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.

Tournaments ruined 40k because it was those exact tournaments and there players that caused the abomination of 8th edition to exist, 8th is not a war game and is not warhammer. While people are open to play what they want it’s disappointing because those of us that do not like 8th either have to stop playing or write our own rules for any new models.

On another note i always found it funny when 8th enthusiasts told those of us that don’t like it to stop playing and stop crying but when they complained about 7th and where told the same they would never stop because they love the game (bit stupid if you ask me)

Wayniac wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Isn't this supposed to be the play the way you want edition? No one is forcing you to play with competitive rules and matched play restrictions.

It just so happens that the ITC combined missions are far and away the most fun and balanced way to play 40k right now.

Your second point is debatable, but your first point, while technically correct, is 100% dependent on your area. Most areas are at the very least Matched Play only, and some are also ITC competitive style. If you don't want to play that style, and you're in an area like that, you either conform or you don't play at all. That's not really "play the way you want edition" when one way is touted as being "balanced" and the othr two are touted as being "unbalanced"

Absolutely correct - it is debatable and 100% my opinion

At the end of the day, I would argue regardless of game mode, no one enjoys losing badly, with the feeling they couldn't achieve anything. I feel - personally, my opinion - that the ITC scenarios, played with a 2.5 hour game time restriction at 2000 points, eliminate that. The scores will generally be close, and you can point to specific decisions - in game or list building - that harmed your chances to win more accurately than if you looked at the game and said, "well, it was eternal war, but i got tabled on turn 4, so i didn't control any objectives. I guess that makes it 0-18, wow."

The book missions and scenarios for narrative should be greatly fleshed out, but they're meant to be the basis for forging your own narrative (c). You can buy adventures in D&D and run through them with your mates, but i don't think that many people actually do that.

I like Dakka, but I wouldn't for a second consider it a good source of positivity for the game. People here tend to quickly sway way too much in one direction or another. As such, we see arguments that are a bit hyperbolic, and situations that are incredibly uncommon are treated as if they're happening every single game.

Competitiveness is its own thing, and the very competitive folks will remain competitive regardless of the system. They will try to break it each and every time they can, because that's what they do. You can't fight that person's nature, you can only embrace it. And lots of people will complain about the competitive scene, because they want to break into that competitive scene, but the barrier to entry is really high. There's also the times when someone completely unprepared for a competitive game goes against a competitive gamer, and gets so hurt (and with game lengths being what they are, it takes a long time to go through this getting hurt process) that they feel the need to vent.

But your average game?

No. The average game is great. Most of the really OP things are so blatantly OP that people don't bring them in their casual games, and the competitiveness gets quickly sidetracked to something else (like competitive painting).

fe40k wrote:

I don't want to look through my codex and know that 90% of the units aren't worth taking - to the point where I'm actively hindering myself by taking them.

What are these units? Or is this a hypothetical?

I would say the issue is more one of skill than of competitiveness on its own.


First up a solid rules system balanced for the competitive market and based on the approach of aiming for multiple viable combinations within armies is never a bad thing. Solid rules and balance provides a platform for players of all skill levels.

The issues come more when the power difference between an average army and a competitive one is great. Ergo when more power is weighted to army abilities than to army use.
You see this a lot in something like Magic the Gathering - a pro level deck might win the match in two or three turns (some even on turn one if they get a good hand).


The other issue is more local, but in general its "easier" to run any club or organisation on the competitive end than it is on the casual end. Competitive allows for easy build up of campaigns and tournaments that not only easily generates interest and its own schedule, but can also be used to turn income (pay to compete) to help cover costs (Magic the Gathering is, again, king as that even has booster draft which is a game mode that requires pay to compete to get the boosters).


This element is not in any way unique to Warhammer. It's the same in many other hobby groups. Most sports, photography, horse riding, aircraft flying et c.... the competiive event can "Spoil" things for the casual person of lower skill or who has less dedication/time/money/desire to compete at a higher level.

However its also a reflection on how many groups don't always push or help other members internally - and here I'd say wargames are possibly at the worse end of the scale. Whilst there's loads of "how to build" there are very few discussions on how to play well. So the difference in skill can be great and the resources to aid improvement far fewer - at least if you want help beyond a list

fe40k wrote:
No.

Game's aren't fun when they're unbalanced - competitive is a way of testing the limits of the game; if it's not balanced, or there are poor rules, they'll show up there.

I want my game to be balanced.

I don't want to look through my codex and know that 90% of the units aren't worth taking - to the point where I'm actively hindering myself by taking them.

I want to be able to take the units that I enjoy, and have a reasonable expectation that they'll do what they're supposed to.

Now, if I'm expecting unit X to be a super unit that does everything and doesn't have a reasonable counter - that's on me. No unit should do everything; they should have a purpose (melee, shooting, meatshield, etc), a reasonable ability to carry out that purpose, and a weakness that can be brought to bear by the enemy to counter them.

But... almost everything you said happens in 40k. 90% of the units aren't worth taking (that number might be an exaggeration) and you actively hinder yourself by taking them. Many of the units people enjoy do not do what they're supposed to do. Your argument is more against 40k than for it.

What is our working definition of "competitiveness"?

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
What is our working definition of "competitiveness"?

Yeah, this is an important question. I like to play fluffy lists, but I like to win with them and optimize them within the bounds of the fluff. To some players, I'm probably a horrible person, and to others, and easy and unwitting fool to be trounced, lol.

I picked 'Meh who cares?'. I think this is one of the best editions ever... but of course you cannot make everyone happy.

TeAXIIIT13 wrote:
Tournaments ruined 40k because it was those exact tournaments and there players that caused the abomination of 8th edition to exist, 8th is not a war game and is not warhammer. While people are open to play what they want it’s disappointing because those of us that do not like 8th either have to stop playing or write our own rules for any new models.

On another note i always found it funny when 8th enthusiasts told those of us that don’t like it to stop playing and stop crying but when they complained about 7th and where told the same they would never stop because they love the game (bit stupid if you ask me)

I didn't like 5th, 6th, or 7th, I effectively stopped playing for 10 years, trust me, you find other things to fill the time. Loved Warmahordes while I was gone, provided some useful perspective on the game when I finally came back for 8th.

Personally, I like 8th, they've fixed many of the longstanding problems I had with the rules and expanded possibilities in an interesting way with detachments and keywords. But I also realize this is my opinion, so, YMMV.

Competitive people are going to be competitive. They're going to break any game they can because it's something they enjoy (for better or for worse).

Overly competitive stuff doesn't ruin 40K for me, because I don't attend tournaments and won't play competitive minded players.

GW could curb 90% of the "spammy" armies by writing better rules, and I don't necessarily mean different rules. I mean more technical proficiency when wording things, doing more research on rules interactions and generally play-testing it more. If GW doesn't have a "bash brothers" group of people who intentionally try to break stuff when it's written...they should. I have a couple of buddies I bounce my games off of because I know they're rules-lawyers and game-breakers. It's occasionally a valuable asset.

Having said that...GW has no real vested interest in an incredibly tight, well written set of rules. They need "just good enough" to push copious amounts of grey plastic. I don't fault them for this. It isn't the GW of the 90's anymore (a bunch of DND playin', weed smokin', metal listening crazy geeks running everything). GW needs the rules balanced or imbalanced just enough to sell lots and lots of models - something they've done quite well this past 6-7 months.

At the end of the day the control is really in the players' hands. There's nothing you can't fix or tweak in a casual setting amongst friends. People who want to attend tournaments need to go into them with the mindset that GW is not here to build a perfect, balanced tournament game...they're just not. So you're going to be playing a slightly warped/twisted/broken product. GW will step in and nerf the occasional broken unit, but they're not going to go back and re-write your codex for you.

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
What is our working definition of "competitiveness"?

Generally its the tiny subset of models that won the most recent major tournament.

Competitiveness is only a problem when casual players find that competitiveness is forcing them to be more competitive than they want to be. It's an issue of mismatched expectations/playstyles within a playgroup, it isn't an issue with some nebulous idea of "the 40k community" because the vast majority of us will never play a game with each other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
What is our working definition of "competitiveness"?

Generally its the tiny subset of models that won the most recent major tournament.

A more technical/accurate term there would be "netlisting".

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
What is our working definition of "competitiveness"?

Generally I think it tends to mean "not caring about anything but winning" so everything is on the table. Multiple detachments to gain the most CP, soup lists that cherry-pick only the best options (as opposed to a fluffy combined arms list), ignoring the fluff and background (e.g. taking brimstone horrors with a death guard force just because they are the most points-efficient), spamming of the most points efficient units regardless of anything else.

Basically, I think most people mean the true definition of "WAAC": Somebody who only cares about winning within the framework of the game, and to hell with everything else about 40k beyond how it functions as a game. "Legal within the rules" is the only criteria.

Wayniac wrote:

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
What is our working definition of "competitiveness"?

Generally I think it tends to mean "not caring about anything but winning" so everything is on the table. Multiple detachments to gain the most CP, soup lists that cherry-pick only the best options (as opposed to a fluffy combined arms list), ignoring the fluff and background (e.g. taking brimstone horrors with a death guard force just because they are the most points-efficient), spamming of the most points efficient units regardless of anything else.

Basically, I think most people mean the true definition of "WAAC": Somebody who only cares about winning within the framework of the game, and to hell with everything else about 40k beyond how it functions as a game. "Legal within the rules" is the only criteria.

Cool, I think that's a great starting point.

I don't think it's ruining/ruined 40K, but that's just based on my personal experience.

Those lamenting the competitive nature of competitive 40k don't have the strongest legs to stand on. Not that there aren't good points made all the time, but the expectation and goal is to smash and win, from what I can gather.

For the rest of us, I think it can be a problem. I'm not trying to bring that kind of list, and I'm not trying to play against it. I still want to bring a potent list that is a challenge for my opponent to defeat, and likewise I want the opponent to do the same for me. Between it all, we'll roll some dice, laugh at ourselves and each other, disagree about rules but come to the conclusion together that it doesn't really matter how the game ends, as long as we're having fun. I have had about 2 opponents ever, out of maybe 20 (I usually play the same people repeatedly) that rubbed me the wrong way.

Most people I've played with just want to have fun with their little army men and nerd out in every possible way. I like this edition more than 6th or 7th, so whatever complaints I have are minor. Some units are better than others, oh well. Best not to take it too seriously.

Wayniac wrote:

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
What is our working definition of "competitiveness"?

Generally I think it tends to mean "not caring about anything but winning" so everything is on the table. Multiple detachments to gain the most CP, soup lists that cherry-pick only the best options (as opposed to a fluffy combined arms list), ignoring the fluff and background (e.g. taking brimstone horrors with a death guard force just because they are the most points-efficient), spamming of the most points efficient units regardless of anything else.

Basically, I think most people mean the true definition of "WAAC": Somebody who only cares about winning within the framework of the game, and to hell with everything else about 40k beyond how it functions as a game. "Legal within the rules" is the only criteria.

Eh its all semantics at this point but i recall a WAAC is all of that and the kinda person that goes above and beyond that to win including cheating, slow play, stuff like that that doesnt involve the rules it self.

it is winning at "ALL" Costs.

you can be competitive ignore fluff, cherry pick and do a detailed breakdown of points to efficiency ratio and still have a fun time playing against them.

Wayniac wrote:

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
What is our working definition of "competitiveness"?

Generally I think it tends to mean "not caring about anything but winning" so everything is on the table. Multiple detachments to gain the most CP, soup lists that cherry-pick only the best options (as opposed to a fluffy combined arms list), ignoring the fluff and background (e.g. taking brimstone horrors with a death guard force just because they are the most points-efficient), spamming of the most points efficient units regardless of anything else.

Basically, I think most people mean the true definition of "WAAC": Somebody who only cares about winning within the framework of the game, and to hell with everything else about 40k beyond how it functions as a game. "Legal within the rules" is the only criteria.

WAAC is not necessarily (and often is not) equal to competitive play.

The drama from Tony and LVO? That's WAAC. The 95% of the rest of the tournament is "competitive".

Wayniac wrote:

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
What is our working definition of "competitiveness"?

Generally I think it tends to mean "not caring about anything but winning" so everything is on the table. Multiple detachments to gain the most CP, soup lists that cherry-pick only the best options (as opposed to a fluffy combined arms list), ignoring the fluff and background (e.g. taking brimstone horrors with a death guard force just because they are the most points-efficient), spamming of the most points efficient units regardless of anything else.

Basically, I think most people mean the true definition of "WAAC": Somebody who only cares about winning within the framework of the game, and to hell with everything else about 40k beyond how it functions as a game. "Legal within the rules" is the only criteria.

2 comments:

1) Multiple detachments to gain the most CP isn't WAAC, I don't think. It's sensible. There's no reason to run a battalion with an extra HQ and 3 extra elites when it could be a Battalion and a Vanguard for +1 CP. Not doing so is just dumb for no reason.

2) Not all fluffy lists are combined arms. Imperial Guard Armoured Regiments, for example, are explicitly forbidden to have much, if any, infantry component, and Khorne Daemons won't bring any psykers.

Competitive players have less than zero effect on you if you wanna play casually.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
2) Not all fluffy lists are combined arms. Imperial Guard Armoured Regiments, for example, are explicitly forbidden to have much, if any, infantry component, and Khorne Daemons won't bring any psykers.

The point of splitting the guard like that is to stop too much being under the command of a single person. Armoured Companies and Infantry Companies ALWAYS work together, that's the entire point.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Competitive players have less than zero effect on you if you wanna play casually.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
2) Not all fluffy lists are combined arms. Imperial Guard Armoured Regiments, for example, are explicitly forbidden to have much, if any, infantry component, and Khorne Daemons won't bring any psykers.

The point of splitting the guard like that is to stop too much being under the command of a single person. Armoured Companies and Infantry Companies ALWAYS work together, that's the entire point.

They always work together except where they don't, like the novel Gunheads for example. Or Fifteen Hours. Or one of the short stories in the Planetkill novel, though I forget the name. Oh, and Baneblade, there's several scenes where superheavies are left to their own devices. In Shadowsword there are several battles fought either by the superheavies alone or with like, 6 Black Templar bikers and no one else. Oh, and don't forget that one story in the Imperial Guard codex where an air-defense regiment fought alone on a planet with no support and achieved a kill ratio of 99,999 to 1 because unexplained reasons.

But yeah. Always.

In any event the point is that IMHO 'competitiveness' is things like if you mix and match stuff, you simply cherry-pick the best options regardless, just because the rules allow you. E.g. taking two Blood Angels captains identically equipped with jump pack, thunder hammer, whatever the new Captain Smashf-er is (Count Smashf-er, because Blood Angels?), without actually have the marines to justify why there are two captains just there on the battlefield along with whatever. That's the sort of unfluffy/cherry-picking stuff I mean. Two blood angels captains, then Celestine and some guard with tanks, just there because it's the most efficient/best units to take for whatever reason. I find often the general rule is this: If you have to come up with some fluff to justify your list, you're basically just coming up with an excuse to justify your min/maxing; a truly fluffy army will be readily apparent (e.g. if you had a mixed infantry/tank guard regiment, it should be apparently fluffy but if you have to justify why you're only taking mortars and LR punishers, you're justifying cheese)

RE: the detachment and whatnot, that's part of why I hate the detachment concept, and feel they should limit it to where you cannot take a second detachment without completely filling out the first (random thought: Maybe they should change it so you CAN but if you don't completely fill one detachment, you don't get the CP for the secondary detachments). It shouldn't be strictly better to take 1 battalion and 1 vanguard than a single detachment with 3 hq and 3 elite and 3 troops; there should be a reason/reward to have them all in one detachment as opposed to taking multiple detachments. That IMHO is something that needs to be fixed. You should be trying to limit the detachments, not game them by taking the minimum across multiple detachments.

I think full on competitive people are definitely a problem because so much discussion turns into whats the most optimal choice.
Plus some competitive people are just jerks who take it way too far and try and cheat to win. Then there are people who just actively seek out the most broken thing to play like scatbike spam.
While they are probably the minority overall they're definitely an issue.

Of course they can't really be singled out as the sole issue because someone wrote the broken rules in the first place.

Wayniac wrote:

RE: the detachment and whatnot, that's part of why I hate the detachment concept, and feel they should limit it to where you cannot take a second detachment without completely filling out the first (random thought: Maybe they should change it so you CAN but if you don't completely fill one detachment, you don't get the CP for the secondary detachments). It shouldn't be strictly better to take 1 battalion and 1 vanguard than a single detachment with 3 hq and 3 elite and 3 troops; there should be a reason/reward to have them all in one detachment as opposed to taking multiple detachments. That IMHO is something that needs to be fixed. You should be trying to limit the detachments, not game them by taking the minimum across multiple detachments.

Extra slots in detachments provide flexibility and the ability to take a fast attack choice without needing to take 3 of them. Plenty of armies have no real ability to fill up a detachment. If anything, this suggestion would make the cheap guard addition the only option, because that's about all that can fill up a detachment with enough points to start another.

I dunno, I think arguments based on fluff sorta highlight how subjective the entire issue is. At most times I could not be less interested in how "fluffy" a list is given their representation in the fiction of the game. I believe that limiting one's view of the IP and how that translates on the tabletop based just on that stuff is extremely myopic.

For example, I've seen repeatedly over the years: "That wouldn't happen." Grey Knights wouldn't ever be heretics, there would never be a sorcerer dedicated to Khorne, etc. Except, if the player decides that's what they want in their army, it would happen. It did happen. That's what's playing out on the tabletop, because they used their imaginations and felt no need to constrain themselves based on the minute slice of the universe GW has presented us.

Neither side is right or wrong, except when it looks down on the other for not sharing their perspective.

I dunno, kinda rambling at this point, but I think you get the gist. Find like-minded players if you can, or make do with the players available to you, or focus on the hobby if that isn't possible, or find something else. There should be room enough for everyone.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Competitive players have less than zero effect on you if you wanna play casually.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
2) Not all fluffy lists are combined arms. Imperial Guard Armoured Regiments, for example, are explicitly forbidden to have much, if any, infantry component, and Khorne Daemons won't bring any psykers.

The point of splitting the guard like that is to stop too much being under the command of a single person. Armoured Companies and Infantry Companies ALWAYS work together, that's the entire point.

They always work together except where they don't, like the novel Gunheads for example. Or Fifteen Hours. Or one of the short stories in the Planetkill novel, though I forget the name. Oh, and Baneblade, there's several scenes where superheavies are left to their own devices. In Shadowsword there are several battles fought either by the superheavies alone or with like, 6 Black Templar bikers and no one else. Oh, and don't forget that one story in the Imperial Guard codex where an air-defense regiment fought alone on a planet with no support and achieved a kill ratio of 99,999 to 1 because unexplained reasons.

But yeah. Always.

TIL Bad Writers = Canon.

That's why the Ultramarines use Multilasers!

Wayniac wrote:
RE: the detachment and whatnot, that's part of why I hate the detachment concept, and feel they should limit it to where you cannot take a second detachment without completely filling out the first (random thought: Maybe they should change it so you CAN but if you don't completely fill one detachment, you don't get the CP for the secondary detachments). It shouldn't be strictly better to take 1 battalion and 1 vanguard than a single detachment with 3 hq and 3 elite and 3 troops; there should be a reason/reward to have them all in one detachment as opposed to taking multiple detachments. That IMHO is something that needs to be fixed. You should be trying to limit the detachments, not game them by taking the minimum across multiple detachments.

I don't understand why you feel this way.

And there actually is a good reason for having them all in one detachment: if you're only allowed to have 3 Detachments. You want a Supreme Command of Inquisitors to lead your army? Fine, take your fun & fluffy conclave. Then you want a Marauder Bomber to represent your Inquisitors leveraging their influence with the Imperial Navy? Boom, 1 Super-Heavy Auxiliary detachment. Then you want a battalion of Storm Troopers, as Inquisitors are wont to do - BANG! 2 HQs and 3 Troops of Storm Troopers.

Suddenly, you want to take assassins, and you can't anymore... unless you put them in the Battalion, or just take 1 with the Supreme Command. Womp womp.

I find detachment shenanigans largely go away when you stick to the "recommended" limit of three detachments. And I have always made a point of doing so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Competitive players have less than zero effect on you if you wanna play casually.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
2) Not all fluffy lists are combined arms. Imperial Guard Armoured Regiments, for example, are explicitly forbidden to have much, if any, infantry component, and Khorne Daemons won't bring any psykers.

The point of splitting the guard like that is to stop too much being under the command of a single person. Armoured Companies and Infantry Companies ALWAYS work together, that's the entire point.

They always work together except where they don't, like the novel Gunheads for example. Or Fifteen Hours. Or one of the short stories in the Planetkill novel, though I forget the name. Oh, and Baneblade, there's several scenes where superheavies are left to their own devices. In Shadowsword there are several battles fought either by the superheavies alone or with like, 6 Black Templar bikers and no one else. Oh, and don't forget that one story in the Imperial Guard codex where an air-defense regiment fought alone on a planet with no support and achieved a kill ratio of 99,999 to 1 because unexplained reasons.

But yeah. Always.

TIL Bad Writers = Canon.

That's why the Ultramarines use Multilasers!

Yep. It's funny how in an entire galaxy such weird gak could happen.

Not really gonna add anything useful to WAAC tournaments and fluffy-at-all-costs bashing each other who is to blame, but it just so happens, that I've read the very White Dwarf that introduced 6th ed yesterday and damn, this was so entirely different "introductory" WD than when 8th hit. Nothing about competetiveness, everything about cinematic feeling and "little but flavourfull rules" sprinkled all over the place...

When 40K history includes so "imballanced" editions like 2nd, 6th or 7th which were intended for self-governed story-driven play and editions like 3rd-5th and 8th aimed at entirely different experience, then it is absolutely "normal" to have endless argument between "tournament" and "fluffy" crowds...

6th and 7th was the Forge your own narrative set.

Yes. The focus on competitive players and their feedback is a negative one. It's also quite frustrating to see their lists get reported on and then show up in more casual environments.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Yes. The focus on competitive players and their feedback is a negative one. It's also quite frustrating to see their lists get reported on and then show up in more casual environments.

This is an issue in any game that has a competitive scene. You see the competitive mentality and lists trickle down to everything, even local areas where people will never even see close to the top tables at a GT.