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.

So, I was reading something on dakka, and a theory sprang into my mind. I'm wondering if I'm reading the proverbial tea leaves wrong, or if there's a new trend that's emerging.

Way back in the day, 40k was all about crazy new rules and minis. Games were ridiculous and narrative and overall much more like a role playing game (a means to facilitate storytelling whilst drinking a beer). Then 4th ed game out, but really 5th ed came out. 5th ed is a rule set that is much tighter, self-consistent, and streamlined than other rules editions before it, and has had basically all of the wacky character stripped out for the sake of making a efficient, balanced game. In other words, it became a game that approached fair, simple, and straightforward. Once you had a rules set that you could actually play competitively in, there became a huge rise in competitive players. Not to say that they didn't exist before, but certainly the percentage has way increased.

Which hasn't gone unnoticed. It seems like at least a couple of times a month, really old (gamewise) players start up some thread in this forum complaining about how fun the game used to be, and how now it's all about being competitive, and it's all about spam lists, etc. etc.

However, I'm starting to get the feeling that there is another group of 40k player that's beginning to emerge: the post-competitive player. These people are good players, and have taken the competitive aspect of 40k very seriously, but are now starting to move past it.

For example, we all know that MSU mech spam armies are good in this edition, and people can use math to prove it. What I've started to notice, though, is that there is starting to become a backlash against it. Not from the people who were never properly competitive in the first place (who like to scream cheese and waac), but from people who ARE competitive, and who have now just gotten BORED of playing with and against MSU mech spam all the time. Likewise, I've seen a few people creep up who I know are competitive, and like to go to big tournaments to prove this fact, that have made comments on dakka about how, after spending a lot of time winning and trying to win, that winning really isn't everything, and that fun is more important (and fluff almost equally so).

It feels to me like there is a slowly growing group of 40k players who have been (and still are) competitive players, but who are now starting to move past 40k as purely a tactical exercise. I'm talking about players who really know their math, and really know their field skills, and who are doing things different on purpose, whether it be trying to make competitive lists out of non-competitive units, or whether it be playing an army in a style that they always wanted to and still winning a lot, but being willing to take losses if it means that they get to play the army that they actually want to play.

I'm curious to hear if other people have had experiences with this, and what the general trend actually looks like.

for sure.

im a pretty competetive guy, and i love to win. most of the lists i make evolve towards a pretty strong list in every army i play, and i tend to win most games. (or force a very hard fought draw)

that said, my lists that have been super competetive, namley my orc truck/bike list, and the DE venomspam i tend to now reserve for tournaments, or special request by someone wanting to try out an idea for countering a tournament caliber list.

i still enjoy winning, but going into the game with a 95% certaintly that im not loosing makes the whole thing somewhat an exercise in futility. thus, now im trying to focus more on fluffy armies. or ones that look good on the table top, and arent just "spam" or cookie cutter builds. ive also started focusing more on painting and building terrain. (but thats another blog)

i think the best games are the ones that are close, barley decided untill the last turn, and even then its anyones guess. sure tabling someone in 3 turns is awsome, especially when the victim is a braggart who needs a good thumping, but otherwise in friendly games, i tend to try using something diffrent, or often times since ihave 6 armies, i let my opponent pick what army they face, and to a point the build or theme. if they have a unit they REALLY dont like fighting they can say so and i usually leave it out if i can.

kind of had a whole train of thought here and lost it... so im just gonna - </novel>

While I've never been a super competitive player, when I'm playing against my friend who play, I win probably 90% of my games due to having much more experience, and more knowledge of the rules. I've started taking much fluffier lists to help counteract this, such as my Alaitoc Ranger force (3 squads of rangers as the core of my army) or my chaos list with multiple dreadnoughts and raptors. Obviously I'm not trying to lose, but it does help make the games more exciting than playing a straight up rhino/PM and oblit spam list and tabling them on turn 3 or 4.

DarthSpader wrote:that said, my lists that have been super competetive, namley my orc truck/bike list, and the DE venomspam i tend to now reserve for tournaments, or special request by someone wanting to try out an idea for countering a tournament caliber list.

Yeah, I've started seeing this a little as well. On a similar note. I'm starting to see people who have their main army, their flavor of the month army, but now starting to have a specifically designated fluff army as well. An army that is made as competitive as possible, but within certain self-imposed limits of having a really cool army.

These are not new types of players, they are just players who finally out grew their "I HAVE TO WIN NO MATTER WHAT!!!!" immaturity. Players with that attitude have existed all the time in the game. In earlier versions of the game, where there was no Force Org chart, or real control on what constituted and actual army it was MUCH easier to cheese out and come up with obnoxious spam type armies. By the end of 2nd edition I was so tired of seeing "space marine" armies that were full of Eldar special characters. At least today if someone says they are playing Grey Knights, even if they Draigo spam, they are still playing grey knights.

People who want to have fun playing games have been around for the duration and are the primary reason this hobby continues to live. I mean if the only people new players ever played were the obnoxious competitive spammers, many of them would be completely chased away from the hobby. What usually happens is that one of the jerks crushes them in a rude game and one of us who actually have fun when we play, win or lose, will take them aside and explain that not everyone is like that jerk and show them what the game can really be like. Sure some newbs will become power gamers too, but some play for fun and so it continues.

These uber competitive players are just growing up and it is a good thing to see happen. Now if I could only get some of the 40 year olds that I've played who act like 8 year olds at the table to grow up I'd be a really happy camper.

Skriker

Skriker wrote:These are not new types of players, they are just players who finally out grew their "I HAVE TO WIN NO MATTER WHAT!!!!" immaturity. Players with that attitude have existed all the time in the game. These uber competitive players are just growing up and it is a good thing to see happen. Now if I could only get some of the 40 year olds that I've played who act like 8 year olds at the table to grow up I'd be a really happy camper.

Well, being competitive isn't a sign of immaturity, it's how you handle yourself while being competitive that may or may not be. I don't see being competitive in a competitive environment as something that you "grow out of", much more than something that you "gain nuiance in".

Skriker wrote:In earlier versions of the game, where there was no Force Org chart, or real control on what constituted and actual army it was MUCH easier to cheese out and come up with obnoxious spam type armies. By the end of 2nd edition I was so tired of seeing "space marine" armies that were full of Eldar special characters. At least today if someone says they are playing Grey Knights, even if they Draigo spam, they are still playing grey knights.

So you would dispute the threads that keep cropping up about people pining for the "good old days" of highly fluffy non-competitive play?

If you play to win then you'll want to run those numbers. I'm surprised more people haven't been doing it. Math is the reason I love gargoyles so much. With autowound 6 on the to-hit and ancient enemy winged hive tyrant things get really ugly really really fast. Two minimum sized gaunt squads, two tervigons as troops, 40-60 ad/tox gargoyles, winged AE tyrant, winged warriors, zoeys and hive guard, it's amazing!

It's also really hard to put on the table...

Ailaros wrote:Well, being competitive isn't a sign of immaturity, it's how you handle yourself while being competitive that may or may not be. I don't see being competitive in a competitive environment as something that you "grow out of", much more than something that you "gain nuiance in".

It isn't being competitive that is a sign of immaturity, it is the "I HAVE TO WIN NO MATTER WHAT!!!!" uber-competitiveness that is. I am very competitive in my gaming, but as a more mature player I build the list I want to play and not the list that I have to play to try and win all of my games and lose all of my friends at the same time. I compete with the best of them, but "a good game" is the goal for me, not a completely crushing defeat of every opponent.

Ailaros wrote:
So you would dispute the threads that keep cropping up about people pining for the "good old days" of highly fluffy non-competitive play?

Darn right I would. People who claim 2nd edition was so balanced and un-spammy really aren't remembering it really well. As I said I got really tired of facing armies that were supposed to be whatever flavor of space marines and instead be facing only a few space marines and then a ton of special characters from other lists (usually eldar). It was just irritating to have that always happening. I do still have a soft spot for Rogue Trader as it started it all, but earlier editions were hardly "non-competitive" when it was much easier to stack the deck in your favor and ignore your own supposed army in favor of parts from other armies instead.

Skriker

To me you've just described the typical cycle of players in any game. When people start out they want to learn the game and become the best, these players are highly competitive. Once they achieved their goal or their level of satisfaction with this they get bored or try to find new ways to spice things up. You see this typical behavior in RPG games where people have to build the "perfect character" or the "perfect ship" (in EVE) or use the most OP items. Once they have done this they move on to other things.

I've seen this in almost every game I've played, table-top, video games, etc.

Alot of competitive players (and to an extent myself) have noticed that building a competitive list isn't as hard in this Edition than last, considering 5th's meta on transports in general and the Codex's released during 5th (barring Tyranids) reinforce the notion. Competitive list building had become obvious, and many players have ignored entire sections of their Codex because the units perform poorly against the vehicle meta.

Its boredom.

Ailaros wrote:

DarthSpader wrote:that said, my lists that have been super competetive, namley my orc truck/bike list, and the DE venomspam i tend to now reserve for tournaments, or special request by someone wanting to try out an idea for countering a tournament caliber list.

Yeah, I've started seeing this a little as well. On a similar note. I'm starting to see people who have their main army, their flavor of the month army, but now starting to have a specifically designated fluff army as well. An army that is made as competitive as possible, but within certain self-imposed limits of having a really cool army.

i agree here, it is how I tend to play, if you want a fun game I'll throw down some big meks with SAGs and looted wagons, some odd groups of orks with a theme liek da big mek krew.... if you are preping for a tourney or want to try an ard as nails list then time for 2 diversified nobz groups one on bikes other in wagonz, a burna wagon, a boyx wagon and 9 rokkit buggies.... it is a different kind of fun to me and i prefer the goofy fluff lists but can have fun in a the toughest my codex has to offer vs the toughest theirs can

KplKeegan wrote:Alot of competitive players (and to an extent myself) have noticed that building a competitive list isn't as hard in this Edition than last, considering 5th's meta on transports in general and the Codex's released during 5th (barring Tyranids) reinforce the notion. Competitive list building had become obvious, and many players have ignored entire sections of their Codex because the units perform poorly against the vehicle meta.

Its boredom.

I think this is more a case of netlisting becoming ever more popular though...I increasingly get the feeling that the greatness of vehicles is somewhat of an informed quality. Yes, their are great vehicles, and the rules support using them, but I don´t think they´re the be-all-end-all that people make them out to be.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/The_Phases_of_a_Gamer

Seems like the "competitive" player is phase 3. The post-competitive player you describe is 4c.

Ailaros wrote:

Way back in the day, 40k was all about crazy new rules and minis. Games were ridiculous and narrative and overall much more like a role playing game (a means to facilitate storytelling whilst drinking a beer). Then 4th ed game out, but really 5th ed came out. 5th ed is a rule set that is much tighter, self-consistent, and streamlined than other rules editions before it, and has had basically all of the wacky character stripped out for the sake of making a efficient, balanced game. In other words, it became a game that approached fair, simple, and straightforward. Once you had a rules set that you could actually play competitively in, there became a huge rise in competitive players. Not to say that they didn't exist before, but certainly the percentage has way increased.

you lost me at "balanced game" im afraid. power builds, and competitive players are not a new henomenon. theyve always been a part of the game. competitive players have existed since Mug and Lug decided to see who could chuck their spears further. i think its less a case that there is more of them around, and more of a case that the power curve of the game has been thrown way out. the things you can do with an army now simply werent options before. and thats all it is. its only cheesier because it has more oomph than the armies had when you or i started "back in the day".

rogue trader had its power players, and a meta that solidified.

2nd ed had its power players (vortex grenades, space wolves, eldar in general..) and power builds. and a meta that solidified.

3rd had its power players (old blood angels, eldar, craftworld eldar) and its power builds. and a meta that solidified (screening, and rhino rush versus shoot the rhino rush).

4th had its power players (Iron Warriors, chaos in general, blood angels, ) and its power builds, along with a meta that solidified (6 x 6man las/plas squad marine armies, skimmerspam).

if anything 5th, while being streamlined is trying to bring back the character of 2nd back into the game. look at the unit descriptions, and zany rules and compare them to what you had bak in third ed. ever remember that cromson fist SC with a 3+ inv? or when lysander was a tac marine sergeant that let you re-roll ALL (as in passed and failed) bolter shots for his squad once? remember the 30 word unit descriptions? remember the 3 small snippets of fluff per codex? versus what we have now with time lines, multi page epic stories and over the top narrative.

Ailaros wrote:

Which hasn't gone unnoticed. It seems like at least a couple of times a month, really old (gamewise) players start up some thread in this forum complaining about how fun the game used to be, and how now it's all about being competitive, and it's all about spam lists, etc. etc.

the oldbeards have been moaning about better days since before i got into the game in 3rd. oldbeards have been complaining about how things are no longer how they used to be since moses was found in the rushes. nothing new there. its nothing more than nostalgia remembered through rose tinted glasses. dont think for a second that things were somehow better back in their day.

Ailaros wrote:
However, I'm starting to get the feeling that there is another group of 40k player that's beginning to emerge: the post-competitive player. These people are good players, and have taken the competitive aspect of 40k very seriously, but are now starting to move past it.

For example, we all know that MSU mech spam armies are good in this edition, and people can use math to prove it. What I've started to notice, though, is that there is starting to become a backlash against it. Not from the people who were never properly competitive in the first place (who like to scream cheese and waac), but from people who ARE competitive, and who have now just gotten BORED of playing with and against MSU mech spam all the time. Likewise, I've seen a few people creep up who I know are competitive, and like to go to big tournaments to prove this fact, that have made comments on dakka about how, after spending a lot of time winning and trying to win, that winning really isn't everything, and that fun is more important (and fluff almost equally so).

boredom.


thats all it is.

youve been playing the same game with the same powerbuilds and the same optimum strategies for 5 years. after a while, every game starts to look and feel the same. every army list is the same. you get jaded. you complain how there is no diversity.those powerbuilds were once new and exciting. they were powerful and fun. now they're just overplayed. it was the same in third. people hated screening and rhino rush. look at 4th. 6man las/plas and skimmerspam was seriously disliked. people want something new. and theyre waiting for 6th to give it. or else giving other games like warmachine a try.

Ailaros wrote:

It feels to me like there is a slowly growing group of 40k players who have been (and still are) competitive players, but who are now starting to move past 40k as purely a tactical exercise. I'm talking about players who really know their math, and really know their field skills, and who are doing things different on purpose, whether it be trying to make competitive lists out of non-competitive units, or whether it be playing an army in a style that they always wanted to and still winning a lot, but being willing to take losses if it means that they get to play the army that they actually want to play.

I'm curious to hear if other people have had experiences with this, and what the general trend actually looks like.

people get older. people experience new things. right now is a golden age for wargaming. youve got so many viable alternatives beyond 40k and WFB. dystopian wars. warmachine. malifaux. infinity. bushido. anima tactics. dust. flames of war. people grow up and want different things. what i want as a 20-something is different to what i wanted when i was a teenager. your brain chemistry is different. you think and act different. for a lot of people, as they get older, 40k simply doesnt offer what they need any more. im in this group. i moved on more or less to warmachine and infinity.

I find I do a balancing act, I like to win, I do compete in tournaments and make sure to have a competitive list. But I also like to build a list that has some flavour to it and isn't just a cookie cutter tourney list. I play GK but will never touch Draigowing or Crowewing.

Redbeard wrote:http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/The_Phases_of_a_Gamer

Seems like the "competitive" player is phase 3. The post-competitive player you describe is 4c.

Damn.

4c is where I'm at right now. I reached a mix of 2 and 3 after about a year or so of playing WH40k - I didn't buy rulebooks just to know them, and I wasn't exactly a veteran, but I was constantly army-hopping and looking for an army that would help me win. I even entered a couple of tournaments, but could never finish them, and then I took a long break from WH40k as the schizophrenia got worse, up until I was painting some Sisters of Battle and griping verbally about how annoying it was that I'd never be able to use them, since I didn't have anyone to play with, and my mom offered to play with me. Since then, I've been a 4c gamer, with a small amount of powergamer still left in me that is suppressed easily enough.

Indeed, sounds like you've reached 4c.

Ultimately, I think what it comes down to is the player who isn't strictly playing competitively or "fluff at all costs". I agree that it comes from the boredom of playing the same "netlist" over and over to the point where you'd want more options.

At this point, I think that 4c gamers view 40k as a game, where the point isn't so much to win or lose or maintain "fluff" but to just have fun.