Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.