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.

 SRSFACE wrote:
Considering all the whinging and moaning about competitive balance, and X needs to change and Y is too overpowered and Z is the only thing worth playing?

I am shocked at the poll numbers right now. Out of 79 votes, roughly 65% straight up picked never, let alone just occasionally.

Proof the internet talk doesn't actively reflect actual players in the real world. Good to know.

I would actually take it as proof that you don't know what you're talking about.

Well-written rules benefit every player of a given game, regardless of whether they just play for fun or if they play for cash and prizes and other such things from tournaments/events. It avoids the need for house rules, for having to learn a completely new variant of the game if you move from one town to another, or even just play at a different store in the same town for a change, it allows you and the other player to get a game started much faster, without having to hash out the copious amounts of ambiguous rules, issues with various units/formations/etc, and so forth and so on.

In the end, of course, whether you play amongst friends or play in tournaments, 40k is a competitive game. Each game has a winner and a loser and, as the rules are currently written, you can look at the names of the armies to be played and choose the winner with 90%+ accuracy in many cases before the first model is out of the box. This is because the rules and the balance to the game are horrific.

 Psienesis wrote:

 SRSFACE wrote:
Considering all the whinging and moaning about competitive balance, and X needs to change and Y is too overpowered and Z is the only thing worth playing?

I am shocked at the poll numbers right now. Out of 79 votes, roughly 65% straight up picked never, let alone just occasionally.

Proof the internet talk doesn't actively reflect actual players in the real world. Good to know.

I would actually take it as proof that you don't know what you're talking about.

Well-written rules benefit every player of a given game, regardless of whether they just play for fun or if they play for cash and prizes and other such things from tournaments/events. It avoids the need for house rules, for having to learn a completely new variant of the game if you move from one town to another, or even just play at a different store in the same town for a change, it allows you and the other player to get a game started much faster, without having to hash out the copious amounts of ambiguous rules, issues with various units/formations/etc, and so forth and so on.

In the end, of course, whether you play amongst friends or play in tournaments, 40k is a competitive game. Each game has a winner and a loser and, as the rules are currently written, you can look at the names of the armies to be played and choose the winner with 90%+ accuracy in many cases before the first model is out of the box. This is because the rules and the balance to the game are horrific.

90%+ accuracy eh? With just the names of the armies? That's a bit of an exaggeration don't you think?

I voted 10-20%. Because most of my games are 2v2's and are merely semi competitive. We typically have 2-3 local tournaments a year and a few weeks before the tournament we usually start trying out our tournament armies.

Then each tornament is like 3-4 games in 1 day. Which is like a 2-3 weeks of play in a single day.

@Psienesis: You're a jerk. Don't be rude.

I had 2 games in the past year that were tournaments. Though I only count 1 of them, as the second was more "event" than tournament. The first was a local shop tournament. The second was a big organized 4v4 apoc game where teams were random. The organizers brought in gorgeous terrain, custom missions. Real blast to play. I think there were prizes, I had fun though.

A lot of games I keep in mind winning, but I don't like to let that define my motivation. Most of the time there is a better choice for my army. Something better I could bring, an upgrade or unit, or even a formation here or there. I don't because I want theme and narrative. Librarius conclave is cool, but it isn't "me" if that makes sense. So I play what I like first!

Totally not surprised by the poll results as they stand.

40K is a competitive game, it's player versus player 90% of the time. It's also a wonderful "play as you want outlet" with a lot you can do to enjoy the game.

However seeing the results and the posts of "...not a tournament game..." doesn't surprise me on this website at all(at least in this subforum).
40K is pretty easily a tournament game. especially with how GW backed away from hosting or supporting events(i know they plan to once again but the "spoiled" kits look more campaign and less tourny).
By backing away they allowed for groups like the ITC, ETC, and adepticon to fill in the gap and create awesome structured events! saying the game rule set is not tournament friendly just goes to show how afraid of adapting and how reliant the general community here is on GW the "absent parent". using ITC or adepticon rule sets is super common in most areas where tournament play happens successfully and consistently, i know that it is in my state. Even basic book tournaments are super simple to run and have be successful if you have a decent TO/judge to lay down some ground rules.

So yeah, not surprised given the constant dakka attitude of "the sky is falling" every time there is an update to an army or isn't one. a more interesting poll would be "how many people who regularly comment here have played a game in the last month?"
maybe add to that "..and not complained about it?.." If you all hate this game then why are you still posting about it?

Another thing that's worth noting is the title of the thread is "Dakka Community, Competitive or Casual?", but the OP limited it specifically to tournaments (justifiably so). I reckon the results would be at least slightly different (predominantly more people moving towards the 10% - 30% range) if generic competitive play was included. For example, I want to (eventually) create a campaign map the basic rules of "You own that territory. I want it. I'll attack it and try to take it from you." and 'owning' the whole map to win. Doing something like that with my friends and/or other hobbyists at my FLGSs can be considered competitive.

What I mean to say is that many members of this community may be competitive, but don't play tournaments.

I think there is broad spectrum of people who are attracted to 40K, and the hobby in general. Some people are all about tournament play, some play competitively outside of tournaments, some play casually, some people are extremely casual and just want to throw some dice around, and some folks just want to collect models and paint. Some folks are a little bit of each.

If there were any tournaments near me (and I mean, within 100 miles!) I might go to them. I play 1-2 times a month, so the possibility of playing 3-4 games in one day is both daunting and exciting. My FLGS literally stopped hosting tournaments because of the lack of interest in 40K from what I have been told, and other games have gained in popularity over the past few years.

I'm just in it for the painting and modeling mostly. Working up to playing some small games with friends who are building up some nicely painted forces.

Used to play 40k with a competitive mindset and went to a few WHFB events.

But as a returning player who has been out of the hobby for over 8 years, the apocalypse "bring whatever you want!" style of 40k really doesn't seem to lend itself well to competitive play, as others have stated.

I remember when seeing 3 Wraithlords at 1500 points seemed like the cheesiest thing ever. I know there were a few nasty cheese lists back then but now with 'anything goes' there is a lot more imbalance and a serious need to make sure you are on the same page before starting a game.

I'd rather compete at MTG and video games, whereas 40k scratches the creative itch and gives me something to do with friends for a decent evening.

I'm sure there is some challenge to designing the nastiest meta beating list possible but it's not for me. I'm not knocking those who enjoy that and you won't see me complaining about the rules being unfair, although I would like to see a more balanced rule set because that is good for the hobby in general and makes for better games for all.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

We wrote:
It's not 0-10% for me, it's 0%.

This. The defining starting point should be NONE.

Pretty much this for me aswell. 40K is not a balanced tournament friendly game, and was never designed to be so.

If I want competitive table-top games I'll play TCG's or X-Wing, since they are designed from the ground up for the competitive scene (as well as casual).

Or Magic. That's a game where they designed specifically for competitive play, and have an official tournament every year.

We wrote:
It's not 0-10% for me, it's 0%.

This game isn't good for tournaments IMO. The rules are too unclear and armies too unbalanced. when I play competitively I pick a better game. Plus I have seen some real jerk hole things done to win tournaments in this game. Too many to go into. I have been playing this game for over 20 years and nothing sucks the fun out of it more than competitive play. Warhammer 40K is just to have some fun and look at cool models on the table for me.

This guy said it best...