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.

I seem to recall lots of WD articles about tournaments back in the day. They were called Grand Tournaments. Off of their success GW also had an organized series of more local competitions called 'ard boys or something.

Warhammer (40K and WHFB) has always been a competetive game (the rules specify a winner and a loser unlike say certain freeform roleplaying games).

It's just that the rules are producing a less and less satisfying base for running events in which players compete.

The whole "the game isn't meant to be played competitive" BS is just that. BS apologism. If the rules never mentioned winners and losers and simply gave suggestions on how to recreate battles etc, like certain historical rulesets, then sure. If not every single WD battlereport was framed in a narrative of player A competing against player B then the argument might have legs.

It's akin to if your local sports team has a bad season, getting trashed in the standings and it's manager would say: "Well, this team isn't supposed to be competitive this year. It's just about the spectacle around the game and people enjoying themselves in the stands."

It's a case of a game system failing utterly in providing the baseline framework it's players expect (and were treated to in the past). Then the childish "I didn't succeed so I claim I never wanted to succeed in the first place"-arguments come out of the woodwork with people claiming that it didn't even want to be a competitive ruleset anyway so it didn't really fail.

Rogue Trader is hardly a competitive game.

That's true, if we count Rouge trader as 40K, and I guess maybe we should. That one is more of a RPG setting and sort of a proto-40K, both in term of rules and setting.

I amend my "always" to "for the last 20-30 years or so"

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:


Third is the rules, and I'm not talking about writing tight rules. I'm talking about pushing a game where there's individual wound allocation per model, characters with individual customiseable wargear and their own set of wounds, which has its own complexities when attached to a unit. A game where they want you to use supersonic aircraft and squadrons of battle tanks. A game where they want you to use building sized walking war machines and tanks the size of an apartment block. The scale of the game is just all over the place, and the rules don't adequately cover any of them.

I'm sure people enjoy 40k for that very reason these days, and I remember back when I was in high school with my second edition Tyranids looking at the Armorcast Excocrines and Malefactors and Dactylis' and thinking 'man 40k would be awesome with Epic units in it'. The issue there is that was the mind of a 14 year old boy who wanted all the huge awesome things, not a company making what is meant to be a competitive wargame.

News - it's never been or meant to have been a competitive wargame.

It's a game where two people make armies and play against each other. Whether your playing in a friendly game or a tournament, there's a level of competition with your opponent. After all, you are trying to beat the other person. It's certainly not a cooperative wargame.

 -Loki- wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:


Third is the rules, and I'm not talking about writing tight rules. I'm talking about pushing a game where there's individual wound allocation per model, characters with individual customiseable wargear and their own set of wounds, which has its own complexities when attached to a unit. A game where they want you to use supersonic aircraft and squadrons of battle tanks. A game where they want you to use building sized walking war machines and tanks the size of an apartment block. The scale of the game is just all over the place, and the rules don't adequately cover any of them.

I'm sure people enjoy 40k for that very reason these days, and I remember back when I was in high school with my second edition Tyranids looking at the Armorcast Excocrines and Malefactors and Dactylis' and thinking 'man 40k would be awesome with Epic units in it'. The issue there is that was the mind of a 14 year old boy who wanted all the huge awesome things, not a company making what is meant to be a competitive wargame.

News - it's never been or meant to have been a competitive wargame.

It's a game where two people make armies and play against each other. Whether your playing in a friendly game or a tournament, there's a level of competition with your opponent. After all, you are trying to beat the other person. It's certainly not a cooperative wargame.

Strange way of playing. We play to tell a story, not to bludgeon each other.

Do you count points or objectives during/after the game to determine which side won and can the players affect the result by their choices and dice rolls?

Then it's a competitive game. Regardless of whether it's lighthearted competition or not.

Again, there are a few big issues here.

#1: Yes, 40k/Fantasy/AOS has never really been a "competitive" game. However, it has been touted as a wargame (which makes it competitive by virtue of having 2 people playing AGAINST each other, as opposed to a cooperative game like say Warhammer Quest is where you work together). Okay, I get they want a more story driven game. Where, then, are all the supplements and advice for doing it? They put out one absolute garbage book in 6th (Crusade of Fire) that was, like most of their publications then, just designed to show off their own stuff and not give any real advice for running a campaign, even deciding to make it require a Game Master to run instead of being something that you can pick up and run with easily. They pay lip service only to the idea of a "narrative" game because they don't actually do anything to support that type of play, they just say the game is meant for it and then leave everything up to the players without providing any sort of guidelines.

#2: The rules are a mess because they try to do everything. Like Loki, I remember playing in 2nd edition and getting ArmorCast resin stuff that were the Epic-sized things (and the original Falcon Grav-tank!). My brother had the Haruspex and Exocrine for his Tyranids, hell like my first ever game of 40k was against a Space Wolf TFG who fielded the freaking Armorcast Warhound Titan because he had it and it "was official". Those things never belonged in the game, and the problem of all the game's woes is that it tries to smush everything together. A large-scale wargame, 28mm or otherwise, requires abstract rules, not individual models moving and wound allocation. A skirmish game requires freedom of movement and a lot of customization options. A company level game requires something in between the two; enough customization to have specialist squads but not so much that things get bogged down.

40k does none of those things well and tries to throw everything and the kitchen sink into the game, and that's the biggest problem. Flyers and superheavies did not need to get thrown into regular games; they only did because they saw most people didn't want them, and that meant the few who bought them couldn't use them; oh no can't have that, so let's force everyone to accept them.

That's the issue here. The game IS competitive whether you like it or not, regardless of what GW states, because it's Player 1 vs. Player 2. If the game needs a Game Master to arbitrate things like the old RT days, they need to explicitly state that. Instead they are like "here's a bunch of stuff to let you use your cool awesome models, have fun!" and then not providing any real guidelines for using it in the way they are intended, all the while claiming that the game is suited for a specific style.

I think you chaps are getting a bit too hung up on the word competitive and missing its multiple meaning.

All games will be contests but do not have to be tournaments.

 notprop wrote:
All games will be contests but do not have to be tournaments.

In the not to distant past GW has run tournaments. And did so for years.

This is besides the fact that good, balanced, rules do not preclude 'fun' competitive. In fact, the GW rule set makes things less fun as your level of competitiveness has to match your opponent's or it's not a satisfying game for either of you.

If the game was better balanced and had tighter rules, there wouldn't be as much animosity among the player base where there is constant name calling, berating other players and trying to drive them out of the community for playing 'wrong'.

 skyth wrote:
This is besides the fact that good, balanced, rules do not preclude 'fun' competitive. In fact, the GW rule set makes things less fun as your level of competitiveness has to match your opponent's or it's not a satisfying game for either of you.

If the game was better balanced and had tighter rules, there wouldn't be as much animosity among the player base where there is constant name calling, berating other players and trying to drive them out of the community for playing 'wrong'.

Agreed to this. I do not mean competitive as in tournament; I have not played a tournament basically every other than one very small Warmachine tournament. I mean competitive as in both players trying to play their best and bring forces that reward tactical thought, not just bring the biggest, most OP thing and table your opponent by Turn 2. GW claims their rules are meant for "Narrative" gaming, but don't actually do anything to encourage or empower narrative gaming, and in fact actively work against it because of the gross power imbalance between armies. A fluffy and narrative Ork army is basically underpowered to the point of being useless, while a fluffy Saim-Hann Jetbike army can be overpowering to the extremes. What is narrative about that?

 frozenwastes wrote:
I seem to recall lots of WD articles about tournaments back in the day. They were called Grand Tournaments. Off of their success GW also had an organized series of more local competitions called 'ard boys or something.

We had one GT in Düsseldorf per year. Those tourneys were fantastic. There were three qualifying tourneys with max. 48 players each. The best 16 of each tourney reached the GT final. Those days are gone. Gone is also the GW headquarter in Germany, located at Düsseldorf. The GT was in the ground floor of the headquarter, with a touch of the HQ in Nottingham.

 skyth wrote:
This is besides the fact that good, balanced, rules do not preclude 'fun' competitive. In fact, the GW rule set makes things less fun as your level of competitiveness has to match your opponent's or it's not a satisfying game for either of you.

If the game was better balanced and had tighter rules, there wouldn't be as much animosity among the player base where there is constant name calling, berating other players and trying to drive them out of the community for playing 'wrong'.

Indeed. It's maddening that this discussion must be had time and again. No-one benefit from rules being unbalanced and unclear. Least of all someone playing 'for fun' or 'casually'

To paraphrase a familiar quote:
The greatest trick GW ever pulled was convincing it's fanboys that a game must be either balanced or fun.

 Zywus wrote:
Do you count points or objectives during/after the game to determine which side won and can the players affect the result by their choices and dice rolls?

Then it's a competitive game. Regardless of whether it's lighthearted competition or not.

Nope. We also don't use points, just turn up with what feels right for the scenario. Can always bring on some extra reserves if the game is getting to be one sided for whatever reason. Often don't both working out who "won" just what we consider might have happened in the next few turns when time runs out and use that to inform the next scenario or concept.

We've all shifted over to Antares anyhow, as the background is better and less prescriptive, but the game is what you make it. Not what you are told it is.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 Zywus wrote:
Do you count points or objectives during/after the game to determine which side won and can the players affect the result by their choices and dice rolls?

Then it's a competitive game. Regardless of whether it's lighthearted competition or not.

Nope. We also don't use points, just turn up with what feels right for the scenario. Can always bring on some extra reserves if the game is getting to be one sided for whatever reason. Often don't both working out who "won" just what we consider might have happened in the next few turns when time runs out and use that to inform the next scenario or concept.

Oh I see. I suppose anyone not playing like that all the time is playing the game in a "Strange way". (The fact that you personally play it like this doesn't change the game mechanics and presentation however.)

If the game "is what you make it. Not what you are told it is", what does it say if a staggeringly vast majority of all 40K games played do use points and do work out which side won. I.e the game de-facto is a competitive experience regardless of how you personally think it should be played?


Might I also ask what miniature games are competitive according to your definition of the term?

 Zywus wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 Zywus wrote:
Do you count points or objectives during/after the game to determine which side won and can the players affect the result by their choices and dice rolls?

Then it's a competitive game. Regardless of whether it's lighthearted competition or not.

Nope. We also don't use points, just turn up with what feels right for the scenario. Can always bring on some extra reserves if the game is getting to be one sided for whatever reason. Often don't both working out who "won" just what we consider might have happened in the next few turns when time runs out and use that to inform the next scenario or concept.

Oh I see. I suppose anyone not playing like that all the time is playing the game in a "Strange way". (The fact that you personally play it like this doesn't change the game mechanics and presentation however.)


Might I ask what miniature games are competitive according to your definition of the term?

Up to you how you play it. bit strange that EVERYONE is an opponent.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:


Up to you how you play it. bit strange that EVERYONE is an opponent.

I don't think I get what you mean by this?

Everyone is an opponent in the way that in chess, every black chess-piece (and the person controlling them) is an opponent when I'm playing white, and vice versa.

Unless we use the chess pieces to mutually recreate a scenario or something but not playing to win.

 Zywus wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:


Up to you how you play it. bit strange that EVERYONE is an opponent.

I don't think I get what you mean by this?

Everyone is an opponent in the way that in chess, every black chess-piece (and the person controlling them) is an opponent when I'm playing white, and vice versa

Everyone is an opponent? What a strangely aggro way to look at the game. game

Have you never done something for the pure pleasure of doing it? Or does it have to be a WIN every time? Never GM'd a game of WFB or something?

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 Zywus wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:


Up to you how you play it. bit strange that EVERYONE is an opponent.

I don't think I get what you mean by this?

Everyone is an opponent in the way that in chess, every black chess-piece (and the person controlling them) is an opponent when I'm playing white, and vice versa

Everyone is an opponent? What a strangely aggro way to look at the game. game

???
It's kinda the definition of a game.

Your probably reading in a lot of stuff in the term that's not there. Two people being opponents in a game does not mean they are unpleasant to each other. It doesn't even necessarily mean that they care all that much about if they're winning or not. It means their roles are opposed to one another in that they both have conflicting objectives and they strive to fulfill them.

Game "an activity that one engages in for amusement."

I'd say a good competitive game is Age of Sigmar.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Game "an activity that one engages in for amusement."
I'd say a good competitive game is Age of Sigmar.

"

 Zywus wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Game an "activity that one engages in for amusement."

I'd say a good competitive game is Age of Sigmar.

And if the game specifies that there is a way for one side to win over another, then it's a competitive game.

Hackysack is generally not a competitive game since it's just people trying to collectively get as many hacks as possible.

If you split up in two groups and say whichever group manages the most consecutive hacks wins, then you're suddenly playing a competitive game.

Are you seriously saying AoS is a competitive game, and 40K is not?

So you want competition but not a challenge?

Sounds like a Marine or Eldar player

 notprop wrote:
So you want competition but not a challenge?

I'm sorry, was this directed at me? Because my point is that 40k provides neither. Any game with a Player 1 and Player 2 on opposing sides is, by its nature, competitive. The issue is that 40k provides neither the proper balance for a truly competitive game, and provides very little in the way of an actual challenge since it's so easy to completely dominate someone just by fielding something you think is cool, if the units that you think is cool are, for whatever reason, better in game than what someone else thinks is cool. Compare someone who thinks Terminators are cool with someone who thinks that Jetbikes are cool. Why is one so crushingly overpowered compared to the other? Why should Bob be punished because he likes Terminators, which are not the right kind of cool whilst Jim is rewarded for liking Jetbikes, which just so happen to be amazingly good.

Why does the competition have to be equal?

Of course there are other elements in each force and terrain, disposition and iniative to consider as well.

Would it not be a challenge for Bob to take on Jim's Jetbikes all things considered.

Of course if each took only those things to the exclusion of all others, they really wouldn't have a reason to complain.

 notprop wrote:
Why does the competition have to be equal?

Of course there are other elements in each force and terrain, disposition and iniative to consider as well.

Would it not be a challenge for Bob to take on Jim's Jetbikes all things considered.

Of course if each took only those things to the exclusion of all others, they really wouldn't have a reason to complain.

I don't follow, why wouldn't a competition be as equal as possible? Are you actually arguing that it's a bad thing to have an even playing field (relatively speaking)?

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 Zywus wrote:
Do you count points or objectives during/after the game to determine which side won and can the players affect the result by their choices and dice rolls?

Then it's a competitive game. Regardless of whether it's lighthearted competition or not.

Nope. We also don't use points, just turn up with what feels right for the scenario. Can always bring on some extra reserves if the game is getting to be one sided for whatever reason. Often don't both working out who "won" just what we consider might have happened in the next few turns when time runs out and use that to inform the next scenario or concept.

We've all shifted over to Antares anyhow, as the background is better and less prescriptive, but the game is what you make it. Not what you are told it is.

Just because you play it that way doesn't mean 40k is not a competitive game, it means you don't play it in a competitive way.

40k is a game with points, victory conditions a winner and a loser. It is a competitive game.

Points are optional, but it says right there in the rules that points are the typical way choose armies and the rulebook refers several times how you determine a winner.

It is a competitive game which you are choosing not to play competitively. It'd be like saying basketball isn't a competitive game because you and your mates just go down to the court and shoot some hoops without keeping track. Of course basketball is a competitive game, you're just not playing it in a competitive way.

I don't demonize GW, but I have gotten out of the game, more or less. I still have a bunch of older models I will eventually finish up, but there is no urgency to it. I like their paints, tho I am slowly adding Vallejo into the mix.

Why? To be blunt, they priced me out. I saw the direction the game had gone after not playing much for a few years, and decided I could not afford to stay within the same orbit as the meta. Price vs. value (to me) ration was way too low. And it wasn't the game I wanted to play. I wanted troops and few vehicles, not giant robots and superheavies.

So I just stopped buying. I spend probably as much (if not a bit more) on models and gaming, but its spread over five or six different scales, genres and rulesets. For me, thats better. I can play of variety of games that are all fun, rather than just one that had become increasingly more frustrating than fun.

But, lots of people do still enjoy it, and thats fine. And I don't force my opinion on them. If they ask, I'll give them my thoughts, but they are free to spend and play how they like.

But GW gets very little of my hobby money now, and I doubt they can bring me back without a complete overhaul of how 40K plays and the scale its played at.