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 propose that two new forums be added to Dakkadakka: 40k competitive and 40k casual.

My reasoning is that we might mitigate some of the ongoing animosity that seems to arise repeatedly between players who have a preference for one style over the other, and often take offense at any proposition that they interpret as having a negative impact on their preferred style of play, if those players can create threads and posts with the relative comfort of knowing that said threads and posts can be safely assumed to regard the style of play that is the subject of the forum.

If the proposal garners popular support, I'll mention it over on Nuts & Bolts.

Echo bubbles aren't a good thing.

Flagrant arguments over which way is better is also a bad thing, but I don't see this as needed.

No point of it. There are already tactics and hobby forums.

We’re a niche hobby as is. I don’t see the benefit of subdividing us further.

“Hobby first” and “Gamer first” Folks can coexist. I think both sides have something of benefit for the other.

I understand the sentiment behind the idea. I know I get tired of competitive player posts that devolve into a bunch of math hammer junk that I don't care about.
That said, there's nothing stopping you from putting something like a 'casual mindsets' in any topic that one posts in general.

Competitive forum already exists in the Tactics forums.

Casual OPs just need to clarify the kind of mindsets they're inviting to the discussions they create.

Melissia wrote:No point of it. There are already tactics and hobby forums.

I completely forgot about the tactics forum.

greatbigtree wrote:“Hobby first” and “Gamer first” Folks can coexist.

Not without continually tearing each other to shreds, it would seem.

Giantwalkingchair wrote:I understand the sentiment behind the idea. I know I get tired of competitive player posts that devolve into a bunch of math hammer junk that I don't care about.
That said, there's nothing stopping you from putting something like a 'casual mindsets' in any topic that one posts in general.

Competitive forum already exists in the Tactics forums.

Casual OPs just need to clarify the kind of mindsets they're inviting to the discussions they create.

But why should the onus be on casual posters to identify themselves in the general forum? As you and Mel rightly point out, there already exists a tactical forum, so should not the assumption be that anything in general is casual by default?

Do like they do in reddit with flairs and mark your post in the title with the worked "Casual" or "Competitive". Seems like a better idea than splitting.

That way people can avoid posts they dont like without missing out on valuable discussion.

I don't think it would work as there isn't really a straight line between competitive and casual. Personally I'm a casual player but I post in the tactics forum nevertheless. Tactics shouldn't only discuss the units that are played in tournaments, they can also discuss tactics for units that are usually overlooked and therefor need more tactics than a Castellan to work. It's not as if casual players don't use tactics, it's just that for casual players there are no units that are "garbage" or "unplayable".

There's also a forum for tournament discussions already, this is where pure tournament players can go to probably.

Empty forums make for excellent echo chambers.

I don't mind having a hyper-WAAC presence in the forums. Sometimes a point may come up where it makes you think 'hmmm, never thought of using unit X in that manner before'.

Just because someone is a WAAC player doesn't mean they do not have valid points to raise.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I don't think it would work as there isn't really a straight line between competitive and casual.

This.
The concepts of competitive or casual are very hazy at best and many times it has nothing to do with the gameplay itself and is purely a mind set in the players opinion. Sometimes the only difference is that in casual they are happy to walk away from the table for 10 mins to grab a drink or somesuch.

There's basically no hard and clear line that everyone agrees on to divide the topics into neat segments to make it practical to have them as separate discussions groupings for a forum. Also I'd wager there wouldn't be much to gain from separating them anyway. I think one would end up used for just about everything and the other would get forgotten/ignored.

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
I don't mind having a hyper-WAAC presence in the forums. Sometimes a point may come up where it makes you think 'hmmm, never thought of using unit X in that manner before'.

Just because someone is a WAAC player doesn't mean they do not have valid points to raise.

This is a valid point, and I'd like to propose a counter-point in that when it comes to lore, there needs to be a unified forum to present different viewpoints. In tactics, though, you inevitably end up with tournament players giving tournament advice on fluffy lists, local metas, and non-optimised collections, basically suggesting the poster drop everything and buy the net-list, while casual players are more rare, as they often get shot down for suggesting units they find enjoyable or thematic with the list. This is fine if the poster is looking for tournament advice, but for a themed match or "What could compliment my existing options" type of posts, perhaps a tag in the title could help - [TC] [C] or [NC] for Tournament Competitive, Local Competitive or Non-Competitive threads.

General discussion also needs to separate or otherwise identify the types of threads. As OP says, many threads end up an argument between Beer&Pretzel players, who, as a generalisation, enjoy randomness, silly cinematic rules, Herohammer, etc, and Competitive players, who want to mitigate randomness and other variables, such as TLOS and cover, so they can better Mathhammer and increase their odds of winning. The two sides, although a blatant polarisation from me, are fairly good descriptors IMO. They are diametrically opposed, and cannot be reconciled because they are both trying to play from the same rulebook.

In the "What would you change about 40k" thread that's currently on the 40kGD, its clear that some value robust, infallible rulesets that leave no need for a TO to make a judgement, to roll-off to see who is correct, or to need an FAQ, while also making every unit competitive, while others place higher value on lore-accurate armies, scenarios, and more "cinematic" aspects, such as TLOS and character duels and personalisation of the game. They play from the same ruleset which tries to appeal to everyone equally, but cannot, and so, threads end up an argument about the direction the (game/rules/lore/hobby in general) should move to be "better."


Splitting the boards, or even tags as suggested, to show readers that the OP only wants to discuss things in a casual mindset, or a semi-competitive mindset, would really help mitigate these unnecessary arguments. Most end up getting locked due to arguments anyway.


Reading other comments before mine got posted - perhaps "Competitive vs casual" are the wrong terms to be using. Perhaps "Competitive vs Beer&Pretzels" would be a better description and dividing line? Those who see the game as something to compete in, to try hard and to win a tournament or game... and those who simply see it as a fun timekiller, playing army-men with a pal and happy to just house-rule away any arguments.

Agree it's a bad idea.

You'd constantly get people in the casual forum telling you you aren't casual enough, and people in the competitive forum telling you you aren't competitive enough.

I think there needs to be less delineation between the two of anything, more understanding that there is no correct way to play the game and that everyone approaches it differently.

Competitive to casual isn't binary, it's a continuum.

The boundary between competitive and casual play is not sharp.
So I voted NO.

Some simple restraint from some posters, and a recognition that an option to comment is not a compulsion, and we’d go a long way. For example, we already have one chap who pollutes every PL thread with why those who like it are stupid and wrong... that x a whole subforum, aiiieee.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Some simple restraint from some posters...

Well now you're just being unrealistic .

 Ginjitzu wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Some simple restraint from some posters...

Well now you're just being unrealistic .

I’m big on suspension of disbelief

 Deadshot wrote:

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
I don't mind having a hyper-WAAC presence in the forums. Sometimes a point may come up where it makes you think 'hmmm, never thought of using unit X in that manner before'.

Just because someone is a WAAC player doesn't mean they do not have valid points to raise.

This is a valid point, and I'd like to propose a counter-point in that when it comes to lore, there needs to be a unified forum to present different viewpoints. In tactics, though, you inevitably end up with tournament players giving tournament advice on fluffy lists, local metas, and non-optimised collections, basically suggesting the poster drop everything and buy the net-list, while casual players are more rare, as they often get shot down for suggesting units they find enjoyable or thematic with the list. This is fine if the poster is looking for tournament advice, but for a themed match or "What could compliment my existing options" type of posts, perhaps a tag in the title could help - [TC] [C] or [NC] for Tournament Competitive, Local Competitive or Non-Competitive threads.

General discussion also needs to separate or otherwise identify the types of threads. As OP says, many threads end up an argument between Beer&Pretzel players, who, as a generalisation, enjoy randomness, silly cinematic rules, Herohammer, etc, and Competitive players, who want to mitigate randomness and other variables, such as TLOS and cover, so they can better Mathhammer and increase their odds of winning. The two sides, although a blatant polarisation from me, are fairly good descriptors IMO. They are diametrically opposed, and cannot be reconciled because they are both trying to play from the same rulebook.

In the "What would you change about 40k" thread that's currently on the 40kGD, its clear that some value robust, infallible rulesets that leave no need for a TO to make a judgement, to roll-off to see who is correct, or to need an FAQ, while also making every unit competitive, while others place higher value on lore-accurate armies, scenarios, and more "cinematic" aspects, such as TLOS and character duels and personalisation of the game. They play from the same ruleset which tries to appeal to everyone equally, but cannot, and so, threads end up an argument about the direction the (game/rules/lore/hobby in general) should move to be "better."


Splitting the boards, or even tags as suggested, to show readers that the OP only wants to discuss things in a casual mindset, or a semi-competitive mindset, would really help mitigate these unnecessary arguments. Most end up getting locked due to arguments anyway.


Reading other comments before mine got posted - perhaps "Competitive vs casual" are the wrong terms to be using. Perhaps "Competitive vs Beer&Pretzels" would be a better description and dividing line? Those who see the game as something to compete in, to try hard and to win a tournament or game... and those who simply see it as a fun timekiller, playing army-men with a pal and happy to just house-rule away any arguments.

I agree with some of the issues which you addressed, well articulated too.

Also on-board with the comments regarding some semblence of restraint on the part of forum participants.

I don't think its a good idea. I know that the current trend in social media is to have these two boxes of people who are against each other, and to play up that hatred as a way to increase revenue. I don't think that works for this hobby.

There is a competitive subreddit that was probably created by people who hope to one day win LVO or some other major tournament, which is filled with people who want to tweak their World Eaters, mono Custodes, etc. Everyone is in a different spot hobby wise and I'd expect there to be a huge overlap within those two boxes.

If you find a poster to be always unreasonable, negative, and unhappy, just use the ignore button. I've found that ignoring just a handful of people has made a big difference.

I would support this.

It's not about an echo chamber. It would cut down on the animosity i've observed on these forums when people approach the game from two completely different viewpoints.

I'm not going to believe 10 man tactical squads in a drop pod are a viable strategy to build around, no matter how many times you tell me you win in your local shop.

But this won't happen, because casual players come online to lift tournament ideas and take them back to their casual shops to stomp their friends with meta stuff. Think about it, casuals, the game is only equal and fair if both players have equal knowledge of the game itself, coming online to learn how to smash faces is bad form if you're strictly casual.

I think its a bit more than just one or the other, for a lot of players they blend into each other.

I tend to fall more inline with Competitive balance concerns.
But i am casual, and focus almost entirely on narrative gaming.
Often the casual players are the ones playing more strict to the rules, and following the rules as they understand them.
With the way i play, we change it up rather a lot. But it may not even be casual by everyone standards.
So i not sure it would do much than make more places to post very similar things.