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.

GW bases everything around mediocrity. They release very low-quality miniatures (Finecast) and low-quality books with low-quality rulesets. Makes sense it'd extend to the psychology of the game itself.

It's largely because GW today is largely a corporate/shareholders juggling game to see how to make their reports look good each year. That's all 40k really is.

Dunklezahn wrote:
I guess we have to agree to disagree, I find that by taking 5 minutes to talk to my opponent before hand and a willingness to say "I could never handle the Titan with what i have/my list is way harder or softer than yours etc" (something I don't even need at all with the close core of our gaming group that play outside of randoms) and walk away politely from those games I don't think 1 or both of us would enjoy the game becomes very balanced.

I play warmachine, infinity and flames of war. None of these games require me to negotiate terms and conditions with my opponents as to what goes down on the board for a fair fight. Amusingly though, with all these games (especially our flames of war games), I'm still perfectly able to co-operate with the lads and discuss cool scenarios, specific forces available and create a narrative story. As a bonus, the rules don't get in the way, or hinder us. 40k is the only game that is so inherently unbalanced that it requires such a level of self policing in order to work. The others function naturally, and narrative games flow far more easily from that.

Dunklezahn wrote:
The problem lies not in the rules (Well there are some pretty stupid ones but those are outliers for me) but those people who choose to take rules for narrative play (Like D-Weapon fortifications which work great as part of a custom scenario) and try to use them purely for their game winning power. In that case let the Revenant fight the Warhound, sure it'll be a blast but you take your list and play someone else.

No, the rules are a mess. They're bloated, excessive and generally, just add clutter to the game, rather than add to the game. You have excessive rules(how many movement types do we have, and how many of these have their own unique exceptions? As compared to a' movement stat?), excessive dice rolling (roll to hit, wound, armour save, fnp/etc)- 4 rolls to resolve an issue ( and three of those answer the sane bloody question - does what hit you kill you?) when other games (warmachine, infinity, heck even dnd!)use 2 rolls to accomplish this, excessive bloated, abstract and counter intuitive mechanics (how you use ap to determine if you get through infantry armour, but strength to get through vehicle armour, and how an s10 ap6 lance weapon will melt a land raider, but will in all likelihood bounce off a fire warrior or guardsman) while other games use a universal damage system that is both intuitive, and yet works for all unit types. Then you've got the multiple saves thing. Marine in cover uses either his cover or his armour. He uses armour, and his cover disappears. He uses his armour, and cover no longer exists. What? One would assume that cover and armour would stack and would be greater than the sum of their parts. Other games integrate cover in a far better and more intuitive manner? Infinity does it. Warmachine does it. Flames of war does it. 40k used to, and they got rid of it fir the current clunky and counter intuitive monstrosity. Yeah, cheers. Compared to the streamlined beauty that is infinity, the gw systems are dinosaurs.

Dunklezahn wrote:
Such is the way of list building games, some lists are extremes of one kind or another by purpose or accident and they can (not will. but can) create a unfun situation for 1 or both players if the opponent hasn't got the right list.

This doesn't really happen in infinity. Whilst skew lists occur in warmachine, the multiple list format of tournaments both allows for these skew lists to exist and do well, and for other players to be able to counter them without specific tailors (if I face a hard counter, I take my other list. But the list I'm facing is still a valid and playable option. Pp manage to allow both to co exist quite well.

Zweischneid wrote:
But Infinity isn't exactly a runaway success.
.

Nor is it dead in the water. Remember, the size of the company is a lot smaller - iirc they have less than thirty people on the books. (and I'm quite certain a number of these are part time, or contract artists). And for its size, it's punching well above its weight.

Zweischneid wrote:
And it's been outselling more balanced games like Warmachine, not to mention Infinity by crazy margins. People truly don't care about "balance".

I think it's more to do with 'star wars' and the fact that as a game, it's far more accessible, and easy to play - I've had it described to me as being on the same wavelength as 'family' games like monopoly or hungry hungry hippos. Dunno if it's an apt description though.

----------------------

As for me, I'm fine with gw encouraging narrative, co operative and casual games. They're fun. I do these games with flames of war. Wouldn't think of working with 40k - it's just so... Flawed. I just wish the fundamental mechanisms of the game were better. See above. Those were the issues that drove me from the game. That, and the lack of balance. By all means, encourage narrative games with kooky lists (though if this is the case, I'd argue the game is best served with no codices, focs, or points costs as we understand them now and was instead based on a big list of unit types and officially pushed with more interactive story, scenario and campaign ideas. (I've actually got a wee system written up for my group based on this premise) Take what you want and build a story with it with your friends. And cool. Just base it on a better, more intuitive and functional set of game mechanics. And rather than a game you can major work with a lot of effort, you've got a game that simply works.

I have a question about the narrative games and people playing them . How do you do it . You go to a shop , pay for the table or not , and then what ? Because I never seen an narrative game played in my whole wargaming life.

When any game looks bad compared to Flames of War, you've got a problem.

 Zweischneid wrote:
That is the problem, all along. Warhammer 40K just happens to come with ... dunna .. black car seats, and people keep complaining that the designers are so incapable, they can't seem to get the white just right. But they are not supposed to be white. They are supposed to be black.

No, and this is the thing you refuse to understand: the problems with 40k that make it a bad competitive game do not make it a better casual/narrative/whatever game, they just make it a bad game in general. If you fix the problems that the competitive players hate you simultaneously improve the game for casual/narrative play. The only thing the game would lose is your bizarre masochistic idea that if the rules suck so badly that the game doesn't function without extensive pre-game negotiation you'll have to talk to your opponent and find out what they want to play. And that makes about as much sense as bragging about how the $50-per-meal restaurant you keep going to serves you rotting food with shards of broken glass mixed into it, which has the wonderful benefit of helping you stick to your diet.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Sure it is. M and my buds have been trying to game narrative for years, decades even, and every single pick-up game you get the same idiocy about "you cannot run Ultrarmarines 1st Company" or some such, cause Terminators are not "troops" (and you need to fill all kind a stupid "slots" to be "legal" and other such nonsense). And I cannot have a Space Wolves-Striking Scorpions double-force as described in the fluff section of the actual Codex, because you cannot mix armies, etc....

Sorry, but once again you fail to understand game design. Your Ultramarines dreams aren't banned because of balance issues, they're banned because of fluff. An all-terminator army is clearly fine (or even weaker than average) from a balance perspective, as demonstrated by the DA and their Deathwing option. However, Ultramarines are known for being a generalist army that goes strictly by the (fluff) codex. So an Ultramarines army is composed of a strong core of tactical squads with supporting elements from the other parts of the FOC. Asking to play an all-terminator Ultramarines army makes about as much sense as asking to play an all-terminator IG army.

It's been a gaming climate that has been stifling, oppressive and outright hostile to anything approaching "creativity" for decades, despite being a supposedly "creative" hobby.

Not really. You know what's hostile to creativity? Bad game balance. When the game isn't balanced you're forced to make unsatisfying choices between playing the army idea you love and playing the army that will give you a chance of winning games. When balance is good you don't have this problem, and you're able to have a lot more freedom in designing a viable list that will produce enjoyable games.

The only thing that a balanced game doesn't allow is the "special snowflake" armies that have a long essay about how all of the normal rules and fluff don't apply to them.

The balanced rules themselves my not hurt, but the associated "mind-set" that the rules are some sort of inviolable gospel, the holy script that must be adhered to (and, inversely, that everything that is technically possible within the set of rules is automatically "ok"), is incredibly harmful.

You know, it sounds like you don't actually like the rules to 40k. You talk a lot about how you don't want 40k to become like every other game, but I think what you really love is your own special version of the game, not the rules as published by GW.

@ Zweischneid

Lets put it this way; balanced rules would not hurt you. You would still be free to make any fluff modifications you felt like. However, Unbalanced rules hurt anyone, casual/fluffy/competitive, who wishes to simply put models on the board with minimal fuss and bother. Personally, I would rather spend time before the game discussing fun scenario items or such to play, rather than negotiating with my opponent to get the game to work. This goes double when there is limited time; If I have only two hours to game, I don't want to spend half an hour actually getting a game to function.

It's worth saying, pretty much any game I've seen played at an flgs that purported to be "fluffy" or "narrative based" never had a good story as to why the various forces involved were composed primarily of grey plastic, bare resin or metal. I'm cool with occasional narrative game, but they're more spectacle than game more often than not, at least in my own experience. Don't get me wrong, I love spectacle, but you gotta bring it, it's gotta look good, at some point you have to require units to be painted.

The bottom line is, you can write a story with D6, but it'll be a pretty gakky story. If I ask a gamer friend how a game with so and so went, they generally give my specifics, you know, stuff about the game, not "oh it was glorious, sgt gragnor valiently defeated the blood angels veteran sgt blala bla bla challenge bala bla la allied tau commander bla bla bla".

There will be room for narrative no matter what because narrative can be good or really crappy. Anyone can write convoluted and contrived fluff to justify any army they come up with, here are my guard veterans, the end.

A bit more balance, fewer variables (at least at its core). Vanilla 40k and all its other flavours that you and your opponent can try, and a healthy dose of faq's and errata's for all of them, less ambiguity is what's at the heart of this and it lifts all boats. Rules that are incredibly specific you never see people arguing about.

The moment I have to memorize 100+ poorly written pages of rules, and better yet, end up having several debates about those rules in a single game, it stops being anything close to 'beer and pretzels.'

'Beer and pretzels' is something I can understand within 15 minutes, and play smoothly with little incident.

WayneTheGame wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"Of course it doesn't help that the bolter is a pretty poor weapon, and that Marines don't have the "rapid fire" rule from second that actually allowed them to gun down armies who outnumbered them two to one. "

The bolter was so bad in 2nd that this didn't help at all. But I get your drift.

From what I recall of 2nd edition the main thing then was that armor saves had penalties applied based on the weapon's strength (like in WHFB, no AP then) so you still had a good chance of killing people if you dropped their 4+ save to a 5+. That and if I'm not mistaken, Marines could move AND Rapid Fire so you could move and still shoot 24", or rapid fire if within 12". I don't 100% remember though it's been a long time, but I recall that whole move or shoot stuff only being in play from 3rd onward.

"Rapid Fire" was a rule only Marines (both Chaos and Loyalist) had. It meant that if they stood still they could fire all bolt weapons, pistol, bolter, storm bolter, twice in the shooting phase. Other units fired exactly the same whether on the move or stationary with basic weapons. Heavy weapons couldn't be fired on the move as now, and special weapons had their trade offs. Plasma guns were strong, although without much of an armour save modifier, S6 -1AS one sustained fire dice IIRC, but could only be fired every other turn as it had to recharge. Meltaguns slagged armour or single targets but had half the range of a bolter. Flamers hit a lot of targets (and could set targets on fire) but had an even shorter range than a meltagun.

Armour save modifiers meant that normally a Marine had a 4+ or worse save. Given that they then cost twice as much as they do now, they weren't particularly strong because they didn't have the numbers to either survive or dish out damage.

They also had no, "and they shall know no fear". What loyalists had was a rule that reduced their first failed break test to a shaken rather than broken status. They could still stand and shoot, or move away from the enemy into cover to regroup, but they couldn't advance towards the enemy. It meant they held their ground a little better, but it certainly wasn't as powerful as ATSKNF.

did no one notice this is exactly the opposite discussion as the "once GW goes non-competitive" discussion? does everyone here think GW made their flagship games as tourney prize makers? for that matter, any game? I remember playing Magic for *gasp* fun. I like to win, but the people who toss around the words "competitive", "meta", and "viable" are the ones who scream the loudest when being called out for being a WAAC player.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
I remember playing Magic for *gasp* fun. I like to win, but the people who toss around the words "competitive", "meta", and "viable" are the ones who scream the loudest when being called out for being a WAAC player.

I wonder why? Could it be because people like you keep insisting that they're WAAC TFGs who can't possibly be having any fun, just because they're enjoying something that you don't enjoy? I mean, you'd probably be kind of annoyed if I made regular page-long forum rants about how much you suck because I hate your signature.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
I like to win, but the people who toss around the words "competitive", "meta", and "viable" are the ones who scream the loudest when being called out for being a WAAC player.

Well I get pretty pissed off when someone who clearly doesn't understand what I enjoy starts calling me pejorative terms that show they don't have the slightest idea why I actually enjoy it, so yes. Not really surprising people get upset when you insult / misrepresent them, is it? Here's a starting point for you: enjoying competitive play is not about winning at any cost. Easily proven by the fact some of the most fun squash matches I have ever had were ones I lost. I enjoyed them because I played my best, tried really hard and had found an opponent who really pushed me.

Try and get into that mindset and then realize it is completely different to what is usually meant by 'WAAC' which you know damn well is a pejorative term. What I read from your post is that you insult someone and then blame them for taking offense.

Martel732 wrote:
When any game looks bad compared to Flames of War, you've got a problem.

To be fair though, the game we play is about 50% flames of war, 50% house rules/home brew.

The scale is perfect though for large engagements with multiple platoons and lots of boots on the ground - IMO 40k falls far short in this area.

Next up for us is x-wing, drop zone commander and firestorm armada

Makumba wrote:
I have a question about the narrative games and people playing them . How do you do it . You go to a shop , pay for the table or not , and then what ? Because I never seen an narrative game played in my whole wargaming life.

Thats actually quite easy to explain. I will give you an example.

I sometimes play with a friend who has 2 very young kids and is just playing for the models. He doesnt have time to play very often and he never has a strategy but wants his gorgeously painted models see table time.

Last time we played we decided that new dimensional gate he build for his table would be able to be controlled by the player that is on top of it. This gives you control over a bloodthirster for the turn. If your opponent captures the gate he gets to control it etc.
If its not spontaneous like when i play him normally you can sit down beforehand and think about a more deep story why the two armies are there and make several special rules to emphasize your theme on the tabletop. Like the example with the thirster.

Playing narratively is very easy ... instead of just putting your models down you get creative on how you spice up the game through cool special rules both players agree to.

 Mywik wrote:

Makumba wrote:
I have a question about the narrative games and people playing them . How do you do it . You go to a shop , pay for the table or not , and then what ? Because I never seen an narrative game played in my whole wargaming life.

Thats actually quite easy to explain. I will give you an example.

I sometimes play with a friend who has 2 very young kids and is just playing for the models. He doesnt have time to play very often and he never has a strategy but wants his gorgeously painted models see table time.

Last time we played we decided that new dimensional gate he build for his table would be able to be controlled by the player that is on top of it. This gives you control over a bloodthirster for the turn. If your opponent captures the gate he gets to control it etc.
If its not spontaneous like when i play him normally you can sit down beforehand and think about a more deep story why the two armies are there and make several special rules to emphasize your theme on the tabletop. Like the example with the thirster.

Playing narratively is very easy ... instead of just putting your models down you get creative on how you spice up the game through cool special rules both players agree to.

That sounds very cool. I love backgrounded missions like that or with some intereting twist.

The problem many of us are having is someone saying that better rules or more balanced armies hinders people from doing the above.

And I guess also worth pointing out that the person you're replying to was talking about going to a club and playing a pick up game with some random person. What you describe is much easier (due to time and trust) with a friend than some random stranger met in a store where you both want to just sit down and game.

But you can do that with absolutely any ruleset. Better yet, a clear and well written one gives you a more solid base with which to expand from, since you have to worry about less rules disputes coming alone to interfere with the design of your house rules.

Martel732 wrote:
No, no. I have pretty much all BA models. I let them build their own list from the BA book. It hasn't helped them yet. Most people fall into the trap units. (Which is 65% of the codex at least)

It's easy for people to take things seriously that they have sunk a lot of money into.

I don't think that being unable to make a list with a codex you're unfamiliar with proves anything.

xruslanx wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No, no. I have pretty much all BA models. I let them build their own list from the BA book. It hasn't helped them yet. Most people fall into the trap units. (Which is 65% of the codex at least)

It's easy for people to take things seriously that they have sunk a lot of money into.

I don't think that being unable to make a list with a codex you're unfamiliar with proves anything.

Yeah it does. It proves that a lot of the options in it just aren't viable. That's the point.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
...but the people who toss around the words "competitive", "meta", and "viable"...

I will agree that I think "meta" in the context of the 40k community is quite possibly the most overused and misunderstood words in any hobby I've ever partaken of.

knas ser wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No, no. I have pretty much all BA models. I let them build their own list from the BA book. It hasn't helped them yet. Most people fall into the trap units. (Which is 65% of the codex at least)

It's easy for people to take things seriously that they have sunk a lot of money into.

I don't think that being unable to make a list with a codex you're unfamiliar with proves anything.

Yeah it does. It proves that a lot of the options in it just aren't viable. That's the point.

true , if one codex can take more or less any combination of gear or units from their codex and the other have this one pre build army , then the second codex is bad. Even if those pre build choices include multiple helldrakes.

knas ser wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No, no. I have pretty much all BA models. I let them build their own list from the BA book. It hasn't helped them yet. Most people fall into the trap units. (Which is 65% of the codex at least)

It's easy for people to take things seriously that they have sunk a lot of money into.

I don't think that being unable to make a list with a codex you're unfamiliar with proves anything.

Yeah it does. It proves that a lot of the options in it just aren't viable. That's the point.

So in your opinion, each unit in a codex should be objectively comparable to each other? There should never be one unit that is simply better than another?

xruslanx wrote:

knas ser wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No, no. I have pretty much all BA models. I let them build their own list from the BA book. It hasn't helped them yet. Most people fall into the trap units. (Which is 65% of the codex at least)

It's easy for people to take things seriously that they have sunk a lot of money into.

I don't think that being unable to make a list with a codex you're unfamiliar with proves anything.

Yeah it does. It proves that a lot of the options in it just aren't viable. That's the point.

So in your opinion, each unit in a codex should be objectively comparable to each other? There should never be one unit that is simply better than another?

Ah, the old - 'take what someone has said to extremes' approach. Ever a favourite.

Note the word "a lot" in my post, Which you have turned into "never be one unit". Or to put it another way, it's the old argument of "you can't make it perfect so don't improve it" that is repeatedly used to argue against changing things as if everything is a binary.

Anyway, broadly speaking - yes, there shouldn't be a unit that is "simply better than another" without balancing factors. Dire Avengers are better than Guardians. But they also cost more points and Guardians have options like weapon platforms. Thus we have interesting tactical decisions. You have phrased things to imply we're talking about making all units the same. That is not so. We're talking about things like Dire Avengers vs. Guardians where they are balanced but different. If the same codex contained both Dire Avengers and Super Dire Avengers with the latter being the same cost but having 24" or something, then that would make the former Dire Avengers an obvious trap. No-one should ever take them from a competitive point of view and anyone who does want to take them is being forced to choose between effectiveness and fluff. There should be no universal "better". It should always be "better at X at the cost of something similarly valuable Y, or else have commensurate points adjustment".

Now take this to the BAs that we are talking about. If a large part of the codex consists of "trap" units - i.e. hideously inferior choices, then rather than it "not proving anything" as you wrote, it proves that a lot of the options aren't viable. As I wrote.

There's a marked difference between "no unit may be simply better than any other unit" and a codex where a new player can easily spend a small fortune no realizing they are picking units that can't really be used very effectively.

knas ser wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
I like to win, but the people who toss around the words "competitive", "meta", and "viable" are the ones who scream the loudest when being called out for being a WAAC player.

Well I get pretty pissed off when someone who clearly doesn't understand what I enjoy starts calling me pejorative terms that show they don't have the slightest idea why I actually enjoy it, so yes. Not really surprising people get upset when you insult / misrepresent them, is it? Here's a starting point for you: enjoying competitive play is not about winning at any cost. Easily proven by the fact some of the most fun squash matches I have ever had were ones I lost. I enjoyed them because I played my best, tried really hard and had found an opponent who really pushed me.

Try and get into that mindset and then realize it is completely different to what is usually meant by 'WAAC' which you know damn well is a pejorative term. What I read from your post is that you insult someone and then blame them for taking offense.

You miss my point entirely...

In this context, competitive rarely means "I did my best". In gaming circles, competitive means tier one, rules lawyering, and general superiority. Competitive means "play this list, because nothing else is viable", one reason why Blood Angels is rarely seen, but plenty of "power gamers" play Tau. Competitive means someone is plotting and planning every rules bend in order to get a cheesy advantage, which usually elicits a groan in a tournament, and a cold stare in a friendly game, both usually resulting in no more invites to play.

I am very competitive, in the normal sense of the word. I like to win when I can. But I am not Timmy, the Power Gamer "I need to win!". Threads like this, whining about how the game has "stopped" being compatible.for tournaments, are ridiculous. It's a game, people! Lighten up!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Harriticus wrote:
GW bases everything around mediocrity. They release very low-quality miniatures (Finecast) and low-quality books with low-quality rulesets. Makes sense it'd extend to the psychology of the game itself.

It's largely because GW today is largely a corporate/shareholders juggling game to see how to make their reports look good each year. That's all 40k really is.

And pontificating about how poorly run a company is only cements one as not realmy being in it for the game. Who cares who runs the company? And are you really kidding about the quality of their product? Sometimes I think GW-bashing is the true hobby of the hipster wargamer. If it's so terrible, why play?

Its much harder to be a powergamer in a balanaced rule set.

 Orock wrote:
How does ostracizing the tournament/competitive fans benefit GW in the long run?

The only way to truly know that is to find out what square the headless chicken GW uses to decide their business strategy landed on. Until we can learn that, we'll continue to be in the dark.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Orock wrote:
How does ostracizing the tournament/competitive fans benefit GW in the long run?

The only way to truly know that is to find out what square the headless chicken GW uses to decide their business strategy landed on. Until we can learn that, we'll continue to be in the dark.

Well, let's see. FFG specifically stayed out of the tournament scene with X-Wing, and it sells well. Star Trek Attack Wing jumped right in to tournaments, and it sells well.

Again, some people try to have fun when they play a game. It's not all about Timmy thr Power Gamer.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
FFG specifically stayed out of the tournament scene with X-Wing...

What the hell are you blathering about? They held their own X-Wing tournament. At Gen-Con. I think they've even done a few others since then (the game hasn't been out that long) at their own big gaming store/centre in Minnesota. So now... they didn't "specifically" stay out of anything.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
It's not all about Timmy thr Power Gamer.

No one's saying it is. The problem Solo is that you're equating anyone playing competitively as some sort of TFG WAAC, which is silly, and downright dishonest on your part.

I honestly cannot believe that Falcon is not being facetious . There's no way someone can say something so ridiculous and actually consider that an informed opinion, and hold it so stubbornly.

40K has never been designed for tournament play. It has never been very good for it, and GW have never shown any interest in tournaments except as a marketing thing. With that in mind, I don't think GW are trying to make the game more "beer and pretzels".

Anyway, GW can't force anyone to do anything.

Tournament organisers can set their own criteria for what units are allowed in their event.

Players too, are not required to accept anything they don't want to play with.

Obviously there is a wavy line between standing on your right to enjoy the game for yourself, and being a bit of a miseryguts to someone who wants to play with the latest toys. That is the area where people need to make reasonable compromises, and it can't be legislated by "official" rules.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

knas ser wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
I like to win, but the people who toss around the words "competitive", "meta", and "viable" are the ones who scream the loudest when being called out for being a WAAC player.

Well I get pretty pissed off when someone who clearly doesn't understand what I enjoy starts calling me pejorative terms that show they don't have the slightest idea why I actually enjoy it, so yes. Not really surprising people get upset when you insult / misrepresent them, is it? Here's a starting point for you: enjoying competitive play is not about winning at any cost. Easily proven by the fact some of the most fun squash matches I have ever had were ones I lost. I enjoyed them because I played my best, tried really hard and had found an opponent who really pushed me.

Try and get into that mindset and then realize it is completely different to what is usually meant by 'WAAC' which you know damn well is a pejorative term. What I read from your post is that you insult someone and then blame them for taking offense.

You miss my point entirely...

In this context, competitive rarely means "I did my best". In gaming circles, competitive means tier one, rules lawyering, and general superiority.

Bollocks. You've several entire threads here to refer from which to see how we're using the term competitive. And everyone who talks in detail about competitive play contradicts what you wrote it means. The only people using it in this sense are those in these threads arguing against it and creating strawmen about what it means. Look at what you yourself wrote: you stated that people who used words like "competitive", "meta" and "viabale" were quick to whine about being called WAAC and directly implied that such people actually are WAAC. Well people using such terms are actually all of us arguing for better rules and balance in this thread. And we explicitly say otherwise about what interests us. So you are directly calling us WAAC and assuming we're lying about what we enjoy. I repeat - bollocks. You're just being offensive and telling people you know better than they do what they do and don't enjoy and why.