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.

Tournament lists are, to me at least , representative of the absolute opposite of tactics, pouring the entirety of the game into planning and strategy. While obviously it works, because putting all your chips into the less-random aspect of the game is definitely the way to maximize your chance of winning, the actual games are absolutely not "competitive."

At the club I used to play at, there were two guys who held themselves above every other person there, and would always talk about how if anyone else wanted to step up and play some real competitive 40 k they'd be willing to but until then they'd just play each other. I don't think I ever saw a game they played that involved more than a single tactical decision. Every list was:

A) find a highly durable, cost efficient unit that can cause significant damage to pretty much anything, then take the maximum number of them in order to bet on your opponent not bringing enough powerful weaponry to beat them.

B) build the entire army into a single alpha strike of either deeps striking in and shooting or charging across the board and assaulting with everything, hoping to decimate the enemy army before they can ever respond

C) pump the majority of the points in the list into a single destructive Death Star, charge it straight at the enemy army and bet that they didn't take enough weight of fire to harm it.

Every single one of those lists involves you making at maximum a single decision a turn, or a few decisions on one single critical turn. Every game was all but over by turn 2, and I don't think I ever failed to predict who the winner would be that week when they set their models down on the table.

Is this really what people think competitive 40k is? Is that really a competition or has the game at that point just come down to strategic planning and no small amount of luck that your opponent didn't take the type of army that can always beat yours? And, for anyone that really enjoys that level of play, can I respectfully ask, why do you find it fun? Is it building the lists, searching the rules for that key thing that will beat anything, is it some kind of predictive mind game where you guess what your opponent will bring?

Is this really what people think competitive 40k is?

Its not the be all and end all of competitive 40k but it is a very significant part, in no small part because within 40ks ruleset(s) there are exploits, cheese and downright wtf builds. Does that make the game more or less fun? For me, more fun but thats entirely subjective.

Is that really a competition or has the game at that point just come down to strategic planning and no small amount of luck that your opponent didn't take the type of army that can always beat yours?

I've seen some great tactical moves pulled off at tournaments so imo, no, the game dosent come down to the strategic or dice. Tactics inevitably play a part. How much of a part? Thats another conversation.

Is it building the lists, searching the rules for that key thing that will beat anything

Thats definitely a part of it for me and Im by no way competitive. its fun to take a fresh, new codex and see what builds one can come up with (even if some of them are "cheesey"). But then playing well, effectively and consistently with that list is another matter.

Army lists are emphasized on the internet because that's the easiest thing to talk about. Actual in-game tactics are difficult to talk about in an article format - compare the effort the effort that goes into a batrep vs an army list forum post. When we talk about tournament results, we often don't know what went on during the games tactically... but we do have comprehensive army lists that we can have forum discussions about. And so that's what gets discussed, at the expense of talking about the finer points of tactical and strategic play.

Also, 40k is tactically shallow and the list matters a lot.

Competitive play is to give it your best within the rules to win.

Army selection is a logical start to leverage a win.

Getting a "deal" for the points and units with flexibility are easy targets for selection as well as various SPAM lists.

Another element of army lists being a logical thing to focus on: it is not random.

Most of the game is governed by random results so competitive play likes to focus on concrete items or highly probable things (consistency).

Now, "true" competitive play is also wanting a challenge, tabling someone is typically a waste of a game: your learned nothing.

Since "balance" is not built into the game and GW clearly takes no ownership for it, you can only arrange a "proper" competitive game with a like-minded friend and try to balance your lists.

The "real competitive 40k" guys talked about were really just playing a glorified version of "rock-paper-scissors" since they really depend on a "gimmick" than any tactical flexibility.

Find other games for a more engaging challenge, 40k is a fun flashy thing but even the fluff players are having trouble trying to find a middle-ground.

the_scotsman wrote:
Is this really what people think competitive 40k is? Is that really a competition or has the game at that point just come down to strategic planning and no small amount of luck that your opponent didn't take the type of army that can always beat yours? And, for anyone that really enjoys that level of play, can I respectfully ask, why do you find it fun? Is it building the lists, searching the rules for that key thing that will beat anything, is it some kind of predictive mind game where you guess what your opponent will bring?

It's because no matter how good you play on the table, your decisions before you hit the table really REALLY matter. Consider the following two lists:




Both are 1250 point lists (the first one is 1248) but the latter will perform better in every single game.

rigeld2 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Is this really what people think competitive 40k is? Is that really a competition or has the game at that point just come down to strategic planning and no small amount of luck that your opponent didn't take the type of army that can always beat yours? And, for anyone that really enjoys that level of play, can I respectfully ask, why do you find it fun? Is it building the lists, searching the rules for that key thing that will beat anything, is it some kind of predictive mind game where you guess what your opponent will bring?

It's because no matter how good you play on the table, your decisions before you hit the table really REALLY matter. Consider the following two lists:

Spoiler:

+ HQ +

* Old One Eye

+ Elites +

* Pyrovore Brood
* 3x Pyrovore

* Pyrovore Brood
* 3x Pyrovore

* Pyrovore Brood
* 3x Pyrovore

+ Troops +

* Ripper Swarm Brood
* 4x Ripper Swarm
4x Deep Strike (*)

* Ripper Swarm Brood
* 3x Ripper Swarm
3x Deep Strike (*)

+ Fast Attack +

* Ravener Brood
* Ravener x6
2x Scything Talons, Spinefists
* The Red Terror
(Deep Strike, Instinctive Behaviour - Feed, Swallow Whole, Very Bulky)
Prehensile Pincer, 2x Scything Talons

* Ravener Brood
* Ravener x6
2x Scything Talons, Spinefists

+ Heavy Support +

* Biovore Brood
* 2x Biovore

Spoiler:

+ HQ +

* Hive Tyrant
Electroshock grubs, 2x Twin-Linked Devourer with Brainleech Worms, Wings


* Hive Tyrant
Electroshock grubs, 2x Twin-Linked Devourer with Brainleech Worms, Wings

+ Elites +

* Venomthrope

* Zoanthrope

+ Troops +

* Ripper Swarm Brood
* 3x Ripper Swarm
3x Deep Strike (*)

* Ripper Swarm Brood
* 3x Ripper Swarm
3x Deep Strike (*)

+ Fast Attack +

* Harpy

+ Heavy Support +

* Dakkafex
* Dakkafex
* Dakkafex

Both are 1250 point lists (the first one is 1248) but the latter will perform better in every single game.

Absolutely! Why?

Because A) the first list is intentionally made up of the worst units in the codex. Nobody looking to create an all comers Nids list with half a brain is going to do that. B) the second list bets on your opponent not bringing enough high strength/anti air to deal with the MC spam. It is possible to play a competitive game with list 2, but only if your opponent happens to have built a certain way. If they haven't, you win by default-a tactically flexible list will lose on average to that list. Which is what makes it such a great tourney list, where win percentage is all that matters. But with lists like that, wouldn't it save time to bring several lists to the game, reveal and compare them, and only play a game when there's a disagreement between players as to who would win ?

But with lists like that, wouldn't it save time to bring several lists to the game, reveal and compare them, and only play a game when there's a disagreement between players as to who would win ?

I assume you're being slightly facetious here?

Lets pretend I took that Nid list to a tourney and came up against someone that had a real anti Nid list, super Tau or somesuch craziness.
Are you implying I should just forfeit the game since my list has no chance VS those Tau?
I can tell you, I'll still give it one hell of a go.
And I have a feeling most tournament players would too. Hell, most people would probably give it a go too. Why? because its fun to be tested and sometimes even bested (no, I dont mean being steam rolled 10 times in a row).
And with some decent, applied tactics we might just win.....

the_scotsman wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Is this really what people think competitive 40k is? Is that really a competition or has the game at that point just come down to strategic planning and no small amount of luck that your opponent didn't take the type of army that can always beat yours? And, for anyone that really enjoys that level of play, can I respectfully ask, why do you find it fun? Is it building the lists, searching the rules for that key thing that will beat anything, is it some kind of predictive mind game where you guess what your opponent will bring?

It's because no matter how good you play on the table, your decisions before you hit the table really REALLY matter. Consider the following two lists:

<removed spoilers>

Both are 1250 point lists (the first one is 1248) but the latter will perform better in every single game.

Absolutely! Why?

Because A) the first list is intentionally made up of the worst units in the codex. Nobody looking to create an all comers Nids list with half a brain is going to do that. B) the second list bets on your opponent not bringing enough high strength/anti air to deal with the MC spam. It is possible to play a competitive game with list 2, but only if your opponent happens to have built a certain way. If they haven't, you win by default-a tactically flexible list will lose on average to that list. Which is what makes it such a great tourney list, where win percentage is all that matters. But with lists like that, wouldn't it save time to bring several lists to the game, reveal and compare them, and only play a game when there's a disagreement between players as to who would win ?

So you agree list building matters. Awesome.
What you don't see is that "hard counters" are actually few and far between. List 2 is fairly TAC (not completely - it shouldn't run 3 dakkafexes but I can't help but love the little guys). Most TAC lists can handle it fine.

 Ratius wrote:

But with lists like that, wouldn't it save time to bring several lists to the game, reveal and compare them, and only play a game when there's a disagreement between players as to who would win ?

I assume you're being slightly facetious here?

Lets pretend I took that Nid list to a tourney and came up against someone that had a real anti Nid list, super Tau or somesuch craziness.
Are you implying I should just forfeit the game since my list has no chance VS those Tau?
I can tell you, I'll still give it one hell of a go.
And I have a feeling most tournament players would too. Hell, most people would probably give it a go too. Why? because its fun to be tested and sometimes even bested (no, I dont mean being steam rolled 10 times in a row).
And with some decent, applied tactics we might just win.....

I'm not talking about a tournament. You bring a tournament list to a tournament, obviously. Whatever posts you the highest win %, you use that because obviously in a tournament the objective is to win no matter what kind of game it is.

I'm talking about a pickup type game. I watched these guys play glorified four hour games of Rock Paper Scissors week after week, pour thousands of dollars of their expendable income into models they wouldn't paint or even fully assemble (they'd put the weapons options on the base of the model if it were possible they'd want a different arrangement at some point) and never once did I fail to predict the winner of the matchup before it started. It felt like I was in a chess club watching people come in and go "aha, well this week I'm bringing four rows of pawns!" "HA! You stand no chance, I brought a king and six rooks!" If you bring a spam/Deathstar/alpha strike list and your opponent brings a list that hard counters that, then yeah, I suppose I don't see much point in playing a game at that point. If your whole army is coming in on drop pods with melta guns, and you'll just be dropping into a swarm of ork boyz, what tactics are actually available for you to try to do without changing your list around?

Ok, so the two guys that ran uber net lists, did anyone every challenge them? If so, how did they get on?

Knowing that they were tailoring really strong lists, did anyone ever tailor back against them and then use tactics to beat them?

the_scotsman wrote:
If you bring a spam/Deathstar/alpha strike list and your opponent brings a list that hard counters that, then yeah, I suppose I don't see much point in playing a game at that point. If your whole army is coming in on drop pods with melta guns, and you'll just be dropping into a swarm of ork boyz, what tactics are actually available for you to try to do without changing your list around?

Instead of dropping in the pods, use the pods to funnel his swarm. His advantage is numbers - if they can't easily close with numbers, you can win.

Play to the mission - the goal isn't to table the other guy (except with kill points), the goal is to win the mission.

the_scotsman wrote:OP

It's a semantic problem, actually.

There is a small group of people who use the word "competitively" to refer to the act of competing. You know, actually doing stuff. Using tactics, testing out your skill, looking for a challenge, etc. I fully agree with you that you're using the better definition of the word.

The thing you've got to understand is that for most people on dakka, "compete" is actually just a synonym for "win". It turns out the best way to win is to bring the strongest list you can that requires you to make the fewest decisions possible. When most people here say "competitive" or "viable", what they really mean is "easy".

There's not a lot you can do about it, other than be a stickler. Ask people to clarify what they mean by that word and eventually you'll find out what they're really going for (winning) that they're too embarrassed to use the actual word for, so have to cover by using a different word incorrectly.

The only thing you can take heart in is that there are other people on dakka who share your viewpoint, it's just that they're in a tiny minority.

rigeld2 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
If you bring a spam/Deathstar/alpha strike list and your opponent brings a list that hard counters that, then yeah, I suppose I don't see much point in playing a game at that point. If your whole army is coming in on drop pods with melta guns, and you'll just be dropping into a swarm of ork boyz, what tactics are actually available for you to try to do without changing your list around?

Instead of dropping in the pods, use the pods to funnel his swarm. His advantage is numbers - if they can't easily close with numbers, you can win.

Play to the mission - the goal isn't to table the other guy (except with kill points), the goal is to win the mission.

No, but the mission is to claim objectives and actually hold them. Any half decent ork player would still manage to close and flood an alpha strike list not geared to beat them.

You hugely limit tactical options when you take a list dedicated to spamming one thing by definition. Even if it improves your chances of winning, that makes your game less competitive, not more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ratius wrote:
Ok, so the two guys that ran uber net lists, did anyone every challenge them? If so, how did they get on?

Knowing that they were tailoring really strong lists, did anyone ever tailor back against them and then use tactics to beat them?

Once or twice. Anyone with a reasonably balanced TAC list got smashed, because they didn't bring whatever was needed to deal with Draigowing/Flying Circus/mass Salamander drop pods/Necron Bakery/Serpentspam/Whatever else, so quickly they refused to play anyone that wasn't "serious about real competitive play" rather than wasting their time they could be practicing for their tournaments (which they often couldn't enter as their models were unpainted/unassembled. They complained extremely loudly any time that was the case for some tourney or another.)

Any time people tailored against them and won, they accused them of listening in on one of their planning sessions and never played them again.

They quickly got down to just playing each other.

I think part of it comes down to different things.
One of them is strategy v tactics- I see strategy as the plan before the game which includes list building. Tactics are what you do after the game starts. This way the strategy affects what tactics will be used or are viable. Like loading the dice beforehand (pun intended) to ensure that many of your opponents tactics are not viable.
Now which is better? Well it still depends. It is possible to have a great strategist who is a horible tactician lose to a horrible strategist who is a great tactician but I think strategy wins out a little bit and when you have varying level of skill in tactics, it fluctuates.

Tournament player, competitive player, WAAC player.
Tournament player- likes to win tournaments and as has been pointed out wins are largely based on strategy (list building). money and prizes are on the line. As with any "sport", so it is with 40k Players like to practice and tweak to hone for an event. Perfectly understandable. I have seen players do this who will usually warn their opponent and encourage them to build a tourney list themselves in order to competition to test on. For normal for fun games they will often take "normal" lists to work on tactics.
Competitive players. Seems to me, these are more on tactics than strategy. Like to and try to win but seem to concentrate less on list building and more on the tactics of the game itself. As with tourney players, enjoy practicing new manuevers and such.
WAAC players. Well, we have had this discussion before but I think the key point is their attitude and the word "all" in WAAC.. lol
Of course, these are 3 stereotypes that I have seen and from my experience seems fairly accurate. Of course, thats purely from my experience and perspective and others will disagree or not based on theirs.

Tournament lists are, to me at least , representative of the absolute opposite of tactics, pouring the entirety of the game into planning and strategy. While obviously it works, because putting all your chips into the less-random aspect of the game is definitely the way to maximize your chance of winning, the actual games are absolutely not "competitive."

Yes and no. Against non-tournament lists this is true. Picking the best units takes away from the necessity of good tactics.

At tournament play when everyone has a list of similar power level, it is false. In this case it is a game of tactics and strategy between 2 high powered lists.

Why do people always equate competitive play with tournament lists?

Because tournament lists are picked to win. Competitive means playing to win. Therefore, in a competitive scene, tournament standard lists should be expected.

Ailaros wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:OP

It's a semantic problem, actually.

There is a small group of people who use the word "competitively" to refer to the act of competing. You know, actually doing stuff. Using tactics, testing out your skill, looking for a challenge, etc. I fully agree with you that you're using the better definition of the word.

The thing you've got to understand is that for most people on dakka, "compete" is actually just a synonym for "win". It turns out the best way to win is to bring the strongest list you can that requires you to make the fewest decisions possible. When most people here say "competitive" or "viable", what they really mean is "easy".

There's not a lot you can do about it, other than be a stickler. Ask people to clarify what they mean by that word and eventually you'll find out what they're really going for (winning) that they're too embarrassed to use the actual word for, so have to cover by using a different word incorrectly.

The only thing you can take heart in is that there are other people on dakka who share your viewpoint, it's just that they're in a tiny minority.

So when you compete you set out to lose, or win? Simple question and I'd love you to answer.

the_scotsman wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
If you bring a spam/Deathstar/alpha strike list and your opponent brings a list that hard counters that, then yeah, I suppose I don't see much point in playing a game at that point. If your whole army is coming in on drop pods with melta guns, and you'll just be dropping into a swarm of ork boyz, what tactics are actually available for you to try to do without changing your list around?

Instead of dropping in the pods, use the pods to funnel his swarm. His advantage is numbers - if they can't easily close with numbers, you can win.

Play to the mission - the goal isn't to table the other guy (except with kill points), the goal is to win the mission.

No, but the mission is to claim objectives and actually hold them. Any half decent ork player would still manage to close and flood an alpha strike list not geared to beat them.

You hugely limit tactical options when you take a list dedicated to spamming one thing by definition. Even if it improves your chances of winning, that makes your game less competitive, not more.

Man, all the drop pod players that do well in tournaments must just be embarrassing their opponents, right?
Yes, you do limit tactical options when you spam drop pods. Good pod lists aren't all out pods - or at least don't use them all to deploy. Improving your chances of winning is by definition making the game more competitive.

Compete: strive to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others who are trying to do the same.

If you can build a list that has a weakness (like your drop pod vs ork horde example) and still come out ahead how is that not competing? How does a "competitive" game not take into account list building?

Hafta agree. List building is part of strategy and strategy helps win games. Not only do we see it on the tabletop but we see it in real life engagements. Strategy must be used in addition to tactics. A player who excels at both usually wins out over a player who excels at only one.

However, I can understand the frustration of having to deal with the ..."type of of player" you have in the two guys you mentioned. Not in their list building and stomping others in games (figuratively of course), but in their attitude and out of game actions and trashtalking. people like that are frustrating to deal with even if they are the guys who lose every game lol.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Hafta agree. List building is part of strategy and strategy helps win games. Not only do we see it on the tabletop but we see it in real life engagements. Strategy must be used in addition to tactics. A player who excels at both usually wins out over a player who excels at only one.

I just wish List Building wasn't 85% of the game.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
Hafta agree. List building is part of strategy and strategy helps win games. Not only do we see it on the tabletop but we see it in real life engagements. Strategy must be used in addition to tactics. A player who excels at both usually wins out over a player who excels at only one.

I just wish List Building wasn't 85% of the game.

Oh, I can agree with that absolutely. I wish that the first list I posted earlier had even a chance of winning against a well built list - but it doesn't.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
Hafta agree. List building is part of strategy and strategy helps win games. Not only do we see it on the tabletop but we see it in real life engagements. Strategy must be used in addition to tactics. A player who excels at both usually wins out over a player who excels at only one.

I just wish List Building wasn't 85% of the game.

if you read my earlier post, I did mention that in this game, strategy has a much greater advantage over tactics. i say strategy instead of pure list building because you can hand a killer built list to a total noob who doesnt know how to use it or where to put what units where in the deployment and so forth, but yes, list building is the greater part of strategy in this game. I didnt give a percentage because I have not done the math to come up with an exact percentage. What formula did you use to come up with precisely that number?
There are a lot of things GW could tweak or do in a total rewrite of the rules to lessen the gap or create a better balance between strategy and tactics but I dont think they could ever get it exactly 50/50 and I think strategy will always have an edge in this.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
Hafta agree. List building is part of strategy and strategy helps win games. Not only do we see it on the tabletop but we see it in real life engagements. Strategy must be used in addition to tactics. A player who excels at both usually wins out over a player who excels at only one.

I just wish List Building wasn't 85% of the game.

This. Right here. To me, a "fun" game is one in which you show up with close to exactly the same level of advantage as your opponent does, with two lists that use a variety of different units and unit types, and you win by tactical decisions you make in the game, not by default because you realized "Welp looks like the wave serpent is the strongest vehicle and thanks to busted list building rules I can just field seven of them and two wraithknights."

I take care composing my lists, with the objective being having a solution on hand to anything my opponent might bring. If I bring a list loaded into just one thing (I.E. A tournament list) then I can't respond to some things and I limit my options in game. If I am forced to respond to an opponent bringing just one thing, that limits my tactical options even further.

Even if my spam list has a better win percentage than my tactical list, it is in my eyes less competitive. When playing a fundamentally broken game, you are at some point forced to choose whether to be tactically competitive, or strategically competitive.

the_scotsman wrote:
I take care composing my lists, with the objective being having a solution on hand to anything my opponent might bring. If I bring a list loaded into just one thing (I.E. A tournament list) then I can't respond to some things and I limit my options in game. If I am forced to respond to an opponent bringing just one thing, that limits my tactical options even further.

I underlined your mistake. Your assumption is that all tournament lists are single-faceted. That's simply not true.

Even if my spam list has a better win percentage than my tactical list, it is in my eyes less competitive. When playing a fundamentally broken game, you are at some point forced to choose whether to be tactically competitive, or strategically competitive.

So it's less competitive but it's more strategically competitive? How can it be less and more? Do you try not to win when you compete?

rigeld2 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
I take care composing my lists, with the objective being having a solution on hand to anything my opponent might bring. If I bring a list loaded into just one thing (I.E. A tournament list) then I can't respond to some things and I limit my options in game. If I am forced to respond to an opponent bringing just one thing, that limits my tactical options even further.

I underlined your mistake. Your assumption is that all tournament lists are single-faceted. That's simply not true.

Even if my spam list has a better win percentage than my tactical list, it is in my eyes less competitive. When playing a fundamentally broken game, you are at some point forced to choose whether to be tactically competitive, or strategically competitive.

So it's less competitive but it's more strategically competitive? How can it be less and more? Do you try not to win when you compete?

I have never personally witnessed a tournament won using a list I consider to be tactically flexible. I'm sure there have been, but most tournament play and lists that I have seen played have been extremely single faceted ordeals focused just on overloading opponents with a single strong unit/unit type favored by current Metagame.

I don't understand why you're having difficulty with this. I'm explaining my viewpoint quite clearly. I consider a "competition" to be largely a tactical contest. When I alter my list in such a way that I have fewer tactical options , and my list has to just kind of bull ahead and do its thing without me ever making more than a basic choice, I consider that list to be less competitive and less satisfying from my viewpoint , WHETHER OR NOT IT INCREASES MY CHANCES OF WINNING.

When I play, do I play to lose? Of course not. However, in the situation where the best lists are the lists that are presented with the fewest choices, then you have to choose between feeling good about your list building prowess (or list copy/pasting prowess) or your tactical prowess.

The original reason for my post is that I generally describe my play as "competitive", and I get two responses

1) "I don't want to play you I hate spam lists"
2) "yeah I love competitive games" *brings spam list*

Have faced, and beaten, the top tier wave serpent spam list three times now, and each time it was an absolute waste of four hours.

rigeld2 wrote:So when you compete you set out to lose, or win? Simple question and I'd love you to answer.

When you compete, you set out to compete.

Winning isn't always the first and last goal of everybody everywhere.

For example, one way of competing would be something like "How well can I do with X?". In this case, winning is merely a quantized result of a bigger objective.

the_scotsman wrote:
I don't understand why you're having difficulty with this. I'm explaining my viewpoint quite clearly. I consider a "competition" to be largely a tactical contest. When I alter my list in such a way that I have fewer tactical options , and my list has to just kind of bull ahead and do its thing without me ever making more than a basic choice, I consider that list to be less competitive and less satisfying from my viewpoint , WHETHER OR NOT IT INCREASES MY CHANCES OF WINNING.

Then you should find a different game than 40k. 40k can indeed be won in the list building phase - as I've demonstrated.

When I play, do I play to lose? Of course not. However, in the situation where the best lists are the lists that are presented with the fewest choices, then you have to choose between feeling good about your list building prowess (or list copy/pasting prowess) or your tactical prowess.

Except the best lists are not the ones with the fewest choices.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/1st-Overall-Champion-Tony-Kopach-Nova-2014-.pdf
Wave Serpent "spam"? Yes, but what can that list not deal with? Please, enlighten me oh all knowing one.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/st-Overall-Champion-Steve-Sisk-Space-Marines-.pdf
I can see a couple of weaknesses but good tactical play can work around them.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Jesse-Newton-Farsight-Tau-Inqusitition-1st-Seed.pdf
Or what about that one? Oh, right - weak in the Psychic phase. Again, good tactical play can make that near irrelevant.

Have faced, and beaten, the top tier wave serpent spam list three times now, and each time it was an absolute waste of four hours.

Big fish, small pond. You're a better player than the people around you. That's awesome!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ailaros wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:So when you compete you set out to lose, or win? Simple question and I'd love you to answer.

When you compete, you set out to compete.

Winning isn't always the first and last goal of everybody everywhere.

So you disagree with this definition of compete?

: to try to get or win something (such as a prize or reward) that someone else is also trying to win : to try to be better or more successful than someone or something else
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compete

Because... that's the very definition of compete.

For example, one way of competing would be something like "How well can I do with X?". In this case, winning is merely a quantized result of a bigger objective.

So your goal is still to win, but your goal isn't to win.

rigeld2 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
I don't understand why you're having difficulty with this. I'm explaining my viewpoint quite clearly. I consider a "competition" to be largely a tactical contest. When I alter my list in such a way that I have fewer tactical options , and my list has to just kind of bull ahead and do its thing without me ever making more than a basic choice, I consider that list to be less competitive and less satisfying from my viewpoint , WHETHER OR NOT IT INCREASES MY CHANCES OF WINNING.

Then you should find a different game than 40k. 40k can indeed be won in the list building phase - as I've demonstrated.

It can be won with little more than good dice rolling, too. That doesn't mean there can be more or less tactics based on what the players choose to do.

40k may be rather shallow, tactically, but it only becomes a non-tactics game with both player's consent (ie, both bringing gunlines and playing miniatures yahtzee). The OP's irritation at people talking one way and behaving another is still valid.

 Ailaros wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:So when you compete you set out to lose, or win? Simple question and I'd love you to answer.

When you compete, you set out to compete.

Winning isn't always the first and last goal of everybody everywhere.

For example, one way of competing would be something like "How well can I do with X?". In this case, winning is merely a quantized result of a bigger objective.

Definition of Compete: strive to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others who are trying to do the same.
Yes, in rare situations your goal may be to test something out or try a new unit/tactic. (but that isn't competing, now is it?) But for the majority of the time, if you are competing, you are, by definition, trying to win.
I always play to win. But let me explain that.
What I mean by that is that in order to have fun, I need a fair chance at winning. If I go into the game knowing I'm going to win or lose, it ceases to be fun. Winning isn't my #1 goal, having fun is. But to have fun, I need the chance to win.

Your definition includes a key word: striving. Playing gunline yahtzee doesn't really count towards that. Furthermore, you're missing the other part of the definition where a competition is taking part in a contest. Two players rolling dice on easy mode isn't much of a contest.

Playing with the least tactics at the lowest difficulty setting is the weakest form of competition. That's incongruous with a desire to be "more competitive".

I don't want to be rude but, if you think that all (most) tournament players don't use any creative tactics and just go for the most OP units, could you give us an example of a tactic that you use but tournament players don't?

 Ailaros wrote:
Your definition includes a key word: striving. Playing gunline yahtzee doesn't really count towards that. Furthermore, you're missing the other part of the definition where a competition is taking part in a contest. Two players rolling dice on easy mode isn't much of a contest.

Playing with the least tactics at the lowest difficulty setting is the weakest form of competition. That's incongruous with a desire to be "more competitive".

That's not really what was asked in the OP, nor what you asserted. You said,

There is a small group of people who use the word "competitively" to refer to the act of competing. You know, actually doing stuff. Using tactics, testing out your skill, looking for a challenge, etc. I fully agree with you that you're using the better definition of the word.

Your reference to the act of competing doesn't include the word "win" anywhere. There's no goal mentioned. Your "competitive" is my "screwing around at the shop on a Saturday."
You essentially just said "don't worry bro, we can redefine competitive and make them feel bad about it at the same time!"

Yes, the key word is striving. I strive to win - I don't always. If I did, it wouldn't be a competition. "Gunline yahtzee" is still competition - because while there isn't much tactical play, there is some.
In addition, I'd love to know what lists you feel fall under "Gunline yahtzee" as you're accusing - because mobility is king in 7th edition 40k... and gunlines don't have it.