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.

There is a lot of chat around at the moment about how 40k "isn't a competitive game" or even "has never been a competitive game". I'm just wondering what people mean by this term? To me "competitive" is a term best applied to players, rather than a game system. There are three main factors in a game of 40k, as far as I can see it: list v list, player v player and dice v dice. If people mean that the player v player aspect doesn't matter anymore, they are very wrong. Good players win tournaments, often with "balanced" lists (meaning a variety of units). But dice v dice is always a part if it too. So there is always a random aspect where a good player can get v unlucky or a bad one benefit from freakish good rolls.

What is it that people mean by the term "competitive" when applied to the game of 40k. Cos to me it is neither chess NOR roulette.

Its not balanced and the ruleset is clunky, bloated, and filled with contradictions or holes.

All of that makes it a pretty poor game for competitions/tournaments.

Taking the most competitive army list possible, exploiting rules to gain advantage and not caring if everyone is enjoying themselves, these are things I have seen happen since 2nd ed and still happen, while not all competitive players fit this unfortunately enough I have seen do and it puts me off

Randomness is not the problem.

You can have "competitive games" that include random elements (e.g. Poker). There are plenty of poker tournaments and some very good players out there.

At the same time, you can have "not-competitive games" that have no random elements whatsoever. Rock-Paper-Scissors includes no random elements, yet running a "tournament" for that game seems ludicrous.

In a tournament of 50 poker players playing various matches, the individual games include plenty of random, but the final tournament winner will probably not be in that spot due to luck alone. It's a reasonably repeatable result.

In a tournament of 50 Rock-Scissor-Paper players, the individual games include nothing random, but the final tournament winner will mostly be there due to luck above all. It's not a reasonably repeatable result.


40K simply shares a lot more with the non-competitive nature of Rock-Paper-Scissor, due to the fact it's list-building aspects work, than it does with, say Poker, where, among other things, all players start from the same "basis", luck or no luck.

Frankly, if 40K were "more random", say if armies and units were given out randomly, similar to a hand of cards in poker, rather than the current "list-building pre-game" which skews things "before the tournament starts", it would probably be more competitive.

Sorry for irrelevant contribution, but I in fact have won a rock-paper-scissors tournament of about 100 people. To be fair, it wasn't the main point of what we were all gathered for, just a time-killer, but still...

Edit: And I actually used strategy that a friend had taught me that almost always works except when the opponent is truly being random.

 Formosa wrote:
Taking the most competitive army list possible, exploiting rules to gain advantage and not caring if everyone is enjoying themselves

Pretty much this.

 KommissarKiln wrote:
Sorry for irrelevant contribution, but I in fact have won a rock-paper-scissors tournament of about 100 people. To be fair, it wasn't the main point of what we were all gathered for, just a time-killer, but still...

Edit: And I actually used strategy that a friend had taught me that almost always works except when the opponent is truly being random.

Fair enough. And 40K tournaments also work as a great time-killer, and you can play around with a bit of strategy too. Inversely, a brilliant poker-player might simply get caught out bad against a mediocre player. The extreme points are abstractions.

But the nature of 40K (or Rock-Paper-Scissors) mean, that the "human contribution", the "skill-factor", whatever you want to call it, is far less important overall than it is in other games, thus a "competition of skill" generally means less. The very fact that you won with a "strategy" that took you .. what? ... 5 minutes to master, shows you that there isn't much to it. Try winning a high-stakes Chess tournament with a 5-minute strategy tip.

And that, to say it again, this is purposefully done for 40K, the meta-game is purposefully shaken up time and again to "invalidate old skills".

If it weren't, it wouldn't be a very attractive game for new-comers, early teens and people dabbling in it. If a game like 40K were "Chess-style-competitive", the main implication would be that, Chess-style, you'd have to spend some 20 years learning and mastering old plays, established strategems, etc.. to be even in the running for qualifying for a main tournament. That would serve neither the company trying to sell miniatures nor the "hobbyists" who want to kill some fun time on the weekends with their miniatures and don't want to go through a "hard" learning-curve of a truly competitive game.

People who'd truly want to test their "competitive edge", would play stuff like Chess.

People trying to be "competitive" in 40K are tying to be the biggest shark in a gold-fish bowl. If they had the true stuff, they'd be out in the ocean. But of course, they'd be eaten there in seconds.

Yes. So. Some people talking about competitive players rather than what I was asking about which is really what people mean about the competitive or otherwise nature of the actual game of 40k. Yes, there will always be douches. Yes, people will attend a game of 40k sometimes bringing different expectations of the experience ahead. I've seen this first hand for sure.

I guess what I'm wondering is why people think that Escalation / Formations / etc break some kind of "fairness" the game had.

I relish the idea of a Rock Paper Scissors tournament (though I probably wouldn't pay 26 quid or spend the weekend in Manchester for one). But I do just find games fun. I like to win, and don't like the couple of times when I have been crushed in a game. And I do think that winning a game takes a kind of weird combination of skill and luck. Some of that skill (a lot of it, for sure) is in list building. But that Doesn't just mean putting all the best stuff in a list and taking that. People who are hyper competitive take Eldar and Tau at the moment, but none of them have own at any of the three tournaments I've attended in the last few months. There were LOTS of both armies in attendance but Necrons, White Scars, Imperial Guard and Space Wolves all did better.

The Scars/Space Wolves army at the last tournament I was at did very well based on playing the game. I've learned a lot from both players. They play the missions. It's a game of tactically applying what you can on the table I think.

That all said, I'm super-new to all this and have only been playing for about 6 months. It's just bugging me a bit that everyone keeps saying how my new hobby, which I really dig (and particularly the tournament / list and strategy devising bit, which I dig the most) is "broken". And "not competitive any more". It just has a RPS element (which I think adds to the fun).

For me these are just the games in a local/global tourament.

Kholzerino wrote:


I guess what I'm wondering is why people think that Escalation / Formations / etc break some kind of "fairness" the game had.

Do we really need another one of these threads? Seriously the front page is filled with threads about this topic. Please go contribute to another one before this one turns into a argument about rich vs poor.


Edit: man I'm failing at this quoting thing..

The attitude of trying to bend poor rules in your favour, purposly take what your opponent cannot deal with, blatantly argue in favour of yourself in any rule situation, unable to relax and let things go for the sake of another persons fun and finally viewing the game as only enjoyable when your opponent is crushed and didnt enjoy the game.

A lot of poeple do this on accident but if they dont change after being told i then hold no sympathy for them. Simple put its someone with a tournament attitude all the time.

Competative is fine with the right attitude.

 Swastakowey wrote:
The attitude of trying to bend poor rules in your favour, purposly take what your opponent cannot deal with, blatantly argue in favour of yourself in any rule situation, unable to relax and let things go for the sake of another persons fun and finally viewing the game as only enjoyable when your opponent is crushed and didnt enjoy the game.

A lot of poeple do this on accident but if they dont change after being told i then hold no sympathy for them. Simple put its someone with a tournament attitude all the time.

Competative is fine with the right attitude.

Again. Yes. Totally. But this is is the competitive nature of PLAYERS which is not what I was talking about.

Kholzerino wrote:


That all said, I'm super-new to all this and have only been playing for about 6 months. It's just bugging me a bit that everyone keeps saying how my new hobby, which I really dig (and particularly the tournament / list and strategy devising bit, which I dig the most) is "broken". And "not competitive any more". It just has a RPS element (which I think adds to the fun).

But there is where things get paradoxical.

If you enjoy Warhammer 40K, and play Warhammer 40K because you enjoy playing Warhammer 40K, go ahead and be as good at it as you can and win as many games as you can. Nothing wrong with that. It's Warhammer 40K, warts and all, that is the main motivation. "Playing competitively" is the approach to it.

But if the argument turns around, where people say they wan't to play "competitively", but hate Warhammer 40K for not providing a proper platform for "playing competitively".... well ..... than don't play Warhammer 40k!!! If the main motivation is "playing competitively", and no longer "playing Warhammer 40K" (warts and all), you don't need to play Warhammer 40K.

Kholzerino wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
The attitude of trying to bend poor rules in your favour, purposly take what your opponent cannot deal with, blatantly argue in favour of yourself in any rule situation, unable to relax and let things go for the sake of another persons fun and finally viewing the game as only enjoyable when your opponent is crushed and didnt enjoy the game.

A lot of poeple do this on accident but if they dont change after being told i then hold no sympathy for them. Simple put its someone with a tournament attitude all the time.

Competative is fine with the right attitude.

Again. Yes. Totally. But this is is the competitive nature of PLAYERS which is not what I was talking about.

"Simple put its someone with a tournament attitude all the time. "

I shall rephrase this for your peace of mind

"Simply put, its the type of game where one player treats it like a tournament setting, bringing the attitude with it."

To me a game is competetive when two or more players compete to reach an objective first weather that be stomping your opponent off the table or reaching the end of the board. Honestly all board games card games and yes 40K are competetive. It's just that a GOOD competetive game have equal and balanced sides. I beilve that is were that constant calls for this is not a competetive game come from 40k is not always a well balanced game. But all miniature games have this problem or really any game were you the player can choose what peices you are useing.

@OP
Well, how you strung up the game is exactly how I did in thread talking about perceptions of competitiveness. I also believe the game is list v list, player v player, dice v dice (ie luck).

Competitiveness to me in 40k terms really comes from that of how I am as a person. I am an honorable person and with that I will not bring the most broken of aspects to a game as what is the point of playing the match if we knew who was going to win based off the fact everything in my list is utterly broken. I believe to be competitive is to bring a list with strong elements and units that strongly contribute to one another so as to disguise weaknesses (So many people see strong as what is popular, what is broken or what is cheesy, but even the most unpopular of units can be made into strong units if someone takes the time out to learn how to build and play a list that can effectively allow them to contribute to the game). I also believe to be competitive is to know how to play your list. like I said in my other thread 66.6% of the game is list building and generalship, the last 33.3% is simply luck of the dice. Finally, at least to me, being competitive is that of a gentle(man's,woman's) agreement to play as close to fair as possible while playing to the best of their abilities while enjoying themselves as they do so.

When I hear "Competitive Game", I think of a game where I can pick a random faction based off fluff/playstyle, and reasonably be able to go up against other players of similar skill level without being screwed because one of them is playing the power army. Basically "Everything in this game is equally competitive in an open environment, meaning player skill is more important than choosing that one power list".

Competitive in 40k means one of two things for me:

You are playing your army in a way that is effective

You are playing an army in a way that is effective

Group A is the everyman player. They show up, enjoy most pickup games, and like the hobby.

Group B is the WAAC netlisting flavor of the month player.

Oh good, and right on schedule the "casual at all costs" crowd shows up to complain about how anyone who cares more about winning than they do is TFG. Haven't we already had this "discussion" enough times?

If anything is right on time it's your usual negative contribution

A competitive game is the opposite of a co-operative game: instead of working together to achieve a common goal players go head-to-head, usually trying to complete some objective before the other players do, and ultimately ending in a clear winner(s) and loser(s).

That's pretty much what it means. Any other definition is incorrect and is more likely a player imposing his own personal bias and/or feeding you bs.

 juraigamer wrote:
Competitive in 40k means one of two things for me:

You are playing your army in a way that is effective

You are playing an army in a way that is effective

Group A is the everyman player. They show up, enjoy most pickup games, and like the hobby.

Group B is the WAAC netlisting flavor of the month player.

Except it is more like...
Group A: shows up with the army and/or units they like. Maybe it will be a good list, maybe a bad. Of might be built around some fluff or some theming. They go to have fun
Group B: shows up wanting a challenging he. They want to test their mettle against a foe that is either very food at the game and/or has a very devestating list. They might bring some sub-par units for surprise or give them a larger challenge (which sadly is almost always just more random). He is there to have fun. He doesn't want to curb stomp a player. He wants to have fun and regards army building to be a part of it.

In other words, they are almost the same. The only difference is that the casual player is more likely to bring a sub-par unit and have a less coherent list. Both have TFG and WAAC players and so too do they have many friendly players. Neither style is wrong and it is a flawed observation to just call every competitive player WAAC.

Blacksails wrote:Its not balanced and the ruleset is clunky, bloated, and filled with contradictions or holes.

All of that makes it a pretty poor game for competitions/tournaments.

Peregrine wrote:Oh good, and right on schedule the "casual at all costs" crowd shows up to complain about how anyone who cares more about winning than they do is TFG. Haven't we already had this "discussion" enough times?

Nothing...nothing...good will come from this thread.

The definition that people have of the term 'competitive' varies so greatly that even attempting to define it is tantamount to starting a fight over it.

For my money, a competitive game is a game that can be (or is) played competitively. (You could play it in a venue that is structured to have a winner, with some manner of reward for said winner.) That includes completely random games like Bingo or Yahtzee, or it could include games with no elements of randomness (despite the harsh comments, there IS a world Rock-Paper-Scissors competition every year), games which are perfectly fair, or games with no fairness at all.

I think 40k works fine in a competitive setting. I enjoy competing with it. I think 40k is a lot more balanced than people give it credit for.

I suppose the difference is in list writing. Competitive 40kers will only take what's good and friendlier gamers will take what they fancy, good or bad.

I don't get why people moan about other players taking good units to a "casual" game. I thought you weren't taking the game seriously.

 Formosa wrote:
Taking the most competitive army list possible, exploiting rules to gain advantage and not caring if everyone is enjoying themselves, these are things I have seen happen since 2nd ed and still happen, while not all competitive players fit this unfortunately enough I have seen do and it puts me off

Last time I checked, Michael Jordan or Joe Montana didn't give a feth if their opponent was enjoying the game. If GW didn't write rules that could be exploited, no one could exploit them. I know this is possible, because I've played very complex games that had very tight rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jimsolo wrote:

Blacksails wrote:Its not balanced and the ruleset is clunky, bloated, and filled with contradictions or holes.

All of that makes it a pretty poor game for competitions/tournaments.

Peregrine wrote:Oh good, and right on schedule the "casual at all costs" crowd shows up to complain about how anyone who cares more about winning than they do is TFG. Haven't we already had this "discussion" enough times?

Nothing...nothing...good will come from this thread.

The definition that people have of the term 'competitive' varies so greatly that even attempting to define it is tantamount to starting a fight over it.

For my money, a competitive game is a game that can be (or is) played competitively. (You could play it in a venue that is structured to have a winner, with some manner of reward for said winner.) That includes completely random games like Bingo or Yahtzee, or it could include games with no elements of randomness (despite the harsh comments, there IS a world Rock-Paper-Scissors competition every year), games which are perfectly fair, or games with no fairness at all.

I think 40k works fine in a competitive setting. I enjoy competing with it. I think 40k is a lot more balanced than people give it credit for.

You, sir, are insane. Look at the Wave Serpent and come back and tell me this game has any balance at all. Go look in our terminator thread about how absolutely crappy they are for 40pts/model.

 Peregrine wrote:
Oh good, and right on schedule the "casual at all costs" crowd shows up to complain about how anyone who cares more about winning than they do is TFG.

Well, as a certain wise old poster on Warseer happened to say: "The purpose of the game is to have fun. The objective of the game is to win. The two should not be confused."

TFG, WAAC... Just wanting to win doesn't deserve that label. But when you bend rules, fail to mention opponent mistakes unless it's favorable to you or even outright cheat you have crossed over. Competitive should IMO mean that those taking part have a chance. Not perhaps a good chance but a chance, and one that doesn't depend just on their physical gear (like the newest most OP army vs the oldest crappiest one).

"But when you bend rules, fail to mention opponent mistakes unless it's favorable to you or even outright cheat you have crossed over. Competitive should IMO mean that those taking part have a chance. Not perhaps a good chance but a chance, and one that doesn't depend just on their physical gear (like the newest most OP army vs the oldest crappiest one)."

I never do that. In fact, I even point out mistakes my opponent is making to help their game. Although Taudar lists have tempted me greatly.

An equitable game of strategy and/or skill with depth to allow more than one winning strategy.

There is the competitive aspect to the game and for players, to many people are confusing the two.

The competitive aspect of players can be broken down into two camps, RAI and RAW. RAI players are the ones who are going to play the game with minimal list abuse and look for the "fluffy" and cinematic games. RAW players are looking to abuse every advantage their codex can give them to win the game. The two camps will never see eye to eye as you can see in this thread. This will carry over to ANY game or any format.

The competitive aspect of a game can be explained with the aforementioned RPS/Poker comparison. This game is RPS except that it includes some instances of dynamite which rock, paper, and scissors all have to beat twice in a row in order to actually win a round. Some armies beat some armies, then there are a few list that in almost all cases just win. Screamstar and Seerstar come to mind. Riptide/Wave Serpent spam come to mind. Certain list just blow every other army out of the water without much of an actual game. Like recently to celebrate the release of the next codex I played what I called the worst Tyranid list possible against my fathers IG. Needless to say, I was picking up entire squads of warriors and raveners each turn from single shots from S8 pie plates. The list I brought had no chance against the list he brought. That is an example of RPS and frankly that IS bad design for a balanced game, by definition having less than a 50% chance to win is unbalanced. But, I could have brought a better list to play against him and if I had, the game would have swung closer to that 50%. That makes the game acceptably balanced. The problem is that 95% of list are not going to have a chance in hell against the current meta winners and the 5% that are left work ONLY against the meta. The idea is not to have perfect balance, that leads to a bland game where everyone is the same, but we can do a hell of a lot better than it is now.

Since we don't have telepathy, RAI is an unknown quantity. All we have is RAW.