Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?

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.

**Horst**

Sqorgar wrote:
Horst wrote:
The non-competitive players are just as guilty of stirring the pot though...
Ah, the old "I know you are, but what am I" defense...

I maintain the answer to the original question, about why competitive players hate casual players, is because casual players hate competitive players just as much, and really no reconciliation is possible.
Again, we return to Warmachine, a game which had a community that was almost exclusively competitive players (and overwhelmingly hostile towards casual and non-competitive players, to the point where the non-competitive players ALL went and played other games or otherwise stayed the hell away from Warmachine's public facing community). Why were the competitive players so hostile to casual players when the casual players had no voice and no power? It's like beating up a handicapped kid. And where is Warmachine now? Those competitive players really turned out in force to defend the game in its darkest hour, didn't they

This isn't about being nice. When competitive players get their way 100% of the time, games die. This is about what's best for the long term health and survival of the game, and really, no matter how you slice that cake, the answer is always going to come up with "competitive players are bad". Bad for the game, bad for the community, and if they are bad for the game and the community, then that means they are bad for the industry.

Yep, and this entirely proves my point, so thank you. I disagree with literally everything you've said, except the parts about war machine, which I have no idea about because i'm not interested in it at all.

**Horst**

The sci-fi aesthetic of 40k is just better than WHFB ever was. 100% subjective of course, but it can't be that unpopular of an opinion.

**Horst**

Denny wrote:
Sqorgar wrote:
They are not. I feel like I've got a bad rap for hating on competitive players, but the fact is, I don't hate competitive players as individuals. I'm more than happy to play with them. My stance has always been that, as a group, they are really bad for the health of the game. Competitive play is not bad for a single game; it is bad for a game system.

Been a long time since School, but it somewhat reminds me of Rational Choice Theory.

Its a pretty basic modelling method for social/economic behaviour (sorta links into game theory). Individuals make decisions based upon their own best interests but, in doing so, can have opposite outcomes. A classic would be we all want clean air, so it is in my (and everyone else's) best interest for people to drive clean cars (or not drive at all). However my own contribution to air pollution is, in the scale of things, meaningless. I can drive a monster gas guzzler and, providing nobody else does, the air is clean. Likewise if I don't drive and everyone else does I'm late everywhere and still breathe in dirty air.

So I drive a gas guzzler. And so does everyone because they follow the same logic. Therefore, even though our priority is clean air, everyone ends up breathing in smog unless their purchase is not based upon their immediate best interest.

Assuming your hypothesis is correct this might fit a similar category. Individually all players want fun games. Winning is more fun that losing (especially if you are competitive). However playing to win may result in, ultimately, fewer games as more 'casuals' stop playing. Therefore the competitive player wins less (because less games take place), so 'fun' is reduced. So it is not in the long term interests for a competitive player to WAAC, but it is in their short term interest for each individual game.

Just spit-balling, and its all totally unverifiable, but kinda interesting to a stats nerd like me.

The alternative to this is people like me, who basically only play 40k at tournaments. I can count the number of games I've played outside a tournament setting this year on one hand, and I've played ~60 games at tournaments.

I don't think I'm alone in this, it's just quicker and easier to drive to a tournament on a weekend, play a guaranteed 3 games (or 5-6 if it's a GT), than to drive to the LGS and hope to meet up with someone who wants to play, then to negotiate how to play, and then have a game. So, I offer an alternative fate... as competitive becomes popular, tournaments become more widespread, competitive players further segregate themselves from casual players, so the casuals can just do their own thing without worrying about competitive players pissing in their cornflakes.

**Horst**

I've never really been clear on that argument. Competitive players want balanced rules. Why is that a bad thing? Can you give any examples where a more balanced competitive rules set is bad for casual players?

**Horst**

40k's rules are actually pretty decently balanced at the moment though. Ask any competitive player who plays in tournaments, and they'll pretty much say the same thing. Most armies have at least 1 competitive build, and all it would take to make some armies even better is slight tweaks or changes to their existing rules. For example, Eldar probably need to have their minus to hit stacking nerfed. Necrons probably need Warriors reduced in points cost, as well as lychguards and flayed ones. Tyranids needs points reductions to some of their larger monstrous creatures since they're a bit too expensive for how easy they die.

Most competitive players aren't arguing for a massive re-working of the rules, so if 40k is OK for casual now, there's no reason it has to change to accommodate competitive players, outside of minor tweaks like outlined above, which I don't see having a negative effect on casual play. The only codex that basically needs a full rework is Grey Knights, since they are just poorly designed... they need some massive reworking.

So I don't really see the "competitive rules will kill 40k" argument as valid, because the rules as they are now work pretty well for competitive 40k. Unless the argument is that the current rules set is already bad for casuals, but I don't quite buy that argument.

**Horst**

The biggest reason that casuals and competitive players have such a large gulf of difference though (at least when it comes to list strength) is that there are a lot of "trap" units in this game that are seriously underpowered for their in game cost. Like, a player might want to run a fluffy ultramarines battle company... tactical marines in rhinos and assault marines. All competitive players will agree (not hyperbole, I'd be willing to bet all would agree on this) that those units absolutely need buffs since they are nearly useless.

It's a relatively minor adjustment within the current rules framework. So competitive players want the same thing, more viable unit choices. Tactical marines could easily fill a role Primaris marines don't, that of cheaper, more versatile troops while the Primaris Intercessor squads are more expensive anti-infantry dedicated troops.

If the game has "useless" units in it, then competitive players will want them buffed to make them viable options, and casual players would also want them buffed so that they can actually field what they want without feeling gimped. Seems win-win. The current rules set seems to be moving towards this, with mostly positive balance changes (outside of some infuriatingly bad ones, my poor Porphyrion....) so things are looking optimistic IMO.

**Horst**

Yea, I saw that. Rules like that might make Tac marines viable again, but I shudder to think of what Imperial Fist Centurions will be like now. They were already pretty good, they're gonna be mass murder machines now, with AP-2 on their heavy bolters, or AP-1 on their regular bolters.

We'll see how much things cost and how the Vigilus stratagems interact with them.

**Horst**

Not Online!!! wrote:
Horst wrote:
I've never really been clear on that argument. Competitive players want balanced rules. Why is that a bad thing? Can you give any examples where a more balanced competitive rules set is bad for casual players?

BECAUSE ITC might aswell be 40 v1.2 and NOT 40k
Not everyone plays with magic boxes.
etc.

Meaning that balancing around the competitive side has unforseen and questionable results on the other end of the spectrum.
that difficult to understand?

Magic boxes are NOT an ITC rule, they are an LVO rule specifically. They are not interchangable, not all ITC events have magic boxes (in fact many do not).

The ONLY rules modification ITC makes to 40k (outside of custom mission win/loss conditions, which is not really a rules change, just a custom mission) is first level of ruins blocks line of sight, which I see as a thing that would only benefit casual players, since it gives you more hiding places for your units.

GW shouldn't balance around ITC missions, the ITC missions should balance around GW's rules. Which they are doing, they've been adding new secondary objectives / changing how the ITC missions work based on what new units / rules come out for new models.

**Horst**

I mean... you're wrong here. The competitive crowd doesn't just "fix" GW's rules. There was an issue with daemon prince spam / flyrant spam, until GW implemented the rule of 3. ITC didn't do that... that was GW changing that rule.

Sure, GW balanced it around competitive players abusing the rules in a way that wasn't intended. So they changed it. Anyone playing a Flyrant/Prince spam list in casual play wasn't a casual player in the first place, because that is absolutely a powergamer move.

They look towards the tournaments to see what units are over/under performing, because honestly where else are they going to pull data points from? If you need to balance something, you need a large well defined data set, and websites like 40kstats.com are making it increasingly easy to pull that info and analyze to see what is over and under performing.

**Horst**

Irkjoe wrote:
What about comp scores? At the very least it will decimate the perceived overpowered stuff, though I've never seen it work too well.

The problem with comp scores is that they're super subjective, and don't hurt every army equally. For example, if you make a rule that you can only take one of every model, but can take unlimited dedicated transports, Eldar with Wave Serpents become MUCH more powerful. You're just creating a different set of rules to be min-maxed. So I'd rather not use them at all honestly.

**Horst**

I mean, I don't dislike comp, my 5th edition marines army was built with it in mind back when I used to play. But all it really does is introduce a new balancing mechanic into the game, and make some armies much stronger than others. It's also extremely unfriendly towards newer casual players, if you build an army you think has cool models but it doesn't make lore sense, you get crucified.

**Horst**

Most competitive chaos armies just take Daemons for CP generation and screening. Arguing the cost per cp for their regular troops is asinine, because nobody uses them. Might as well take some Daemons and get good, useful troops like Plaguebearers, horrors, and bloodletters.

So if you're gonna take those units anyway, since they are very good, then why bother arguing about how much CP it costs per point?

**Horst**

auticus wrote:
AOS balance is definitely lol. Its supporters will say that its great and balanced because at the tournament level there is so much diversity (which I'd contend is also false) in the winning percentages. At the casual level its definitely blow out city in many games due 100% to the list mismatches.

40k I quit and sold my stuff off a couple years ago so I can't comment though I'd have to say I would find it hard to believe there is any balance there after having played 3rd - 7th edition and it never existing at all in those editions either.

40k has balance if both players bring meta lists... and there are a lot of those from every race. Even Necrons. Only GK have no chance. Still, casual games are often blowouts unless the person with the stronger army intentionally tones it down to match his opponent, because there are a lot of very bad choices tou can make building an army.

**Horst**

Competitive 40k at least has some options in how you build things. Most current competitive lists have a set "core" that's like 1000-1500 points, and then you can basically fill in the blanks with whatever you want. Take 3x Crusader Knights for example... very strong tournament list. I've seen variants with smash captains and guardsmen added, or tank commanders and guardsmen, or admech and smash captains, or even a 4th Knight and some AdMech. You can change it up to suit your playstyle.

Most lists are like that.