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.

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.