I've heard many people talk about "competitive 40k." Such thoughts are generally misguided. "Competitive 40k" does not, in fact, exist. 40k is simply not a competitive game.

Simply look at the designers and their attitudes towards 40k as a whole. GW considers their core rulebooks to merely present a set of "guidelines" to the players. 40k itself is often referred to as a hobby rather than a game. The design team considers their own FAQs merely "house rules" and advocates people changing the rules to whatever they prefer, and still advocates the "Hand of Fate" as a method of resolving rules issues. Even when legitimately serious rules issues arise (Deffrollas vs. vehicles, for example), GW is inconsistent and slow to respond. Expansion sets consistently emphasize a more casual and laid-back attitude towards 40k, with less focus on what is balanced for serious play and more focus on what is "cool." All these factors combine to paint a clear picture-- GW did not in the past and does not now design 40k as a competitive game.

strange, i've been to tournaments, people seemed to be playing it competatively whether designed that way or not!

Well, we can look at this from a few different aspects.
One is that there are many competitive games, but they all advertise themselves as a game, like 40k does. Magic, one I play somewhat competitively, presents itself first and foremost as a game in which you could become competitive in should you so desire. 40K does as well.
As for the rules, they present them as being guidelines not to eliminate any competition in the game, but for the casual market. Don't understand something and don't care enough to look it up? Make something up. It allows you to also customize the game to fit the mood for you and your friends. And then if you go to a tourney, I'm sure (haven't played in one, first tourney is 10-25 for me, local one) that they will say they are using the standard 40k rules.
And selling it as a hobby also allows for different aspects. It allows the company to open up a new source of income in hobby supplies. Secondly, it makes the game have a sense of customization.
So all in all, I guess I'm saying that first and foremost, no game is truly competitive, in which aspect you're right. However, many games do have an aspect to them that allows for fun competition.
Also, if you have read this far, I apologize for it seeming incoherent. I'm painting so my army will look sweet by the local Halloween tourney.

Reaver83 wrote:strange, i've been to tournaments, people seemed to be playing it competatively whether designed that way or not!

There are certainly games that are played competitively without being designed for that purpose. However, 40k is not one of them. 40k tournaments, while more competitive than casual play, suffer from many problems.

First, there is no generally agreed upon set of conditions for tournament games. Terrain concerns often crop up at tournaments, especially large ones in which the infamous "lava boards" may make an appearance. However, terrain is relatively minor in comparison to other problems. Points values are not consistent between tournaments, and what constitutes a "viable" force varies greatly in games of different points values. The best example of this is probably 'Ard Boyz-- while the 'Ard Boyz series purportedly offers a more competitive gaming experience, it is played at a points value that is so much higher than standard games that the armies used in do not really reflect what would normally be fielded. To make matters worse, 40k tournaments often feature painting, sportsmanship, and the infamous "comp." These "soft scores" diminish from the competitive nature of the tournament by allowing players who were not in fact the best commanders to win events on the basis of abilities wholly unrelated to the game itself. Tournaments also use radically divergent scenarios, and in some cases scenarios so extreme that they can impose changes on army composition. Again, 'Ard Boyz is a good example-- one scenario involved permanent Night Fighting, greatly reducing the effectiveness of most shooting units, while another made HQ units worth so much more than standard units that taking them was radically disincentivized. Lastly, certain tournaments actually play by different rules. BoLSCon, for example, outright banned Inquisitorial allies because the organizers considered them unbalanced, whereas Adepticon uses its own FAQ document that includes explicit amendments to the rules as written.

These radical differences between tournaments contribute to the instability and unhelpful nature of the 40k metagame as a whole and help prevent 40k from becoming a competitive game. Without a "standard" 40k, it becomes extremely difficult to compare armies, tactics, and so on, especially at the precise levels required for truly competitive analysis.

Put some money on a game.. See how "competitive" it gets..

I definitely agree Fetterkey. One thing about Magic (completely different game, I know, but am using for comparison) is that there are formats, and because of that, there is a good healthy development of meta for the different formats.
One thing that could improve the competitive aspect of 40K would be formats. For example, a 1500 point format. People could optimize lists and develop. Of course, this would make it stagnant since GW doesn't (from what I hear) often add new units in a Codex.
All in all, in order to become more competitive, formats would be nice, but I don't see how that would be, and would require a year or two testing it out.
All I know is, it's still a fun game

MTG is a game where the rules are written as Law. Absolutely no exeptions. You cannot however change some simple principles in the game to personalize it. Such as if you threw out the legend rule for a game, you would find that the core rules of the game would change so drastically you would not be able to discern an amicable outcome in any way because there are no exact rules to cover it..

40k on the other hand you could for instance throw away the FOC and still have a ruleset in place to cover most issues.. You couldn't write 40k rules as law, even for simple things like, LOS or how to treat converted models..

It's a game that is made to be flexible so that each and every one of us has their own experience with it..
I bet the British and Americans play warhammer the same way we speak english..Very differently..

P.s. Poker is competitive..now you tell me the rules...

I think what Fetterkey is trying to say is that 40k is not a gaming system designed and balanced for competitive tournament play. Which I agree with.

It's not chess, it's not even checkers. It's army-men with a loose set of rules. Not exactly a revelation, though

If its not a competitive game then how come people wont play my 2x DP, 3x PM, 9x Obliterator army?

Correction:

"GW dont want 40k to be a competitive game"

Buts its obvious, that it is a competitive game.

This is your second troll thread, dont go to the dark side Fetterkey!

Big'Uns wrote:MTG is a game where the rules are written as Law. Absolutely no exeptions. You cannot however change some simple principles in the game to personalize it. Such as if you threw out the legend rule for a game, you would find that the core rules of the game would change so drastically you would not be able to discern an amicable outcome in any way because there are no exact rules to cover it..

Actually, while rules are law in tournaments, there are casual formats where rules change. But all in all I agree, they are two different animals in regards to rules design.

I think Games Workshop still thinks Warhammer is a DnD game. DnD is not any more competitive than anything else in life (face it, nothing we do is not competitive), is a hobby game that provides a set of guidelines, with an arbitrator who determines the house rules to be applied. This is not what Warhammer provides. DnD has far less rules, and offers limits on what you are able to do (you can do anything, so long as it does not extend these bounds); Warhammer specifies what you can do, and that is that. DnD has an `independent' figure who makes calls on rules/etc; Warhammer has two distinct, opposing sides who will definitely not agree on a contentious rule point. I could probably go on.

Despite what Games Workshop may like to think, they were the ones who made the game competitive, and they are the ones who designed the game in such a way that players need the rules to be tight. That they do not realise this makes them look really, really bad.

lol Goto a tournament and tell me its not a competitive game. This thread is a but ludicrous. Every game I play, I try to be as competitive to the opposing player as possible. When its a new game player or someone not so skilled, I dumb my build down, and make it harder for ME to win, so my opponent has a better game. BUT when my opponent is someone that knows how to play, I will make my build as hard as nails to increase my chance of winning.
I think thats rather competitive if you ask me.

Lord-Loss wrote:If its not a competitive game then how come people wont play my 2x DP, 3x PM, 9x Obliterator army?

Perhaps because they don't have fun against that army?

Lord-Loss wrote:Correction:

"GW dont want 40k to be a competitive game"

Buts its obvious, that it is a competitive game.

Compare 40k to any actual competitive game and you'll see that it is highly lacking in several key competitive aspects, and clearly not designed around true competitive play. We are, after all, talking about a game whose creators treat tournament players as a generally undesirable and extreme minority. Obviously, people can play it from a more or less competitive perspective-- however, 40k will never be as competitive as Street Fighter II or even Magic.

This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is something that people should know.

Compare 40k to any actual competitive game and you'll see that it is highly lacking in several key competitive aspects, and clearly not designed around true competitive play.

I find your argument intriguing; but lack a framework for comparison. Perhaps you could suggest an example of an "actual competitive game" that you find is appropriate.

You list Magic, which is a ccg; and such has a fundamentally different mechanic to "tabletop war gaming". I find it hard to accept that Card-game mechanics translate well to a game that involves movement of pieces in an unconstrained manner.

You also provide (I believe) an example of a video game, which, I am unclear how one can play competitively.

It will never be competitive or balanced until they release all the codex books together or within a very short time frame and consistently update the rules.

In my opinion, they also need to introduce better cover/suppressing elements into the game to make it more strategic. While this is a bit of an exaggeration, the game consists of "do i want to move forward and get into close combat, or do I want to stay back and shoot?" No real tactics to movement, and as a result shooting is heavily simplified as well (TLOS is garbage too).

Night Lords wrote:It will never be competitive or balanced until they release all the codex books together or within a very short time frame and consistently update the rules.

While I applaud your insight regarding balance; I don't think the OP is complaining about the lack of balance. I think he's decrying that the "rules" are more intended for a cooperative interpretation; and that they exist primarily to detail a "story", rather than to determine a "winner".

Night Lords wrote:
In my opinion, they also need to introduce better cover/suppressing elements into the game to make it more strategic. While this is a bit of an exaggeration, the game consists of "do i want to move forward and get into close combat, or do I want to stay back and shoot?" No real tactics to movement, and as a result shooting is heavily simplified as well (TLOS is garbage too).

Lack of strategy and tactics in actual Game play and emphasis on list-building are a core mechanic of GW table-top war games! if you want strategy go play Warmachine / Hordes.

Can you play those competitively? what about Infinity? At-45?

edit: I spell well.

If someone wins then its competitve.. just not balanced.

And then if balance really floated your boat you could field two identical, interesting armies and see who won ala chess.

The rules may be RAW shambles but someone still wins.

skipmcne wrote:I find your argument intriguing; but lack a framework for comparison. Perhaps you could suggest an example of an "actual competitive game" that you find is appropriate.

You list Magic, which is a ccg; and such has a fundamentally different mechanic to "tabletop war gaming". I find it hard to accept that Card-game mechanics translate well to a game that involves movement of pieces in an unconstrained manner.

You also provide (I believe) an example of a video game, which, I am unclear how one can play competitively.

I recommend reading some Sirlin posts to familiarize yourself with the concept. Several video games are played at a competitive level, including but not limited to Starcraft, Street Fighter 2, Counter-Strike, and even Halo.

they made a game...people will get competitive about anything, especially if they spend a lot of their time and money on it.

its not hard to understand

In stating that the game has a winner and a loser; are you not implying that the game is competitive? i.e. determined by a competition? and the objective is to win?

Is it possible for me to enjoy "losing", letting your little plastic men beat up my little plastic men in a recreation of a historic battle in space?

The OP suggests that trying to win is counter-productive in the current ruleset.

I disagree.

I'm enjoyed the OP's weekly thread challenging one 40k common belief or another. It's good to examine the way we think.

That said, I'm not sure the OP is really saying anything that's really challenging anything. Most people pretty much accept that as a competitive game, 40k suffers compared to most. That doesn't mean it's not competitive, it just means that the game isn't optimized for competition.

Many activies have competitions, it's a natural part of human nature. Chili cooking isn't necessarily a competitive exercise, but if you've ever been to a chili cook-off it's taken pretty seriously by the competitors.

There's a certain amount of hand waving in the original post as well. I'm not going to deny that 40k is very different from say, Magic, but to simply say that because they're different 40k isnt' competitive seems like a cheat. What defines a truly competitive game? How does 40k fail to meet that standard? To what extent is that GW's design or the fanbase's inability to demand/produce a viable tournament system?

So yes, GW may not be designed as a competitive game, but I think the OP is focusing on a fairly strict definition of competitive that isn't necessarily universal.

Polonius wrote:Many activies have competitions, it's a natural part of human nature. Chili cooking isn't necessarily a competitive exercise, but if you've ever been to a chili cook-off it's taken pretty seriously by the competitors.

QFT

Polonius wrote:
...
That doesn't mean it's not competitive, it just means that the game isn't optimized for competition.
...

There's a certain amount of hand waving in the original post as well. I'm not going to deny that 40k is very different from say, Magic, but to simply say that because they're different 40k isnt' competitive seems like a cheat. What defines a truly competitive game? How does 40k fail to meet that standard? To what extent is that GW's design or the fanbase's inability to demand/produce a viable tournament system?

The OP seems to be implying that because the rules have many loopholes for argument the game cannot be played in a competitive fashion.
The depth and breadth of the INAT FAQ would tend to lead one to concur. In order to play 40K in a competitive fashion, you need a nearly comprehensive re-write to correct errata.

The codex "balance" crys are what really intrigues me; but then I'd really like to try and determine a formulaic points allocation algorithm for 40K.

I understand where he's coming from completely. Ive done plenty of highly competitive things at a high level throughout my life (sports, business school and so on). However, none of those things compare to W40K quite as well as Chess.

What he is talking about (I believe, correct me if Im wrong) is the level of skill and one's locus of control. Essentially the skill gap. The difference between a good W40k player and an average W40k player is minimal, whereas a good chess player and an average chess player is large.

EDIT: Competitive in this context does not mean "can you compete". Yes, you can compete, but he means at a high skill level geared more towards hardcore or devoted players and not the casual players (which is why he keeps saying W40k is better left for fun, rather than as a competitive skill game).

Let's face is, Warhammer isnt a difficult game to play. If you think it is, you need to re-evaluate the game or try other things (though judging by some ludicrous posts in the tactics board, it may be for some haha ). The game is static (the set pieces are on the table/list), slow (plenty of time to decide what you need to do) and most importantly, limited, which is what sets it apart from chess.

Moving a unit in chess is difficult. You have to look 3+ turns ahead and consider all variables. When chess players are sitting there thinking, theyre not thinking about the current move, theyre thinking where that move will put them in 5 turns from now.

Moving a unit in Warhammer 40k is simple. Do I want to go closer or do I want to move backwards, or do I just want to stay here? There is some thinking ahead, but it's all very basic. I have 3 turns left in the game, my guys move 9.5" a turn on average, can I make it there in time? It's not that hard to scope out. If I move my guys 6" left, can they simply see any part of their target?

In chess, there are ways to win in only a few moves, but there are certain things your opponent can do to avoid it. A new player, or even most normal players to chess may get caught by this tactic and lose a game. An experienced player can easily identify this tactic and will not only counter it, but punish the player for even trying it.

Now back in W40k, if someone throws Lash, Oblits and Plagues at you, no matter what you do, youre still going to have a problem with it. Yes, you may know how to counter it a bit better, and your list may be more or less prepared for it, but no matter what, it's going to be a problem. Its so simple to play that a machine could do it. Anyone who brings that list and is half decent will have a good chance of winning.

Basically, the rules and understanding of advanced tactics do not come into play in W40k. There is absolutely no benefit to going around and flanking space marines behind cover because no matter where you shoot your bolters from, they get a 3+ save (and infact, youll now probably be open to enemy fire from his side as well). You cannot surpress an enemy and hold them there to allow other units to move forward (pinning is near extinct and useless in 40k). You cannot "overwatch" a heavy traffic zone forcing your opponent to move up a side. Nothing. It's, very simply put, point and click.

My strategy for Chaos Marines is going to be one of two things - Stay back (orks, nids, etc) or Charge (Space Marines, Guard, etc.). My strategy isnt going to deviate far off from the set plan, because the game really doesnt allow for it with its simplicity. My power weapon guys are going to go after their heavily armoured guys. My autocannons are going to shoot light transports. My tanks are going to stay back and provide LR fire. Its all very simple, and most of the game is decided before it even begins (lists and deployment).

The point is, a good or more experienced player will not always win or even have a higher chance of winning at 40k. Not because of the dice and luck factor, but because sometimes theres just nothing you can do (hence locus of control). The tactics are simple, and provided your opponent isnt brand new or half braindead, they should be able to atleast put up a good fight, something that wouldnt happen in chess or any other game that has a large skill gap.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fetterkey wrote:

I recommend reading some Sirlin posts to familiarize yourself with the concept. Several video games are played at a competitive level, including but not limited to Starcraft, Street Fighter 2, Counter-Strike, and even Halo.

See this is a very good example. Starcraft, SFII and CS are all competitive games. Halo is a game played competitively.

Whereas the first 3 games all require tremendous amounts of skill, Halo is by far the easiest first person shooting game ever created right after Call of Duty (and this is from someone who has been playing since Wolfenstein 3D). Its slow, assists in your aiming, and has horribly unbalanced weapons - making it about getting the weapons rather than the ability to aim.

However, its popular, much like Warhammer in the tabletop world, so people try to play it competitively (and companies use this to make some $). This doesnt mean the game is competitive in this context.

GW intends for the game to be competitive and it's only natural that is how people embrace the game. GW runs GTs, RTTs and the Ard Boyz here in the US. We all know that the people who go to these events are there to win. Sure there are some problems with the rules but seeing how they keep changing to sell more product that's the just the way it is. This is another Lash is Trash style thread in which the OP says something controversial to draw attention.

Reaver83 wrote:strange, i've been to tournaments, people seemed to be playing it competatively whether designed that way or not!

Yeah, and Civics get hopped up with "race" mods. Doesn't mean that it's designed that way.

KingCracker wrote:lol Goto a tournament and tell me its not a competitive game.

I can go watch the Special Olympics, and it's "competing", too...

Just because you can compete on something doesn't mean it was designed that way, nor that it should be that way.

I agree with the OP that GW just doesn't design their games as competitive.

Sirlin's stuff is crap. Most of what he espouses as 'upper level play' is pretty much exactly the opposite of what the creators of 40K had in mind for people to play their game...and I think he's a jerk. Besides, SF2 had such busted programming and built-in imbalances that it makes 40K look like gold in comparison.

Another good example there Jon.

I just want to be clear about my post above that I love W40K, even more than Fantasy which does take more skill to play. I enjoy the modelling aspect and storylines, but I feel that, while the game is fun, it can be improved on and require some more brainpower to play. The more thinking involved for me, the better it is.

I also think that while the OP has good intentions and brings interesting ideas to the table (both of which Ive agreed with, we'll see next week what happens haha), he needs to flesh out his thoughts a little more.

Night Lords wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fetterkey wrote:

I recommend reading some Sirlin posts to familiarize yourself with the concept. Several video games are played at a competitive level, including but not limited to Starcraft, Street Fighter 2, Counter-Strike, and even Halo.

See this is a very good example. Starcraft, SFII and CS are all competitive games. Halo is a game played competitively.

Whereas the first 3 games all require tremendous amounts of skill, Halo is by far the easiest first person shooting game ever created right after Call of Duty (and this is from someone who has been playing since Wolfenstein 3D). Its slow, assists in your aiming, and has horribly unbalanced weapons - making it about getting the weapons rather than the ability to aim.

However, its popular, much like Warhammer in the tabletop world, so people try to play it competitively (and companies use this to make some $). This doesnt mean the game is competitive in this context.

Yes. Competitive Halo is heavily modified from its standard form; I included it as an example because a unified competitive-minded community under MLG has managed to make at least a somewhat competitive game out of Halo. If the 40k community unified behind a coherent system of points costs, rules, scenario parameters, and so on, it would be possible to make at least a somewhat competitive tournament system out of the 40k game. MLG Halo, despite the flaws with the basic system, is still played competitively, though its depth is questionable.

RxGhost wrote:Sirlin's stuff is crap.

Evidence?

RxGhost wrote:Most of what he espouses as 'upper level play' is pretty much exactly the opposite of what the creators of 40K had in mind for people to play their game.

Yes. That's what I'm saying in this thread. 40k isn't designed as a competitive game.

•Points cost
Why should the points per army be unified to make the game more competitive? Take poker as an example of a competitive game, these tournaments do not all have the same stakes. The vast majority of 40k tournaments are 1500-1850 points. Is rubgy any less competitive if they play sevens? The same goes with 3-on-3 basketball tournaments.

•Rules
The vast majority of rules are played the same everywhere with a few exceptions such as the deff rolla. Because there is a five cycle for each edition of 40k the rules are in a constant state of flux. It's not like chess or checkers and a comparison is the same as apples and oranges.

•Scenario parameters
So are you saying that every game should use the same? That would become incredibly boring very quickly. The objectives versus killpoints was instituted to help create balance.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:•Points cost
Why should the points per army be unified to make the game more competitive? Take poker as an example of a competitive game, these tournaments do not all have the same stakes. The vast majority of 40k tournaments are 1500-1850 points. Is rubgy any less competitive if they play sevens? The same goes with 3-on-3 basketball tournaments.

Unified points costs would make the metagame much more stable and allow people to analyze lists, tactics, and so on in a more objective fashion. 1500 point lists are radically different from 2000 point lists are radically different from 2500 point lists.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:•Rules
The vast majority of rules are played the same everywhere with a few exceptions such as the deff rolla. Because there is a five cycle for each edition of 40k the rules are in a constant state of flux. It's not like chess or checkers and a comparison is the same as apples and oranges.

I know the rules are constantly in flux. That's not a good thing for competitive play. At the very least, all events should have a unified ruleset. Things like the BoLSCon bans are bad for competitive play. The INAT FAQ (with improvements) would be a good thing for competitive play if it were adopted by all competitive events, as this would prevent the FAQ muddle.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:•Scenario parameters
So are you saying that every game should use the same? That would become incredibly boring very quickly. The objectives versus killpoints was instituted to help create balance.

Using the same parameters != using the same scenarios. There should be general agreement, for example, on whether or not to use secondary objectives, as these greatly influence the game. Similarly, scenarios that explicitly favor certain armies should be avoided, such as "HQ = 5 KP" scenarios, scenarios with permanent night fighting, and so on. Such scenarios allow players to go into the game with serious disadvantages and should be discouraged. Objectives and kill points are a good basis for scenarios. The objective is not to say "all tournaments use these scenarios and these scenarios only," but rather to avoid cases in which the scenarios used by a particular tournament make that tournament less competitive or make its results less representative.

These are issues with tournament organizers, not the rules themselves. You can't fit a square into a round hole. The rules themselves will never remain static due to sales, I think you realize that. Each new codex that is released changes the metagame. It happens in MtG everytime a new pack is released. I think you are too idealistic.

Sorry man... but I strongly disagree. I've been playing 40k for 22 years and feel it is very competitive. If it wasn't why would people continue to play the game? One thing, perhaps, is a cultural difference? I've been to Baltimore for a Manager Assessment with GW and the model they use for their company is totally unlike any I've seen here in the US. Is the game constantly in flux? Yes, and that is the nature of the beast. In a retail environment you need that constant change to keep the product viable. Just like MtG. Now, the "core" rules of 40k really haven't changed since 1987. There have been some clarifications over the years, but things still work the same. So from that standpoint the game has a solid base. Some of the changes come from some glaring mistakes, IMO, and fine tuning to make the game run smoother, and faster. The real changes, and therefore I am guessing the problem at hand from the OP, is in the codices. The game altering changes have come at that level. I agree with Afrikan Blonde that most of the real issues come from the tournaments themselves. I've played in tournaments from the casual in-store, to the GT here in Seattle a couple years back. At their core they were identical. Where the changes came happened in the individual scenarios, and therefore not indicative of the rules themselves. And not trying to burst your bubble, but stating that 40k is uncompetitive and not coming up with a comparable example which is competitive is kinda weak. Examples of MtG, and various videogames is not a proper comparison, in my humble opinion. Come up with a game that is fundamentally similar to 40k and make your argument... unfortunately you haven't made that comparison yet.. I understand what you are trying to say, but ya fall short.

Peace,

RennyD

40K is just as competitive as rock paper scissors.

Or maybe a better analogy would be: Imagine if you played rock paper scissors by rolling on a table to determine what you got, rock, paper or scissors; but instead of everyone using the same chart, there were a dozen different charts from which to select.

The only difference is that instead of choosing a chart, people buy a codex, spend a lot of time and money buying and painting armies, and then rolling on the chart to determine the result. And then a new chart gets published every four to six months.

solkan wrote:40K is just as competitive as rock paper scissors.

I thought that was WFB, revolving around Daemons, VC, & DElfs?

Okay, I haven't done quotes before, so hope this works... and please don't think I am picking on ya Fetterkey.....

Fetterkey wrote:Unified points costs would make the metagame much more stable and allow people to analyze lists, tactics, and so on in a more objective fashion. 1500 point lists are radically different from 2000 point lists are radically different from 2500 point lists.

Please explain "unified points cost." If you mean that the point cost for HQ, Elites, Troops, etc.. should be the same across all the races, I STRONGLY disagree with you. The point difference between say an IG trooper, a Troops choice (if I remember correctly) and a run-of-the-mill space marine, also a Troops choice, should in NO way cost the same. The difference in the points amongst the races, heck.. even the difference in cost between an HQ choice and a Troop choice is done to reflect the vast differences, both in training and equipment, just to name a couple parameters, that there is in the game. The reason you can probably buy 3 of those IG troopers for the cost of 1 space marine is indicative of the training, equipment, and genetic enhancement/manipulation between the 2. Not saying it isn't possible, but to attempt to create such a "unified points cost" system would, IMO be a mathematical nightmare, and would be far more cumbersome than the current system. Not saying the current system couldn't need some help, but hey.. who or what is perfect?

As for your example of the differences between a 1500, 2000, and 2500 point list as being radically different... well of course they are, and why wouldn't they? Having 2000 points to use instead of 1500 means, as an example, means I can add more specialized forces, such as (using SM as the example) a Predator or Terminator squad for extra firepower, or both even. Bumping it up to 2500 could mean adding a Librarian or Chaplin amongst other things... so I don't understand your point. You make it appear that the changes between the three points examples you made as a bad thing, where it actually makes for a more balanced fighting force, again IMO. With more points you have the opportunity to select forces which may, OR may not, fill gaps, or weaknesses in your forces otherwise.

Fetterkey wrote:I know the rules are constantly in flux. That's not a good thing for competitive play. At the very least, all events should have a unified ruleset.

Like in my previous post, the rules as a whole aren't constantly in flux. The core rules have, for the most part, remained the same. The changes, again, come at the codex level. Again.. explain a "unified ruleset." It seems you are trying to say the rules are different for every army, which isn't true at all. Every army in 40k follows the same core rules. They all follow the same phases, they follow the same movement rules, the same shooting rules, the same assault rules, the same rules overall. Each army also has a set of rules which apply only to itself, and perhaps that is where you have your issues. These rules set each army apart from the other, individualizing them, not clumping them together. To some these added rules unbalance the game, and perhaps they do to some degree. But... but... some of the added rules are a hindrance to an army too, so perhaps in some way they are balanced to some degree. Just some food for thought...

RennyD

RennyD wrote:Okay, I haven't done quotes before, so hope this works... and please don't think I am picking on ya Fetterkey.....

Fetterkey wrote:Unified points costs would make the metagame much more stable and allow people to analyze lists, tactics, and so on in a more objective fashion. 1500 point lists are radically different from 2000 point lists are radically different from 2500 point lists.

Please explain "unified points cost." If you mean that the point cost for HQ, Elites, Troops, etc.. should be the same across all the races, I STRONGLY disagree with you. The point difference between say an IG trooper, a Troops choice (if I remember correctly) and a run-of-the-mill space marine, also a Troops choice, should in NO way cost the same. The difference in the points amongst the races, heck.. even the difference in cost between an HQ choice and a Troop choice is done to reflect the vast differences, both in training and equipment, just to name a couple parameters, that there is in the game. The reason you can probably buy 3 of those IG troopers for the cost of 1 space marine is indicative of the training, equipment, and genetic enhancement/manipulation between the 2. Not saying it isn't possible, but to attempt to create such a "unified points cost" system would, IMO be a mathematical nightmare, and would be far more cumbersome than the current system. Not saying the current system couldn't need some help, but hey.. who or what is perfect?

I mean that all or almost all tournaments should decide on a certain points limit and stick to it.

RennyD wrote:As for your example of the differences between a 1500, 2000, and 2500 point list as being radically different... well of course they are, and why wouldn't they? Having 2000 points to use instead of 1500 means, as an example, means I can add more specialized forces, such as (using SM as the example) a Predator or Terminator squad for extra firepower, or both even. Bumping it up to 2500 could mean adding a Librarian or Chaplin amongst other things... so I don't understand your point. You make it appear that the changes between the three points examples you made as a bad thing, where it actually makes for a more balanced fighting force, again IMO. With more points you have the opportunity to select forces which may, OR may not, fill gaps, or weaknesses in your forces otherwise.

I personally find 2,000 point armies to be the most interesting, but that's a matter of taste. In any case, you missed my point, which was that tournaments should have the same points limits, as this would foster the development of a more stable metagame.

RennyD wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:I know the rules are constantly in flux. That's not a good thing for competitive play. At the very least, all events should have a unified ruleset.

Like in my previous post, the rules as a whole aren't constantly in flux. The core rules have, for the most part, remained the same. The changes, again, come at the codex level. Again.. explain a "unified ruleset." It seems you are trying to say the rules are different for every army, which isn't true at all. Every army in 40k follows the same core rules. They all follow the same phases, they follow the same movement rules, the same shooting rules, the same assault rules, the same rules overall. Each army also has a set of rules which apply only to itself, and perhaps that is where you have your issues. These rules set each army apart from the other, individualizing them, not clumping them together. To some these added rules unbalance the game, and perhaps they do to some degree. But... but... some of the added rules are a hindrance to an army too, so perhaps in some way they are balanced to some degree. Just some food for thought...

RennyD

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that the rules of the game as a whole change all the time as new permutations enter the system in the form of Codices. Further, GW does a very poor job with their FAQs, releasing them inconsistently and often ignoring key issues. When I say that all events should have a unified ruleset, I mean that all events should use the same FAQs, preferably with no "house rules."

RennyD wrote:Come up with a game that is fundamentally similar to 40k and make your argument... unfortunately you haven't made that comparison yet.. I understand what you are trying to say, but ya fall short.

A game that is fundamentally similar to 40k cannot be truly competitive. The GW business model actively discourages competitive play.

Like I said you are idealistic in my opinion. I don't think any of those are big issues and stablizing the metagame... please.

I think the OP has a very specific definition of competitve, that I'm not sure he's shared, and is simply making sure we understand that by that definition, 40k isn't competitive.

I enjoy a good shake up thread as much as the next guy, but i'm not sure what the point of this is. The thesis seems to be either "40k wasn't designed to be competitive" which is well acknowledged by all; or "40k doesn't meet some specific standard of competitive play that isn't articulated" which is about as useful as a thread whose premise is "Space Marines are good, but can't win every game."

Running with the ball a little, I think that the OP is focusing too strictly on the rules. I'd restated the thesis as "Competitive 40k play is permanently in an immature state, such that true dominance by any given build, player, or play style is unlikely to occur before a new codex revision." This isn't due to shifting rules, after all Magic has a new core set every few years and three expansions a year, with a competitive shelf life of only two years in Type II. A four year core rule set and 2-3 codexes a year are roughly comparable.

Where 40k and Magic diverge aren't so much in rules (although Magic's rules are undeniably tighter) but in logistics: cost, time to prepare, time to play. How much is a top notch tournament 40k army? $500 or more? You can build a top notch tournament Magic deck for less, at least in type II. Building a 40k army involved hours of prep, even before painting is done. Building a magic deck involves stacking pieces of paper. Finally, the most important factor: time per game. A 40k player testing his newly tweaked tournament list can get in, what, maybe 2 good practice games against a skilled opponent in 3.5-4 hours. The magic guys are playing 12 games or more in the same time. Simple math means that weaknesses get found earlier, and powerful combos are found.

If 40k had a low barrier of entry, such that any tournament gamer could get the hot new army for a few hundred bucks, and we could play a game in 20 minutes, I think we'd see the level of competitive 40k rise in a hurry. Of course, the rules would also be tighter due to more iterations during playtesting. However, the game would be far less interesting, IMO.

I compare 40k to World of Warcraft: Arena. Both are games with rules and balance constantly in flux and simply not up to par to games like chess. If you think GW has it bad from their online "fans" you should check out Blizzard's WoW forums ---- nothing but nonstop QQ about how incompetent the game developers are and how the game sucks despite it being the best and most successful MMORPG ever made.

However that doesn't mean 40k or WoW isn't competitive; you don't need a perfect or near-perfect rules set in order to make a competitive event out of a game. Some classes, specs, and combinations thereof simply won't work in a competitive WoW environment similar to how some 40k army lists/rules/units just aren't competitive.

I agree, to an extent, with Polonius. 40k has completely absurd barriers to entry that make it very, very difficult to change armies or even to switch up your build within the same army. This is inherently uncompetitive, hurts the metagame, etc.

However, these barriers are also part of what makes 40k fun and unique. I don't think that 40k being uncompetitive, aside from all the sillyness with the tournament system, is actually a bad thing.

Polonius wrote:Where 40k and Magic diverge aren't so much in rules (although Magic's rules are undeniably tighter) but in logistics: cost, time to prepare, time to play.

If 40k had a low barrier of entry, such that any tournament gamer could get the hot new army for a few hundred bucks, and we could play a game in 20 minutes, I think we'd see the level of competitive 40k rise in a hurry. Of course, the rules would also be tighter due to more iterations during playtesting. However, the game would be far less interesting, IMO.

By analogy, properly-competitive 40k could be based around playing matches of 2 or 3 small, 500-pt games against each opponent. This brings the barrier to entry down to a comparable point of Magic.

But by doing so would throw a lot of tactical choices out of the window. This would also further unbalance a lot of armies against each other.

The problem with that model is that 500 point armies are usually not "cool," not fun to build, and don't allow very many choices in list construction. Further, it's much easier to make unbalanced lists. 40k is more balanced at higher points values, but this sets up a high barrier to entry that discourages truly competitive play.

@RXghost:

Just as Magic follows a specific competitive deck structure, competitive 40k would have a specific competitive army structure.

As far as sheer volume of tactical choices goes, there's always 5-color Magic, with its 250-card decks.

Balance-wise, I don't think it hurts things much at all - competitive 40k would simply have a different metagame with even more focus on Troops than current. Different isn't bad, just different.
____

@Fetterkey:

You miss that 500-pt armies allow for a lot more variety. You can bring 3 or 4 500-pt armies for play where you currently bring a single 1850-pt army.

The idea that 40k is more balanced at higher points doesn't make sense to me. All it means is adding more non-Troops to the army, and more cheese.

"Cheese" is a fake idea.

In b4 HMBC accuses The Hwangmeister of 'less options = more variety'.

@Hwanginator: Sure, you would change the focus to troops in favor of the rest of whatever (unless the force org gets moved around a little) the army has, but in such a limited format I think that the game would be bland, boring and uncompetitive. Besides, you'd still have SOMEONE saying: Troop spam is so cheap.

@Fetterkey: Cheese is a lot like art. Art is whatever the artist says it is, just as cheese is in the eye of the beholder (eye tyrant?); one man's cheese is another man's winning strategy...albeit a cheesey strategy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also meant to add that it's pretty much on the shoulders of the tournament organizers to decide what is competitive and what isn't because they are the ones that set the guidelines that govern the actual game, the mechanics are certainly sound enough to allow competitive play.

Look at what goes on in Smash Bros. Brawl tournaments, most stages are banned, some characters are banned and most, if not all, items are turned off. One might say that this 'distilling' makes the gameplay more pure, while I'd argue that it simply makes it bland and watery.

I know this is a little off tangent here, but:

Honestly, I think a mission structure where you capture objectives and accumulate resources would be fantastic for competitive play. Maybe start out with 500 points like Jon is saying and use the troops (since its 1 Hq and 2 troops still) to capture objectives spread around the board. Each objective would give you so many resources and you can use those resources to pay for other units. So lets say bunker A on your side is worth 300 points. With those points you could bring a full squad of marines and a dreadnought. Or maybe you want to shoot some transports down on your opponents side so you bring a predator in.

That way it will be back and forth countering your opponents moves, and have more thinking and skill involved. The game would also be far less static.

If you remove the Model component of the game; and start pushing around little pieces of paper; your barrier to entry is almost nil. LOS doesn't work anymore, and you are back to arguing about a 2D game. If Vassal was officially endorsed you could find games from folks on line, allowing one to refine and play test lists at will. These are superficial changes that don't impact the core of the argument. (that Polonius has re-cast).

It still will take 3 hours to resolve a game of 2000 points.

To change gameplay from a Hobby state to Fetterkey's "competitve 40K" would require streamlining the ruleset to reduce playtime. This might improve armys (more clearly defining army types, roles, etc.) but the game will wind up less like 40K.

the core mechanic that kills the competitive 40K is the bucket of dice approach to combat resolution.

Removing the requirement that 1 gun = 1 die; allows for bell-curve modeling (2d6) which is a mechanic that is more predictable (less chance for Abbadon to die to a grot-mob), and adjustable (with bonuses).

Night Lords wrote:I know this is a little off tangent here, but:

Honestly, I think a mission structure where you capture objectives and accumulate resources would be fantastic for competitive play. Maybe start out with 500 points like Jon is saying and use the troops (since its 1 Hq and 2 troops still) to capture objectives spread around the board. Each objective would give you so many resources and you can use those resources to pay for other units. So lets say bunker A on your side is worth 300 points. With those points you could bring a full squad of marines and a dreadnought. Or maybe you want to shoot some transports down on your opponents side so you bring a predator in.

That way it will be back and forth countering your opponents moves, and have more thinking and skill involved. The game would also be far less static.

Sounds a lil bit like a RTS game on PC, starcraft etc. I like the idea though, I might try something like that.

Pretty much. Imagine Dawn of War II in a table top format. I think it would be fantastic.

skipmcne wrote:the core mechanic that kills the competitive 40K is the bucket of dice approach to combat resolution.

Removing the requirement that 1 gun = 1 die; allows for bell-curve modeling (2d6) which is a mechanic that is more predictable (less chance for Abbadon to die to a grot-mob), and adjustable (with bonuses).

I think you're absolutely right on that one. I see this as a central problem not only to competitive 40K, but as a general problem for the game. I think it'd be a lot more enjoyable (although a little less simulationist) if Games Workshop tweaked the "truckload o' dice" mechanic a little.

I don't Night Lord, I already have that game on my computer. I'm looking for the tabletop game to serve a different purpose, I need it to feel different.

The Dawn of War games are great for those escalation-stlye games, but I also like the "here's my attacking/defending force, let's rumble" that 40K provides too.

It would simply add more skill, and would still not be the same experience at all to DoW on the pc. As of right now, there is far too much emphasis placed on the list. It doesnt matter how good a player is, a list with better min/maxing has a far better chance of winning. There are very little tactics while on the board, and the few they have are very simple.

Nah, I don't believe that at all.

"Competition is a contest between individuals, groups, nations, animals, etc. for territory, a niche, or allocation of resources. It arises whenever two or more parties strive for a goal which cannot be shared." - Wikipeda

I think it's quite Black & White that WH40K is a competitive game. Admittedly, both players should set out with the main goal being to have fun, however they cannot both win, the closest being a draw. Any game (from WH40K and Warmachine to Snakes & Ladders) is competitive because you have 2+ players competing to win the game. I can't see it in any other terms than that, despite what the OP is trying to prove.

And balance has nothing to do with competitivness. Just look a World of Warcraft: the various classes go through constant changes, improvs and nerfs but it doesn't stop people competing with each other in PVP. WH40K (like any game or competition with multiple choices and methods) will always be imbalanced, but it doesn't stop people competing. I mean c'mon, even the act of painting and modelling is sometimes competitive.

@ fetterkey, is Warmachine more ' competitive' than 40k by your nebulous definition?

All of the issues posted by the OP deal with TOs. Also he thinks that the metagame is very important. I went to the Sirlin site and could not find anything even remotely related to a game such as 40k... it is all about video games. Nonsense.

RxGhost wrote:In b4 HMBC accuses The Hwangmeister of 'less options = more variety'.

@Hwanginator: Sure, you would change the focus to troops in favor of the rest of whatever (unless the force org gets moved around a little) the army has, but in such a limited format I think that the game would be bland, boring and uncompetitive. Besides, you'd still have SOMEONE saying: Troop spam is so cheap.

Yeah, because *adding* yet another gameplay format to play = "less options"...

You know, I played a *lot* of Magic before I got into 40k, and there's nothing wrong with having a small competitive format. The idea that you must play huge games or whatever is more bland and limiting than anything else. It's like saying that only 5-color magic is a "real" Magic game. Small formats mean that each model and unit is proportionally more important, and that small decisions carry more meaning because you don't have the safety not of extra or redundant units to pick up the slack. Strategically, at the 500-pt level, there are three basic approaches:
- Objective-seeking based on Scoring Troops (quantity)
- Objective-contesting with non-Scoring units (quality)
- Opponent denial based on pure destruction (negation)
And just as in Magic decks which have a particular focus based on color / theme / design, such armies would likely have a similar level of focus. And different Codices would have different strengths, which is similar to how different colors have different biases.

It's a different format, and it's not for everyone, in the same way that Apoc isn't the One True Way (tm) to play 40k, either. Nobody would force you to play it, just as there are multiple Magic competitive formats.

But the very idea that 40k can't stomach another format is the most limiting comment, IMO.


BTW, I'd appreciate if you just refer to me as "John" or "JHDD", rather than as something random. Thanks.
____

Night Lords wrote:Honestly, I think a mission structure where you capture objectives and accumulate resources would be fantastic for competitive play. Maybe start out with 500 points like Jon is saying and use the troops (since its 1 Hq and 2 troops still) to capture objectives spread around the board.

You're describing how a typical starter League works, and it's a lot of fun. Highly recommended for new players.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:All of the issues posted by the OP deal with TOs. Also he thinks that the metagame is very important. I went to the Sirlin site and could not find anything even remotely related to a game such as 40k... it is all about video games. Nonsense.

Yes. I'm not interested in lobbying GW to make their game more competitive, because frankly I like 40k in its current state. I do offer some suggestions to tournament organizers, who are presumably interested in competitive play, as to how they could improve the state of competitively-played 40k. Obviously, the metagame is important. You can't have people discussing tactics, lists, and so on if they all play in different environments. As for the Sirlin stuff-- if you don't understand how a video game is similar to a tabletop game (hint: game), then this thread is probably too advanced for you.

skipmcne wrote:Fetterkey's "competitve 40K" would require streamlining the ruleset to reduce playtime.

I think there may be a misunderstanding. I don't want 40k to be a competitive game. I like 40k the way it is. I'm merely attempting to correct a misconception that appears to go around here a lot. 40k is not, in fact, competitive. As I don't want to be perceived a doomsayer or troll, though, I also offer some suggestions to competitively-oriented players and tournament organizers as to how they can improve the tournament system in order to make their events more competitive than they currently are.

I agree with Stelek that the metagame is a myth.

Sirtlin talks about video games such as Street Fighter II... there is no connection.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:I agree with Stelek that the metagame is a myth.

If you think that metagame as a general concept doesn't exist, you're wrong. If you think that 40k doesn't have a stable or developed metagame, you're absolutely right. My suggestions to tournament organizers would help establish a more developed metagame, though stability is always an issue when the game changes significantly two or three times a year.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Sirtlin talks about video games such as Street Fighter II... there is no connection.

video games

Yeah the right combos using Ken in SF II is very helpful for me to win with my army in 40k... Am I missing something here?

There is no metagame because the game is played in small pockets for the most part. There are only a handful of national players compared to the average gamer. If you played in the circuit you would quickly come to learn that the best players often feature lists that are not net lists... it's not always the case such as leaf blower list.

Hi all.
The 40k rule set in all its 5 encarnations has NEVER been developed for balanced competitive play.
The 40k rule set has only been written to help sell minatures.
The Rogue Trader(1st ed,) rules were just a WHFB 3rd ed conversion to help sell Citadels Sci-Fi minature range.

If peple delude themselves into thinking winning a game of 40k makes them superior in some way, they are misguided.
GW PLC will sell as much GW product to anyoe who will buy it, and keep quiet about its suitability for thier intended use.

Not legaly wrong, but moraly questionable .IMO.

TTFN
Lanrak

This recent BoLS post exemplifies many of the problems with the current tournament system.

Lanrak wrote:If peple delude themselves into thinking winning a game of 40k makes them superior in some way, they are misguided.

Psh.

Everybody knows that every tournament win makes your peen larger.

Fetterkey wrote:This recent BoLS post exemplifies many of the problems with the current tournament system.

okay I read the article by Jawaballs whom I respect as a fellow Blood Angels player. His article addressed how to deal with missions used at various tournaments. Again I will say that I think your problem is with the TOs not the rules for the game. If you are going to pay money to travel and play at a remote event then it only behooves you to do some research in advance as pointed out by Jawaballs. I think for example people who annually play at Adepticon have a very good idea of what to expect. It's your choice where you play - if you don't like big armies then why bother playing in Ard Boys or the Gladiator? Adepticon has the RTT on Sunday which is 1750-1850 points. They post sample missions on their website. The Ard Boyz this year had the missions posted in advance for the prelims and semis, plus the missions in the finals were pretty much traight out of the rulebook for the most part with no big twists. The vast majority of events are 1750 - 1850 points. You know that typically there all be objective based missions and killpoints. It's not rocket science by any stretch of the imagination.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Lanrak wrote:If peple delude themselves into thinking winning a game of 40k makes them superior in some way, they are misguided.

Psh.

Everybody knows that every tournament win makes your peen larger.

This is very true as far as MTG goes. I've have'nt played in a 40k tourny yet though.

I think people will get competitive with any activity, look at the guiness book of world records. It doesnt seem like Warhammer was made to be competitive, but people will want to play it competitvely. They want to try and prove their the best. As with any game, theres broken builds and strategies, and there should be. If you want to win that bad, you'll abuse every rule you can, use any loophole available, bring anything overpowered you have. That's just the way games go, somebody out there wants to win no matter what. I've played competitve magic for years now, (I'm on a hiatus momentarily) and if whatever redunkulous card made wins, people spam it. These people are known as "spikes" in the MTG realms. Thats just the nature of the beast. Im all for 40k being played competitvly perfect or not, improvable or not. Because I like a challenge, CSM lash lists are cool to me, same with nidzilla, nob bikerz and LR spam etc. If you dont want to play competitivly, that's perfectly fine, I don't feel Im at that skill level yet myself. But I don't think its fair to disparage competitve 40k play, just because some improvements could be made, hopefully they will be made, but people are just gonna continue to play in whatever manner they like until then. (sorry if i was rambling there guys)

We've already addressed the fact that the rules are not written from a competitive standpoint. I'm now addressing ways that the tournament scene could be made more competitive. Having to do research to see whether your army is going to be screwed by a bad scenario is awful. Being unable to use the contents of the core rulebook to practice tactics and builds is awful.

Pure conjecture. I don't remember you explaining why the rules are devoid of competitive play.

Fetterkey wrote:We've already addressed the fact that the rules are not written from a competitive standpoint. I'm now addressing ways that the tournament scene could be made more competitive.

If you manage to unify tournament organizers to follow some kind of standardized, practical, balanced way of doing things many people will love you. However, many people will be pissed at you for it too. Lots of people who depend on their cheesy list are gonna freak out and complain, throw fits/quit the game. That and I think your aiming a little too high with that, like afrikan blonde said. Not that I'm against tweaking the tournament scene to be more user friendly. It's just the powers that be either don't want to do that, or don't want to put the effort in when they win with their nob bikerz just fine. Usually uber-competitive players have the resources to go out and buy the latest "uber-tech" (another magic term) to keep winning. You gotta have to come up with a system that everybody can live with. I myself like the idea of 500 point tournaments, cheap to do, no rules tweaking needed, and the games would go faster.

Having to do research to see whether your army is going to be screwed by a bad scenario is awful.

Having to research the meta-game to see if your list is viable, is just part of competitive gaming. If I want my green-white magic deck to win, I gotta look into what strategies are popular/powerful and make sure I can handle em. Same goes for 40k, when I go to my FLGS, I check out what people are using. Then I either borrow/expand on their ideas, or think of ways to counter their list.

Being unable to use the contents of the core rulebook to practice tactics and builds is awful.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here, do you mean putting all of the codexes in the BGB? I think GW does'nt do this intentionally, to add a level of secrecy to the game, If you know how your opponent's whole army works It's harder for him to pull any surprises on you. They also couldn't sell as many codexes this way, or sell them individually. Thus, if this was what you meant, never gonna happen.

Norwulf wrote:
If you manage to unify tournament organizers to follow some kind of standardized, practical, balanced way of doing things many people will love you. However, many people will be pissed at you for it too. Lots of people who depend on their cheesy list are gonna freak out and complain, throw fits/quit the game.

Net-rage without much factual support. Truly competitive players are doing their own research (yes, that includes being cognizant of the newest 'net-deck' addition), finding out what works, tweaking their lists, and creating true all-comers armies that can win in any situation. The guy who downloads an Internet list and slaps a bunch of plastic onto the table might be a win-at-all-costs-competitive type of person but he WILL get rolled by a truly competitive player that understands his army, the rules, and capitalizes on opportunities better.

It's just the powers that be either don't want to do that, or don't want to put the effort in when they win with their nob bikerz just fine.

Nob Bikers isn't competitive and hasn't been for some time. Arguably never was since objectives can be placed on the 3rd floor of a building, but the superiority of Nob Bikers was pretty much buried by the time the IG codex came out. Nobody competitive bothers with a gimmick army.

Usually uber-competitive players have the resources to go out and buy the latest "uber-tech" (another magic term) to keep winning. You gotta have to come up with a system that everybody can live with. I myself like the idea of 500 point tournaments, cheap to do, no rules tweaking needed, and the games would go faster.

500 point games are grossly imbalanced towards whoever has the most effective troops. Space Marines? Congratulations, you have a commander and two Tac squads. It'll be a lot of fun when the guy with a Big Mek and seventy Boyz simply walks across the table and kicks your teeth in.

If you truly streamlined/clarified/updated the 40k rules set and tournament system to resemble something more like Poker tournaments nobody would be happier than the Competitive Gamer. It's the '40k is supposed to be a casual hobby' mentality that makes it an inferior game system for competitive play, not the people who wish it to be moreso.

I think it's pretty short-sighted to come out with a thread stating 40k is uncompetitive. Whether or not the "Rules As Written" were intended to be totally uncompetitive, the 40k community is a somewhat competitive environment. So much so that as the metagame changes GW runs out of meltaguns because everyone is buying them up like crazy.

Have you looked at the number of posts and new threads daily in the tactics or army list section on this very forum? Or any of the other various 40k forums?

This alone should serve as an example that a lot of players are seeking advice and discussion with fellow gamers to make their own game better.

I consider myself a mostly casual gamer, mostly because I don't have the time to go to a lot of tourneys right now, but I still enjoy pulling off a great victory and do like winning over losing.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Pure conjecture. I don't remember you explaining why the rules are devoid of competitive play.

Go reread the thread, or better yet leave entirely. I'm done explaining obvious points to you.

Norwulf wrote:Having to research the meta-game to see if your list is viable, is just part of competitive gaming

That's true. However, the event itself should not arbitrarily punish certain lists. That's silly and uncompetitive-- imagine a Magic tournament where the organizers suddenly declared that all green spells cost an additional mana for one round, and all red creatures got +1/+1!

Norwulf wrote:I'm not exactly sure what you mean here, do you mean putting all of the codexes in the BGB?

I mean that the standard scenarios used in the big book should generally reflect the sort of scenarios played in tournament play-- at least, if you want a competitive event. Crazy scenarios are fun for pick-up games, campaigns and the like, but if you put them in your event, you seriously diminish its competitive value.

Consideration of changes to make the game more suited to competitive play need to be checked against the other kinds of fun found in the game. The reality is that this is a hobby that can approached in many different ways, with emphasis on ultra-competitive play, on fluff and theme, on story telling, on miniatures and the visual aspect, on and on variety and just watching gonzo stuff happen.

It gets complicated because rules cannot perfectly support all these elements at all times. When talking about building a gaming environment that better supports competitive play, you have to remember that a lot of us don't want 40K to be geared towards competitive play, we'll happily accept a level of imbalance and basic unfairness to keep diversity.

Good points, sebster-- that's part of why my advice is oriented towards tournament organizers instead of Games Workshop. Presumably, people who go to 40k tournaments are interested in playing competitively; hence, those tournaments should be designed in a fashion that supports competitive play as much as possible. For those of us that don't care about competitive 40k, though, the current environment is more or less fine.

There is definitely a meta game regardless of how much it is shaped my the release of new codexes.

The game is not purely competitive like Street Fighter, there is also a hobby aspect which people are very interested in. That is why Bolscon is so awesome, those who do not do so well have their own tournament on day 2.

Any game that people are interested in will have a competitive aspect. This is predicated on the fact that winning is far superior to losing to the human psyche.

Scenarios with a twist make players think outside the box and in fact make the event even more competitive... They reward the player with a balanced list and punished those with the one trick pony.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Scenarios with a twist make players think outside the box and in fact make the event even more competitive... They reward the player with a balanced list and punished those with the one trick pony.

The thing is, the stuff that many of these scenarios penalize is completely arbitrary. One guy might have an army with one HQ, and his opponent an army with two; when the mission requires you to kill the enemy HQs in order to score points (this actually happened at BoLSCon), the army with two will be favored over the army with one. Does taking two HQs instead of one make your army somehow better or more adaptive? Not as far as I can tell. What if you ended up against a Space Wolf player with four HQs? This is a perfect example of a "twist scenario" that makes the event less competitive by favoring arbitrary choices-- even worse, it favors choices that were made before the game started, which neither player can change going in.

GOOD scenarios declare the enemy commander to be the most expensive HQ, so that to get the points you need to kill just that one.

good scenarios also focus on troops...


I'll give you a few examples of scenarios at a tournament I played recently, that I thought were pretty cool....

1) Get a VIP model from your deployment zone off the enemies table edge. extra points if you never put him in a transport.

2) choose 1 troops choice in your army. it now gets +1WS, +1BS, +1Str, or relentless... your objective is to keep that squad alive while killing your enemies upgraded troops squad.

there are a few other scenarios, but they are similar to others i've played before. these two just strike me as unusual, and pretty cool.

I've played in 3 tourneys (2 in Canada, 1 at Warhammer World - 1st/1st/4th respectively ) and I can tell you 40K is a game that can get very competitive.

I've seen players kicked from tournaments and have seen a judge being assaulted because the player got a bit hot under the collar.

I played MTG competitively and 40K is just as competitive. The top tier MTG decks can cost as much as an army and some tourney winning armies can cost upto $1000 because they are heavily converted.

On the subject of 40K being designed as a competitive game - no it isn't. Its we the players that have made it so.

I agree, but its fun to try.

Turning something that isn't competitive into something that is, is usually more fun than something that was made to be competitive.

Fetterkey wrote:

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Scenarios with a twist make players think outside the box and in fact make the event even more competitive... They reward the player with a balanced list and punished those with the one trick pony.

The thing is, the stuff that many of these scenarios penalize is completely arbitrary. One guy might have an army with one HQ, and his opponent an army with two; when the mission requires you to kill the enemy HQs in order to score points (this actually happened at BoLSCon), the army with two will be favored over the army with one. Does taking two HQs instead of one make your army somehow better or more adaptive? Not as far as I can tell. What if you ended up against a Space Wolf player with four HQs? This is a perfect example of a "twist scenario" that makes the event less competitive by favoring arbitrary choices-- even worse, it favors choices that were made before the game started, which neither player can change going in.

Chance is a BIG part of life. You cannot boil life down to a simple equation. The things you are not prepared for will affect you the most.

If it wasnt competitive why try and win?

Warhammer40k can be as competitive as any other game in the right setting, though overall I agree, Warhammer is designed for amusement rather than anything else.

@sourclams: I'm not saying nob bikerz are the best army, or any net-list for that matter, (im a super-secrect-tech kinda guy anyway). I used those examples because i've heard of em being top tier or whatever. I havent played in a 40k tournament, so I apparantly used poor examples. But I have played in well over a 100 MTG tournaments, and from my experiance with that i was trying to make 3 major points.

1) Having some kind of universal mission scenario set, or rules set amongst TOs, seems really optimistic to me.
2) Nerds (like myself, im in this group too) nerds bitch about everything, when you fix it they complain, when you nerf it they complain. You can't please everyone, so if most people are happy, why bother?
3) "Over powered" builds are just part of the territory of competitive gaming, somebody always figures out the most optimal strategy, this somebody usually takes first place. Its just the natureal course of competitive gaming. If playing black/blue fairies with bitterblossom is what's gonna win the MTG tournament, play it.

Fetterkey wrote:That's true. However, the event itself should not arbitrarily punish certain lists. That's silly and uncompetitive-- imagine a Magic tournament where the organizers suddenly declared that all green spells cost an additional mana for one round, and all red creatures got +1/+1!

WOTC does this ALL THE TIME! They punish certain lists in every set, if you were playing magic when time spiral was out and you didnt use "Tarmogoyf", you probably didnt win. If you had that badass netdeck full of "ravagers" and "skullclamps" during Mirrodin, Wizards punished you and banned/restriced everything. Magic has this syndrome waaaaay worse than 40k. If MaRo goes "derr de derr, we're gonna print this 1G mana 1/1 that gets +4/4 a turn." it throws the game off wildly. All the Type 2 players go out and buy the flavour of the month. No one plays white or blue etc. if it doesnt have that over powered card in that particular color. This is exactly why I deverted my interest away from magic towards 40k for a while. It's all about who can afford those $50 plains walkers and the flavor of the month.

Where I've only spent a couple hundred bucks on 40k, I still win fairly often. I havent got into the tournament scene yet, so casual play is still fun/challenging, (not the case with magic at all), and to play at my FLGS I dont have to buy new crap for it as constantly. Seems to me that 40k tournaments are actually more user friendly than magic, at least on a local level.

I spend up to $300 on 40k per year on 40k. That's not even enough to cover a weekly FNM Booster Draft. MtG is clearly more expensive than 40k.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I spend up to $300 on 40k per year on 40k. That's not even enough to cover a weekly FNM Booster Draft. MtG is clearly more expensive than 40k.

Are you being sarcastic? or Agreeing with me?

Norwulf wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:That's true. However, the event itself should not arbitrarily punish certain lists. That's silly and uncompetitive-- imagine a Magic tournament where the organizers suddenly declared that all green spells cost an additional mana for one round, and all red creatures got +1/+1!

WOTC does this ALL THE TIME! They punish certain lists in every set, if you were playing magic when time spiral was out and you didnt use "Tarmogoyf", you probably didnt win. If you had that badass netdeck full of "ravagers" and "skullclamps" during Mirrodin, Wizards punished you and banned/restriced everything. Magic has this syndrome waaaaay worse than 40k. If MaRo goes "derr de derr, we're gonna print this 1G mana 1/1 that gets +4/4 a turn." it throws the game off wildly. All the Type 2 players go out and buy the flavour of the month. No one plays white or blue etc. if it doesnt have that over powered card in that particular color. This is exactly why I deverted my interest away from magic towards 40k for a while. It's all about who can afford those $50 plains walkers and the flavor of the month.

Wizards bans certain things because they break the game. That's different from my example. To restate: Imagine that there were two gaming stores in your town having a Magic tournament. At one store, they follow the standard rules of Magic. At the other, the organizers decide that they should throw people for a loop and force them to adapt, so they declare that all green spells cost an additional mana for one round, and all red creatures get +1/+1. The first store is obviously better. 40k tournaments work the same way. Tournament organizers shouldn't use scenarios that allow one army to arbitrarily "win" before the game is even played.

Norwulf wrote:

WOTC does this ALL THE TIME! They punish certain lists in every set, if you were playing magic when time spiral was out and you didnt use "Tarmogoyf", you probably didnt win. If you had that badass netdeck full of "ravagers" and "skullclamps" during Mirrodin, Wizards punished you and banned/restriced everything. Magic has this syndrome waaaaay worse than 40k. If MaRo goes "derr de derr, we're gonna print this 1G mana 1/1 that gets +4/4 a turn." it throws the game off wildly. All the Type 2 players go out and buy the flavour of the month. No one plays white or blue etc. if it doesnt have that over powered card in that particular color. This is exactly why I deverted my interest away from magic towards 40k for a while. It's all about who can afford those $50 plains walkers and the flavor of the month.

Where I've only spent a couple hundred bucks on 40k, I still win fairly often. I havent got into the tournament scene yet, so casual play is still fun/challenging, (not the case with magic at all), and to play at my FLGS I dont have to buy new crap for it as constantly. Seems to me that 40k tournaments are actually more user friendly than magic, at least on a local level.

You need to read more carefully. Yes, WotC changes things in expansions and with the banned/restricted list, but it's not done as a surprise at the beginning of any given tournament. A mission that requires you to kill all enemy HQs to win doesn't have anything to do with balance: it simply arbitrarily picks players to have an advantage. It also does so with not chance to prepare, or if you do, it severely limits the armies you can bring.

I always tell new players that at the very least it's a horrible game to try to be competitive at. If that's what someone wants, there are much better avenues. The main thing that pisses me off is when people try to excuse away GW's capability to write rules, saying "it's hard to balance a game this big." How about not charging 50 bucks for a big set of "guidelines" then? It's incredibly deceitful.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
BTW, I'd appreciate if you just refer to me as "John" or "JHDD", rather than as something random. Thanks.

I can't promise that.

Fetterkey wrote:
Wizards bans certain things because they break the game. That's different from my example. To restate: Imagine that there were two gaming stores in your town having a Magic tournament. At one store, they follow the standard rules of Magic. At the other, the organizers decide that they should throw people for a loop and force them to adapt, so they declare that all green spells cost an additional mana for one round, and all red creatures get +1/+1. The first store is obviously better. 40k tournaments work the same way. Tournament organizers shouldn't use scenarios that allow one army to arbitrarily "win" before the game is even played.

I've got mixed feelings on this, (I would just play RDW in the scenario you listed ) MTG and 40k are very different games. What i like about 40k TOs doing this, is that 40k is a wargame, and in war you don't always know what the conditions are gonna be like on the battle field. Is the terrain extremly inhospitable to your army? Is your enemy's main objective to assasinate your commander? I feel this adds a little bit of realism to the game. It is somewhat unfair to the competitors but really they just have to adapt. Adapting to unfavorable circumstances is part of being a good strategist. Perhaps if TOs were required to post detailed information on the tourny they're running, that would solve one of your complaints about 40k tournament gaming?

As far as a gaming store running wierd rules like that for their MTG tournaments, I've seen a few do that. Overall people adapt to it and work around it. I played in a tournament once where each deck was required to have at least one plainswalker, and another one where only one rare card was allowed per deck. I think as long as people know what they're getting into before the game starts, they don't mind. Besides wizards feths their game up all the time without any TO help, (magic 2010 anyone?)

It's not that I completely disagree with you and your original post, its just that I dont think 40k competitive play is totally broken and FUBAR. It could use some tweaking, but it's not a total fail or anything, people seem to like it.

@ Polonius: Yes, but wizards prints completely over powred/broken cards all the time, that they must know are like this, and if said card is black and you play green, then your list is automatically inferior. It seems to me that when they make certain cards, they purposely design them to be a must in every deck. I feel they really havent figured out to balance the power level in magic yet. When I last kept up with the tournament scene, if you were'nt running 1 of 3 different net decks your chances of winning were pretty poor. I'll go back to magic one day and I'll just deal with the BS that comes along with competitive play, that my point it's not perfect but it's still fun.

Norwulf wrote:[
@ Polonius: Yes, but wizards prints completely over powred/broken cards all the time, that they must know are like this, and if said card is black and you play green, then your list is automatically inferior. It seems to me that when they make certain cards, they purposely design them to be a must in every deck. I feel they really havent figured out to balance the power level in magic yet. When I last kept up with the tournament scene, if you were'nt running 1 of 3 different net decks your chances of winning were pretty poor. I'll go back to magic one day and I'll just deal with the BS that comes along with competitive play, that my point it's not perfect but it's still fun.

Ok. I agree, but I dont' see what your point is. I'm not arguing anything about balance or variety of play styles, I was simply saying that both WotC and GW publish over and underpowered rules, but a key difference in play is that Magic has a single "scenario": reduce your opponent to zero life, or run him out of cards, or a few more obscure methods. 40k has all kinds of scenarios, that while fun, aren't anything close to fair. Good tournaments have missions that are more fair to more armies, bad tournaments have things like one RTT I went to where Skimmers simply treated the entire board as dangerous terrain for a game. So, anybody with a skimmer was probably going to lose them all by the end of the game (this was fourth edition). There is no direct analogue in magic. Yes, many magic events have deck construction limits, but those are known ahead of time and generally tend to be pretty even. Rarirty restrictions limit the best cards, but WotC does a good job of making sure each color has solid commons and uncommons. In 40k, the closest analouge would be, say, a limit on how many heavy support choices an army could take. That sounds fair, until you realize armies that some armies really do lean on heavy support more than others. Tau and nids are heavily gimped, while IG, Chaos, and Orks are fine with it.

On a different note, one thing I'd contend is that 40k is becoming more suited for competitive play. Maybe it's because the current rules paradigm is11 years old, maybe it's because they're getting better, but if you look at the 5th edition books, they all feature robust troops choices, and a variety of strong units and builds. They're also far better balanced with regards to elite/fast/heavies all being viable choices.

Yeah, I think GW is trying to balance out their armies more fairly now a days, I think they're doing a better job at balancing than WOTC at this point. My point was someone called magic a game more suited to being competitive and I think its more unbalanced and fethed up than 40k. So obviously 40k compitions having problems rules-wise is not too big a deal.

I think if you wanna play something competitvely you gotta realise life isn't fair, especially when someone's ego is on the line, so we can complain about it or work around it. I think TOs should just follow the rulebook on mission scenarios, (there's 3 in my copy) and that way they have some clear rules on it. But I would totally play in a tournament with some goofy skimmers count as in difficult terrain rule. I'd try my best and work around it. If I lost, I would take comfort in the fact that I was at a severe disadvantage.

Okay, lets think objectivly now, fetterkey doesnt think the way current 40k rules are, can work for competitive play. What can we do about it? Not much. But I have heard some good suggestions here as to how a few things could be fixed.
1. post what kind of scenarios/ rules will be in effect, somewhere that people can see them in advance before the tournament starts.
2.use less goofy/unfair rules in tournaments

Norwulf wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:I spend up to $300 on 40k per year on 40k. That's not even enough to cover a weekly FNM Booster Draft. MtG is clearly more expensive than 40k.

Are you being sarcastic? or Agreeing with me?

No.


____

It's simply a datum.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Norwulf wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:I spend up to $300 on 40k per year on 40k. That's not even enough to cover a weekly FNM Booster Draft. MtG is clearly more expensive than 40k.

Are you being sarcastic? or Agreeing with me?

No.

I have no idea what you said there.