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 have seen a lot of discussion on so called “Competitive Play”, but what is “Competitive Play”?
For some it seems to be two equal Armies taking one each other.
For some it is an Army that can take on any number of Armies.
For some it is making the “Maximum” out of any Army List to compete against another army that has made the “Maximum” out of another’s Army List.

For me it is the first one, two of us building a pair of Armies of a set points value and let’s see what happens. Sometimes I win, Sometimes I loose. At the end of the day we killed some time and blew the crap out of each other while having fun doing it..

The broad definition: Two (or more) players playing a game to determine the winner.

The (probably) relevant definition: Two (or more) players playing a game to determine the winner as (mostly) a result of player input/decisions.

You forgot
"for some it's winning no matter what and abusing the rules in there favour"
And
"for some it's a barrier to actually having fun and playing the army you want to play"
And
"for some it's simply the only way they know how to have fun and play the game"

There be lots of ways to play competitive, for example some people may want pure fluff armies but also want it to be competitive.

Also consider there are alot of negative connotations that come with competitive players, waac etc. Sometimes this alone stops people even attempting to play a competitive list though fear of a negative label, I hear the term "tourney" player being bandied around alot and it's never in a good way.

 Formosa wrote:
You forgot
"for some it's winning no matter what and abusing the rules in there favour"
And
"for some it's a barrier to actually having fun and playing the army you want to play"
And
"for some it's simply the only way they know how to have fun and play the game"

There be lots of ways to play competitive, for example some people may want pure fluff armies but also want it to be competitive.

Also consider there are alot of negative connotations that come with competitive players, waac etc. Sometimes this alone stops people even attempting to play a competitive list though fear of a negative label, I hear the term "tourney" player being bandied around alot and it's never in a good way.

This +1

It's a term that means different things to different people.

Best discussion of this topic I've seen is from Mike Brandt in a post on the Torrent of Fire site.

http://www.torrentoffire.com/1640/our-hobby-is-classless-the-folly-of-trying-to-put-gamers-in-a-bucket

I hope we’ve by now completely abolished the horrible use of the word “competitive” when referring to 40k tournaments. They aren’t, and IMO they never will be. There are too few events, too diverse a set of codices, too rapid a series of changes to those codices and too many players spread across too large a land area. Until we have a seeded event for only the best players (and look, I think the NOVA Invitational gets close, but it’s still fairly diverse in skill and army level), we’re never going to have a remotely competitive 40k event.

For me, is building an army for tournaments even if is just a friendly game.

 hellpato wrote:
For me, is building an army for tournaments even if is just a friendly game.

What's the difference between an army for tournaments and an army for friendly games? Don't people try to take good armies for friendly games?

If you say that armies should be less powerful for friendly games how do you define how powerful they should be?

 Arschbombe wrote:
It's a term that means different things to different people.

Which is why it should be suspect.

In contrast, it's usually pretty clear to most people what "competitive painting" is in the miniatures-hobby, even if you can't hold a brush if you're life depended on it. It's obvious what skills you need for that and it'll be obvious if your entry isn't up to scratch.

Truly "competitive" painting-skills can't be "misused" as a (possibly self-deluding) euphemism for "obsessive painting" or "taking painting way too seriously". Unfortunately, it can be on the game-side of things.

Competitive playing in general for me has been to have a very good understanding of any system to edge out the victory.

this includes all the statistics, planning, and testing that would go for any sort of game from golf to tekken.

me 2 cents

 Scott-S6 wrote:

What's the difference between an army for tournaments and an army for friendly games? Don't people try to take good armies for friendly games?
If you say that armies should be less powerful for friendly games how do you define how powerful they should be?

For us “Less Powerful or “Non-Competitive” are just what we [my group] play.
For Example my Guard:
>I use Bloated Command Squads, Rough Riders, Leman Russ Demolisher and I am working on some Ogryn. Why, because they are fun to play and I like my models.
>My primary opponent likes to use his Power Sword/Storm Shield/Jump Pack Vanguard Vets and 2-6 Dreadnaughts and he is not an Iron Hands Player.

Now vs. a normal “Competitive List” we might get crushes all of the time, but vs. ourselves our list are very “Competitive”.

"Competitive play" is rather loaded in meaning, it kinda depends on the games you like to play: where is your focus.

My favorite article on this may help a little:
http://pinsofwar.com/competitive-40k-does-not-exist/

Chess is true competitive play, you are responsible for every step of the outcome and playing with equal armies.

Those who like the list building is more an exercise on "rock-paper-scissors" where the inherent nature of the list has strengths and weaknesses to other armies.

My own personal definition is I like to have as close a game as possible with my opponent, if it was a hard win, it was done right.

I would play chess with a guy at lunch who I later found out was some Polish master at it.
I asked why he would bother playing me of a much lower caliber, he said: "Because I cannot anticipate everything you do, I try to force you into a certain pattern into a certain position that I want, the fun is how on occasion you wriggle off the hook and I have to set a new goal."

I have come across scary individuals who like to play FP shooters only with knife strikes for their kills as a challenge and do a decent job of it.

Others view that being able to "table" your opponent is the standard to show you had created an effective list and executed effective tactics.

I look at it that if something was not challenging, there was nothing to learn from it.

Maybe I am a sap for thinking of "fair play" but as a game it can only make you better, if your life is on the line, every underhanded method at your disposal is appropriate.

 Talizvar wrote:
"Competitive play" is rather loaded in meaning, it kinda depends on the games you like to play: where is your focus.

My favorite article on this may help a little:
http://pinsofwar.com/competitive-40k-does-not-exist/

Chess is true competitive play, you are responsible for every step of the outcome and playing with equal armies.

Those who like the list building is more an exercise on "rock-paper-scissors" where the inherent nature of the list has strengths and weaknesses to other armies.

My own personal definition is I like to have as close a game as possible with my opponent, if it was a hard win, it was done right.

I would play chess with a guy at lunch who I later found out was some Polish master at it.
I asked why he would bother playing me of a much lower caliber, he said: "Because I cannot anticipate everything you do, I try to force you into a certain pattern into a certain position that I want, the fun is how on occasion you wriggle off the hook and I have to set a new goal."

I have come across scary individuals who like to play FP shooters only with knife strikes for their kills as a challenge and do a decent job of it.

Others view that being able to "table" your opponent is the standard to show you had created an effective list and executed effective tactics.

I look at it that if something was not challenging, there was nothing to learn from it.

Maybe I am a sap for thinking of "fair play" but as a game it can only make you better, if your life is on the line, every underhanded method at your disposal is appropriate.

You are the kind of person I would love to play.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 hellpato wrote:
For me, is building an army for tournaments even if is just a friendly game.

What's the difference between an army for tournaments and an army for friendly games? Don't people try to take good armies for friendly games?

If you say that armies should be less powerful for friendly games how do you define how powerful they should be?

Nidz exemple : competitive : gaunts spam with flyrant.
friendly game : Tyranids warriors, Malenthrop ans ripper swarms.

Competitive 40K is when you play to win. Same as competitive anything else, your goal is winning.

 Anpu42 wrote:
You are the kind of person I would love to play.

Thanks, that is the intent.
The MAIN reason to play is so that you enjoy yourself AND your opponent or you may not have the opportunity to play them again.

I have changed the entire intent of a game by saying "My commander HATES your commander and has commanded his entire army to see him destroyed!". That was exactly how I played, my opponent was then playing the game of hiding the command squad while throwing everything he had at anything getting near him, it was glorious! I had never seen so many models die in so many ways.

I could do my all time best and table my opponent and where will that get anyone?
Some more "competitive" people would then say it is conceit to limit yourself (and a good excuse) but I find it all too easy to get caught into "escalation" of the game and as shown is not a true test of skill so it is better to find a middle ground and enjoy.

Truly brilliant maneuvers are easy to recognize and give credit and enjoy while losing due to the right army with the right amount of money getting the win seems a little hollow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 greyknight12 wrote:
Competitive 40K is when you play to win. Same as competitive anything else, your goal is winning.

But an utterly pointless win when you table your opponent.
I have seen experienced players target "weak" players for an easy win to boost the ego.
It is a form of bullying: go find some peers to challenge if you cannot handicap your game appropriately to make it challenging.
Yes, I want to win but only if I am challenged.
If it is easy, I do not want to do it.
Is that not the true sprit of being competitive?

 hellpato wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 hellpato wrote:
For me, is building an army for tournaments even if is just a friendly game.

What's the difference between an army for tournaments and an army for friendly games? Don't people try to take good armies for friendly games?

If you say that armies should be less powerful for friendly games how do you define how powerful they should be?

Nidz exemple : competitive : gaunts spam with flyrant.
friendly game : Tyranids warriors, Malenthrop ans ripper swarms.

But how do you decide what is powerful enough vs. too powerful? Where is the line drawn? How does sometime determine when building in army (in a non-extreme case) which side of the line that army is on?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Anpu42 wrote:

For us “Less Powerful or “Non-Competitive” are just what we [my group] play.

And how do you determine that a list is non-competitive vs. competitive? Is there some kind of standard?

Or is it just that you're okay with armies that don't push your comfort zones?

I will not do a mega quote here.

Scott-S6, may be is just a perception thing between competitive and non competitive and I don't think is about if the army is powerful or not. For me is about the redundancy I saw in the army list of competitive players and how they played. I found fun to play again competitive players (they are hard to beat and I like that) but I found they always have the same list what ever the armies they bring. For the non competitive players they always surprised me for what they bring on the table top. Like I wrote, my nids army is warriors and ripper swarms, people will said is not competitive because is just big bug easy to kill but that bring something different in the game.

But we must not use competitive players for jack-ass with bad behavior. That not the same thing.

(sorry for my bad grammar, french canadian guy trying to write in english)

 Scott-S6 wrote:
And how do you determine that a list is non-competitive vs. competitive? Is there some kind of standard?
Or is it just that you're okay with armies that don't push your comfort zones?

It has nothing to do with any set of rules or Comfort Zone. I can field a Grey Hunter/Long Fang SPAM list with out blinking, but why should I. after I have done it a few times it gets BORING!

The closest thing we have to a “Set of Rules is an informal FoC.
HQ: 1
Elite: 1
Troops: 2
Fast Attack: 1
Heavy Support: 1
We don’t even enforce it, but everyone see what we are doing they get on band wagon. Also like to see everyone switch up there list every time. We see different units out there all of the time and most of the games are close, usually one or two VP makes the difference. I even lost a game because one of my Lone Wolves lived.

So I think we have a very competitive environment with out Min/Max list.

 Anpu42 wrote:
The closest thing we have to a “Set of Rules is an informal FoC.

I guess you always play very small games where being limited to the "allied" FOC doesn't prevent you from using all of your points effectively?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hellpato wrote:
Nidz exemple : competitive : gaunts spam with flyrant.
friendly game : Tyranids warriors, Malenthrop ans ripper swarms.

But how are those other units "friendly"? Are you making the popular mistake of defining "friendly" as "less chance of winning"?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
The closest thing we have to a “Set of Rules is an informal FoC.

I guess you always play very small games where being limited to the "allied" FOC doesn't prevent you from using all of your points effectively?

Actualy that is just a "Required" before bying other things...I should have made that clear
HQ: 1-2
Elite: 1-3
Troops: 2-6
Fast Attack: 1-3
Heavy Support: 1-3
Not counting Double FoC Allies and stuff like that. We normaly play about 2,000 points.

 Anpu42 wrote:
Actualy that is just a "Required" before bying other things...I should have made that clear.

That makes more sense, but I'm not sure what it has to do with competitive vs. non-competitive. Unless you're playing a small game where you struggle to find points to fill those extra slots most armies, even competitive ones, shouldn't have much trouble putting one unit in each FOC slot. It really seems like a case of "do what you're going to do anyway".

 Peregrine wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
Actually that is just a "Required" before buying other things...I should have made that clear.

That makes more sense, but I'm not sure what it has to do with competitive vs. non-competitive. Unless you're playing a small game where you struggle to find points to fill those extra slots most armies, even competitive ones, shouldn't have much trouble putting one unit in each FOC slot. It really seems like a case of "do what you're going to do anyway".

I think what I am trying to say with this is that “Competitive” does not mean the same to everyone.
I was wanting to know what you mean when you say “Competitive Game” or what the definition of “Completive Play.”
Talizvar I think hit it on the head. A “Competitive Game” is one where both had a good time Win or Loose. If that means two WAAC list going to head or two “Sub-Par List” go head to head, as long as it is a good close game, it was a Good Game.
.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
The closest thing we have to a “Set of Rules is an informal FoC.

I guess you always play very small games where being limited to the "allied" FOC doesn't prevent you from using all of your points effectively?

Actualy that is just a "Required" before bying other things...I should have made that clear
HQ: 1-2
Elite: 1-3
Troops: 2-6
Fast Attack: 1-3
Heavy Support: 1-3
Not counting Double FoC Allies and stuff like that. We normaly play about 2,000 points.

I think it would be quite difficult not to hit that requirement in a 2K army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Talizvar I think hit it on the head. A “Competitive Game” is one where both had a good time Win or Loose. If that means two WAAC list going to head or two “Sub-Par List” go head to head, as long as it is a good close game, it was a Good Game.
.

This is thoroughly agree with - a close game is always the best kind of game. The problem is, when you have two experienced players and one insists on bringing deliberately less powerful lists - how do you build a list that is going to be close in power level (without having seen the list you'll be playing against in advance)?

It's much easier to get a close match where both players bring their best.

For me, competitive play is a game where the primary goal is for one of the players to win. Often when I'm playing 40k or other games, that isn't necessarily my primary goal. There are several goals in a game from my point of view, and which one is most important will vary between games depending on the context:

Establish a winner
Tell a story or simulate a scenario from the fluff
Create memorable situations
Create a visual spectacle
Spend time with one or more friends
Play with my model collection

The relative importance of these goals will shift depending on context and mood. Personally, establishing a winner is rarely the most important to me, perhaps because I have a heavy roleplaying background. The best thing is, in all the other goals I mentioned, everyone can 'win'. I'm similar with boardgames - my favourite ones tend to be collaborative like Arkham Horror or Zombicide, rather than strictly competitive.

 hellpato wrote:
Nidz exemple : competitive : gaunts spam with flyrant.
friendly game : Tyranids warriors, Malenthrop ans ripper swarms.

But how are those other units "friendly"? Are you making the popular mistake of defining "friendly" as "less chance of winning"?

 hellpato wrote:

 hellpato wrote:
Nidz exemple : competitive : gaunts spam with flyrant.
friendly game : Tyranids warriors, Malenthrop ans ripper swarms.

But how are those other units "friendly"? Are you making the popular mistake of defining "friendly" as "less chance of winning"?

No, you can beat everything and everyone with any kind of army in this game. Being non competitive create more fun game than always be competitive...

Has the last thread with this topic and title even made it to the 2nd page of threads yet?

Is fun to see how people see what is "competitive". Is surprising that nobody said WAC players in the competitive play,

Thats because competitive does not equal WAAC. The only time WAAC is even mentioned in these threads is when the competitive players start yelling "DONT CALL ME WAAC JUST BECAUSE I LOOK TO WIN AND PLAY COMPETITIVELY!!!!!!!!!".
Thats a kneejerk reaction that some who have a guilty conscience have.
I will repeat what I said just last week in the other thread.
Competative play to me is...
1. Where both players want to win and the opponent have fun is a secondary objective.

 EVIL INC wrote:

Competative play to me is...
1. Where both players want to win and the opponent have fun is a secondary objective.

To me this is a not bad way to think about it.