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.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
As far as rules go, Warhammer is one of the worst games to play as a competitive game. Way too many inconsistencies, poor wording, inconsistent wording, vague rules, and that's not even getting into the balance (or lack thereof). Really the only benefit is the number of players which enables a larger pool of players.

The fact there is this underlying desire to turn Warhammer into a "tabletop sport" despite all its flaws and shortcomings is a bigger issue, since "competitive" Warhammer barely resembles the game as it's played outside of those mediums, yet at the same time those mediums trickle down and affect everything from local events to casual game nights at the local gaming store. It has the adverse effect of permeating every aspect of the game rather than having a clear delineation between competitive and casual games.

On top of that, the mindset of the competitive Warhammer crowd is far and away removed from how everyone else plays but online it seems to be the only thing that gets discussed. How many times have you seen someone asks a question, and get told what's competitive/meta or told to scrap their entire army and buy something else, rather than be given advice on how to make what they want to play work (something you often see in other games rather than "Change 60% of your army"). How many rules for events are assumed to be base rules (the "rule of 3" and detachment rules spring to mind here; these are for organized events, yet almost everyone online talks and references them as though they were Matched Play rules)

Maybe, but why would that make so many people who play 40K competitively and primarily/exclusively in tournaments (whether or not that is a flawed aspiration) display so much hate and loathing towards those that do not?

If anything, based on your explanation, I'd except animosity to go mainly in the other direction.

I haven't seen the hate or loathing, so I can't answer that. Beyond the usual "ego clash" you find in competitive environments, anyways. And since the picture (?) from the OP was deleted, I can 't see what sort of animosity is being talked about. I'm not in the competitive 40k groups since I got tired of seeing people be told to throw away half of their list when they asked for tips, or being told that 90% of their codex was garbage and to only focus on the handful of "good units", and the ITC circlejerking.

Animosity between communities is pretty stupid overall.

As a mostly casual player, I actually consider that it's a good thing there are competitive 40K players. I can't understand why they want to play it that way, but they do buy a lot of models (which is good for everyone), and they push for a more balanced ruleset, which is, for the vast majority, also beneficial to casual players. The only drawbacks are when GW screws up when trying to balance things, like they did with the battle brothers rule (which didn't fix any imbalance issues, but did hurt some fluffy lists) or the "no fly during the charge phase", which has mostly been fixed now.

 Strg Alt wrote:
Well, I deem obnoxious tournament players and filthy casuals who don´t know the rules equally irritating. But there is a solution to the problem at hand: Don´t do tournaments or PUGs in your FLGS and then you will never run in with any kind of unsavory types. Instead spend time with your friends and play garage hammer. It worked for me perfectly.

So, I'm in my early 40s with a wonderful wife and a stepson. Please don't get them wrong, I love them both more than any piece of plastic or resin. First of all, time is limited. Would my wife have a problem with me building a 40K table? Not at all. Now, storage would be a bit of an issue. I'd need to find some way to either get it to fold down or use something else. I've thought about using two 6' x 2.5' folding tables. That'd give me a 6' x 5' surface allowing for 6" on each side for models that are out of play or in reserve or for books, tape measures, dice, anything. I could buy a 6' x 4' mat from any of the stores that sell them, get some terrain, and I'd be fine. My wife wouldn't have any issue with that.

Here's the issue... while I do have a small group of friends, none of them have any want or time (depending on the person) to assemble/paint an entire 1000 or 2000 point army. Yes, I have the models to easily put together and paint a 1000 to 2000 point army that they could play, but I don't know that any of them would actually want to take an entire afternoon to learn the game not knowing if they'd ever actually play again.

So, all that said, trying to play Garagehammer is really not something I can do. I will need to play at my FLGS or GW store where there are people who want to play.

SG

TL;DR, toxic behavior is not exclusive to W40k. It is a product of any competitive online community. The toxic behavior is rooted in an ideology that skill == worth, and people are desperate to protect their perceived worth and be accepted. To do this they engage in toxic behavior that is commonly observed and complained about.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The competitive community honestly isn't going off the rails. Its a competitive community so it will inherently be plagued with toxic attitudes, most commonly elitism and arrogance. But this is a charged question, and its a charged issue. I would even be wary of this being a "troll" question. Because the phenomenon mentioned here isn't one that is unique to 40K's competitive community, but rather endemic to online competitive communities on a large scale. Compared to other types of online communities, competitive communities are ripe for toxic attitudes (second to political communities these days but... lets not get into that ). This is for a couple of reasons.

In essence, to be a part of a competitive community you must tie a player's "worth" at least in some degree to "skill". This is, at least on some level, intuitive, after all, if you wanted to learn chess would you rather take advise from Judit Polgar or Trisha Paytas? But also it is important to realize that advise is objectively good or bad on its own regardless of who says it, what is observed is merely the correlation that the chess advise of a Grand Master who once beat Kasperov would more often than not be "good" as compared to the chess advise of a youtube troll. While a focus on skill == worth does not directly create a toxic environment, it lays the groundwork for the toxic attitudes of players to take hold.

One of the things players do on competitive forums is discuss unit builds and strategies, in order to be taken seriously players feel a pressure to establish their own "worth" so that their advise is heard. True greats, who win major GTs have enough name recognition and clout that they don't need to do this. But there are not a lot of GT winners, that is a small pool. So many posters need to establish their skill in other ways. An unscrupulous person will do this by attacking players they disagree with by accusing them of being "bad" or "unskilled". It is an ad hominem attack, "X is bad advise because Y is unskilled."
Y's skill level should be irrelevant in determining whether X is good or bad advise, but you will be more inclined to disregard Y's advise if you are seeking advice to help you win games and it appears that the majority of competitive players view him as unskilled. This creates a tendency in any competitive community to devolve into personal attacks, accusing people who disagree with them as being bad players and thus not worth listening too. This can also commonly come in the form of attacking a player's lived experiences, the most common retort being "that wouldn't work against a skilled opponent", dismissing an opposing viewpoint by stating that it only works against poor opponents with a heavy implication that truly good players, read: those that agree with me, will always defeat X strategy.

Elitism of the competitive community towards the general player base also stems from this. This is most commonly seen as a defense of the competitive community and the competitive way of play. Also this is where competitive players clash the hardest with outsiders or players existing outside of competitive circles. For many competitive players, there are no "rules exploits" or "loopholes" (or more nuanced there are no "rules exploits" or "loopholes" in the army I play). Everything permissible within the rules is fair play until FAQ'd, because the ideal way to play is to use everything at your disposal to secure a win. By any means necessary. Because if you win, it means you are skilled at the game, and if you are skilled at the game it means that your opinion is more valuable, and if your opinion is more valuable it means you are closer to being accepted by the competitive community. So when somebody from the outside makes an argument along these lines, "you shouldn't do Y, because it abuses the rules and makes the game less fun", that is seen as an affront on the fundamental structure of competitive play. This opinion is, unjustifiably, seen as dangerous to the competitive community because it places a supreme value judgement on "fun" as opposed to "skill" being the measurement of how the game is played. Furthermore, many players confuse pointing out rules exploits as an attack on their skill, and by extension worth. They will hear, "you are not a skilled player, you only won because of Y". Which will cause them to defend Y (which is rules as worded by the way), until they are blue in the face... but keep in mind that they hear "you are not a skilled player, you only won because of Y", because they are projecting (see below). This will frequently cascade into a defense of why Y was intended or not overpowered, because otherwise would imply that they are not as skilled as somebody who doesn't use Y.

You see, I saved the best for last. The hipocrisy that plagues all competitive communities. It is pride. To many players in the competitive community, losing is unacceptable. Because if they lost it means they were not as skilled as their opponent, and their opinions are less valuable than their opponents, and they feel as though their credibility in the community on the whole was eroded when they lost. This is what leads to cheating scandals at major GTs. As long as they don't get caught they can win and winning is everything. Far more common than cheating however, are excuses and insults. "You only won because you used a cheesy [unit, strategy]" "you only won because you got lucky". If a player losses, it cannot be because they were outplayed... unless that loss came at the hands of one of the uncontested greats. A loss to someone outside the competitive community or to someone lower on the hierarchy? Many in the competitive community cannot take that blow to their pride.

And finally, its often the case that the more insecure a player in the competitive community is, the more likely to engage in toxic behavior such as belittling, attacking, insulting, poor sportsmanship, or even outright cheating. This is because players secure in their skill don't mind when things go poorly for them, and often will seek out opponents who they view as challenging. After all, "you only get smarter by playing a smarter opponent". When someone desperately wants to be accepted by a community that values skill above all else, sometimes... a player will use every strategy they can imagine to gain acceptance... by any means necessary.

But again. Again. And I say this with emphasis. These are problems that plague any competitive community. Video games especially are famous for creating toxic competitive environments. This can arise in sports, things as seemingly benign as body building forums. etc. Its also important to note that this absolutely does not encompass the entire competitive community or the "circuit" competitive community. The circuit being those who travel to multiple GTs per year and play there. Indeed, it is a creature of internet culture, such as facebook or forums. Because in competitive circuits and actual tourney games, disputes tend to be blown off and people are focused on playing the game. You cannot trash talk your way to a GT victory, and attacking the techniques of the winner won't take his trophy away. Its only when you return to the internet, a world of people who take the game seriously but weren't at your specific tournament, and the need to reestablish your worth as a competitive gamer becomes a focus again. If you want to do your part in reducing toxicity in competitive communities, the best thing you can do is reframe the arguments. Explain why things are effective in detail and without reference to tournament results. Refrain from ad hominem attacks, and point out weaknesses in bad advise in game terms only and without reference to player skill. And finally, understand that you don't have the clout to change most competitive communities, but you can do your part to ensure that people feel welcome in threads that you are a part of.

Cheers! Sorry for the run on post. But I hope someone finds it useful.

The longer I enjoy this hobby, and the longer I make my living as a game designer, the more I embrace the fact that I LOVE 40k and AoS, but loathe them as competitive rules-sets. Worse, my time playing both competitively actually brought out some of my worst instincts, made me a worse hobbyist, and actively hurt my ability to have actual fun.

The hobby can still produce competitive offerings. Just a recent example I NEVER would have seen coming was A Song of Ice and Fire which makes for a much more skill based exercise (still isn't perfect, but nothing is). The industry is still doing good work, AND GW is still making killer FUN, games... but the two just haven't intersected with their two big games.

 Tyranid Horde wrote:


Highly inclined to disagree with you. High level play is completely different to the average beet and pretzels game of 40k.

Good Lord, man. Beets and pretzels? I don't care how you play the game, but improve your snacks while doing it! Casual gaming isn't even beets and pretzels.

 akaean wrote:
TL;DR, toxic behavior is not exclusive to W40k. It is a product of any competitive online community. The toxic behavior is rooted in an ideology that skill == worth, and people are desperate to protect their perceived worth and be accepted. To do this they engage in toxic behavior that is commonly observed and complained about.

Toxic behaviour isn't even the issue, IMHO. Competitive play poisons the actual rules, not the players. Because of the focus on competitive play, GW now "balances" armies by just looking at over/under used units in tournaments and changing points cost a little bit without thinking about the how and why. Competitive players feel like the game is fine as long as each faction has 1 competitive build and they spout imbecilic nonsense about the meta being self-correcting - the notion that if a list is over represented, players will switch to lists that can easily beat that one, and so a dynamic balance of rock-paper-scissors lists will emerge. Competitive players think this is good and healthy. Meanwhile casual players just see that they can't have fun games with the models they like because they get curbstomped every time even by other casuals who just happen to like models with better rules, let alone anyone actively copying tournament netlists. They don't see switching armies a valid solution like competitive players do. But because GW only listens to competitive players for balance, this state will never get fixed.

There’s a lot of baseless conjecture being thrown toward the competitive community. A balanced game is good for both casual and competitive players yet it’s the competitive community that is the driving force for balance. The competitive community is the reason 8th edition is probably the most balanced edition of Warhammer in recent history.

Competitive 40K is the way Warhammer as a whole is going to move into a wider audience, just like Esports did to video games. 8th edition has brought in more players into the hobby than any other edition and that’s partially due to the effort of the ITC and the playtest team. Competitive events are selling out faster than every before. For example the largest competitive Warhammer event in the world, the Las Vegas Open, sold out in mere hours.

Warhammer players seem to wanna separate themselves into casual and competitive camps with both sides thinking that what they want is at odds with the other when the truth is they both want the same thing.

 Guardsmanwaffle wrote:


Competitive 40K is the way Warhammer as a whole is going to move into a wider audience, just like Esports did to video games. 8th edition has brought in more players into the hobby than any other edition and that’s partially due to the effort of the ITC and the playtest team. Competitive events are selling out faster than every before. For example the largest competitive Warhammer event in the world, the Las Vegas Open, sold out in mere hours.

I think this is looking at the issue of growth backwards. Esports are becoming a thing for the same reasons that people watch traditional sports. An audience is created by kids playing sports (and now e-sports) and the pitch for the viewing experience is "you know what is all about, now come watch it played at the highest possible level". The audience for esports is growing because more people play for fun and can appreciate what they will be watching.

It's the same with 40k. By engaging with the community and making entry into the hobby easier with starter sets and now faster painting methods GW is increasing the base of people who are interested in the hobby. That subsequently means more people who are interested in the playing competitively.

I've played the game both ways and now that I don't have the time for practice games and keeping up with the meta I play it as a "beets and pretzels" game. It's best to think of it as two separate things just like regular sports. The strategies that NBA teams use are not particularly applicable in a pickup game of 50 year dudes on a Saturday morning. Conversely what seems OP in a pickup basketball game would be considered ho-hum in the NBA.

 Guardsmanwaffle wrote:
There’s a lot of baseless conjecture being thrown toward the competitive community. A balanced game is good for both casual and competitive players yet it’s the competitive community that is the driving force for balance. The competitive community is the reason 8th edition is probably the most balanced edition of Warhammer in recent history.

The competitive community has a very degenerate idea about what balance means and them driving GW's design is a major problem with this edition. Casual players are in no way benefitting from "balance" that boils down to minor points juggling to keep a dozen of the most ridiculous power lists roughly equal to one another, while everything else is garbage.

bogalubov wrote:

 Guardsmanwaffle wrote:


Competitive 40K is the way Warhammer as a whole is going to move into a wider audience, just like Esports did to video games. 8th edition has brought in more players into the hobby than any other edition and that’s partially due to the effort of the ITC and the playtest team. Competitive events are selling out faster than every before. For example the largest competitive Warhammer event in the world, the Las Vegas Open, sold out in mere hours.

I think this is looking at the issue of growth backwards. Esports are becoming a thing for the same reasons that people watch traditional sports. An audience is created by kids playing sports (and now e-sports) and the pitch for the viewing experience is "you know what is all about, now come watch it played at the highest possible level". The audience for esports is growing because more people play for fun and can appreciate what they will be watching.

It's the same with 40k. By engaging with the community and making entry into the hobby easier with starter sets and now faster painting methods GW is increasing the base of people who are interested in the hobby. That subsequently means more people who are interested in the playing competitively.

Everything you say is true, the increased popularity of warhammer is what is driving the popularity of competitive 40K, but it’s competitive 40K that is going to take 40K further into populartiy.

If we take esports and gaming again as a example, gamings popularity lead to the creation of the esport community, and the popularity of esports pushed gaming into the mainstream so much so that it’s on espn. The rising popularity of warhammer is leading to the creation of a competitive warhammer community which will further drive warhammer into the mainstream, probably not to espn though. I don’t remember which event it was but there was a ITC event that made it into the front page of twitch that probably brought more new eyes onto 40K than GW’s marketing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Guardsmanwaffle wrote:
There’s a lot of baseless conjecture being thrown toward the competitive community. A balanced game is good for both casual and competitive players yet it’s the competitive community that is the driving force for balance. The competitive community is the reason 8th edition is probably the most balanced edition of Warhammer in recent history.

The competitive community has a very degenerate idea about what balance means and them driving GW's design is a major problem with this edition. Casual players are in no way benefitting from "balance" that boils down to minor points juggling to keep a dozen of the most ridiculous power lists roughly equal to one another, while everything else is garbage.

A quick glance and the top placing lists of various events disproves you. There has never been a more diverse 40K meta than what we are experiencing now. You say minor points juggling is “degenerate” but you’ll have a hard time convincing anyone that 8th edition was a better game before the chapter approved points changes and the castellan nerf.

Casuals and Competitives are not enemies.

It's not hard to find a toxic behavior in either group if you look hard enough. There are several in this thread who's posting history would do them shame if examined. The world has enough villains in it without any need to manufacture more.

Play the game the way you enjoy with people who feel the same. And keep your head out of your own ass, and everything will be fine.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Casuals and Competitives are not enemies.

It's not hard to find a toxic behavior in either group if you look hard enough. There are several in this thread who's posting history would do them shame if examined. The world has enough villains in it without any need to manufacture more.

Play the game the way you enjoy with people who feel the same. And keep your head out of your own ass, and everything will be fine.

Have an exalt sir.

Some people are just gakky.

I honestly don't know why people are up in arms about this anyway. Most tournament players don't walk into a FLGS and club seals. Tournament players play at tournaments, or schedule practice games with people who know what they're getting into.

Now if your thinking of people who do maybe 1 or 2 tournaments a year, and spend the rest of their time at a FLGS trying to crush unsuspecting players... that's not a competitive player or a tournament player. That's a jerk. Don't judge the competitive community by that mark.

I've not played a casual game of 40k in like 5 months at this point. Does that mean I'm into the hobby "wrong" just because I enjoy tournament play?

Honestly this reminds me of a few discussions I've seen regarding the TF2 Friendlies vs tryhard players. All in all this is a game, and a lot of players will play that game in different ways, ways that suit their personal temperament. Or perhaps religion would be a better comparison? Everyone believes something different and is certain that those beliefs are absolute. And will attempt to beat down anyone who has a different view, regardless of how sturdy their own platform may be.

Honestly as long as peeps have a bit of fun and enjoyment does it all really matter?

 Horst wrote:
I honestly don't know why people are up in arms about this anyway. Most tournament players don't walk into a FLGS and club seals. Tournament players play at tournaments, or schedule practice games with people who know what they're getting into.

Now if your thinking of people who do maybe 1 or 2 tournaments a year, and spend the rest of their time at a FLGS trying to crush unsuspecting players... that's not a competitive player or a tournament player. That's a jerk. Don't judge the competitive community by that mark.

I've not played a casual game of 40k in like 5 months at this point. Does that mean I'm into the hobby "wrong" just because I enjoy tournament play?

Yeah I don't get it man. There is no right or wrong. I guess I will paraphrase my post from another thread..

I don't understand anyone would not prefixing request for games with "I'm looking to test out a list for a tournament" or "Looking for a competitive game as need to practice for tournament". That's the only way to ensure you get competition and get a meaningful test. Otherwise what's the point.?

Like wise bringing an unoptimized list and not stating you want to have a casual game because your list is unoptimized and then complaining about getting stomped... Why?
If someone's asking for tournament/competitive practice will see you get stomped and them no getting any meaningful test. Thus everyone's time is wasted. So again, what's the point?

Do your due diligence and if you don't, its on you.

The only time you get any kind of bad game/matchup is if both parties just don't bother to communicate as to expectations for the game. And its down to both parties. Nobody is a friggin mind reader. I don't understand why people have such issues with talking to one another.

Obviously there is a problem about being disingenuous about intent. There is no fix for being an asshat.
Asshat behaviour is not new or exclusive to 40k. And it seems to be mostly an online phenomenon. Fortunately all the people at my community are ok. (Part from that one guy whose stuff is always in range and yet I'm always somehow 1/99th of an inch out of range so I don't bother to play that guy lol)

Shotgun wrote:

 Tyranid Horde wrote:


Highly inclined to disagree with you. High level play is completely different to the average beet and pretzels game of 40k.

Good Lord, man. Beets and pretzels? I don't care how you play the game, but improve your snacks while doing it! Casual gaming isn't even beets and pretzels.

Nothing wrong with a beet!

 Horst wrote:
I honestly don't know why people are up in arms about this anyway. Most tournament players don't walk into a FLGS and club seals. Tournament players play at tournaments, or schedule practice games with people who know what they're getting into.

Now if your thinking of people who do maybe 1 or 2 tournaments a year, and spend the rest of their time at a FLGS trying to crush unsuspecting players... that's not a competitive player or a tournament player. That's a jerk. Don't judge the competitive community by that mark.

I've not played a casual game of 40k in like 5 months at this point. Does that mean I'm into the hobby "wrong" just because I enjoy tournament play?

Fine.

But again, it’s the competitive 40K group that has pages upon pages of people identifying as tournament players (many with high ITC rankings, etc.. to prove the point) denigrating and maligning casual players in the most horrific language, not the other way round.

There are also (far fewer) “voices of reason” in the discussion, true, and mods shut it down eventually, but the overwhelming sentiment coming from tournament players was just strikingly hostile.

So there is either some weird psychology going on in the vein of akaean’s hypothesis, or it’s a weird attempt to somehow label “bad (in behavior, not skill) competitive players” as “not actually competitive, but actually filthy casuals” to conserve the tautological myth of “all ”true” competitives are actually the good guys and the “bad ones” aren’t actually “true” competitive players.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Horst wrote:
I honestly don't know why people are up in arms about this anyway. Most tournament players don't walk into a FLGS and club seals. Tournament players play at tournaments, or schedule practice games with people who know what they're getting into.

Now if your thinking of people who do maybe 1 or 2 tournaments a year, and spend the rest of their time at a FLGS trying to crush unsuspecting players... that's not a competitive player or a tournament player. That's a jerk. Don't judge the competitive community by that mark.

I've not played a casual game of 40k in like 5 months at this point. Does that mean I'm into the hobby "wrong" just because I enjoy tournament play?

Fine.

But again, it’s the competitive 40K group that has pages upon pages of people identifying as tournament players (many with high ITC rankings, etc.. to prove the point) denigrating and maligning casual players in the most horrific language, not the other way round.

There are also (far fewer) “voices of reason” in the discussion, true, and mods shut it down eventually, but the overwhelming sentiment coming from tournament players was just strikingly hostile.

So there is either some weird psychology going on in the vein of akaean’s hypothesis, or it’s a weird attempt to somehow label “bad (in behavior, not skill) competitive players” as “not actually competitive, but actually filthy casuals” to conserve the tautological myth of “all ”true” competitives are actually the good guys and the “bad ones” aren’t actually “true” competitive players.

Exclusive group identification and behaviour based upon othering.
It's normal that this happens.
Also relatively natural.

There is no correlation between the "quality" of a ruleset and the competitive community around it.

If a game is popular, then there will be a competing mindset that is born out of it. There are no other factors.

Just look at MtG, it has the worst possible balancing in the history of games, with less than 0,01% of the cards of the game actually playable and if you try to go to an event with a thematic deck you will get stomped and laughed at. Yet it has a huge following in the competitive community.

This looks exclusive to facebook groups right now. The competitive community in my area is a handful of people out of 100+ players. It's much more disparaging over in the Warmachine, Xwing, and card game community

I'm baffled that this is a thing outside of ETC/ATC/200+ people events. Maybe 1-2% of AoS or 40k players attend tournaments regularly enough (the the previous wrecking crew roster or the etc squad from back in the day)

Spoletta wrote:
There is no correlation between the "quality" of a ruleset and the competitive community around it.

If a game is popular, then there will be a competing mindset that is born out of it. There are no other factors.

Just look at MtG, it has the worst possible balancing in the history of games, with less than 0,01% of the cards of the game actually playable and if you try to go to an event with a thematic deck you will get stomped and laughed at. Yet it has a huge following in the competitive community.

MtG has always been pretty balanced within the formats that they run, from Modern to Standard to Pauper. You're getting confused with YuGiOh

cody.d. wrote:
Or perhaps religion would be a better comparison? Everyone believes something different and is certain that those beliefs are absolute. And will attempt to beat down anyone who has a different view, regardless of how sturdy their own platform may be.

So, casuals would be the ones who just go to church on Sunday, sing a few songs, and hang out with friends, while competitive players would be the ones who start crusades and inquisitions? You know, that actually works...

Honestly as long as peeps have a bit of fun and enjoyment does it all really matter?

Individuals and small groups don't amount to much, but collectively, they can exert great control over the game and its community. Warmachine is an example of a game that went completely competitive, and while people were defending it (even praising it) early on for such a decision, it has become very obvious that it was this mindset which ultimately destroyed the game. I believe that a competitive mindset, if allowed to fester, will absolutely destroy any game it takes hold of.

I think what people tend to forget is that competitive players all start out as casuals at some point (if not of the current game, than of a different game that introduced them to the hobby). They don't start out thinking "My goal is to win tournaments". They start out thinking, "This looks like a fun game. I'll give it a try." If you don't have new players and casuals, your game is basically one of those towns in Japan, where the low birth rate and number of people leaving for opportunities has created a ghost town that is slowly disappearing.

Similarly, I've seen a lot of casual, older players that say they were competitive in the past, but now just want to chuck some dice around and have fun with mates. It seems like the competitive mindset is temporary, possibly even unsustainable over time. If your game is too competitive orientated, with no room for casuals, these players leave the game when they stop being competitive (like Warmachine). Games which support a healthy casual community (like AoS) end up keeping these players.

I think of being competitive as the "teenage years" of being a gamer. It's just a phase. You are full of yourself, you think your problems are everybody's problems, and you believe you know more than you actually do - but don't worry. It doesn't last forever. Eventually, you grow up.

 Tyranid Horde wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
There is no correlation between the "quality" of a ruleset and the competitive community around it.

If a game is popular, then there will be a competing mindset that is born out of it. There are no other factors.

Just look at MtG, it has the worst possible balancing in the history of games, with less than 0,01% of the cards of the game actually playable and if you try to go to an event with a thematic deck you will get stomped and laughed at. Yet it has a huge following in the competitive community.

MtG has always been pretty balanced within the formats that they run, from Modern to Standard to Pauper. You're getting confused with YuGiOh

Lol no.
It is balanced if you force yourself to use only the "good" cards and the "good" builds.
You cannot select what you want and somehow win against an opponent with a competitive deck just because you are a better player, which is the definition that we are using of "balanced" for 40K.
In MtG this is just impossible. You cannot even select your favorite color if it isn't competitive at the moment. The balance of MtG is utterly trash if you use any standard method to measure it. If we use the MtG meter to assess the balance of 40K, then 7th edition was the most balanced game ever produced. After all the top 3 or 4 builds were about balanced with each other, so the game must be fine, right?

 Tyranid Horde wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Competive 40k is self contradicting term anyway so what's the matter anyway.

Highly inclined to disagree with you. High level play is completely different to the average beet and pretzels game of 40k.

Competitive 40k is too Ccg these days. It is less about your skills on the table and more about the ability to produce a new army 4 times a year as the meta shifts and new units are the best in class. Meta chasing is too expensive for most people, but without it you will never podium at one of the big tourneys

I've proposed using lists fixed by the organizers to make the game about skills on the table.

Nurglitch wrote:
I've proposed using lists fixed by the organizers to make the game about skills on the table.

Never gonna get off the ground. Deck building, it is is essentially deck building, it too engrained in competitive wargaming. Same reason magic is still about building decks. Also, like three quarters (or more) of the biggest tourneys are held by people who sell models. And most of the rest have some professional connections with gw.

So much has been said already.

Not everyone is going to be BFF's or get along; and you know what? That's OK.

I know the type of player I like to play W40K with and the type of player who I do not enjoy playing W40K with. I'll avoid playing games with the later.

Nurglitch wrote:
I've proposed using lists fixed by the organizers to make the game about skills on the table.

Not going to happen. That would reveal the actual skill of the players, rather than how well they can download netlists and follow flow charts, and the blow to their fragile egos would be too great...

...but I'd really like to see something like that. They've had sealed deck tournaments for CCGs forever, but they've never really had premade deck tournaments - probably because you can still avoid responsibility for the loss by blaming the randomness of the decks.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
I've proposed using lists fixed by the organizers to make the game about skills on the table.

Not going to happen. That would reveal the actual skill of the players, rather than how well they can download netlists and follow flow charts, and the blow to their fragile egos would be too great...

...but I'd really like to see something like that. They've had sealed deck tournaments for CCGs forever, but they've never really had premade deck tournaments - probably because you can still avoid responsibility for the loss by blaming the randomness of the decks.

The top 1000 or so players all know what is good and are invested enough to meta chase, so their gameplay does come down to skill. But one of those skills is meta reading