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.

The comparison between soccer/football and competitive 40k is ridiculous.

You're comparing a well paid job supported by millions of fans with a hobby played among amateurs and friends.

A more fair comparison could be with 40k and a football/soccer match played by a group of amateurs at a park. If the teams are not balanced everyone would agree to shuffle them, in order to enjoy the game. At least that's what I've always done with my soccer group.

When it comes to play against 40k newbies I'll always bring very casual lists, what's the problem in doing that? Winning the game is not the goal, making it last 4-7 turns is.

 Blackie wrote:
A more fair comparison could be with 40k and a football/soccer match played by a group of amateurs at a park. If the teams are not balanced everyone would agree to shuffle them, in order to enjoy the game. At least that's what I've always done with my soccer group.

Well yes, because that friendly soccer game is not a competitive event.

When it comes to play against 40k newbies I'll always bring very casual lists, what's the problem in doing that? Winning the game is not the goal, making it last 4-7 turns is.

Who is disagreeing with the idea of bringing weak (and simplified) lists for teaching newbies the game?

 Peregrine wrote:


Well yes, because that friendly soccer game is not a competitive event.

If competitive game was only present in tournaments fine, the problem is several players want to be competitive in friendly games at stores. WAAC dudes play competitive lists even outside competitive events.

 Blackie wrote:
If competitive game was only present in tournaments fine, the problem is several players want to be competitive in friendly games at stores. WAAC dudes play competitive lists even outside competitive events.

Why are you assuming that a game at a store is not a competitive event, and competition can only happen in tournaments? The problem here is that certain anti-competitive players have tried to declare that they own all in-store gaming and the default must be poorly optimized lists, and you need to make special arrangements to play with a well-designed list.

Other WAAC dudes also play non-competitive lists in narrative campaigns and still cheat to win, try to bend the rules and make the game unfun for everyone.

The likelihood of any given person being a dick does not depend on the kind of game and army they play.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
If competitive game was only present in tournaments fine, the problem is several players want to be competitive in friendly games at stores. WAAC dudes play competitive lists even outside competitive events.

Why are you assuming that a game at a store is not a competitive event, and competition can only happen in tournaments? The problem here is that certain anti-competitive players have tried to declare that they own all in-store gaming and the default must be poorly optimized lists, and you need to make special arrangements to play with a well-designed list.

What? Is this really your LGS? I find it takes only a couple minutes of discussion to settle on a game type and army list with someone. I don't think I've ever heard of 'anti-competitive players' that say you can never bring stronger lists.

And what if the guy you're playing against doesn't look up tournament lists and just brings what he owns. Is that the 'special arrangement' that is such a burden? I don't understand faulting anyone for that. The majority of 40k players don't look up lists online, let alone tournament winning ones.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
If competitive game was only present in tournaments fine, the problem is several players want to be competitive in friendly games at stores. WAAC dudes play competitive lists even outside competitive events.

Why are you assuming that a game at a store is not a competitive event, and competition can only happen in tournaments? The problem here is that certain anti-competitive players have tried to declare that they own all in-store gaming and the default must be poorly optimized lists, and you need to make special arrangements to play with a well-designed list.

Because they're friendly games, period. I'm not against competitive games, I'm against playing only (or mostly) competitive games in a store or any other friendly environment. I'd like to play the entire codex of the armies I own, which means that I enjoy any type of the game, the most competitive ones, the total casual ones and every shades between the opposites. The only important factor is to face lists with similar levels of competitiveness.

Against a poorly optimized list you can always tone down yours, against a tournament list there's nothing you can do unless you bring another tournament list. And with lots of factions you can't even play against those super competitive lists, because there are litterally 0 chances of winning the game.

 Blackie wrote:
Because they're friendly games, period. I'm not against competitive games, I'm against playing only (or mostly) competitive games in a store or any other friendly environment. I'd like to play the entire codex of the armies I own, which means that I enjoy any type of the game, the most competitive ones, the total casual ones and every shades between the opposites. The only important factor is to face lists with similar levels of competitiveness.

Why are you assuming that playing a game in a store means that it is is "friendly", and that friendly games must be played with poorly optimized lists? I understand why you wish to play a game against a poorly optimized list, but what makes your preference the default that must be used for games in stores?

Against a poorly optimized list you can always tone down yours, against a tournament list there's nothing you can do unless you bring another tournament list.

Of course there's something you can do. You can tone up your list to match the tournament list, just like the tournament list can be toned down to match the weaker list. Stop putting the entire burden of matching list strength onto one player and allowing the other to bring whatever they want.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Don Savik wrote:
I don't think I've ever heard of 'anti-competitive players' that say you can never bring stronger lists.

Clearly you haven't encountered the kind of whiny CAAC players I've met. Consider yourself lucky.

And what if the guy you're playing against doesn't look up tournament lists and just brings what he owns. Is that the 'special arrangement' that is such a burden? I don't understand faulting anyone for that. The majority of 40k players don't look up lists online, let alone tournament winning ones.

But why shouldn't they be expected to? You're expecting the tournament player to create an alternate list, so why shouldn't the non-tournament player have a matching expectation?

 Don Savik wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
If competitive game was only present in tournaments fine, the problem is several players want to be competitive in friendly games at stores. WAAC dudes play competitive lists even outside competitive events.

Why are you assuming that a game at a store is not a competitive event, and competition can only happen in tournaments? The problem here is that certain anti-competitive players have tried to declare that they own all in-store gaming and the default must be poorly optimized lists, and you need to make special arrangements to play with a well-designed list.

What? Is this really your LGS? I find it takes only a couple minutes of discussion to settle on a game type and army list with someone. I don't think I've ever heard of 'anti-competitive players' that say you can never bring stronger lists.

And what if the guy you're playing against doesn't look up tournament lists and just brings what he owns. Is that the 'special arrangement' that is such a burden? I don't understand faulting anyone for that. The majority of 40k players don't look up lists online, let alone tournament winning ones.

What-ifs can be just as likely to have the opposite happen. What if the guy you are playing does look up tournament lists and just brings what he normally plays. Why would he need a special arrangement for his bread and butter? I don't understand faulting someone for that either. More to the point: I have heard far more people whining and moaning about "OMG ________ ARE BROKEN WHY WOULD YOU PLAY THEM IN A CASUAL GAME" than I have heard people go "UGH SUCH A CASUAL LIST PLAY BIG OR GO HOME." Speaking from personal experience on TTS, I have pulled out a cutthroat list and taken one look at my opponents army then swapped. I have not had someone swap when I took a more casual fluffy list to play. Its much easier to be the change you want to see and assuming cutthroat instead of casual is easier to change from.

 Peregrine wrote:

Why are you assuming that playing a game in a store means that it is is "friendly", and that friendly games must be played with poorly optimized lists? I understand why you wish to play a game against a poorly optimized list, but what makes your preference the default that must be used for games in stores?

Of course there's something you can do. You can tone up your list to match the tournament list, just like the tournament list can be toned down to match the weaker list. Stop putting the entire burden of matching list strength onto one player and allowing the other to bring whatever they want.

That's not what I said, or at least I didn't mean that. I was saying that in a friendly meta winning at any cost shouldn't matter, so if someone brings a competitive lists and no one else can have a fair match with him, that player deserves to watch the others play

What I meant to say is that in a friendly meta games conditions and lists should be arranged and discussed before starting to play in order to have a more balanced game. People that are not willing to make any compromise with other players are toxic, unless those players actually own only that specific models.

But usually competitive players have large armies since competitive units change quite frequently and they can certainly tone down their lists with no problems. While the typical casual player is more a collector and a hobbist and can't really tone up his list properly, not to a tournament level of competitiveness at least.

Why do you keep assuming that "friendly" and "competitive" are opposing concepts?

 Peregrine wrote:
Why do you keep assuming that "friendly" and "competitive" are opposing concepts?

I'm not. I said that players need to arrange their lists before playing. Which means they can both be competitive. "Friendly" and "Refusing to tone down a list that is overpowered for the meta" are opposing concepts.

For the record I play with and against competitive lists sometimes and I don't go to tournaments.

 Blackie wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Why do you keep assuming that "friendly" and "competitive" are opposing concepts?

I'm not. I said that players need to arrange their lists before playing. Which means they can both be competitive. "Friendly" and "Refusing to tone down a list that is overpowered for the meta" are opposing concepts.

For the record I play with and against competitive lists sometimes and I don't go to tournaments.

But what about refusing to tone up a list to match the stronger lists? Is that also un-friendly TFG behavior?

Tournament cut throat play is not the norm, and neither is pure fluff narrative.

The truth is the vast majority of games are in the middle. People just getting together and playing some games, trying to win, and not being cut throat exploitative dicks about it.

That is not meant to be a insult to tourny players or their play style. It's just a fact of what high competitive play is. Excelling in that arena is about fine tuning, trimming fat, and squeezing out every advantage you can get.

Most people don't do that. Don't have the TIME to do that. Most players are interested in just getting in a game and having it be fun.

Toning up a list to that kind of cut throat level takes a lot. It takes a level of understanding of refinement and loop holes that a casual player just might not have a head for or any interest in getting their head around. I know that vs these targets a Rupture fex is better than an Exocrine and vs those targets the Exocrine wins out. But thats mostly because I started and have read every post in the 70-some-odd page nid codex tactica thread. If I wasn't watching that I would never give that much of a gak. But that kind of knowledge is needed to "tone up" to the competitive level. You even need to understand, at least a little, about all the opponents your likely to meet.

You just can't expect most other players to have the know how to tone up.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Why do you keep assuming that "friendly" and "competitive" are opposing concepts?

I'm not. I said that players need to arrange their lists before playing. Which means they can both be competitive. "Friendly" and "Refusing to tone down a list that is overpowered for the meta" are opposing concepts.

For the record I play with and against competitive lists sometimes and I don't go to tournaments.

But what about refusing to tone up a list to match the stronger lists? Is that also un-friendly TFG behavior?

Definitely, it's exactly the same kind of behavior.

It's just something more uncommon as people that usually refuse to tone up their list do that because they don't have more competitive options in terms of available miniatures to chose from, while those ones who refuse to tone down their lists do that because they want to win, no matter if the game lasts 30 minutes. I haven't seen yet someone that owns a competitive 2000 points army and no other miniatures in his collection that can tone down his list.

Again- the objective of 40k is to win. The point is to have fun. Stop fething confusing them. People wanting to win a game are not bad people and should not be tarred with the same brushes as WAAC players.

 Grimtuff wrote:
Again- the objective of 40k is to win. The point is to have fun. Stop fething confusing them. People wanting to win a game are not bad people and should not be tarred with the same brushes as WAAC players.

For you maybe. Don't generalize. It's not objective for us here at all.

tneva82 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Again- the objective of 40k is to win. The point is to have fun. Stop fething confusing them. People wanting to win a game are not bad people and should not be tarred with the same brushes as WAAC players.

For you maybe. Don't generalize. It's not objective for us here at all.

Don't be so obtuse. It's a competition with a winner and a loser, how you go about that is down to you but that doesn't change the fact that no one goes into a game thinking "I sure hope to lose this game!".

 Grimtuff wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Again- the objective of 40k is to win. The point is to have fun. Stop fething confusing them. People wanting to win a game are not bad people and should not be tarred with the same brushes as WAAC players.

For you maybe. Don't generalize. It's not objective for us here at all.

Don't be so obtuse. It's a competition with a winner and a loser, how you go about that is down to you but that doesn't change the fact that no one goes into a game thinking "I sure hope to lose this game!".

For you. But just because it's so you obviously mean it HAS to be so to everybody else eh?

How nice of you to claim you know how it works for us better than we do. Maybe tell lottery numbers for next week while you are at it?

tneva82 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Again- the objective of 40k is to win. The point is to have fun. Stop fething confusing them. People wanting to win a game are not bad people and should not be tarred with the same brushes as WAAC players.

For you maybe. Don't generalize. It's not objective for us here at all.

So when you play 40k do you do your best to not gain first blood, slay the warlord, line breaker? Do you avoid objective markers? Draw un-achievable objectives from your deck and then throw your fist in the air in victory?

Your playing a game with victory conditions. The objective of the game is to complete them. Just like the objective of the game LIFE is to reach the end with the most value. The reason you play might not be to win, but when your playing i hope your trying to win. It could generally be a pretty crappy experience for your opponent if your not even trying.

 sfshilo wrote:

Tristanleo wrote:

Case and point for me is the current release of the Custodian codex and how grossly under-priced custodian guard are.
two comparisons, a fully kitted out custodian guard costs the same amount as a crisis suit with a burst cannon (I know that Tau codex isn't out yet, but even so, a base crisis suit without weapons should be cheaper than a custodian without weapons.)
Likewise, a chaos lord with largely similar stats and base weapons (Bolt pistol and chainsword) with some concessions costs way more than a fully equipped custodian, and a custodian will win that fight every single time.

A chaos lord is doing much more than just attacking with that pistol and chainsword. And that chaos lord with termie armor is going to rofl-stomp the custodes.

The TAU point, a crisis suit is much more maneuverable, and has many more weapon options.

Finally, both have more wounds, which is the primary stat when looking at a units base cost. The second being what it does for the army, third is the gear and stat line.

That chaos terminator lord is not going to rofl-stomp the custodes, at best with decent wargear, he will kill 2 of the 3 that make up his points cost before being cut down himself if he gets to attack first, if it's the other way around you might as well just remove the model there and then.

Manoeuvrability does not mean anything this edition without decent cover rules to back it up and make it worthwhile. heck, from a base marine to a jump marine, the change is 4pts for a doubled move stat and the ability to ignore intervening terrain, so for a lesser stat block (BS, WS, A, LD, Sv) but more maneuverability, shouldn't a base crisis suits equal a base custodian guard, not outcost them? and if wargear options increase point cost, then shouldn't an imperial land raider cost a fair bit more than a chaos one? because at the moment both cost 239 pts base.

Lastly, Wounds are not the primary stat for deciding a units points cost otherwise a chaos spawn would cost more than a base terminator, not the same. Also, crisis suits and custodian guard have same wounds, so moot point on that front.

People should read the responses in this reddit thread from a subreddit dedicated to competitve Warhammer:

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/7vyisz/a_different_take_on_the_lvo_controversy/

 Grimtuff wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Again- the objective of 40k is to win. The point is to have fun. Stop fething confusing them. People wanting to win a game are not bad people and should not be tarred with the same brushes as WAAC players.

For you maybe. Don't generalize. It's not objective for us here at all.

Don't be so obtuse. It's a competition with a winner and a loser, how you go about that is down to you but that doesn't change the fact that no one goes into a game thinking "I sure hope to lose this game!".

Maybe not but many go into it think "I wonder who wins this battle, the Orks or the Space Marines". It's as valid as cut throat tournament play and everything in between.

Daedalus81 wrote:
People should read the responses in this reddit thread from a subreddit dedicated to competitve Warhammer:

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/7vyisz/a_different_take_on_the_lvo_controversy/

Source Article Link:
https://40kgamejournal.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-tony-g-heresy.html

The hard to read English aside, the article mostly just sticks its nose up in the air about the idea of 'friendly play' and berets non-competitive players. It doesn't really offer any new insights that haven't been presented in the thread before. Is there a need for clean play? Yes. Can you take that too far? Yes. There was nothing clean or entertaining about watching people out-rules lawyer each other. Rules-lawyering is indeed antithetical to the idea of clean play, which is much more on the side of RAI and not RAW.

tneva82 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Again- the objective of 40k is to win. The point is to have fun. Stop fething confusing them. People wanting to win a game are not bad people and should not be tarred with the same brushes as WAAC players.

For you maybe. Don't generalize. It's not objective for us here at all.

I'm guessing you've never played a TCG at your shop either have you?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Why do you keep assuming that "friendly" and "competitive" are opposing concepts?

I'm not. I said that players need to arrange their lists before playing. Which means they can both be competitive. "Friendly" and "Refusing to tone down a list that is overpowered for the meta" are opposing concepts.

For the record I play with and against competitive lists sometimes and I don't go to tournaments.

But what about refusing to tone up a list to match the stronger lists? Is that also un-friendly TFG behavior?

What if that person can't? What if they don't have the funds / time to build a better army? Or they just don't have the head/mindset to get the whole competitive / points to worthwhile use / mathhammer thing?

The latter is me. I'm a 40-something chap, intelligent and I read through my codex / rules repeatedly but I don't have the mindset to see what works on that competitive level or what is worth it's points under the meta or what have you. So how does that work for me? In reality we would learn that about each other and just not play, but would it hurt for you to play a toned list for a fun game?

If only points were balanced and a 2000 point list was the equivalent of another 2000 point list.

If only.

Find like-minded gamers. A wargame by definition is gonna be competitive. But if you want a fluffy list that may not be quite as effective in the table, make your intentions known.

Ive been sitting in this fluffy infantry based CSM night Lords list for YEARS now, and have no desire to play it when footslogging space Marines will always be garbage.


Likewise, some people have no issue playing LOW games, while others don't find it fun.

 auticus wrote:
If only points were balanced and a 2000 point list was the equivalent of another 2000 point list.

If only.

Yeah and why not wish for moon from the sky or ability to fly to mars on your own. More likely scenario anyway than balanced points in any game.

 BlackLobster wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Why do you keep assuming that "friendly" and "competitive" are opposing concepts?

I'm not. I said that players need to arrange their lists before playing. Which means they can both be competitive. "Friendly" and "Refusing to tone down a list that is overpowered for the meta" are opposing concepts.

For the record I play with and against competitive lists sometimes and I don't go to tournaments.

But what about refusing to tone up a list to match the stronger lists? Is that also un-friendly TFG behavior?

What if that person can't? What if they don't have the funds / time to build a better army? Or they just don't have the head/mindset to get the whole competitive / points to worthwhile use / mathhammer thing?

The latter is me. I'm a 40-something chap, intelligent and I read through my codex / rules repeatedly but I don't have the mindset to see what works on that competitive level or what is worth it's points under the meta or what have you. So how does that work for me? In reality we would learn that about each other and just not play, but would it hurt for you to play a toned list for a fun game?

It appears you would be a delicious seal, ripe for clubbing, and then blamed/accused that it's your fault the game was bad.

I suppose that when I PLAY a game i am there to PLAY, and have fun, win or lose. I will try to win, try to make good moves etc, build unique/novel/amusing/maybe even trolly lists in addition to competitive ones to keep enjoying it, and hopefully my opponent does too. Generally when its close, we both have a very good time.