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.

TO BE CLEAR! I DO NOT THINK COMPETITIVENESS IS HURTING 40K! THIS THREAD WAS CREATED TO START DISCUSSION AND TELL STORIES!
STOP ASSUMING EVERYONE ON DAKKADAKKA HATES YOU!

It's a pretty controversial topic that I see comes up once or twice every edition but I was wondering what people now think after the last few months of 8th edition.

Many of the current arguments I see on DakkaDakka complaining about nerfs, buffs, OP units, ect... Often have people arguing that all of it would not be a problem if people were not so competitive in 40k?

For example:
1. People argue things like "soup" armies wouldn't be as effective if people only played fluffy lists.
2. GW wouldn't nerf units if people didn't abuse them.
3. GW wouldn't overly buff/price factions or units if they didn't think competitive players would mass buy them despite them being the minority.

the list of arguments go on...

However, there is also a counter argument arguing the problem has nothing to do with competitive players or it shouldn't matter.

1. if GW was good enough dev they could balance both the casual and competitive styles of gameplay.
2. people shouldn't be punished for enjoying a certain style of play.
3. It's GW fault for allowing players to build competitive lists and we shouldn't blame the person who uses them.

These are just a few short arguments I see a lot for both sides and in no way cover all the ground.

So I guess my big questions are:
Is competitiveness ruining/ruined 40K?
Why is it ruining 40k/ what really is ruining 40k?
And how would you fix it/ how would you stop people complaining?

RULES!: Be civil (I know this is a lot to ask for DakkaDakka) and respect that people enjoy playing games in different ways (Even if you do not agree with those ways).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Personally I am on the line. The reason why I dislike competitive players is purely down to me being in an area of exclusively competitive players... every week I wade through tables of unpainted grey lists that make my blood boil! They obviously table my army every week because I've put a lot of time crafting it to be a narrative army (I only play with no-named characters and painted troops so i'm slow for my to add reinforcements to counter the current meta) rather than a good army. I just don't understand how anyone derives fun from it if they don't, on the side, focus on other aspects of the hobby as well (why not just load up a computer game and play that rather than spending 100s of dollars on plastic and not painting it, not reading the lore and just wanting to win at something).

But I 100% understand that there are different styles of gaming for everyone. I really think a solution is to separate the two modes and for GW to push alternative game modes solely for those who want a casual narrative style of play. Have a sort of DnD but with your armies or have a night every week in all GW shops for a narrative driven force with no named characters, ect... I can't really find anyone I want to play with regularly. right now in my local GW and that sours the game for me.

I put "meh, probably."

Mostly because I think the fault lies a bit with 40k in trying to bill itself as a competitive game.

Honestly, if I really had to put money down on whose ruining it, it's "casual" players who aren't casual at all but closet competitive players. People who don't want to or can't spend the money to keep up and rock out on the tournament circuit, but still want to win games at their local club. Anything that might make them adapt or change is bad, because they can't or won't spend the money to adapt or change, and they also can't handle getting beaten.

I've played Narrative players who were enjoyable and tough to play against but took losses in stride, and against "narrative players" with exaggerated air quotes, lol.

It's not ruined the game, but it's certainly ruined discussion online. All anyone talks about is the most competitive levels of play and when people ask advice they'll only get responses assuming that they're going to be playing at high level tournaments. Likewise, people automatically assume that everyone is playing against WAAC super lists.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I put "meh, probably."

Mostly because I think the fault lies a bit with 40k in trying to bill itself as a competitive game.

Honestly, if I really had to put money down on whose ruining it, it's "casual" players who aren't casual at all but closet competitive players. People who don't want to or can't spend the money to keep up and rock out on the tournament circuit, but still want to win games at their local club. Anything that might make them adapt or change is bad, because they can't or won't spend the money to adapt or change, and they also can't handle getting beaten.

I've played Narrative players who were enjoyable and tough to play against but took losses in stride, and against "narrative players" with exaggerated air quotes, lol.

I see this point of view. I think that can be a problem and puts people off in the narrative games who were expecting a fun game. The reason some armies make my blood boil isn't me down to losing. It's down the the game being over in 10 min after me waiting a few hours for a table. XD It's not fun... I think what draws me to 40k is the whole idea that a little universe is going on right in front of you and if my guys turned up to battle a bunch of unpainted lines of lascannons with Girlyman stood there waiting, they would probably just go home. XD

I say yes, but it's only part of the problem.

The other part of the problem is GW rules writing and points costing are on two different worlds entirely.

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.

As an addition, part of me feels like this will eventually be fixed somewhat over time (Or just slap-patched) but with Custodians just coming out, GW are looking to sell that line, and it kinda feels like they're selling the model line at the cost of the game itself...

 Sim-Life wrote:
It's not ruined the game, but it's certainly ruined discussion online. All anyone talks about is the most competitive levels of play and when people ask advice they'll only get responses assuming that they're going to be playing at high level tournaments. Likewise, people automatically assume that everyone is playing against WAAC super lists.

Thissss!!! 100%!!! Every assumes I'm a competitive player so brings out their most competitive lists... I get the same for MTG... I have a themed deck and this dude tore it apart and couldn't understand it's a theme for fun and not for competitive play. It's a huge reason why I think there should always be two worlds to any game and they should have ways of separating them. I know 40K has open play mode but people don't ever play it or use it properly.

I don't think 40k is ruined. It's not a great game, but it's fun, so it achieves that. Competitiveness is certainly not ruining it (but I did vote that I can see others' thoughts on why it is).

But, I do think that if GW spent just a LITTLE MORE on making the game good, it could be a lot better.

40k is fine.

The complaints you hear here is not even a grain of sand compared to the silent majority that are enjoying the game in the way they want to be competitive or not.

a lot of the competitive vs casual can be fixed with a little bit of social interactions and talking out a game before committing time and effort into something.

but sure some things could be better if GW spends the time and actually fixes things this time around with their new biannual update scheme.

I think it comes down to 'you can't be having fun wrong', yes 40k has some swingy power imbalances that make pick up games harder than it should be but with a bit of discussion most groups / stores usually find some form of social contract way to play that the majority are fine with, even practicing tournament 'power-lists' are fine with a bit of warning

 lolman1c wrote:

Is competitiveness ruining/ruined 40K?

No. It never has, and likely never will. Any negatives attributed to allegedly over competitive/WAAC/donkey-cave players can be equally attributed to extremely fluffy/CAAC/donkey-cave players that care too much about not winning and telling other people how to enjoy the game.

Why is it ruining 40k/ what really is ruining 40k?

It isn't ruining 40k. The rules of 40k are ruining 40k. That and people of any stripe telling other people how to enjoy the game and/or trying to attribute the blame of the game's problems on a set of players.

And how would you fix it/ how would you stop people complaining?

By fixing the game. The most play tested edition certainly doesn't seem very play tested, and all from a company with decades of experience and the most money to throw at the best devs and editors and testers. There isn't an excuse for how wonky and poorly executed the game is these days. Its a confused mess that is still terribly balanced, and fails as both a competitive, tournament ready game and as a viable narrative, campaign focused game.

You'll never stop people complaining; and that's fine. People complaining is feedback from people who care enough to write large responses. Discussion is good, differing opinions are good. The game will never be perfect, but it can always get better. When we're all arguing over the merits or cons of a 5pts difference on a 200pts model, that's when we know we've achieved an excellent level of balance.

As usual, if you're blaming players, chances you're part of the problem. Outside of the actual donkey-caves, most players just want to have a good time pushing models around the table. Some people enjoy fighting for a challenging win with optimized lists, while other players like setting up one off scenarios, while yet others enjoy long campaigns or cut throat tournaments, or any combination thereof. The guy who yells at people, rubs cheeto dust on your models, fails to shower, and is otherwise a rude donkey-cave, yeah, that's a person who's ruining 40k. Someone who likes to play at tournaments? No, not an issue for the game.

I need a "no more than any other game that can be played competitively" option. Sure, you can have TFGs - and there's a lot of potential in this medium for them to happen - but I don't find any more significant impact on me or the community. Maybe we don't address it as well as, say, D&D because there's not as strong of an interpersonal requirement, but that's not the fault of the game.

GW's exhausting inability to manage its rules content and solidify its concept of what it wants the game to be is really the issue. They try to sell 40k as too many things, and in the process does none of them well, and GW's attempts at fixing things are generally very poorly handled.

Now, competitiveness has issues, not everything about it is great, but if GW ran a better ship, we'd have dramatically fewer issues.

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.

Other people's behavior can only have as much impact on us as we let it.

From my rather limited experience tournament's are a pretty fun atmosphere and while I did get duped a few times by sneaky gits my time was rather well spent.

Also having created and maintained a competitive gaming group for a few years now I can tell you that what I say is true. One of my players, a kid of 19 once put it best. The store clown was being a jerk to him but he smoothly brushed the comments away and afterwards said to us: "oh that person doesn't have the power to upset me. I just ignore him when he gets like that, to argue is to play into his game.". Pretty wise words for a 19 year old and something we all should consider.

Once waac players realize their antics no longer disrupt your game, the attitude soon fades. When That Guy can't get anyone to play with him, he either shapes up or ships out. Either way, we the normal player who strives for consideration and respect are unaffected and indeed made better for the experience. We don't have to resort to derision or wait on the judgement of a faraway corporation or even rely on an event judge or store employee. We can solve the problem simply by modifying our reactions to poor behaviour and making sure that we don't stoop to such levels ourselves. Competitiveness in and of itself is a healthy attribute when nurtured properly and handled with restraint. It brings another level to any gaming hobby and can be quite enjoyable when approached with the correct mindset. It's not for everyone, but then again that's the point of the hobby being open to anyone.

TLDR. You can't change external factors to regulate the behavior of individuals within a social setting, abberant behavior will always find a way to do what it wants. You can only control your own behaviour, and how you react. By controlling your own actions you thereby mitigate the effects of other people's decisions on your own life. Stop caring about what other people think, play more games with your friends, make new friends and in general; chill.

I mean, yeah, the competitive players are ruining 40k. But so are the non-competitive players. And also, really, probably anywhere that GW takes 'community feedback' from.

It's not turning out to be the 40k anyone wants, but it's hashing out to look like the 40k everyone deserves.

Still better than 7th though.

Competitiveness generally does a game a lot of favors. A game that holds up to competitive play will support a casual environment just fine; at least far better than a poorly balanced game the community attempts to self police. The problem usually stems from a game that doesn't hold up has enough exciting elements that people try to stick with it and make it work rather than just playing a better game. Different players tweak the game to suit their preferences and stop playing by the same rules and notably, stop playing by the same rules as the developers.

Currently, 40k has a rather interesting dilemma. It's a game that has been neglected by its developers long enough to form a pretty entrenched mindset of community self repair whose developers are attempting to regain control of and earnestly appear to be improving. It wants to be the game players want, but players aren't accustomed to playing the game the developers provide.

I will say, the most problematic mindset I've encountered in wargaming is the one that expresses a casual attitude, but assumes they are entitled to win. It's the attitude that immediately looks to change the game after a loss, rather than reflecting on what they could have done to change the outcome. Taking responsibility for your game is important. You need to identify what it is you really want to play, how much you really want to win, and how realistically those two things coexist within the reality of the game. Sometimes you can make those things work via self improvement; sometimes you have to decide to compromise one or the other for the sake of reality (like wanting to be a 5'2" pro basketball player) and sometimes you have accept that the game doesn't support what you want out of it and probably should look for a better game.

 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.

So much this, seriously.

The rule book has Matched Play (competitive), Narrative Play, Campaign, and on and on. In short, *most* of the game styles are designed to be played outside of a tournament-style, strictly competitive mindset.

It's a miniatures war game, what's the point if not to compete? You want to roleplay, get a D&D group or find someone who wants to RP40K with you.

This sounds like a problem with developing a regular group of like-minded players who want to play the game in the same style you do.

Does competitiveness ruin 40k?

If you are a competitive player that enjoys treating 40k like pro-sports the answer is a resounding NO.

If you are a narrative player that wants to play against armies from the narrative and engage in games that aren't about min/maxing optimization, your answer will be a resounding YES.

You will find the skew has always favored competitive play though. This means if you aren't wanting the pro sports version of 40k, you may have an uphill climb to find players like you in your area.

I think it is only part of the problem. The other part is the attitude that most competitive players have. The WAAC mentality, where you throw away your decency to win and have gakky tactics like slow play and rushing. That type of player is what is ruining 40k.

I like a good challenge, but I like my opponent to enjoy the game as well.

It is part of the problem IMHO. Nevermind the fact 40k is not and never has been designed as a competitive game, it's mainly the fact that competitive players are so willing to ignore everything that makes 40k worth playing (IMHO) over other games with much better balance and rules.

The other issue is GW cannot properly balance the game, so it's very easy for competitive players to mix and match and min/max things without care for the fluff or backstory. If GW was better at balance, there wouldn't be "Must take" or "Never take" options in lists.

Nope. The problem lies with the community and it's ability to communicate.

If you're asking how good a unit is and you provide zero context you're probably going to get the WAAC perspective. The nice thing about balancing is that SO FEW units fall into that "never take" bucket than ever in the game's history.

 Sim-Life wrote:
It's not ruined the game, but it's certainly ruined discussion online. All anyone talks about is the most competitive levels of play and when people ask advice they'll only get responses assuming that they're going to be playing at high level tournaments. Likewise, people automatically assume that everyone is playing against WAAC super lists.

This is true too and a big problem with the competitive mindset in general; it trickles down to affect everything even though the vast majority of people will never need to worry about the national meta that you see at like LVO or Adepticon or SoCal Open. Yet everything is treated as though you are building a list for that and you are frequently told to drop or rework an entire list due to some boogeyman that you likely will never face, instead of being told how to use what you have available.

 TwinPoleTheory 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.

So much this, seriously.

The rule book has Matched Play (competitive), Narrative Play, Campaign, and on and on. In short, *most* of the game styles are designed to be played outside of a tournament-style, strictly competitive mindset.

It's a miniatures war game, what's the point if not to compete? You want to roleplay, get a D&D group or find someone who wants to RP40K with you.

This sounds like a problem with developing a regular group of like-minded players who want to play the game in the same style you do.

This is often easier said than done, especially when many local communities are built around a store, where the only events are monthly tournaments and pickup play is often just a mirror of that.

The other problem is that GW's content for non tournament play is largely either total garbage or just doesnt exist. GW's campaign supplements have historically been pretty picture books that give a couple variant pickup/tournament style missions, usually with a huge arbitrary bonus for one side or trivial table special rule to represent some sort of fluff, and maybe some formations in 7E. Other games give detailed force outlays, preset terrain layouts, detailed scenario rules, explicit rewards, detailed campaign trees, etc.

I once entered a 40k tournament. It was one of the most unpleasant experiences I ever had in the hobby. Suffice it to say, I now only do casual pickup games with my friends. For me, 40k is a relaxing way to unwind once a week, away from the pressures of life.

Competitive players always struck me as a joyless and miserable lot, never having an actual fun or enjoyment out of playing what amounts to a game of toy soldiers. Typically I see a sea of unpainted grey plastic for their armies, usually the flavor of the month.

Conversely, some of the best games that I ever had was with a Guard player who had loving painted and converted his army. He stuck by it all through 6th and 7th, despite all the competitive players complaining how bad Guard was. He had real love for his army. He and I always had incredibly fun and engaging games, and I always liked playing against him. I was fine with losing against him as long we both had a thrilling closely-fought game.

 Sim-Life wrote:
It's not ruined the game, but it's certainly ruined discussion online. All anyone talks about is the most competitive levels of play and when people ask advice they'll only get responses assuming that they're going to be playing at high level tournaments. Likewise, people automatically assume that everyone is playing against WAAC super lists.

But what's the point of discussion otherwise? You can only have so many conversations about "I like this unit" before you actually do an analysis. If you're just talking like that, there's no dialogue.

 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"

Gree wrote:
I once entered a 40k tournament. It was one of the most unpleasant experiences I ever had in the hobby. Suffice it to say, I now only do casual pickup games with my friends. For me, 40k is a relaxing way to unwind once a week, away from the pressures of life.

Competitive players always struck me as a joyless and miserable lot, never having an actual fun or enjoyment out of playing what amounts to a game of toy soldiers. Typically I see a sea of unpainted grey plastic for their armies, usually the flavor of the month.

Conversely, some of the best games that I ever had was with a Guard player who had loving painted and converted his army. He stuck by it all through 6th and 7th, despite all the competitive players complaining how bad Guard was. He had real love for his army. He and I always had incredibly fun and engaging games, and I always liked playing against him. I was fine with losing against him as long we both had a thrilling closely-fought game.

And I've *never* had a bad experience at a tournament. I think maybe you went in with an incorrect perception on how tournaments operate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:

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"

This is 100% not GWs fault. If people like that more then you're going to have to work a little harder to get a group together. My FLGS is mostly competitive, but the local GW store never fails to be casual and offers support for all aspects of the hobby.

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.

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.

Daedalus81 wrote:

Gree wrote:
I once entered a 40k tournament. It was one of the most unpleasant experiences I ever had in the hobby. Suffice it to say, I now only do casual pickup games with my friends. For me, 40k is a relaxing way to unwind once a week, away from the pressures of life.

Competitive players always struck me as a joyless and miserable lot, never having an actual fun or enjoyment out of playing what amounts to a game of toy soldiers. Typically I see a sea of unpainted grey plastic for their armies, usually the flavor of the month.

Conversely, some of the best games that I ever had was with a Guard player who had loving painted and converted his army. He stuck by it all through 6th and 7th, despite all the competitive players complaining how bad Guard was. He had real love for his army. He and I always had incredibly fun and engaging games, and I always liked playing against him. I was fine with losing against him as long we both had a thrilling closely-fought game.

And I've *never* had a bad experience at a tournament. I think maybe you went in with an incorrect perception on how tournaments operate.

I went in with as a blank slate hoping for a good time. I left feeling very let down. Different experiences for different people I guess. I have no desire to waste my time and money on that sort of event again.

I have no interest in tournaments. I am quite satisfied with my decision. I am quite fortunate to have a small circle of friends and acquaintances to have fun and relaxing games.

If the amount of complaining online about the competitive scene is any indication, then I believe I made the correct decision.