PDA

View Full Version : Casual or Tactical Game?



jp22102000
06-10-2009, 03:49
Looking through my one thread and several others on this site, I get the impression that players fall into one of two catergories:

Casual
The type of player who just wants to push miniatures and roll dice. They want a simple system without modifiers.

Tactical
The type of player who wants a deep, tactical, "serious" ruleset.

I am not sure if I am right in this assesment but that is the feeling I get.
Anyway, assuming I am right, what catergory would you put yourself in? Also there is nothing wrong IMO with either catergory or what players would prefer.

Sergeant Uriel Ventris
06-10-2009, 03:51
Um... both?

Ghost of Trigger
06-10-2009, 03:55
Casual. If I were actually commanding a tank battalion I wouldnt be wearing Ralph Lauren

Alcibiades
06-10-2009, 04:02
I don't see how you can play a game without paying attention to its rules. I guess that makes me tactical.

polymphus
06-10-2009, 04:03
False Dichotomy mate: casual vs tactical isn't the split at all. Casual vs. competitive maybe, or friendly vs. tournament, but even then I don't think it can be divided up that easily. I'm with the Sarge: both. Neither. Something like this can't really be qualified.

jp22102000
06-10-2009, 04:27
Perhaps I am reading too much into it then. Or maybe it is just this thread that got me thinking this way.
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=221267

Netfreakk
06-10-2009, 04:35
I want a fun filled game that is abiding the rules, allowing a competitive atmosphere that makes an intense close game from the "smart" tactics that are employed through competent opponents.

So i guess Tactical?

qwertywraith
06-10-2009, 04:49
False Dichotomy mate: casual vs tactical isn't the split at all. Casual vs. competitive maybe, or friendly vs. tournament, but even then I don't think it can be divided up that easily. I'm with the Sarge: both. Neither. Something like this can't really be qualified.

I agree. Why can't a casual game be tactical? 40K doesn't need head splitting depth to be tactical. If you want to just set up guys and roll dice you can just show off your models and play a game of Yahtzee instead.

big squig
06-10-2009, 04:55
I'd like a healthy mix of both. I'm looking for tactics sure, but I don't want a super accurate war sim. I want a fun, easy, playable game where the winner is decided by the better player.

Bunnahabhain
06-10-2009, 05:04
False choice.

You can have a tactical game, and then play it in either a casual or competitive manner. If you've got good opponents, you can even have a casual and relaxed competiion.

40k is far from ideal for this, as it's not really tactical enough- rigid IGO UGO turn sequence, board size to movement rate ratio, and the really shoddy LOS and cover rules. It's also far too loosely written, so you need to stop and look stuff up too often, due to complex rules interactions.

I'm playing other games, with simpler, but more tactically deep rules, ( sound basic mechanisms, with intuitive modifiers) and against a player of similar skill, it's very hard to get anything other a draw.
Thats with a similar number of models to 40K (30- 200, common, depending on points and force in use), generally about 10-12 turns, and it takes less time to play even with things like overwatch and drifting smoke to take care of.

I've had good tactical, close, competitive games of 40k, but they're relatively rare, and only against two armies are they ever close- Other Guard, and Orks. For some reason, for me, facing every other army tends to dissolve into very one sided battles one way or the other; I don't know if it's me or the core rules...

Thylacine
06-10-2009, 06:01
If your not playing by the rules your not playing 40k!

Casual games are great, but you have to stick to the rules, playing some clown who makes the rules up as he goes is not fun.

BTW it is an odd question.

Reflex
06-10-2009, 06:36
i like my casual games, i like my fun games, i like my tactical games, i like my tactically fun and casual games. nuff said yet?

AndrewGPaul
06-10-2009, 08:22
If your not playing by the rules your not playing 40k!

Casual games are great, but you have to stick to the rules, playing some clown who makes the rules up as he goes is not fun.

BTW it is an odd question.

You've got an odd definition of "casual", there. :rolleyes:

I choose armies based on models I like the look of, and try to set up the board with a theme in mind, rather than randomly plonking down scenery to give me the best advatange. I prefer to see painted armies and I don't like playing "blue-on-blue" games.

I don't have the time or the inclination to go poring through the rulebook for an obscure rule or clarification. If you can't find it in 3 minutes, wing it and get on with the game. I also hate any sentence that begins "someone on Warseer said ..." :)

So, I prefer casual tactical games. As tactical as 40K gets, anyway.

Templar Ben
06-10-2009, 08:47
So, I prefer casual tactical games. As tactical as 40K gets, anyway.

That is a big part of it.

When people talk about tactics within 40K it is different than saying tactics in other games. That may be where the OP got the idea that there was a divide along those lines.

One can easily play a casual game of Epic and Epic has tactical challenges.

Lothlanathorian
06-10-2009, 08:59
If you are playing a casual, non-tactical game of 40K, then you must be playing my old Berzerker army. The one where they ran randomly across the board and all I did was move them. I was a spectator to my own army.

Otherwise, I prefer casual to competitive and tactical to, well, is there some option where you aren't trying to win because the goal is to lose?

Tarax
06-10-2009, 09:28
I voted Tactical. I like the (intellectual) challenge.

I think the OP is misunderstood by some, when reading the responses. I think he was making a distinction between gamers who play just for fun, while still abiding by the rules; and gamers who try to outwit their opponents by making better lists and playing to win (not necessarily at all cost).

See it as playing football with your friends vs playing in a competition. Both can be fun, but you're still playing differently.

LonelyPath
06-10-2009, 10:18
I voted for tactical, though it really depends on what army I'm currently fielding since some armies require alot less forward planning than others.

Petay1985
06-10-2009, 10:26
I'd like a healthy mix of both. I'm looking for tactics sure, but I don't want a super accurate war sim. I want a fun, easy, playable game where the winner is decided by the better player.

i'd like to second this sentiment!! :)

Lord Damocles
06-10-2009, 10:31
Funny.

I want a game which isn't just 'I HAZ DICE, N00BZ!' *rolls a bajillion dice*,
but I also don't feel the need to have a bajillion modifiers for every roll...

Xelloss
06-10-2009, 10:35
Tactical. If I want to play a game without having to think, I would take some videogame.

To the others : the question wasn't if you want to have fun or not, it's what are a fun game to you. Chess and Twister are fun, but not the same way...

El_Phen
06-10-2009, 10:41
...Casual vs. competitive maybe, or friendly vs. tournament, but even then I don't think it can be divided up that easily...

I think this is, probably the way I 'd put it ( I prefer 'casual' gaming in this sense) but, going off your original statement of 'simple rules' v 'complicated rules' - at least this is what I think you meant anyway, I prefer the more complicated stuff myself. The quick and easy rules we have now are all well an good but...maybe I'm just wearing rose-tinted occular enhancement devices but I used to enjoy looking up three hundred charts and doing the occasional bit of maths. I'm weird though.:cool:

lanrak
06-10-2009, 11:15
Hi all.
Most gamers want maximum gameplay with the minimum amount of rules to read through.:D

(40k appears to have got this the wrong way round!:eek:)

What ever the depth of game play you are after,'simple simulations' that follow expectations tend to be far less rules heavy, compared to rules that are focused on making explanation of rules easier for the developer.( 40k :evilgrin:.)

Blood bowl is a very tactical game, but it is so much fun to play because it is a very well developed simple simulation.(It has a great rule set using the most apropriate game mechanics for the intended game play.)

I dont know anyone who doesnt enjoy playing BB, even though it is very tactical game.And is can be played in a VERY casual manner, (when drunk and laughing hystericaly!)

TTFN
Lanrak.

Cynisperer
06-10-2009, 14:24
Um... both?

^ look up.

Giganthrax
06-10-2009, 14:26
Tactical is always more fun. :)

Ianos
06-10-2009, 15:21
The A game is for me too. That includes respecting the other guy and being a good sport.

So yeah, voted tactical...

jp22102000
07-10-2009, 00:57
When people talk about tactics within 40K it is different than saying tactics in other games. That may be where the OP got the idea that there was a divide along those lines.

One can easily play a casual game of Epic and Epic has tactical challenges.


This is pretty much what I was getting at.

Dexter099
07-10-2009, 05:33
Why can't a casual game be tactical?

Gorbad Ironclaw
07-10-2009, 06:16
For 40k I want a casual game. I'm fine with not having to think too hard about it. Not that you can't put more thought into it and probably do better of course, just that's not generally what I want from 40k these days.

For more tactically challenging games I just play something else.

Sekhmet
07-10-2009, 08:52
False Dichotomy mate: casual vs tactical isn't the split at all. Casual vs. competitive maybe, or friendly vs. tournament, but even then I don't think it can be divided up that easily. I'm with the Sarge: both. Neither. Something like this can't really be qualified.

casual vs competitive is best, friendly vs tournament implies that tournament play is unfriendly, when in reality they have nothing to do with eachother.

Dust King
07-10-2009, 08:57
Yeah... probably not the best choices. I like a tactical game, I enjoy making strategies and feints, but I'm honestly not that fussed whether or not I win in the end as long as it was a exciting game.

So I play for the tactics, but not really to win ;)