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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
As a fluff player (yes, yes, I know), playing against competition-tuned lists isn't fun, because I either:
1) have to change my fluff list (a project I really enjoy modeling and painting and writing fluff about) to a competitive list
OR
2) I lose badly and the competitve player has no fun. I don't mind really, my fluffy armored battlegroup hit the table and was murdered by Flying Circus, eh.

^This.

I like competitive games in balanced games. But w40k is not balanced at all, so you are forced to take that unit or you lose regardless of personal skill. Not fun for me.

Add some house rules to compensate some stuff and it is fun again. But that is difficult with strangers.

I prefer competitive players who don't default to the power list. I have a gaming group where no one really thinks on optimization or the most broken combinations, everyone plays what they like and that's the way the group works.

There is one guy that who is very good at the game, and has been playing a long time. He brings the list he likes, and he gives everyone a run for their money.

The only downside of such groups is that sometimes its hard to find a 'challenging' game because the people learning have a hard time grasping good combos due to the lack of them. We try and teach them as much as possible, but it can be tough without lots of reading.

I am a competitive gamer. However, I also care enough about my opponent having fun to the point that I usually ask him beforehand how competitive is he/would he like to go up against. Fortunately, I have a rather large selection of armies and usually bring at least 2 builds when I go out gaming. 1 is a more competitive build against my friends or people who want a good challenge. The other is a more casual list, especially for players who are newer or not as tactically minded. Now there have been games before where my opponent wanted to play against my competitive army, get stomped and then get mad. Nothing you can really do about that even though you try to tell them beforehand that this is a tournament-caliber army. However, in most cases, even when I am beating my opponent badly even with a casual, non-optimized list, it's all in the attitude. People don't mind losing in most cases as long as your attitude is pleasant. I also don't really derive pleasure in tabling my opponent in casual games. When it gets to the point that you know there is no way for them to win, I usually just call it and we can either "reset" with different armies or perhaps play against others probably more suitable to our playing levels. But to play to the point of tabling (unless my opponent wants to see it through to that point) when it isn't necessary is like adding insult to injury in many cases. It just leaves a bad taste in your opponent's mouth and there is no need to humiliate him like that. Of course, this usually applies to people I haven't really gamed with before. If it was my friend, then we don't stop til some cries Uncle or get tabled.

Why not take a mixed/fluffy list but use them competitively once they are on/as they are getting on the table?

I don't want to be: "Your vehicles are all dead from my 27 TL Vendetta Lascannons", but not: "My colossus squad is going to tank shock that giant canoptek scarab farm, and I'm charging with my HB HWS that could easily have just gunned you down instead." What I strive to be is more like: "Since Hellhounds and co., Sentinels, and Ogryns are so underplayed, I want to try to incorporate one or two of them as best as I can."

P.S. I did once have a HF scout sentinel pop up right in front of a coincidentally teardrop shaped Necron warrior squad and remove about 5 after RP. Times like those when "non-competitive/optimized" units get their moments of glory is what really makes a fun, interesting game for me.

 KommissarKiln wrote:
Why not take a mixed/fluffy list but use them competitively once they are on/as they are getting on the table?

I don't want to be: "Your vehicles are all dead from my 27 TL Vendetta Lascannons", but not: "My colossus squad is going to tank shock that giant canoptek scarab farm, and I'm charging with my HB HWS that could easily have just gunned you down instead." What I strive to be is more like: "Since Hellhounds and co., Sentinels, and Ogryns are so underplayed, I want to try to incorporate one or two of them as best as I can."

P.S. I did once have a HF scout sentinel pop up right in front of a coincidentally teardrop shaped Necron warrior squad and remove about 5 after RP. Times like those when "non-competitive/optimized" units get their moments of glory is what really makes a fun, interesting game for me.

Using the fully optimised list that tends to spam/only take those undercosted or OTT units & options is the easiest path to success.
Look at how many people went Grey Knights last edition and ran things like a mechanised min/max Purifyer spam list or the even more heinous Henchman spam plus the staple 3x Riflemen dreads.

Using only the most powerful options gives you a crutch to help play the odds and succeed easier than spending the time & energy to simply tinker and tailor with options and find a list that may not look stellar on paper, but has been fine-tuned into a winning list by your own sweat & experience.
GK's and 'the list' from SW's last edition proved it, as it made mediocre players instantly competitive simply because the crutch was so massive... sure very, very few of these players ever won a major tournament simply because of their high-powered codex, but it did instantly give average to poor players an instant advantage & power boost that required no more actual work beyond spending a day or so on the internet looking for what was the 'broken combination'.

It's why the generally viewed 'top tier' armies show-up in large numbers at events, while the so-called 'bottom tier' books will only have a couple of die-hards playing them.
What's funny is that overall, those die-hards who stick with their older/less powerful armies tend to be better players overall because of their handi-cap, and will still place high in the overall standings... Partly because they've become expert at using their army with the combinations they've been forced to spend time figuring out by trial & error, (because there typically is no 'uber unit/s to spam), and also because opponent's aren't used to seeing that army & will typically underestimate what that army can do.



There's nothing wrong with 'being competitive', but there is a huge difference between simply 'using a net list' and having success with it, than compared to being competitive & successful with a list that isn't simply composed of undercosted/broken options X/Y/Z.

There is a huge difference between playing a game with a reasonable amount of game balance, as every one can enjoy it, no matter what their play style.

And playing a game with such massive imbalance an optimized list can have a massive advantage over another list.
Where the amount of imbalance requires players to moderate the rules to suit their play style.Eg the rules are that broken players HAVE to AGREE to FIX the RULES IN THE SAME WAY, to get an enjoyable game .

Eg chose the level of optimization in the list , and the level of competitiveness each will show, etc

And yet rather than blame the company producing such sub par rule set/game system, they blame each other for 'playing the game wrong!'

I used to be much more competitive in 5th edition, I find that the game back then was a lot more challenging for me as an Eldar player and I enjoyed the challenging nature of the game.

Now however, I feel that 6th edition has become much more "Rock,Paper,Scissor-esque" than ever before. I've grown tired of facing 6FMCs every other week as it's usually just a game of who goes first, wins. Even better, it's now possible for someone to field 4 different armies in one game with the new "Allied Formations".

Moreover, GW is making it continually more difficult to keep up with the new supplements, dataslates and other additions being released. With everything being released as an ebook months before it goes hardback, I see more people carrying iPads and e-Readers in my club than codices now.

I'm becoming less and less interested in the competitive scene, as it's just a continual "1-upManship" with lists becoming more and more frustrating to play against.

Iranna.

Experiment 626 wrote:

A lot of useful information

It's why the generally viewed 'top tier' armies show-up in large numbers at events, while the so-called 'bottom tier' books will only have a couple of die-hards playing them.
What's funny is that overall, those die-hards who stick with their older/less powerful armies tend to be better players overall because of their handi-cap, and will still place high in the overall standings... Partly because they've become expert at using their army with the combinations they've been forced to spend time figuring out by trial & error, (because there typically is no 'uber unit/s to spam), and also because opponent's aren't used to seeing that army & will typically underestimate what that army can do.

More helpful info

Could you please describe which factions fall under which unspoken "tier"? It's really just something I'd like to know for reference so I can understand better where people are coming from with their opinions and what they're talking about. Maybe a couple of notable alliance pairs, too? Something about Taudar? Or everyone bringing a small bit of IG for the vendetta/heavy support?

Playing competitively is fun. It is, that is, until you realise that 40k has the strategic depth of candyland or blackjack. Once you figure this out, playing to win loses a lot of its flavor. The only way you can sort of keep it up is by doing things like trying to win with handicaps, but even then...

You can still do some of the competitive stuff that you're used to, like doing interesting things with list management, taking crappy units and finding good things about them, being able to quantify things, and being able to think in depth about them. And, of course, talking with people about all of this.

But while you can do all of these things, the core itself is unstable here. Play 10 games in a row against a tau player or a taudar player (or, really, any gunline), and you'll be able to see just how shallow 40k can be in an awful hurry.