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.

Martel732 wrote:
Since we don't have telepathy, RAI is an unknown quantity. All we have is RAW.

And here is an example of what I was talking about. Some people just can not comprehend the fact that it is easy for two people to reach an agreement on what makes the most sense in a given situation without one of the two people attempting to abuse the situation in their favor.

I am not going to discuss this any further, this is off topic. Just agree to disagree.

It's not abuse. It's just reading what is written and not trying to make stuff up. GW should have clearly written what was intended.

These agreements you talk about can't be translated from game to game, and so in essence, everyone has a different rule book.

I don't think this is off topic at all, since RAW is part of the essence of competitive play. In fact, I would argue that RAI is more abusive than RAW.

Competitive gaming = competition.
The pursuit of enjoyment is irrelevant in competition.
Competition is about measuring the best competitor.
Ergo: Competitive gaming = pursuit of victory, or the best possible ranking.

"If winning is not important, why keep the score?" (Lt Cmd. Worf)

Arbiter_Shade wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Since we don't have telepathy, RAI is an unknown quantity. All we have is RAW.

And here is an example of what I was talking about. Some people just can not comprehend the fact that it is easy for two people to reach an agreement on what makes the most sense in a given situation without one of the two people attempting to abuse the situation in their favor.

I am not going to discuss this any further, this is off topic. Just agree to disagree.

I was having this same issue over on you make da call, I agreed that the raw was plain and simple but it was not the way we will play it due to what we saw as rai, they just didn't seem to get the point.

Pure rai can be abused, pure raw IS abused on quite a regular basis, the main issue between the 2 is that rai requires actually talking to your opponent where as a lot (not all) of raw just bludgeon there opponent with poorly written rules untill they just agree in the end or leave the game. Take 10 seconds to look at the rules forum to see the mess raw leaves, of course if it was rai primarily used the issue would still be there, nerds love to argue

Kholzerino wrote:
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.

In the context I think you mean it - i.e. what would make WH40K a competitive game, the answer is pretty succinct. (1) Player decisions affect the outcome more than randomness of dice rolls. (2) The game in no way requires house-ruling or willing avoidance of units or tactics in order for a game to be fair and tactically interesting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spetulhu wrote:
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).

This is a thread about what would make WH40K a competitive game. The usual argument has sprung up as people appear to criticise those of us who like to play competitively. Now you have waded in with a post that seems to describe such people as cheaters. If that is so, it's downright offensive. I will always tell my opponent if they make a rules mistake. Occasionally, I will even point out to them a tactical mistake if it's silly enough that I think it's down to missing something obvious rather than bad play or if I think they may have mistaken what a particular model of mine is. Do not confuse a player who enjoys the competitive aspect of the game with a cheater. Please do not even liken the two. If anything, as someone who seeks out a challenge, winning through opponent ignorance of the rules, undermines my enjoyment in a way that it would not for someone who was just there for narrative.

 Formosa wrote:

Pure rai can be abused, pure raw IS abused on quite a regular basis, the main issue between the 2 is that rai requires actually talking to your opponent where as a lot (not all) of raw just bludgeon there opponent with poorly written rules untill they just agree in the end or leave the game. Take 10 seconds to look at the rules forum to see the mess raw leaves, of course if it was rai primarily used the issue would still be there, nerds love to argue

The warmachine ymdc board would disagree.

Simply put, this is not how raw works in games like warmachine. "Bludgeoning" your opponents with "poorly written rules" until they give in to your interpretation? Yeah, that doesn't happen.

Don't make the mistake of confusing applying raw with enforcing poorly written rules.

Raw is fine. Shoddy rules are the issue.

Competitive? Being rewarded by playing well. And the mental drive to perform to the best of your ability.

RAW vs RAI is relevant, if the system was built well and written in a professional matter, or hell even just FAQ'd frequently then RAW vs RAI simply would not exist.

If the game designers fail to convey what they mean with their wording it is a bad rulebook. Simple as that.

On a similar note any game that has clearly definable lines dividing 'fluffy' and 'competitive' armies then there is a serious balance problem.

A competitive game, to me, is where both players are going for the win but not always to the exclusion of anything else (though this can happen if winning is ALL they care about, hence the term WAAC player). I think the fact people who want to play to win are always lumped with people who ONLY want to win, by any means necessary, is hugely unfair. Most games are played competitively regardless of army selections as at the end of the day, in a pick up game with no backstory the only motivation players have in game is winning whilst having fun. Indeed, many of the nicest players I've ever played were tournament goers who understood the separation of WAAC and playing to win, whereas some of the least fun to play are the whining crowd who insist that no matter what you bring it's OP (even if it's some relatively poor list, like IG with penal legion troops only) and that if you wanted to make a theme list containing more than 1 of the same unit (say, mech guard, Nidzilla or scarab farm Necrons) then you're "spamming". These people are very obvious though and most players fall somewhere between whining/ and WAAC, playing just because the game is pretty fun. I would go as far as to say most games I've ever played have been somewhat competitive, with very few where either I or the other player just didn't give a single damn about beating the other. It's kinda like saying you're "just playing" in chess or poker - you can be having fun (though how you're enjoying chess I have no idea, too much opening/closing memorisation for me) whilst still looking to win.

A fair and balanced competitive game would be one where the results of players going head to head was skill based (i.e. easily and commonly repeatable) and the rules facilitated a game where any unit can have a list built around it, so that all factions were equally viable; the result of both of these would be to make everyone stand a chance without restricting or name calling other players. A background accurate game would make it so fluffy players and gamers had little to no artificial separation, as the fluff would match the good armies. In an ideal world, 40k would be fluffy, far and balanced. As it stands, it's just about fair in that the better players almost always beat worse players but the balance and fluff are practically non-existent on the tabletop; even with fluffy lists some things are just poor compared to their background which makes me very sad.

Well I guess the thread has confirmed the truth I was squinting at: most people use the same terms to mean very different things. Personally, I'm glad that my FLGS has decided to just allow everything that is in the rules of 40k in the next tournament they run. I think all the escalation stuff etc will actually make the game more equal in many respects in that it will become MORE Rock Paper Scissors. It is harder to buikd a tac list when you are potentially facing such a diversity of opponents.

I don't like douches but don't mind losing some games but like winning games and feeling it's because of something I did. Probably most people are a bit like that?

A competitive game for me is a tournament game where there is a decent prize at stake. If it is a free tournament or simple pick up games I expect fun games with fluffier units and much less rules lawyering.

I tend to assume if the word competitive is mentioned then its tournament related or at last a more serious contest betwen players - often with something at stake, be that prizes or just who is the better player / bragging rights.

Neither better or worse than "lets just blow stuff up" or scenario based games but different......

This is a good thread. Competitive has a lot of meanings to a lot of people.

I don't really agree with most popular definitions of competitive, for the following reasons:

1) It's applied to armies more often than players. No army is, was or ever will be point-and-shoot, and generals matter.

2) When it's intended to describe the quality of the rules for a Codex, which is really only a measure of how it performs at tournaments. There is a difference in how a Codex will perform against a TAC list versus a list that is specifically optimized against that Codex.

3) There is some kind of weird group-think that goes on, where players try to copy the lists they see played at tournaments. This leads to less variety between lists, and diminishes the value of experimentation and imagination. I know 40k is not cheap, but the perceived 'power' of a Codex should only be one factor that goes into how to construct your army.

That said, I respect other people's ideas about what competitive means, even if I don't agree with them. Tournaments are a measuring stick for people who need one, and they provide the only real comparative metric in the world of 40k gamers. Even if the metric is flawed, it has some value in the minds of people in a community.

In baseball, the W/L metric for pitchers was widely considered the most important for about 70 years. It's been debated all this time, but it's only been recently that people started accepting the idea you could be a great pitcher on a good team and have a worse record than a good pitcher on a great team. Metrics are funny that way, there's an element of myth associated with our ability to accept them.

A friend of mine is an actuary for an insurance company and he's one of the best 40k players I know. He keeps a spreadsheet that has a page for every Codex measuring each unit in terms of RAW offensive output relative to points cost. It's not mathhammer, it's his own calculus for surveying the field and understanding what's coming at him. It combines stats at multiple different ranges to provide a single offensive number he uses to determine the value of any specific unit, and he has separate metrics for defense, ability to field, etc. He's explained the math to me enough times for me to know I don't agree with his idea of what competitive is, but I do appreciate this is how he understands and thinks about the game. He would be the first to tell you there are wild imbalances built into each Codex, they roughly correspond with the availability of new models from GW, and the ruleset is designed to reward certain armies over others in very specific situations.

Even with this understanding of how 'unfair' the game is, he keeps playing because he doesn't lose sight of the fact 40k has to be fun to matter. I think that's the most important point for any definition of 'competitive' to have to come to grips with. Until 40k becomes competitive in a way where you could make a living off it, tournament results are really only worth so much.

I'd be VERY interested to see you friend's data sheet and see how it compares with the current thinking re: competitive armies:

Eldar
Tau
Daemons
Necrons

In that order seems to be how most folk delineate the top four. Personally, I think that's kind of simplistic, and I'm sure that in a couple of months everyone will be decrying how OP Tyranids and Guard are, but only time will tell.

Does your friend's system take survivability into account?

To me competitive play is where you play to win first and arent all that worried about how much fun the other player is having.
You dont take "for fun' units and Watch the opponent closely.

 techsoldaten wrote:
That said, I respect other people's ideas about what competitive means, even if I don't agree with them. Tournaments are a measuring stick for people who need one, and they provide the only real comparative metric in the world of 40k gamers. Even if the metric is flawed, it has some value in the minds of people in a community.

You say you respect the position, but you seem not to actually understand it. Whilst there is undoubtedly joy to be had in winning a tournament (I've never played in one, but I don't doubt it), the primary joy for most competitive players is not at all that. The joy is from challenge, pitting yourself against an opponent and doing your best at something. I mean every time I play Squash, I throw myself into it with no regard for whether it is a league match and I far from don't enjoy it if I lose. The pleasure is 90% in the competition itself, not the winning. For you to make a statement like the above just falls into the same maligning stereotype that gets repeated endlessly on this forum by many - that we're some kind of immature people trying to show we are better than other people for some flawed psychological reason.

It's stated over and over again the joy of competitive play, but still come these misunderstandings.

Besides, the logic is quite demonstrable that making the game better for competitive play also makes it better for casual play. The repeated attacks on us (and lets be clear here - Peregrine is quite right to state that there are people here who launch unprovoked attacks - happened in this very thread) for the way we enjoy the game are not on. Nowhere is anyone saying the inverse - that people who enjoy it narratively or whatever are wrong to do so. Making the game more tactically interesting makes it better for everyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EVIL INC wrote:
To me competitive play is where you play to win first and arent all that worried about how much fun the other player is having.
You dont take "for fun' units and Watch the opponent closely.

Case in point - that's just offensive.

Guilty conscience?
i prefer to play 'for fun" games. when you WANT to win but if you do, the world is not going to end.
Tournaments are a good example of competitive play. I play in them when I can but only because it is a guaranteed 3 games in one day and it is a good way to practice against other players you arent used to playing.

knas ser wrote:
Besides, the logic is quite demonstrable that making the game better for competitive play also makes it better for casual play.

This can't be repeated enough. When tournament players complain of broken, shoddy, poorly edited rules we get mocked for taking the game too seriously.
When fixing those issues literally cannot make the "casual" games go down in quality (not because they're at the bottom - rather because if you have no rules issues now, having clearer rules won't change anything) and will likely actually improve one's enjoyment.


Balance between codexes would also be good for the casual player. It's been said over and over that a casual player takes what he likes. Personally, I like the look of 3 Heldrakes and a cultist swarm - it appeals to me. If I brought that to a casual game, however, I'd get (likely) insulted and get called a WAAC player (even though it's really not that good of a list) simply because of the 3 drakes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EVIL INC wrote:
Guilty conscience?
i prefer to play 'for fun" games. when you WANT to win but if you do, the world is not going to end.
Tournaments are a good example of competitive play. I play in them when I can but only because it is a guaranteed 3 games in one day and it is a good way to practice against other players you arent used to playing.

No - it is offensive. I consider myself a competitive player and yet, even in tournaments I'm concerned that my opponent is having fun. That's why you shake hands before and after the game and say "Good game." Not because you absolutely destroyed their army, but because it was an enjoyable time.

You know, I'm not actually sure. How do you define a competitive game? Is chess competitive, or monopoly? If those games are competitive, then logically, Wh40k must be as well.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
You know, I'm not actually sure. How do you define a competitive game? Is chess competitive, or monopoly? If those games are competitive, then logically, Wh40k must be as well.

Chess is competitive. Monopoly is competitive only in the very loosest sense as the outcome is very little to do with player decisions and far more to do with random dice rolls. Yes, there's a [very] minor element of tactics in monopoly but only the most desperate of people would say that they are more skilled than the other players if they won at monopoly.

A tactical wargame typically falls somewhere between the two to reach optimum enjoyment. It needs to have enough tactical depth and balance that player decisions will normally be the primary determinant of success, but enough of a random element that there is the fun of risk and gamble. I.e. chess tactics are purely mechanical. Tactics in a wargame are as much about ones ability to weigh risk as they are about overall plans. Monopoly is so absurdly random that there is no skill in weighing risks - you simply cannot. A good tactical wargame typically is like poker or similar in that weighing risks is a skill in itself.

Thus randomness in a game is fine, so long as it is a randomness that leads to player skill in judging that randomness being a factor in outcome.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Guilty conscience?

No, not particularly. You were just offensive to a bunch of people and now you're being offensive to me directly. If you say something that isn't true about someone and they take offense, that doesn't mean it's actually true. Being misrepresented is itself offensive. You know, you could just read what some of us have actually written in order to know how we feel, rather than just casting aspersions.

A competitive game is where I start drugging my opponent's drink to gain an edge.

What I always wonder about "competitive 40K"

- Do people play Warhammer 40K first (i.e. because they like Warhammer 40K), and think that playing "competitively" is the best way to get the most fun out of Warhammer 40K? If so, why is "competitive play" a superior approach to a lore-heavy universe like Warhammer 40K over, say, "narrative" approaches?

Or..

- Do people play competitive first (i.e. for the sake of competing), and think that playing Warhammer 40K is the best game on the market to compete with one another? If so, why is Warhammer 40K of all games out there the game of choice? Even within the narrow field of miniature wargaming, most people seem to think most other games are better suited for the job?

 Zweischneid wrote:
- Do people play Warhammer 40K first (i.e. because they like Warhammer 40K), and think that playing "competitively" is the best way to get the most fun out of Warhammer 40K? If so, why is "competitive play" a superior approach to a lore-heavy universe like Warhammer 40K over, say, "narrative" approaches?

Why do you think they think it's superior?
It's not. It's different fun. I have played narrative games, I just have more fun with tournament games.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
- Do people play Warhammer 40K first (i.e. because they like Warhammer 40K), and think that playing "competitively" is the best way to get the most fun out of Warhammer 40K? If so, why is "competitive play" a superior approach to a lore-heavy universe like Warhammer 40K over, say, "narrative" approaches?

Why do you think they think it's superior?
It's not. It's different fun. I have played narrative games, I just have more fun with tournament games.

Well, if you have more fun with it, than it is superiour to you, no? Simply wondering why?

 Zweischneid wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
- Do people play Warhammer 40K first (i.e. because they like Warhammer 40K), and think that playing "competitively" is the best way to get the most fun out of Warhammer 40K? If so, why is "competitive play" a superior approach to a lore-heavy universe like Warhammer 40K over, say, "narrative" approaches?

Why do you think they think it's superior?
It's not. It's different fun. I have played narrative games, I just have more fun with tournament games.

Well, if you have more fun with it, than it is superiour to you, no? Simply wondering why?

It's not "superior" as in "there can be only one" - I recognize that some people enjoy "narrative" play more than I.
I have more fun in tournament games (or casual normal games) as I've never been in a scenario game that has balanced sides. Normally something happens like "And then on turn 3 a meteor strikes right... about... there." and nukes a significant portion of the scenario-designated-loser's force. You can balance the "acts of god" some by changing the victory conditions (to make it "easier" for the "losers" to win) or by reducing the available units on the winning side, but the fact remains that it's a large balancing act and being on the side of "You lose because this page says so - no matter what you do." makes me feel like I've wasted hours of my life.

With tournament/casual normal games there's at least a modicum of pretend balance - both sides have the same amount of points, neither side is going to have an act of god intervene (usually), things like that.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
- Do people play Warhammer 40K first (i.e. because they like Warhammer 40K), and think that playing "competitively" is the best way to get the most fun out of Warhammer 40K? If so, why is "competitive play" a superior approach to a lore-heavy universe like Warhammer 40K over, say, "narrative" approaches?

Why do you think they think it's superior?
It's not. It's different fun. I have played narrative games, I just have more fun with tournament games.

Well, if you have more fun with it, than it is superiour to you, no? Simply wondering why?

It's not "superior" as in "there can be only one" - I recognize that some people enjoy "narrative" play more than I.
I have more fun in tournament games (or casual normal games) as I've never been in a scenario game that has balanced sides. Normally something happens like "And then on turn 3 a meteor strikes right... about... there." and nukes a significant portion of the scenario-designated-loser's force. You can balance the "acts of god" some by changing the victory conditions (to make it "easier" for the "losers" to win) or by reducing the available units on the winning side, but the fact remains that it's a large balancing act and being on the side of "You lose because this page says so - no matter what you do." makes me feel like I've wasted hours of my life.

With tournament/casual normal games there's at least a modicum of pretend balance - both sides have the same amount of points, neither side is going to have an act of god intervene (usually), things like that.

Superiour. Preferable. Better. More Fun.

Call it whatever.

The question was... if you are in it for "modicum of pretend balance", aren't there better games out there than Warhammer 40K to make sure you don't feel like you "wasted hours of your life"? You're clearly not interested in the story about the Ork Rok hurling towards the planet surface, striking in the middle of the Blood Angel's 4th Companies last stand, by what I read from you?

 Zweischneid wrote:
The question was... if you are in it for "modicum of pretend balance", aren't there better games out there than Warhammer 40K to make sure you don't feel like you "wasted hours of your life"? You're clearly not interested in the story about the Ork Rok hurling towards the planet surface, striking in the middle of the Blood Angel's 4th Companies last stand, by what I read from you?

No - I am interested in the fluff (it's actually the only reason to play this shoddy rule set). I am just not interested in fluff dictating my games. Why show up if I can guarantee that the battle will go like the fluff?

Historical scenario games I rarely enjoy for the same reason. I like historical non-scenario games, however.

To me competitive play is where you play to win first and arent all that worried about how much fun the other player is having.
You dont take "for fun' units and Watch the opponent closely.

For example, whe you see two teams competing in the superbowl do you see the players sitting around saying "I do say old chap, I hope the other team enjoys the experience of playing in the game. Perhaps we should send them some tea and crumpets". You seethe players working out, practicing their hits and plays and talking about how they hope they are on thier "A game" on game day and how they want to bring home the trophy.
likewise, for a tournament, you dont see players saying "I do say old chap, I hope that old (insert random name) beats me today because he really enjoys winning and he could use the prize more than me". You see the players doing their math trying to figure out good combos and even walking about looking at the preset tables saying to themselves... "Well, if I play against daemons, I want that table because the terrain is set up where the enemy is more likely to suffer mishaps and if I'm playing guard, I want that table because it has a lot of LOS blocking terrain.....". In essense, in a "comtetative" game, winning is goal #1. This doesnt mean you dont want the other guy to enjoy himself of course, it means that that goal is secondary. Anyone who claims differently is only lieing to themself.

 Zweischneid wrote:
If so, why is Warhammer 40K of all games out there the game of choice?

Because in many cases 40k is the ONLY game available. Playing competitively with a flawed game is better than playing no game at all. And the simple fact is that many of the better games just don't have 40k's player base and tournaments are pretty much nonexistent.

And then of course there's the fact that competition doesn't mean completely ignoring the fluff/models. I can enjoy the theme of the game while trying to crush my opponent through a better list and better tactics, I'm just not going to set up a game with special scenario rules and deliberately make bad decisions because of some bizarre assumption that bad units/lists are "fluffier". And unfortunately 40k is the only 28mm scale scifi game with a full range of models. If you want to play something else you're stuck with either a fantasy/real-world game, a skirmish-scale scifi game that doesn't have 40k's tanks/aircraft/etc, or a game with tiny models that aren't much fun to paint.

This is true. many players at the local shop have tried to branch out into other games. Some with more success than others. generally, we have a LOT of money, time and yes, heart invested. Especially over the last decade or so, players find it hard o scrape up enough $ to start a whole new system. especially, when it is a gamble as to whether or not they will be able to find enough other players willing to do the same to keep it sustained.

To answer the question asked.
A competitive game is a game where the players compete against each other to achive an objective first.
Thus clearly defining a winner and a looser of the game.

Compared to a co-operative game where players work together to achive a COMMON objective.
EG the players beat the game or they get beaten by the game.

A what is game written for competitive play, how do you play a game competitively , or what sort of douche do you hate playing was not the questioned asked.

Its odd that GOOD rule sets allow ALL player types and styles to just play and enjoy the game.

40k requires a HUGE amount of effort from the players to arrive at a passable way to waste a couple of hours.