargame, many of the player’s actions are not guaranteed to go the way they want, but they are still important and impactful to the game, thus giving meaningful agency while pushing players to adapt. Additionally, I find using the competitive companion guides to be really helpful when setting up tables: I want to get right into the action, so have tables that are pre-designed for me makes it easy. Plus, continual game balance patches breathe new life and interest into factions that struggle on “even terms” against other factions. And they can even make factions FUN to play. Remember Drukhari before getting their Skysplinter detachment? And more recently for me, Tyranids have gotten a new glow up to their synapse rule that makes me super excited to play with them: now keeping my bugs in synapse is rewarding! The other side is also true: earlier in the edition, I kept getting absolutely crushed by a friend’s csm army. But after balance changes our games are much closer. I ultimately think there isn’t much difference between competitive or casual play for me. In both, I want to do the best I can and learn from the experience. The difference is that there’s nothing on the line in casual play. There’s no pressure to bring the best list, freedom to bring legends units and roleplay in the game. And when you lose, oh well, it’s not the end of the world as ideally the game was balanced/close and you had a good time! Plus maybe you learned something! It’s through the baseline that matched play and balance provides that I find this possible. In fact, it is a baseline that then enables players to understand the rules at a better level to then design their own terrain layouts and missions for narrative play.

[@hughmyers8583]

Warhammer Community used to have good articles. Anymore, I click away instantly. They should look at the article they did a year or two ago and just do that.

[@idiotproofdalek]

How bizarre that a focus on playing a game via its rules should become known as ‘matchplay’. When I play Cluedo I play using all the rules, perhaps with the occasional house rule.

[@davidbigboutay782]

Part of it is a generational thing. Zoomers and late Millenials are essentially one and a half entire generations of what would be called Spikes in MtG lingo. They were raised on competitive videogames so have the basic mindset of "Why wouldn't I just take the most busted meta and ride the edge of the rules?" An army has gone from "This is like my D&D character but a whole army" to "This is my Starcraft 2 build order but on tabletop." When GW does a more casual game like Necromunda it winds up needing an arbritator as otherwise campaigns are dominated by people who just push for getting the most number of grenade launchers and bolters into a gang as efficiently as possible.

[@tobyjohnson9136]

Plenty of older Millennials and even Gen X played competitive video games. I think you can say that the transition away from shooters that had arena style weapon drops or fixed classes with limited options to CoD and later Battlefield games where your "build" was very complex. The rise of KZbin meant it wasn't just hardcore guys on forums talking about this but countless "influencers" who seemed to talk about nothing but the balance changes and the "meta".

[@lordsofwargamesandhobbies3905]

It's funny because while this is very much happening in video games, card games and minis etc there is also a huge cultural push back against it. Single player and coop games are massive (look at the recent success of helldivers) and games like dnd are growing like mad. And MTG's most causal format is the absolute king of all of their games - commander.

[@theAV8R]

Well it doesn't help that you can only pick ONE ARMY for $500 plus supplies, in addition to countless hours of learning to hobby and only making your shittiest paint jobs. Yeah, the xommitment is massive and oh the rules just changed again and all the Grey Knights you just painted are now all obsolete please buy these new ones. Of course people are going to be meticulous in their army selection, because of the intergalactic amount of barriers to play. Also, the xodex you bought is obsolete, it doesnt include anyone else's rules, here are separate addenda, and oh we modified movement rules thrice. Don't worry though, it'll be 12th Ed any moment by now.

[@alexandrebelinge8996]

GW has always had a communication issue with the player base. Not much seem to have changed over the years.

[@wtfserpico]

I'm going to play somewhat of a devil's advocate here due to my experience building a Kill Team group at my FLGS. The group consists of 12 people, only 2 of which had ever played KT before. Trying to sort the rules and get everyone up to speed on how to play AND how to play their teams was a disaster...until I started "forcing" everyone to use the KT matched play rules. Instead of everyone showing up and kind of milling around and trying to figure out what mission to play and how to set up terrain a few of us would show up, use the matched play cards and randomly pick one of the pre-determined board layouts and people could then pair up and start playing with the mission, deployment and terrain all set up ahead of time. With the exception of one guy (who is actually playing at the Tacoma Open this weekend) we are all just casual players and play to have fun rather than to win, but going matched-play-only saw us going from everyone getting maybe 1 game in per meetup to 2 to 3 games. It really helped us focus on learning the game and our teams and got people more excited to play more often.

[@lordsofwargamesandhobbies3905]

What if...it was just the only way to play kill team, and they didn't call it anything? The 'match play' rules are just, all the rules, for whatever game you are playing.

[@lordsofwargamesandhobbies3905]

Also congrats on building a community 👏 that takes a lot of hard work and commitment (but is very rewarding)

[@wtfserpico]

@@lordsofwargamesandhobbies3905 Thanks! That's certainly one way that rules can be written, but it also puts some limits on the game. With the distinction between "matched" and "casual" or "narrative" you can ultimately decide what you want a game to be for you. Granted, not every game needs it, but for games that have an entire system balanced around "balanced" (yes, yes, I know) tournament play, having a more limited "matched" play mode can be a good thing. I play Kill Team when I want to have a crunchy competitive time, even though the focus isn't on winning, and Warcry when I just want to slap a game together and chuck dice, but I wouldn't want Kill Team to lose the narrative modes, nor the more story focused maps and missions. Ideally all modes would exist solely for the betterment of the community and the players, and so I absolutely won't disagree with your points about GW using it as a way to sell new models. There's always going to be wiggle room if we actually want thematic games, otherwise we'd all just end up playing flat deterministic games like Chess, and I do think your arguments are valid, but I did want to provide a bit of perspective on how "Casual matched" play CAN be good for the community. Whether it will for Aos remains to be seen though.

[@IvanGTerrace]

Commenting on the comments: Some people in this post are in interesting youtube feed bubbles. Some guy seeing more 2nd ed battle reports than 10th? Wow. It's hard to form an opinion on this stuff outside of what's in my hobby shops. I've been running a 10th edition crusade and people have been having a blast, using all sorts of suboptimal units in games and growing their army using crusade rules. So in my bubble casual play is alive and well. I know if I drive 30 mins up the freeway it's only sweaty people practicing for tournaments for their pickup games. As much as I think competitive play is a cancer, it appears to be contributing to gw making a ton of profit. What can be changed about casual play to make people buy more product? That is the question that needs to be answered if we ever want gw to guide its systems away from competitve play.

[@chrisjones6792]

Imagine being told 20 years ago that MTG, a game which exists as a deck of cards that interact with frictionless mathematics and takes about 30 minutes to play, has pivoted entirely to an expensive and convoluted casual format that tries to represent narrative elements by actively making game pieces communicate less clearly to players what they do, and Warhammer, a game that requires physical representations of units to interact in 3 dimensions over the course of potentially several hours, has tried to pivot to a lean competitive tournament format. Posted on my lunch break, edited for typos.

[@lordsofwargamesandhobbies3905]

Lol!

[@bobyoung8730]

Casual play is what me and my buddies do every friday night. Hang out, act the fools and throw some dice. Some people get crushed, some people cheer.. we're all happy.

[@theessentialguideforblokes7960]

Please can you link to the article? I can’t seem to find it on the Warhammer community page.

[@lordsofwargamesandhobbies3905]

www.warhammer-community.com/2024/07/18/warhammer-age-of-sigmar-metawatch-discussing-casual-matched-play/

[@languin12]

Man this focus on tournament rules totally helped out privateer press when they did it

[@lordsofwargamesandhobbies3905]

😮

[@em3sis]

Honestly this just looks like a filler article after 4.0 launch. They don't have anything else really to talk about but some person at GW still has to do something for the week to get paid

[@flint9080]

GW is convoluted. I completely agree. This is a sentence from the rules regarding Tau: Until the end of the phase, this unit is considered a Guided unit, and that friendly unit is considered an Observer unit. I ran the greater good through chat GPT, it came out much clearer. I put in on reddit, and it got taken down pretty fast. I would have to conclude that GW is unnecessarily convoluted.

[@lordsofwargamesandhobbies3905]

Yes their rules are written in lawyer speak now (for clarity?) I find it much harder to read them ironically.

[@flint9080]

@@lordsofwargamesandhobbies3905 What's even more ironic is that the more complex and convoluted something is written, the more someone is able to "lawyer" the meaning of the rule. At any rate, great take on this. I really appreciate what you guys do. Especially since you give incites from a store owner perspective.

[@CmdrPinkiePie]

6:18 I didn’t get the name of the person/channel mentioned. Can somebody type it for me?

[@Havok448]

@GuerrillaMiniatureGames

[@CmdrPinkiePie]

@@Havok448Omg I feel silly now. XD Sorry, English isn’t my first language.

[@brionl4741]

I thought the new Adeptus Mechanicus combat patrol was really cool, so I bought one. I've got almost no interest in playing full 40K or Combat Patrol, I'm planning on using it as an Arbitrator gang for a Necromunda Campaign

[@jonmattison3939]

I hear what you're saying. Back in let's say 5th edition, 40K was all about tabling your opponent killing more points of units than your opponent did. The rules were tight enough to play casually, there was a lot of complaints from tournament organizers wanting tighter rules. Internet names like Stelek and the big tournament organization out of Virginia, their name is escaping me... Started coming up with other ways to play, including objectives. It felt like there was a community push for games workshop to make better rules and be more organized for competitive play, even as we recognized that competitive play was the minority versus the majority who played casually. So over the years GW has brought more focus to competitive play, tighter rules, incorporating objectives and victory points instead of killing off points of the opponent's army. I agree with the sentiment that show versus tell, and have more content on the Warhammer community website that involves casual play, narrative games etc. While I stay home and play casual games, no desire to go play in a tournament... I do get caught up in "playing the official way" with a leviathan or pariah Nexus deck etc.

[@jackrogers5712]

Why does GW need to hold everyone's hand? I don't get why people who don't want to play tournaments can't just grab models they think are cool and play games in their garage with friends. Why does GW have to officially support a format that isn't really a format at all? GW isn't going to kick your door in and arrest you if you want to play without points, or make up your own mission, or ignore rules you dislike, etc. I started 40K when I was 12. I read the rules as much as I could and me and friends played just fine. We didn't need GW to put a giant OPEN PLAY section in the rulebook to figure this out. I don't know what happened in the last 24 years where people can't just make stuff up anymore.

[@lordsofwargamesandhobbies3905]

Great points. It does feel like maybe we just need one way to play... and you figure the rest out on your own.

[@Stonehorn]

I pretty much gave up on 40k and AOS. The best community around here is definitely TOW/WHFB. It’s grown a lot since TOW released. Tournaments, weekly league, bi-weekly narrative nights.

[@123495734]

what do you guys think of baked beans? serios question pleas answer

[@daiviet]

Remember when Blizzard put a ton of focus on the competetive Overwatch League? PepperRidge farm remembers.

[@lordsofwargamesandhobbies3905]

Alone zone chris...not a great memory lmao

[@theessentialguideforblokes7960]

Rant for rants sake? Watched the video, seemed reasonable to me, having grown up only playing a few people we invented our own interpretations of certain rules and we handled things very casually. The video seemed to raise the point that playing by consistent rules makes the game more open. I regularly now play strangers who then become friends, this wouldn’t happen if we weren’t playing casual but matched play. Ask anyone how they play monopoly, I guarantee you everyone plays it differently

[@_munkykok_]

What minds?

[@Dominik189]

They just realized they cant ban people proxying and 3d printing in casual play ...

[@frankandluna99]

I miss a game of warhammer i never knew. I miss a gw i neve... wait no i dont haha.

[@FeydTheRonin]

A bunch of nerds caring about everything except having fun. People are playing make-believe with tiny plastic (expensive) army men and sinking hundreds (or thousands) of hours and dollars into that. Gonna bank that entire investment on someone else (including what GW says)? Tl;dr: If you can't enjoy the hobby alone first and foremost, you will never enjoy the hobby.

[@Mr_Waffle.]

I used to play the online game Destiny 2, the developers spent SO MUCH TIME developing and talking about and showing streams of "world first" raids (super long/hard missions in teams), but when you looked at the game achievements, only like 5% of all players ever finished one. It was the "halo" feature of the game, everyone looked at it and adored it but 95% of the playerbase never touched it- like how car companies have super fast expensive sports car models, but most of their customers buy the people movers instead after being lured in by the sexy show car. I think GW is doing the same thing, using tournaments and "the meta" as an artificial way to boost sales (vs the traditional "organic" method of codex releases). I'm not saying they are changing rules to sell models- the rules team are way too overworked and underbudgeted to do anything like that- but having players create their own artificial demand on models certainly wouldn't hurt GW sales! (Even if it is potentially eroding the traditional foundation of wargaming, the casual game with friends... shareholder demand of infinite growth and infinite profit is not sustainable in any business, who knows when the bubble will burst here).

[@Athanase48067]

Balancing for tournaments and Esports kill games. Quote "pro players" of any game are a blight that steer the game into a cookie cutter, unfun complicated mess. Then, when its ruined they just shrug and go off to the next one

[@Inherent_Deterrent]

i wish there were more scenarios released which grab more players and put them on the table at the same time. the hobby is social and getting more friends playing at once has to be optimal, surely? 😅

[@tobyjohnson9136]

GW seem to have gotten everything backwards, in order to create an easy onboarding and potentially safe harbour from constant rule balances for competition they created a game mode that is fast and which has a set model lineup that uses special stable rules to keep the limited number of Spearhead armies internally balanced. Doesn't that format make more sense for use in competition where list-building and army imbalances are removed and all that matters are the dice and the general? Then leave the real game without having to have constant impossible balancing that disrupts everything and deters new and 99% of old players. Of course we also know that part of the reason GW went with Combat Patrol in 40k which was later better implemented in AoS as Spearhead is that the Space Marine line got so bloated that new players got paralysed and confused trying to make new armies. Bring back the FoC!

[@BotRetro]

Oh GW has lost their way long ago - they shifted the focus from promoting creativity and fun to focusing strictly on tournament style play. For all the talk about the 'Hobby', what they mean is only 'Product'. Open almost any old white dwarf - you will find fun scenarios, fun mini games, fun new units to kitbash - like goblins carrying an explosive charge - something you need various materials to craft. Terrain crafting tips. General's Compendium lets you transform WHFB into semi-naval battle game, extensive rules for sieges - stuff that involves lots and lots of crafting and thought. Now they promote unposeable models and stale rulebooks focused on competitive play

[@stefanlvkc7986]

Ah yes, "Casual Play" as opposed to that giant base of "Professional Play"...for a game...with plastic figures... I know, the Casual Play is on Fridays and Monday - Thursday is for pros. No playing on the weekends unless the boss calls you in.

[@jeffers1985]

They are targeting competitive players as at a drop of a hat they will buy an army or sell an army based on its strengths or weaknesses. Casual players keep their minis and buy less in a cycle of a efition. Thats why unit counts have got larger with lower points. All they want is sell, sell and sell more minis

[@RyanGates-kq9tu]

I work at a shop in Vernon, BC, casual play is dead here, every game is a tournament of practice for a tournament. The game/games gw makes are to complicated, too competitive focused. 40k is the worst offender, but now that AOS is now Age of 40k, our casual crowd has disappeared. GW definitely does not understand the concept of casual even with the design of games, there is so many barriers to entry into any of their main games, no new players only the same 20 hyper competitive folks play. If it wasn't for their slick/dirty marketing, this company would have failed, in my opinion its already has.

[@Colorcrayons]

I avoid anything that has the word "matched" attached to it, and kill with fire anything with "tourney" murmured in a 100 yard radius. But on a more serious note, the entire concept of these games being "competitive" is a bit of a joke. Competition is inherent and implied due to the very nature of it being a game, yet they want to give it grand significance as if the game design is of such tight quality that it deserves laurels to be played in ways like Mt:G. Maybe underworlds can qualify for this, but I have my doubts even there. After being involved in GW's products for considerably longer than I would care to admit, I have yet to play any of their games and think "Man, this is a great game design that could be played in a very competitive manner" and yet they REALLY want you to do this, because players want to do this. The game design and the player's needs arent shaking hands in anything other than an awkward way. Just sell games that people play in their kitchens, and cop up to that. It's what 99.99% of players already do anyways. If it wasnt for Warcry, GW wouldnt even be anywhere near my thoughts. And warcry is relevant for me specifically because it is such a good narrative excuse to push dollies around the table.

[@jwitham30]

I think GW's profit model is enticing whales. And whales are whales because they are either 1)completionist collectors, in which case they'll buy no matter what the play rules are, or 2) competitive players who will buy whatever (they think) will make them win more under the competitive rules. Narrative players and casual players are typically not whales, therefore those styles of play are not relevant to the profit model.

[@ttoo1830]

Play OPR and just have fun. I played some games with the Grimdark Future and GF Firefight. It is so good and the game just flows

[@tragicthegarnering3619]

I think the "3 ways to play" was a mistake, as before aos you played a game of fantasy, you didn't play a game of matched play fantasy. you played a game of fantasy in a tournament, a game of fantasy in a campaigned, or a game of fantasy at home with friends while having a beer.

[@greendalf123]

Only catching on now?

[@draraist]

Games are for garages. Not tournaments..

[@skreechverminking2227]

What is casual play to me. I guess a game I can just bring my minis no matter if they are legend or not (I don’t see a difference) and have fun, talking nonsense and drinking a beer with my buddy. Although from a few person online I have heard from, apparently there are places that do not allow legend units, not even in a casual game or a meet and play game, which in my opinion is kinda stupid

[@vaderkoshpaints]

Could not care less about casual matched play. We play stories or campaigns or just Spearhead with some house rules for campaigns.

[@bigpoppa1234]

GW overcomplicated the rules to the point where 2000 point games are now the standard (back in the golden era it was 1500), bloated the game with TCG garbage like strategems and "objective markers", giving everyone and their mother invulnerable saves + a billion wounds + feel no pains + strategems to bring people back, on tables that are a generic battlemat with blank plasticard L shape "ruins" that have to be fought over to ensure no-one can have line of sight to table the entire enemy army in their first shooting phase, and it takes 4 hours for a match. If you went back to 2005 you would just show up to a GW store or games club with a 1500 point all comers list and if you were there for 4 or 5 hours you might have got 3 games in that time, on tables with actual psuedo-realistic terrain that looked good, with a ruleset that was simple enough that pretty much anyone would pick it up in a handful of games. Now it's meta chasing whales with undercoat + 2 contrast paint + 1 metallic who netlist their way into having obscenely overpowered armies then discard them the moment GW finally catches up on the rules.

[@piotrjeske4599]

Hmm because of the cost of the models to income here, the so called casual (aka random, non optimised, play what you want) has not been a thing here ever. It wasn't like this in the 90s , 2000s , 2010s etc so to me matched play with lists that look like GT lists is the norm here. There are very few people (aka old timers with tens of thousands of points) willing to invest in to a bad army. Not when the avarge salary is around 450-500$ .

[@Habitt5253]

Is this a rhetorical question?

[@Youdotty]

GW wants 'multiple buckets' because it means they can sell more books.

[@lordsofwargamesandhobbies3905]

Good point

[@mwu2712]

Or they could not memory hole models so they don't screw over the people who invested money and time into models.

[@lordsofwargamesandhobbies3905]

Not gonna happen it's a business

[@mwu2712]

@lordsofwargamesandhobbies3905 why not. Other mini businesses do just fine without that business model, why can't GW? Did they somehow get an exemption from ethical practices from the emperor?

[@Jeff-ne1lh]

This all Started when Stephen Box started getting a bunch of attention from GW...he's the weirdo who wears sports jerseys with his sponsors on them to games, He wants to make 40k a professional sport ...he also filmed a guy being called out because he didn't make a movement just so...as long as GW associates with lunatics like this it will continue to happen.

[@markoxford]

Killteam was destroyed by over bloated rulesets and quarterly "competitive" balance changes that sucked every last bit of fun out of the game. Every game became overwhelming because you need 3 different terrain rule sets and could never remember all the latest changes to the opposition teams. A great game just sunk under it's own hubris especially the constant "competitive" balance of fun teams that just hurt the 99.9% of normally players that NEVER played in Tournaments beyond their LGS, (looking at you Chaos Cult).

[@timeguy441]

all being said I'm excited for the new boarding actions book.

[@ObjectiveAnalysis]

F**k “competitive” new age warhammer. 2nd-5th was the golden era. They lost their way around 8th ed with the introduction and focus on “matched” or “competitive” play. Edit: “warhamer was always matched play for 40 years” nope warhammer was never matched/competitive before 8th edition, it was fully narrative with scenarios and missions rather than generic objectives. Tournaments existed but they were niche, and even tournaments weren’t super “competitive”.

[@kastlerock01]

Play Necromunda

[@earnestwanderer2471]

Haven’t read the article, so I’m not sure what GW said. My experience, outside of playing with family and old (really, really old) friends, is that “big” tabletop has become much more competitive in the last 20 years. Or at least the focus is towards competition. Two things I’ve experienced. People, even young people, who say they don’t want to come to in store “meet-ups” because the atmosphere is too competitive. And gaming groups who openly define their weekly games as “tournament prep”. You have to be a very “tight” player. You’re expected to have a firm grasp of the rules. You need to use the various game tracker apps. Your list needs to be competitive, otherwise you’re just wasting the other player’s time on a match that doesn’t really “test” their build and skill. Casual players just retreat into basements and garages and avoid in store play. The problem there, from the current GW perspective, is that those people are becoming, effectively, invisible. They’re not scheduling events through BCP, results aren’t reported, no visibility even to store managers who could report levels of casual meetup style play. So GW focuses on the people they CAN see. The tournament players who have the online presence and visibility.

[@ObjectiveAnalysis]

“Skill” and “competitive” lmao it’s a game of toy soldiers based on dice/luck 😂

[@erih2934]

I couldn't care less about how GW calls their game modes or what they promote as 'standard' because groups do their own thing. For me the worse part is that they are systematically killing the hobby element of the hobby itself. Standardized equipment, less and less options for builds of individual units, focusing on 'meta' instead of hobby projects - the only difference between armies of the same faction these days is the quality of the paint job. GW is doing the best to make sure their isn't an element of the owners personality in the WH40k and AoS collections. And sadly this continues within the rules design itself where the randomness is being reduced to a minimum. Without randomly drawn secondary objectives you get the feeling you could just talk it out after deployment as you roll so many dice and you have so many minis on the board that you actually have a high chance of getting the statically average results. The game doesn't feel like an experience at the table anymore. And therefore we see the same thing as in sports - a minority plays it regularly, but a majority has expert opinions about the game based of their fantasy league stats. You see a big difference to that when you take a look at how their specialist games are handled.

[@misomiso8228]

The answer is yes.

[@gabrielpardo4229]

Casual play is a person bringing units they like even if they're not as good as others and having laughs with everyone around the room. Competitive Play is one or more players taking the Toy Soldier War game needlessly serious to the point where their goal isn't just to win, but also to try and do as much as they can to prevent you from playing your army.

[@divafever9754]

Prefect cure for insomnia

[@cfsm984]

I don’t get the surprise. All we see online is people complaining about balance and fairness in their games. How is that possible without some official framework shared between most players around the world? GW is just giving people want they ask.

[@Bazanti]

We’ll just ne playing Path to Glory like always and really dont care

[@arcus9590]

I don't know any casuals that regularly read WarCom articles