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.

I've been playing for quite a long time, but in all that time I have never played a super competitive list. The best being a Draigowing, but it didn't have great support units and he wasn't a great general. The main reason I haven't played any competitive games is because most of the tournies around me are set in places with bars, which means I wold have to have adult supervision because I am not 16 yet. Anyhow, today I had the best game I've ever played against a very competitive player with a screamer star (The army belonged to the first reserve for the welsh team in one important tournament or another) and managed to scrape a draw. I saw the army slaughter a space marine army 33% BIGGER then his own (1,500pts of daemons vs 2000pts of marines) and new I wanted to ply him. After reading a lot of battle reports about the screamer star (Thanks JY2 ) I had a good idea of what to do. It turns out a good counter to them is a Butt-load of splinter shots and seizing on a 4+ with Vect, so that halved the screamer unit first turn but when they got their 2+ re-roll running I totally ignored them until they got close enough to give him a taste of his own medicine. I fortuned Vect up and threw him into them and he held them up for the rest of the game (3 turns, 6 combat phases). Anyway, his isn't a battle report, so long story short we drew. I also found out god hates fateweaver, I had one turn to kill him otherwise he would contest my objective and he would win, and he was at full wounds. Then I managed to get 6 6's out of 12 splinter shots, he managed to fail his grounding check twice, then I hit him with a full dire avenger squad. 19 shots, 19 hits , 12 wounds. That birdie got plucked.

I enjoyed the game because it was very tactically challenging, I had to think turns ahead and have plan B's and C's. I really enjoyed this competitive play, and what I wanted to ask is why do people like/dislike competitive scenes? I would love it if everyone in my store was a competitive player, but I've had people criticise others for not playing the 'spirit of the game'. Do you see competitive play as a soul sucking WAAC idea or as the kind of fun, tactically rewarding (But also very luck-rewarding!) that I do?

Alex

As a tourney player and someone who’s taken a long time getting good at the game reading this really makes me happy, that someone finally seems to get why both people playing their best with or against optimised lists is fun. The fact that you’re one of this generations wargamers also gives me hope for the future of this game.

normally people who dont enjoy this style of play either don't have the necessary tactical capacity/model pool to play at that level which is fair enough. Hell it takes a lot of time and/or money to get good and some people just don’t have that which is perfectly fine…….

but you also get the ones who simply don't want to loose (the people who dont play against 3 wraith knights or rip tides for example) and refuse to even try against those armies because someone on the internet told them that list was unbeatable. what annoys me the most about these people is that they demand that you drop your game to play on their level so that they can have fun even if it means you wont enjoy the game :/

you do get the odd person who is a really jerk and HAS to win or else he’s not having a good time which tends to give competitive players a bad name but you’ll find a lot of them aren’t like that and that many of them enjoy loosing as it shows them where they need to get better.

I will say that playing competitive games can be very fun and each one is a training excersize to help make you a better player.
that said, I wish I was able to play more games just for fun with my buddies at home without the pressure.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:


I enjoyed the game because it was very tactically challenging, I had to think turns ahead and have plan B's and C's. I really enjoyed this competitive play, and what I wanted to ask is why do people like/dislike competitive scenes? I would love it if everyone in my store was a competitive player,

I think herein lies the problem. You try to impose your definition of fun on others.

If you enjoy competitive 40K, more power to you. But you should respect those that don't.

I love playing 40K with a few beer once in a while. That doesn't mean I want everyone to always play 40K drunk, or to not raise an eyebrow if I show up to a game dead drunk unannounced.

There's a "setting" for different types of having fun with the game. Beerhammer can be fun, but it can also be totally inappropriate. Same for competitive 40K. Be mindful of what others (expecially your opponent) consider fun, not just what you (!) consider fun.

I don't mind playing against a competitive player. I do however get tired of playing against the same list every game, which is a common side effect of a competitive environment.

Competitive lists are a blast! The harder the fight, the better, and (generally) you learn new tactics and methods.

I'll take a difficult game over an easy win any day. The fun is in knowing you're both trying your hardest but can't be sure of who will win until the bloody end.

I also enjoy games where every single move matters and till the end you never know who might possibly win.
In my experience it is quite rare to get tabled when both players are competetive ones. Happened to me only once (since I've started playing competetively) and it was against a RavenWing that took me by surprise ( a huge one ) and also had some good rolls (he took down 3 Wave Serpents and 1 Fire Prism in 1 turn). But I'm sure that next time I face him I will fare better against him.

Well, some people may not like competitive play because spending hours trying to optimise a list is not everyone's definition of 'fun'.
I do enjoy a competitive game every now and then, but most of the time I'd rather have nice, fluffy games. I think that broad, fluffy lists are more fun to play than cheesy, optimised lists. There is no challenge for me in trying to beat 3 rip tides. Sure I could do it, but I just find it boring. It is not my idea of fun.
Making a list that is effective but still true to the fluff and is not 'cheesy' as in focusing on a single kind of unit can also be loads of fun.
Competitive lists can be fun because they require a lot of thinking, which is fun, but in terms of actual gameplay I find them to be boring, as they usually focus on one single tactic or unit.

Im stuck between 2

I like having a casual game with friends where we can have a few drinks and really tinker with lists and ideas to come out with some amusing games.

But i also love competitive games.
It turns it into more of a thinking game as your having to plan 2-3 steps ahead of time, which can all change again after a single phase.
Your trying to work out every possible outcome before making a move, but your limited by time, so your always having to think on your feet.


All in all though, im happy to play both.
But as said, having to play against the usual cookie cutter tournie lists does tend to get a bit boring.

As a former competitive magicer who just made the step to 40k. I can really understand the fun of being in a competitive game. I caught myself trying to find the optimal list and strategy and trying to metagame. Most of the people at my LGS that play 40k however are not that way. Today a buddy of mine said that he found it funny that I tried to theorize and strategize every move and aspect of a game. Where as he is more a flufy player that likes to see where it will lead him.

The difference between a casual gamer and a competitive gamer is wanting to solve the puzzle. I like challenges and I want to be challenged; I will try and optimize my every move to make sure I'll win the game. For a tournament this will most of the time mean that you'll run a 'cheese' list. Though playing a all comers list in a casual game is also fine but I won't get that thrill out of it as that you'll get when you 'broke it' in a competitive setting.

My 2s.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
I don't mind playing against a competitive player. I do however get tired of playing against the same list every game, which is a common side effect of a competitive environment.

+1 this.

I don't mind facing fully optimised lists every now and then, but once it becomes the 'accepted norm', I just get bored out of my skull.
Facing Grey Hunter + Missilefang spam last edition for example, the first 5 or so times was fun and challenging - especially with Daemons which were very, very weak against mech spam at the time. Come the 12'th time, games were becoming dull and entirely predictable. By the 20'th or so time, I would rather go smash my head against a wall repeatedly than bore myself with yet another Grey Hunter spam mech list.

I tend to have a lot more fun vs. lists that 'break the tournament mold' and present new units & combinations that you normally don't see among the bread & butter cookie-cutter lists. It can be far more challenging in a sense to go from the basic 'rock/paper/scissors/spock' you normally expect out of tourney lists, to instead seeing 'rock/paper/lizard/nuke/dynamite!'

Honestly I'm losing interest in competitive 40k. I love the idea of competitive games in theory, but 40k's rules are just too broken to be much fun in a competitive environment. That element of list optimization/strategy vs. counter-strategy/metagaming/etc is completely lacking in 40k. List optimization usually consists of identifying the most overpowered option (which is usually pretty obvious) and taking it. It's not a question of imagination or skill, it's just deciding "I'm going to use a competitive list this game". So why bother when the mental challenge is so limited? It's like trying to optimize strategy for a game with small children. Sure, you can do it, but what are you getting out of it?

Of course this is really disappointing since those things should be fun, and are fun in better games. But GW's rules just aren't good enough.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:


I enjoyed the game because it was very tactically challenging, I had to think turns ahead and have plan B's and C's. I really enjoyed this competitive play, and what I wanted to ask is why do people like/dislike competitive scenes? I would love it if everyone in my store was a competitive player,

I think herein lies the problem. You try to impose your definition of fun on others.

If you enjoy competitive 40K, more power to you. But you should respect those that don't.

I love playing 40K with a few beer once in a while. That doesn't mean I want everyone to always play 40K drunk, or to not raise an eyebrow if I show up to a game dead drunk unannounced.

There's a "setting" for different types of having fun with the game. Beerhammer can be fun, but it can also be totally inappropriate. Same for competitive 40K. Be mindful of what others (expecially your opponent) consider fun, not just what you (!) consider fun.

Just because I would love it doesn't mean I begrudge them their opinions/choices. Just because I would love it if every single person in my store was one of those great people that always offers out their sweets around or I would love it if Megan Fox decided to come over to my house for marshmallows and coco (make of that what you will ) doesn't mean I expect it to happen. Maybe I enjoyed the game so much because I knew we drew thanks to good tactical decisions (And I won't lie, dynamite rolling!), I get exactly the same rush from my Wood Elves (They where my first army, and playing them while wishing to win some matches teaches tactics like no other army, especially when I was only 12 ) where I know if I win it was because I played it well. That's where I get my rush from, and I understand everyone has their own poison. The reason I am, not frustrated, but feeling 'stymied' at the lack of competition in my store is because there isn't the option for regular competitive games, all the while knowing exactly the sort of atmosphere I want is out there, but I am simply to young to participate. That's the real kicker.

While I personally am not a fan of most spam lists, I have to say I am very hypocritical. I run a list using Vect, several Venoms/Ravagers with occasional added Eldar goodies. Barring the allied Eldar, I believe the list is one of the more fluffy competitive lists and I find it incredibly fun to play. precise movement and damage control form a vital part of the army, which gives me a feel of accomplishing things tactically when I kill just the right amount (perfectly math-hammered out) to push me out of range of bolters with Nightfields. I probably would like fluffy battles, but fluffy and competitive don't have to be mutually exclusive either and I feel like I have had enough of playing people who play their newly acquired battle force like a sledgehammer, then get up set and sulk for the rest of the game, taking the fun outta it for me. Maybe I just need to find the right players?

 Jackal wrote:
Im stuck between 2

I like having a casual game with friends where we can have a few drinks and really tinker with lists and ideas to come out with some amusing games.

But i also love competitive games.
It turns it into more of a thinking game as your having to plan 2-3 steps ahead of time, which can all change again after a single phase.
Your trying to work out every possible outcome before making a move, but your limited by time, so your always having to think on your feet.


All in all though, im happy to play both.
But as said, having to play against the usual cookie cutter tournie lists does tend to get a bit boring.

+1!!! I don't know if I could "only" play one or the other. I am very glad to have a good community where I am that affords me competitive games and more laid back with a who cares on the outcome type games attitude. Being in a competitive environment burns you out fast, but with out that environment I'm not sure I'd care about the game as much as I do because laid back games can be flat out uninteresting even if your trying to "forge a narrative".

I agree with what the OP is saying, there is a mental challenge and reward for playing "competitively" that you just don't get from throwing fun or random units on the table. There's a place for that, but I'm beginning more and more to prefer the hyper-competitive scene for the challenge.

 Peregrine wrote:
Honestly I'm losing interest in competitive 40k. I love the idea of competitive games in theory, but 40k's rules are just too broken to be much fun in a competitive environment. That element of list optimization/strategy vs. counter-strategy/metagaming/etc is completely lacking in 40k. List optimization usually consists of identifying the most overpowered option (which is usually pretty obvious) and taking it. It's not a question of imagination or skill, it's just deciding "I'm going to use a competitive list this game". So why bother when the mental challenge is so limited? It's like trying to optimize strategy for a game with small children. Sure, you can do it, but what are you getting out of it?

Of course this is really disappointing since those things should be fun, and are fun in better games. But GW's rules just aren't good enough.

This!!! competitive is boring unless the game system is designed for it.

I enjoy playing against competitive, competent people. But I dislike when lists are taken solely to counter me.. Not saying that's what happened in your game, but the best games are when you and your opponent don't know what each other bring. Where in the skill of the General is seen through his game play.

It's easy to shut down Daemon players with first turn steals, and DE do it masterfully, especially with pushed wounds via Poison weapons and Splinter Cannons.

Competitive is good.

Whatever floats your boat is fine by me. I think competitive/uncompetitive isn't as relevant as a game where the lists are on relatively even footing, whether they be very powerful or not very optimized. When people try to push their version of fun onto others is where it becomes not OK. Just go with whatever is fun for the players involved!

I'm still getting into the game, but even if I were more established I don't think I'd be playing hyper-competitively or going to many tournaments with the goal of winning. I prefer a more narrative approach to things.

Hi all.
There is NOTHING wrong with enjoying playing competitively.
There is nothing wrong playing in a narrative way.

MOST good games allow players to play mix play styles in the same game and BOTH still enjoy themselves.

However, 40k has such poor and OBVIOUS balance issues.
That players have to CHOOSE between playing competitively OR playing narrative driven way.
As some one taking a fulffy list CAN be at a massive disadvantage when they play an optimized list.

And competitive players are re-enforcing GW plcs idea that you sell more NEW product by using codex creep.
And the narrative players are re-enforcing GW plcs idea that you just need to make cool looking models to sell them.
'All we have to do is JUST make these new units the most cost effective and the 'WAAC' players will buy them, OR JUST make them look cool, and the 'FAAC' will buy them.'

Which is a LOT easier than making a balanced game where ALL units are viable choices, and ALL play styles and player types can enjoy playing a game together...

I mean do you expect a multimillion pound multinational corperation that charges premium prices, to do a better job of balancing its games than a couple of dozen guys working in a ' big shed?'

There is NOTHING wrong with the majority of people playing the game of 40k.
MOST of the problems with the game play of 40k , is down to GW plc influence on 'game development.'

I think fluffy starts at list building etc. Play competitively but make lists that are fluffy. I am against optimized lists but am all for competitive play. use the units you have to their full effect, that is tactics.

Playing this way in my opinion is perfect.

did anyone actually read the op? He lucked out and killed fatewaeaver, rendering the screamerstar useless. I don't know what tactical lessons he learned from that, perhaps he could elaborate. He also seems to conflate tactical thinking with competativeness, this is untrue - at any level that you play, you have to think about how your units will perform on the battlefield and think turns in advance. This is actually more noticable in less competative games because you have a larger mix of units with more abilities - hellhounds play completely differently to vendettas, for example, and foot guard are totally different to mech.

I've never had any interest in competative 40k. If you only want to play with the single most powerful combination of units then you may as well throw your codex away, since you don't need any diversity or fluff at all.

Also, 40k is simply not designed for competative play, it's designed to be fun. This freedom is imo part of what makes 40k so appealing, it has the sort of rules and mechanics that will make me excitidly text my friends to tell them about.

I play Chaos.

No nurgle models, no flying daemon princes, no bikers, no spawn, no zombies, no heldrakes, not even noise marines.

I do care a little for competetiveness. I want a unit to be able to do -something-. Beyond that I do not give the slightest for competetiveness. And luckily I am in a gaming group that agrees. (Except for one dude and his vendettas, but he has scared everyone away already.)

That is my preference of 40K. Competetiveness is fun. Immersion and story is fun too. Equally viable depending on who you ask.

I wish competitive 40k would take on around here. My friend keeps trying to start tournaments(Day long ones) at stores, but they all refuse, saying they don't like competitiveness in their store.
My new store Is full of people who dont like to be competitive, and Now they have taken to shunning my list and me.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
And luckily I am in a gaming group that agrees. (Except for one dude and his vendettas, but he has scared everyone away already.)

This is the little issue with this time-tried 'Competitive or Fluffy'? debate.

If you've been around a few 40k games in your time, you'll know pretty clearly that there are optimized, fluffy, and mixed lists.

If you're running an Optimized list, and playing against one of the other list-types, you're not going to get the same challenge or tournament-level practice in, but you can expect a good degree of immersiveness and thought put into their list (albeit for different reasons). The competitive player shouldn't fault his opponent for not having the most powerful list, and should understand that going into the game.

If you're running a Fluffy list, and playing against one of the other list-types, you're not going to get the same immersive, fluffy, cinematic experience, you may face some nasty cheese or difficult units, but by facing a powerful, min-maxed list, you will see your lists weaknesses and shortcomings. As a player not using a necessarily tactically perfect army, if you don't want to change your favorite units for the internets favorite units, more power to you. But being aware of your list's inherent struggles will help you play your list more competently, and will make those "David v. Goliath" matchups much more bearable, even fun for you. Know you're much less likely to win in these matchups, but you've chosen your type of list, and winning isn't everything, just focus on getting something else out of the game.

As a mixed list, of course, you're going to face up against the spectrum. Against Min-maxed lists, you're going to be in for a fight, and against Fluffy lists you're going to be in for an experience. Against other mixed lists, you're going to experience different degrees of each. A mixed list will give you the "Jack of both trades, master of none" vibe, but often allows you the most creative freedom, and the most varied gaming experiences.

Just my two (or three) cents.

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.

xruslanx wrote:
did anyone actually read the op? He lucked out and killed fatewaeaver, rendering the screamerstar useless. I don't know what tactical lessons he learned from that, perhaps he could elaborate. He also seems to conflate tactical thinking with competativeness, this is untrue - at any level that you play, you have to think about how your units will perform on the battlefield and think turns in advance. This is actually more noticable in less competative games because you have a larger mix of units with more abilities - hellhounds play completely differently to vendettas, for example, and foot guard are totally different to mech.

I've never had any interest in competative 40k. If you only want to play with the single most powerful combination of units then you may as well throw your codex away, since you don't need any diversity or fluff at all.

Also, 40k is simply not designed for competative play, it's designed to be fun. This freedom is imo part of what makes 40k so appealing, it has the sort of rules and mechanics that will make me excitidly text my friends to tell them about.

Yes, I could elaborate. I was having an incredibly fun match the entire game and would of been perfectly happy with a loss against such a good player with such a good list (Albeit a small loss by 1 VP making it even closer) but some lucky rolling turned it into a draw, which I was even more happy with. I would disagree that tactical thinking isn't synonymous (Your not the only one with google thesaurus ) with competitive gaming. This is especially true in very tense games, where a good understanding of the rules can put you at a tactical advantage. For example to deal with a herald on a turn where I got misfortune to stick on them I used focus fire in a smart way (Not my own genius, but the internets!) where I obscured the screamers with a raider then focus fired into the herald even through a 2+ invul. What I learned from this is that I have found that I really enjoy tense, close and cut throat games which I simply cannot get at my GW. Yes, I enjoy winning, but not as much as I enjoy feeling like I deserved to win. Maybe it's by knowing the rules better, or having good target priority/strategy but I get my kick from feeling like I have out smarted my opponent, but I also find his riposte and counter strategy enjoyable as well. If lots of people run similar that's OK, because no game will ever be the same as another. If you cannot handle the new units/meta then you have to learn to adapt if you want to play those kind of games. I respect and understand not everyone is inclined to play this way, or like me simply don't have the chance ( ), but I will try play these kind of games again. It was easily the most fun game I've had so far.

Interesting topic.

I think the playstyle I prefer is a mix of both. I like to bring a fun list, and try to play it as if it were competative. Who knows, maybe i'll try and bring some howling banshees to the table and try my best to make them work.....okay maybe not banshees, but I think you get the idea!

I believe winning is fun. It's hard to find fun in loss which can be avoided by not taking a competitive unit. I can find some fun in some lost games, but when it's a curb stomp, there's no fun to be found. Especially from games which are lost from turn 2. I enjoy taking competitive lists, I enjoy winning. I don't like losing and i don't see what the problem is with competitive gaming. This isn't just for 40k by the way.

I think the reason that power gaming list get such a bad rap is because they are no fun to play against UNLESS you are playing a power gaming list against it. Taking a fluff list, a mix list, or anything else against Screamstar is just setting yourself up for a bland, unfun, boring game. Mostly for both sides unless the guy playing Screamstar gets off to beating on someone who doesn't stand a chance.

The only "power gaming" list I can take is my Tyranid list because I have a couple of Tervigons and a Flying Hive Tyrant...but it wouldn't come close to competing against Screamstar or Serpent Spam.

Two power list facing off can be a ton of fun for both parties, it is when you have a power list vs a fluff list that things start to fall apart. Or when you have an jerk of an opponent. Yeah, let's just boil it down to the bare bones, you and your opponent have to have an understanding of what is to be expected before you play against one another. If a power gamer came into my club looking for a game he probably wouldn't find one...no one at our club plays tournaments regularly and are just looking to play with what models they have, trying out different list for fun, etc.

So to get back on topic from my ramblings, good to see you enjoyed the competitive scene. This game is all about enjoying the game how you want to play it, just keep in mind that your opponents might have a different idea of what is fun and you should find some middle ground before the game starts.