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.

Hi Dakka!

So I've gotten myself into a bit of bother on our local gaming forum recently with regards to the subject of "competitive gaming". I want to preface this post by saying that yes, I do very much like to win - but I also don't really like building lists which are considered "optimal", because I think that can sometimes lead to players creating armies which are just too "easy" to win with. The armies I play with are:

Black Templars (Land Raiders and Terminators Mostly)
Eldar (30 Wraithguard)
Orks (Cyber Grot army)
Blood Angels (Sang Guard army - painting project)
Imperial Guard - This is one of my nastier armies, though i do use leman russes as opposed to Manticores etc.

I'm also planning to start a Deathwing Army soon as another painting project. Given their new rules, I dont think that build is optimal either. But it will be a fun painting project to do, and I like using small elite forces, so it will be a laugh if nothing else.

We've (our local gaming group) recently attended Caledonian Uprising down in Mansfield, which is used as a qualifier for the Scottish ETC team. That tournament was pretty hardcore, and I think 7 of the top 10 armies were either Daemons or Necrons (Tzeentch/Wraith spam). It was a tough field, and most of the armies that i saw there were pretty horrible to play against. That was my issue though, as I didn't take a competitive army (I took my Eldar), and I'm not really the most competitive player. There is a sub-group of players within out main group who are extremely competitive, and I don't think i've seen them run any armies that would be considered below top tier. The top 10 armies at this event were:

Necrons
Daemons
Necrons
Necrons
Daemons
Tyranids
Grey Knights
Daemons
Necrons
Chaos Marines

Out of 7 Daemon players at the event, 3 finished in the top 10!

We have a local 1250 tournament coming up that's been designed as a bit of fun by one of the local guys. We've been encouraged not to bring optimised armies, and special characters are going to be banned at this event as well. One of the players in the sublist discussed above decided that he was going to bring this list to the tournament:


Herald of Tzeentch + Disk/Master of Sorcery/We are Legion/Boon of Chaos
Herald of Nurgle + Noxious Touch

6 Flamers of Tzeentch

9 Nurglings
5 Plaguebearers
5 Plaguebearers
5 Plaguebearers

8 Screamers of Tzeentch
8 Screamers of Tzeentch
8 Screamers of Tzeentch

Total - 1250 Points

It could just be me being rubbish at 40k, but to me this list is extremely filthy at 1250 points. This player's counter argument was that another list that had 26 terminators in it was equally filthy, but i'm not sure I buy into this. I think that Necrons and Tzeentch Daemons are probably the power builds right now, and it bugs me a little bit that such an optimised list is going to be coming to a "fun" tournament.

For those interested, the army I was planning on running was something along the lines of (i'm not at home right now so don't have it exactly):

KFF Mek
Shokk Attack Gun Mek

15 Grots
15 Grots
15 Grots
15 Grots
15 Grots
15 Grots

9 x Killa Kanz
2 x Dakka Jets

I expressed a bit of disdain to this player that he would bring such a list to such a tournament, but i was quickly set upon by some of the people in said subgroup saying that he can take whatever he wants to the tournament. While this is of course true, it really bugs me that some players can't seem to find their "off switch" when it comes to playing 40k. I work 10-12 hour days most days, and I get 1 game of 40k in a week (tournaments aside) usually. My job is pretty demanding, and I spend a great deal of time working in a high intensity environment. So to be honest the last thing I want to do is worry about how "optimal" my list is - I just want to have fun and play the game. When you play against such powerful armies, it often feels like a dice rolling exercise more than a game.

My question to Dakka is this - what is your stance on competitive gaming? I fully understand that competitive gaming is not for everyone, but I also understand that the competitive side to it is undoubtedly huge.

There is nothing wrong with having a competitive play style/attitude.

However, it is preferable to play games that are written for balanced competitive play to maximize your enjoyment of this play style.

And as 40k is written for co-operate narrative play at best.(And as a promotion for a toy company at worst. )

Bringing a competitive play style to 40k may end poorly.

This is why in the wider hobby of table top gaming , there are a wide range of rule sets available, so like minded gamers tend to focus on the games they are best suited to.

GW plc likes to pretend 40k is suitable for all play styles and abilities.leading to the tedious arguments about who is playing the game 'right'.

When in effect the 40k rule set is just awful in terms of clarity, efficiency, and intuitiveness.No matter what play style you have.

I don't play competitively, I went to a tourney once and didn't enjoy it because of the simple fact that if you bring a fluffy army, and a WAAC guy brings a power list, its impossible to win.

This to me isn't enjoyable, YMMV of course and each to their own, but If you work long hours and don't enjoy really competitive play, why not just play with mates and rid yourself of the hassle?

I've no issue with WAAC players, but I've no interest in bloody playing them!

I'm a LAAC player. I went to a tourney once and didn't enjoy it because of the simple fact that if you bring a LAAC army, and a fluffy guy brings a fluffy list, its impossible to lose.

Your friend may be a bit delusional in thinking that he is going to be able to pull off a "fun" tournament without one or more of the following.
-actively banning some players.
-policing every single list himself.
-Making players switch armies with their opponents.
-Very innovative composition scoring

Otherwise, the one TFG who goes against the spirit of the tournament is going to win it all.

Tournaments are competitive. You're going to see alot of the flavor of the month builds, min-maxing, etc. Some folks will rise above and bring innovative or fluffy armies and actually win, but that's not the norm.

If you want fun, fluffy battles then start a thematic campaign with pre-chosen forces. If you are going to run a tournament you might as well prepare yourself for competition and all that goes along with it.

The only way to ensure the tournament is only fun is not to have battle points or win / loss. Make the outcome of the games themselves irrelevant.

 liam0404 wrote:
Hi Dakka!

So I've gotten myself into a bit of bother on our local gaming forum recently with regards to the subject of "competitive gaming". I want to preface this post by saying that yes, I do very much like to win - but I also don't really like building lists which are considered "optimal", because I think that can sometimes lead to players creating armies which are just too "easy" to win with.

(edited)

I expressed a bit of disdain to this player that he would bring such a list to such a tournament, but i was quickly set upon by some of the people in said subgroup saying that he can take whatever he wants to the tournament. While this is of course true, it really bugs me that some players can't seem to find their "off switch" when it comes to playing 40k. I work 10-12 hour days most days, and I get 1 game of 40k in a week (tournaments aside) usually. My job is pretty demanding, and I spend a great deal of time working in a high intensity environment. So to be honest the last thing I want to do is worry about how "optimal" my list is - I just want to have fun and play the game. When you play against such powerful armies, it often feels like a dice rolling exercise more than a game.

My question to Dakka is this - what is your stance on competitive gaming? I fully understand that competitive gaming is not for everyone, but I also understand that the competitive side to it is undoubtedly huge.

Remember, not everyone perceives "fun" or "competitive" the same way as you do. Asking people to bring a non-optimal list to a tournament - a format where the goal is to win - is like asking teams to go into a sporting event and just "not play well" or "put in your bad players" and then get mad when someone does try to win. Secondly, while you may find "optimizing" your list a not fun process, others may find it enjoyable!

Some of those players with the "optimized" list may be equally irritated that they're attending a tournament, a by nature "competitive" event and others are showing up with poorly constructed lists which don't present them with a challenging game, something that they desire. (all hypothetical).

If you want people to not bring optimized lists, rather than penalizing them for working within your rules, consider as I believe Pretre said - make the outcomes of games irrelevant some how, through a campaign or some other sort of structure than a tournament. But don't get mad/irritated at folks for playing within the rules, how they want to play.

Once, at our FLGS, we ran a tournament we called "Fluffhammer 40k", in which players were rewarded for running a fluffy, converted army, and even for having written background for their force. It was generally received well, and eventually a really cool, well painted and modelled "snow ork" army won, complete with snow plows and a Deff Dred called "Mr Frosty". Rest assured, it was awesome.

Maybe generate a list of "Fluffy" units and say you have to bring 1 of them?

Run a campaign where you use requisition earned through each battle to unlock new units, unit caps, and wargear options.