Warhammer fantasy and 40K should have been grid-based wargames. None of this fucking around with rulers and debating whether something is half an inch short.
>>96590105Premeasure you retard.And there's tons of other games that operate on different measuring rules and completely different systems. Play those.Not everything you play with has to come out of Jame's Workshop's ass.
>>96590105>None of this fucking around with rulers and debating whether something is half an inch short.This isn't a problem at all in non-competitive gameplay, which miniatures wargames inherently are meant to be. It's only an issue whem "people" try to turn a game medium into something it fundamentally is not.Grid-based games are also good. They both have their place.And because someone will chime in:>OH, SO YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO TRY AND WIN?!?!? Ur supposed to hold hands with your opponent and just tell a story together??? Thaz gay and dumb, lol!!!No, within the context of the game, you are still competing, but with the understanding that the higher narrative takes priority. If this is too difficult to comprehend, I would recommend taking up something like chess, go, or backgammon instead, all of which are meant for pure competition.
>>96590161How can something be inherently non-competitive
>>96590180Miniatures wargames are a narrative endeavor. You're still commanding your army to the best of your ability in order to win (though making sub-optimal, but fun "in-character" decisions is also welcome, and often a better approach: "I wouldn't do this, because it's irrational, but the leader or my army/these dudes would"), but when it comes to things like:- Army creation/composition- unfun/illogical official rulings...you should be giving priority to what makes sense narratively, not what is "teh most l33t, lolz"Or, to problems like:- "Is this model in line-of-sight?"- Uncertain/contradictory rulebook text...you should not be a sweaty try-hard with no friends, and instead approach the game as a gentleman's activity. The reward is the gameplay and interaction. Nobody on earth is impressed if you won a toy soldier game.Pic very related. That is the world of the compfag.
>>96590180Or a shorter answer: tabletop RPGs. You can't "win" an RPG. At best, you survive. They're an inherently non-competitive game medium.
>>96590258Wargames are just bad for the narrative format 90% of the time. People interested in RPing graviate towards games where you have a single unit because they can invest themselves a person, not an army. The wargame attracts the comp types who see the event as something to win/lose and they build/play accordingly.
>>96590105>None of this fucking around with rulers and debating whether something is half an inch short.What, reminds you of your ex-girlfriend?
>>96590105Literally not a single person has ever had such an argument
>>96590105I think for the casual and customizable nature of the game, measuring is fine, though aided massively through transition to digital. Modern GW would do grids, but only because it would give them a new thing to sell.
>>96590736>nobody has ever argued about distances in warhammerbizarre statement
>>96590661RP-ing a wargame isn't the point, but there is some conceptual crossover. What's the point in having a setting, painted models, and scenery if it's just going to be a win/lose crunchfest? (hence the recommendation for games like chess). Historical games seem fine without the tryhardism, but that's admittedly more of a boomer attitude.
>>96591245Having played a lot of older 40k with friends, I've seen this same non competitive attitude there. People bring fluffy, interesting lists (we play via tabletop sim, so theres no financial pain involved) and finding a player is often a matter of showing off a list they think would be cool to fight against. Its easy to recognize when somebody is bringing something designed to win and do nothing else, and they don't usually get games.
>>96591255I also think the modern competitive attitude towards 40k comes from both a degredation of the lore leading to it being harder and harder to actually care about your army, combined with extremely swingy balancing codex-codex leaving players very aware that (x) is broken good right now and WAAC fags hopping on it like OP hops on dick.
>>96590105>None of this fucking around with rulers and debating whether something is half an inch short.How could there be a debate? Have you never used a measuring tape or ruler before?
>>96590258>You're still commanding your army to the best of your ability in order to win That's being competitive anon. You're competing with the goal to win.
>>96591324While you can RP as a commander in the battles too, the core difference here is that the list is not built competitively, even if it is played to win. Another note important to the culture of the game is that while the army is commanded to the best of the player's ability, they don't use out of game or rules lawyering shit to get an advantage on their opponent. Competitiveness is a gradient, and theres a big difference between doing your best to command your army and https://youtu.be/iml6lACtjug
>>96591321It's a made up boogeyman that competitive players use to justify the removal of mechanics that aren't conducive to under 3 hour competitive battles, it is very common for compfags to do this where they parrot some retard they saw on reddit about why a mechanic from an older edition is bad, or why everything in the rules needs to be hyper-specified and void of any possible interpretation outside the sanctioned intention. In reality they've never even played a game with these mechanics and have no first hand or even secondhand evidence of the problem occurring
