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.

Ok so I was wondering but what is everyone's preference whilst playing 40k Casual? or Competitive?

Personally I like Casual play way more than competitive play in 40k, mainly because I believe that the Metagame in 40k to me is wrong, on so many levels. I say this because the intention of 40k is that it is meant to be a beer and pretzels game, but when you play competitively it is very restricting and its repetitive, bland and everyone is out for your throat, I don't mean that in a sportsmanship kind of way, I mean it as more of people will constantly look to curbstomp one another into the ground just to win. You can see this just by how a list is written for example, the Metagame is all about spamming the most broken and cheesy units you can muster and then get disappointed when someone else curbstomps on it with another Metalist designed to counter it. Hard. to me that is no fun at all, I do attend tournaments but even then I only choose units I want to use instead of using Metalist as I don't believe in curbstomping my opponent and tabling him just to get to first place. I would rather have to use actual skill and tactics to make a win then go for "Netlist X" just because it has a unit that has a rule which severely throws up the middle digit at my opponents army, this should be an enjoyable experience for both players not just myself. Now with casual gaming I feel like I am not restricted to any units other than the units I do not wish to use, I can also create scenarios and campaigns which exercise my tactical mind while also having a blast watching awesome moments happen such as two warlords duelling or watching a dogfight between two fighters for example, and I feel part of the 40k fluff or have a feeling of pride knowing that my army has just taken a sector in the 41st millennium and has made personal history in this grimdark future.

Note: My reply on this thread is not a rant or a whinge at any type of gaming style, this is just my opinion on which gaming I prefer and which I do not prefer, and my reasons why. I would like to know what other peoples style of gaming they much prefer.

So what is your preference? Casual gaming in 40k? or competitive gaming in 40k?

That all depends on your definition of "casual" and "competitive".

If your definition of "competitive" is playing a dice game on easy mode so that you can win as many games as possible, then that certainly doesn't describe me. If, on the other hand, you define a "competitive player" as the kind of player who works to make sure there's as much competition in a game as possible (by giving your opponent a break rather than effectively tabling him turn 2 after some terrible die rolls, for example), then yeah, I'd say that I am.

Meanwhile, I don't understand what you're trying to say about "casual" at all. A style where other players don't force you to use certain stuff? That doesn't make any sense. You're never required to build a list in any particular way.

Unless you mean to talk about the difference between "WAAC" and "Everybody else", which appears to be what most people mean when they say "competitive" and "casual", but in that case you should have said that, rather than to corrupt otherwise very useful terms.

Im happy to either sit there having a few drinks with friends and playing a few games, or to be sat in a tournie hall with the clock ticking.

Really does not bother me either way, but i prefer to be having a few drinks with friends, i find it gives the best games possible and i get more enjoyment from it.

 Ailaros wrote:
That all depends on your definition of "casual" and "competitive".

If your definition of "competitive" is playing a dice game on easy mode so that you can win as many games as possible, then that certainly doesn't describe me. If, on the other hand, you define a "competitive player" as the kind of player who works to make sure there's as much competition in a game as possible (by giving your opponent a break rather than effectively tabling him turn 2 after some terrible die rolls, for example), then yeah, I'd say that I am.

Meanwhile, I don't understand what you're trying to say about "casual" at all. A style where other players don't force you to use certain stuff? That doesn't make any sense. You're never required to build a list in any particular way.

Unless you mean to talk about the difference between "WAAC" and "Everybody else", which appears to be what most people mean when they say "competitive" and "casual", but in that case you should have said that, rather than to corrupt otherwise very useful terms.

Im not really calling anyone on anything when I say "competitive" everyone has there own opinion on these types. I am just saying what "competitive" sounds like to me, I often feel in tournaments that if you don't have the requirements to create "List X or Y" I often get the vibes that people think that I am either a pushover game-wise and that I don't know what I am doing or im just a bad player and I should feel ashamed for using units that are not in "list X or Y" that I have no preference over, in my perspective the Meta game in 40k makes the game feel cutthroat and that getting first place is a priority which is ok that is understandable but it makes it feel like it is the first and only priority of your game which it should not be, having fun just playing the game should be, as well as having a friendly chat with your opponent while you game and having an enjoyable time should be your priority.

If you say your are the latter of your two choices, Great, Fantastic I would be more than willing to play against you, you seem to have the right attitude towards the game, but to me what competitive gaming feels like to me 40k-wise is what I have said in my OP*

*Note: I am semi-autistic (I am not saying this as an excuse but more of a slight factor) So I might see things as a little black and white, and slightly biased so I apologise if I have sounded harsh, but that is my opinion, if anyone wishes to state their opinion I am more than willing to listen to the community.

I would call myself the most casual of casual players. I generally only play with a group of friends at one of their houses, and we pretty much run whatever we want as "counts as". We've even had a few player made codexes/armies show up on occasion.

The way I see it, I don't really care if I win or lose as long as we have fun and generally don't act like jerks towards each other. 40k is a game I play for fun and to relieve stress. I don't want to worry about it as well.

 happygolucky wrote:
it makes it feel like it is the first and only priority of your game which it should not be, having fun just playing the game should be, as well as having a friendly chat with your opponent while you game and having an enjoyable time should be your priority.

That's your opinion. Many people find cutthroat competition to be extremely fun. You might not be one of them, but hardcore competitive play is a perfectly legitimate option.

 Ailaros wrote:
If your definition of "competitive" is playing a dice game on easy mode so that you can win as many games as possible, then that certainly doesn't describe me. If, on the other hand, you define a "competitive player" as the kind of player who works to make sure there's as much competition in a game as possible (by giving your opponent a break rather than effectively tabling him turn 2 after some terrible die rolls, for example), then yeah, I'd say that I am

Yes, we get it, you think that list optimization makes you a TFG sociopath and nobody enjoys a game in which both players try as hard as possible (within the rules) to win, but thankfully your view is not universal.

To me competitive is using the most efficient or competitive build you can. Net lists and the like. Usually along the lines of stuff you would see in a tournament setting .

Casual to me is things like; fluff lists, lists you know aren't optimized, just trying some stuff out, or using units you know aren't the best in their slot. Also more of a laid back environment.

In either case I voted other, because I enjoy both tournament style play and running fluff or for fun lists in a at the club or at home.

I prefer to be playing against someone who I know and doesn't flat out go out of their way to win. I am, however,interested in the Warmachine random caster format at the nOVA Open.

Casual. To be honest, once you've played some of the other tabletop games on the market, trying to play 40k competitively is an exercise in frustration. As a competitive ruleset, 40k is a joke. I still play 40k because of the models and background, which are the best around on both accounts, but if I want to play a game of skill I look elsewhere.

 dementedwombat wrote:
I would call myself the most casual of casual players. I generally only play with a group of friends at one of their houses, and we pretty much run whatever we want as "counts as". We've even had a few player made codexes/armies show up on occasion.

The way I see it, I don't really care if I win or lose as long as we have fun and generally don't act like jerks towards each other. 40k is a game I play for fun and to relieve stress. I don't want to worry about it as well.

Amen to that my friend. I'm with you on that one

 Fatalis wrote:

 dementedwombat wrote:
I would call myself the most casual of casual players. I generally only play with a group of friends at one of their houses, and we pretty much run whatever we want as "counts as". We've even had a few player made codexes/armies show up on occasion.

The way I see it, I don't really care if I win or lose as long as we have fun and generally don't act like jerks towards each other. 40k is a game I play for fun and to relieve stress. I don't want to worry about it as well.

Amen to that my friend. I'm with you on that one

exalted

Casual - I occassionally play in tournaments but I am getting to old to be bothered with this aspect of the hobby.

I also prefer the games to be less about maximising the army compostion and more about scenarios, fluff etc - so we play wierd scenarios or stuff like the Dark Eldar Soul Arean I made up

I also like to play a different games system every week if posisble - so 40K, Uncharted Seas, Dredd, ACTA etc all get a run out

Its a game where grown adults can play with little toy tanks and soldiers on a table filled with tiny trees and buildings...is there any way other than to approach it as a casual game experience?

I even played tournies casually, I just play for the fun of my buddies and to look at cool toys and make up silly remarks that happen due to the weirdness of dice rolls.

Its a casual game...until it starts being hosted in casinos, it always will be.

I prefer casual games because, well...I've never really been that great at PVP in any game.

My inexperience, and occasional shortage of WYSIWYG models doesn't get me shouted out or something. And since it's casual, my opponent probably won't play a WAAC list, and seriously try to destroy me. Besides, I don't think I can have fun if I'm to focused on winning, and fun is why I play games.

I find it infinitely more exciting to take on a difficult list than to steamroll a sub-optimal one.

I think there are two differing versions of the word 'competitive' being used here.

Definition 1- The game is being played in a competitive format. There is probably some manner of prize up for grabs. There is probably an organizer of some form, or at least an arbitrating body. A tournament is the most likely format for this. Rules are very important here, because a rules call in one game might affect the outcome of the whole event, including later games. People bring their A-game to this sort of event, which means bringing the army and list you feel has the best chance of bringing you a victory. This style of play is a competition, because people are competing for a top slot or prize.

Definition 2- The game (regardless of format) is essentially an even match. If one player is a veteran, he may bring a sub-par list, or 'go easy' on his opponent, in order to have a longer, more fulfilling game. Rules calls are settled between the two players, without outside arbitration, usually in favor of the inferior player, or the player who is not doing as well. Ideally, the two players in question are matched closely in terms of abilities and army lists.

These are VERY different definitions, and I can already see some arguments cropping up that are arising solely because one person is reading it one way and the other person is using the second definition. I would, personally, like the OP to make it clear which version they mean. Generally speaking, you get the most accurate poll results when your initial post is doing nothing but clearly outlining the question, and then clearly outlining all possible poll options.

Now, that being said, after sifting through the original post, I think that the OP is using the first definition. (That also seems to jibe with the poll, since it is the one most opposed to casual play.) And in that case, my answer is 'other.' Specifically, I love both, but only when it's clear what kind of game we're playing. I enjoy just shooting the breeze with my amigos, blowing up little army dudes, and swilling some beverages of varying alcohol content. My version of 'casual,' in other words. I also enjoy bringing a well-tuned list (NOT the most popular 'godhammer' list. I've never seen one of those win a tourney.) and discovering firsthand that Conan indeed knew what was best in life.

It makes me very sad to show up to what I think is going to be a friendly game to find my opponent playing the game as though there was a thousand dollar prize on the line. I also don't want to show up to a tournament and have an opponent go all limp-noodle on me, and say 'oh, I'm just here to have fun.' Then I just feel like Ali in the ring with Alf. In a friendly game, I come to have fun. In a tournament, I come to win. I hope that my opponents do the same in both regards.

Of course, that's an opinion, and like all the others, it belongs to just one person. I could always be wrong.

I consider myself to be a competitive casual player.

That is: I play casually, at a club or at home, with friends who enjoy the game. I also like to win. A lot. So I play competitively within the casual arena - I don't list-tailor, I don't specifically design armies to break the game, but I do play to win.

That said, I enjoy a good game win or lose as long as it's entertaining. I just.. really like winning, lol.

I love competitive play.

I just wouldn't use Warhammer 40K for it. It really isn't (and shouldn't be) designed for it.

I prefer casual play because I can use sub-optimal fluffy armies and still have fun.

The only problem is that sometimes the environment to get too casual. People start having smoke breaks every turn, they use barely assembled armies and they whine if you even dare to use a codex written by Matt Ward.

Seriously, I'm starting to feel like the only way I'm going to keep my opponents happy is if I use nothing but Flayed Ones, unupgraded Overlords and Warriors (as long as I keep them out of rapid fire range and I don't shoot at any vehicles).

I prefer deep and engaging game play , that is arrived at by the use of well defined intuitive rules .

So I do not bother with 40k.

However, Blood Bowl is my favorite game of all time...And I can play that casually with my kids, all the way up to super competitive in my LFGS 'Death Ball ' league.
And we use the same rules without having to add house rules etc.