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.

It's just shorthand for the platform they're seeking to emulate.

40k does not have a stable meta, stable strategies, or even *coherent* rule design. It is a game where it is possible to win by out-rulelawyering or by exploiting rules loopholes that should have been caught in the most rudimentary playtesting. This is a game where "the most important rule" is to roll-off to determine if a particular interpretation of a rule is correct, and you might as well pirate your Codex for most the rules will be patched or errata'd the next week anyway.

(Note: There is just a little bit of salt behind this snark).

On a more serious note, the game puts a lot of emphasis on first-turn, or other "low-quantity/high-impact rolls" (though not as extreme as, say, non-ITC D in 7th), such that winning the game becomes an abstract LARP of Russian Roulette. Tournaments need to create their own implementation of Objectives or victory conditions on a general basis, because GW also has a history of adding "random point scoring" for Maelstrom, just to make it so two players who are "tied" in terms of progress can end up not stalemating...

Don't forget that accidentally bumping the table so that something falls over and has to be placed again can affect the outcome Yeah, WH40K is less of a game and more of a "have fun moving toy soldiers around" experience, so it doesn't fit competitive requirements.

It's less accidently bumping the table that would be a concern as just moving models normally.
I see some truly ridiculous 6" moves in my games.
Calling up an umpire with a theodolite would be a necessary part of every small movement in the game were 40k to be viable in a major pro-setting.

That's why you need an umpire on each table to make on the spot judgement calls like any other sport. "No the model was here.." "That is not 6" move it back and try again."

If we want 40k to be treated as a sport we have to treat it as a sport.

Tygre wrote:
That's why you need an umpire on each table to make on the spot judgement calls like any other sport. "No the model was here.." "That is not 6" move it back and try again."

If we want 40k to be treated as a sport we have to treat it as a sport.

Exactly, the only reason we don't do this now is there isn't enough money in the system for most events to have someone at every table so they have to float. Even when things are recorded using video it takes a report or such to make them check again after because its a lot of material for the handful of volunteers to go through etc...

Basically some of the issues we have are simply a result of the scale of things. If things scaled up to generate profits and incomes that would allow for more officials then things would tighten up. We might even see new tools for movement much like widgets and lasers have become popular.

That said there's always going to be a grey area and an aspect of sportsmanship in these competitions; its the nature of the beast.

Seriously, stop calling "sport" anything while it's irrelevant. E-sport was already stretching it, 40k isn't and will never be a sport in itself. Throwing dice on a table isn't the definition of physical activity. Sport doesn't mean "anything taken seriously and somewhat made professionnal / highly competitive".

Call it "competitive game" or "pro-league" if you want, but don't use words that have a definition for something they do not define.


About putting an arbiter at every table, it's actually possible...you just need the manpower for it. It's not especially a question of money, there are a lot of volunteers involved in tournaments after all. If you really want to make a high level "pro-league" 40k tournament, it just asks for an organization thought for it and it's perfectly conceivable.

The real question is "is it really worth it ?"


Even though it's indeed possible to train playing 40k and approach the game with a high level competitive mind, fact is a lot of its mechanisms are still ruled by randomness. It's not the most skilled player who wins, it's also the lucky one. It's the antithesis of sport, to me.

@OP:
How can you compare a tabletop game to a video game?!

MegaDombro wrote:
Battle Ready for 40k takes a while. The more streamlined games (Underworlds, Bloodbowl, Killteam) have much less hobby time to get started..

Yeah 40k 2k tournament scene is a money trap and a time sink, just like this store owner said in a competitive 40k Facebook group.

I dunno if I can take a store owner seriously if they describe a core selling product "crap"

 Overread wrote:
I dunno if I can take a store owner seriously if they describe a core selling product "crap"

Gatcha Games (e.x. Fire Emblem Heroes) or other stuff with a P2W mechanic are like a certain South Park episode. It's not about getting $5 from 1000 people via microtransactions, but getting $1000 from 5 people. Those players that are willing to drop so much cash for that instant power spike? FEH forums call them "whales".

This isn't just a 40k thing.

 Overread wrote:
I dunno if I can take a store owner seriously if they describe a core selling product "crap"

He very likely is not a fan of the game but sells it in his store because he understands 40k is a whale driven hobby. But he also sells other things that he probably likes much better.

It is no different from people going to a job that they aren't particularly passionate for, but it pays their bills and hobbies.

gundam wrote:

 Overread wrote:
I dunno if I can take a store owner seriously if they describe a core selling product "crap"

He very likely is not a fan of the game but sells it in his store because he understands 40k is a whale driven hobby. But he also sells other things that he probably likes much better.

It is no different from people going to a job that they aren't particularly passionate for, but it pays their bills and hobbies.

Yeah, but you don't tell the customers in your social media group that it's crap

 Overread wrote:

gundam wrote:

 Overread wrote:
I dunno if I can take a store owner seriously if they describe a core selling product "crap"

He very likely is not a fan of the game but sells it in his store because he understands 40k is a whale driven hobby. But he also sells other things that he probably likes much better.

It is no different from people going to a job that they aren't particularly passionate for, but it pays their bills and hobbies.

Yeah, but you don't tell the customers in your social media group that it's crap

He is asserting dominance, basically T-Posing lol

"What are they going to do? Go play something else? "

I often wondered if LOTR wouldn't make for a more interesting game to watch.

Lots of high-tension moments, player decision making is the most important factor, maneuver and clever play can be rewarding to watch pan out...

Hearthstone is an e-sport right?

 Overread wrote:

gundam wrote:

 Overread wrote:
I dunno if I can take a store owner seriously if they describe a core selling product "crap"

He very likely is not a fan of the game but sells it in his store because he understands 40k is a whale driven hobby. But he also sells other things that he probably likes much better.

It is no different from people going to a job that they aren't particularly passionate for, but it pays their bills and hobbies.

Yeah, but you don't tell the customers in your social media group that it's crap

I know several shop owners who are honest about the stuff they sell, and are honest about 40k

LOTR is a more tactical game for sure, but it also suffers even more than 40k from most of the action being either painstakingly moving models or standing around planning how to painstakingly move models.

Small skirmish games likes Necromunda, Killteam, or Infinity I think have core gameplay much more suited to professional/competitive entertainment.
Decisions can be enacted and played out quickly and play switches back and worth quickly so the plays and counterplays are fairly obvious.
Similarly Bloodbowl or Underworlds for the same reasons.

Large scale games like 40k are just too slow to follow.

Maybe if they edit it back to their highlights. There's a Japanese guy I follow on Twitter that uses 40k models to tell Super Sentai stories, with special effects 'shopped into the pictures. Someone else, not sure if I follow, said today about the board game Tang Garden, said they enjoy it because each game was a diorama with a story, and I think 40k could do that with proper editing and coverage. Mind you, most miniatures games should do that, right?

Thing is, 40k and all it's darker grimier cousings (MTG, SW) all have really bad cheating scandals that rocked the professional foundation. Between deck fixing or trick shuffling in Magic, to judge fixing in SW, it's not really good to transition into main stream E-sports. 40k already has issues with cheating at every major, and several of the current "top" players in the meta are former outed cheaters. Say what you want about the FGC or the other E-sports markets, (FGC is scummy and full of trash human beings as a bad 4chan thread) but they at least aren't easy to cheat.

it's why we will likely never see e-sports competition of 40k. Same with other board games like DND.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Thing is, 40k and all it's darker grimier cousings (MTG, SW) all have really bad cheating scandals that rocked the professional foundation. Between deck fixing or trick shuffling in Magic, to judge fixing in SW, it's not really good to transition into main stream E-sports. 40k already has issues with cheating at every major, and several of the current "top" players in the meta are former outed cheaters. Say what you want about the FGC or the other E-sports markets, (FGC is scummy and full of trash human beings as a bad 4chan thread) but they at least aren't easy to cheat.

it's why we will likely never see e-sports competition of 40k. Same with other board games like DND.

I'm pretty sure 4Chan has less pedophiles than fighting games do.

 Laughing Man wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Thing is, 40k and all it's darker grimier cousings (MTG, SW) all have really bad cheating scandals that rocked the professional foundation. Between deck fixing or trick shuffling in Magic, to judge fixing in SW, it's not really good to transition into main stream E-sports. 40k already has issues with cheating at every major, and several of the current "top" players in the meta are former outed cheaters. Say what you want about the FGC or the other E-sports markets, (FGC is scummy and full of trash human beings as a bad 4chan thread) but they at least aren't easy to cheat.

it's why we will likely never see e-sports competition of 40k. Same with other board games like DND.

I'm pretty sure 4Chan has less pedophiles than fighting games do.

I'm not sure but you may be right. Certainly less LTG types or homophobia.

Looks like a group of "Content Creators" are getting together for a tourney "No Retreat Legends" on a cruise ship in May: Winters SEO, Tabletop Tactics, MWG etc. Could be fun to watch, as the emphasis will likely be on fun, engaging content rather than super-competitive.

Its not even the fact that games are too slow, its that viewers don't know any information about the game unless they have the rulebook and codexes.

You can eventually figure out how Starcraft works if you watch it a couple times (gather resources to spend on troops, kill your enemy with the troops). But with 40k you won't know what dice they're rolling or why. I mean I don't know any of the new necron special rules or statlines so how would I know how a matchup is even supposed to play out? A monetary barrier to viewing is a big issue.

Also yea, games are slow and its easier to cheat than other esports. It was designed as a beer and pretzels past time. Warhammer has never been super balanced or competitive. Even tournaments are like 1% of the actual playerbase.

 Don Savik wrote:
Even tournaments are like 1% of the actual playerbase.

0.1%

Yeah it takes hours to figure whats going on. You dont have that burden with most esports


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Looks like a group of "Content Creators" are getting together for a tourney "No Retreat Legends" on a cruise ship in May: Winters SEO, Tabletop Tactics, MWG etc. Could be fun to watch, as the emphasis will likely be on fun, engaging content rather than super-competitive.

That sounds like a meme tbh

Not sure how advisable it would be to attend...but I might just watch on Youtube!

For reference on views etc, the Tabletop Tactics Batrep featuring Deathguard that went up last weekend has over 91K views to this point. There is a demand signal for content. Perhaps not livestreams of top tables, but a demand signal nonetheless.

I like the idea of competitive war-gaming "sport" (I won't say eSport ... because does it really qualify the "e" part?) and I hope it happens, but I can't see it happening with 40K at least.

The big problem is that it's a very expensive, monopolized product being sold by a single company. It's not chess.

The second reason is that the rules are constantly changing. There's a new edition every second or third year. It is of course price-gouging considering when I asked the question here, the "best" editions seem to be 3rd and 5th in most people's eyes. So they keep changing the rules ... just because they can and then you have to buy new books. That's never going to be a solid enough platform for a true competitive "sport".

I would love to see GW just settle on one rules-set and just saying, "this is it for the foreseeable future". Even if it is done in full knowledge that those rules will be very carefully modified, sculpted and tweaked over time. But still one solid base rule-set and no more "editions". That would provide the non-arbitrary fundamental base that you could use for a real competitive venture.

But as it is now, it will only ever be a miniature game hobby.



P.S. I honestly don't see "not knowing the rules" as a problem as far as this question goes. I barely know the rules and I've still been enjoying watching play-throughs. It's not exactly rocket science. Chess is far more complicated and requires far more skill and knowledge to understand what's going on, and it's the most popular board game in human history.

The issue with it being an e-sport is predominantly how complex it is for the players.

I watch TTT all the time, and almost every game the chat has to remind them of some rule that they've forgotten. Now imagine it's a tournament, where the chat isn't allowed to interfere/remind the players, and then imagine how many mistakes are made.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The issue with it being an e-sport is predominantly how complex it is for the players.

I watch TTT all the time, and almost every game the chat has to remind them of some rule that they've forgotten. Now imagine it's a tournament, where the chat isn't allowed to interfere/remind the players, and then imagine how many mistakes are made.

That would be partly solved by my post above. A consistent, non-arbitrary ruleset over the years. It will never be an "eSport" without that kind of fundamental base.