Why 40k as it is cant work with E-sports values

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.

**Nidzrule!**

I saw the thread on the Florida Iron Man tournament and that represents my concern that 40k is being pushed too hard into becoming something it is not - i.e. Esports.

While Frontline Gaming and Nova have done a lot to increase the popularity of the "competitive" scene, the fundamental issue I have is that 40k has a pay to win element within it. Now I am not saying that this is the "be all and end all" reason for doing well in 40k as I also believe that player skill does factor into it, however, even 9th edition 40k is a much shallower game compared to chess or even League of Legends. The skill ceiling is not that high.

I have been in and out of the competitive scene and I did come to the eventual realisation that with the issuance of new editions and codices, the meta can change drastically. If you dont pivot or play a meta busting army, then you have to chase to place well in tournaments.

The fact that there are these outfits like Glasshammer Gaming, Art of War, etc. is concerning to me as they try to promote a reality where its all about player skill through their coaching services but I dont think that's true.

I think that the most strong players emerge because:

1. There is a club or a community of gamers who are into the competitive scene and are willing to spend time and money chasing the meta
2. If you play against other strong players with equally meta or meta-busting armies then you start to become strong

The fact is that the competitive scene is quite amateur and I find that these outfits generally already have a massive advantage in that they have a stable of players who can spend a lot of time and money to go to tournaments and dominate the standings. The allegations in the Florida Ironman tournament are really concerning if these outfits try to manipulate standings to benefit themselves and their bottomline further.

Happy to hear others' thoughts about this latest evolution in 40k.

**Tyranid Horde**

If your biggest issue with 40k is the pay to win aspect, let me introduce you to card games, sports, anything else that requires an investment. Magic the Gathering, Hearthstone, F1 are all examples where cash is needed in a sport or esport that changes when regulations or rules change, it's the same with Warhammer.

Skill is a pretty real aspect of the game, and in a shallow game, I am amazed at some of the nuanced plays you actually see in 40k.

Skill of course develops where the gaming groups play competitively, it's a game of one-up-manship the entire time, that's how you get better. Casual play is never going to help your game if you aren't treating it like a tournament game. That is how you see the same names make appearances at the top tables consistently, if it wasn't a game with a high enough ceiling, anyone could do it.

**Hulksmash**

The same people have been placing in 5+ editions of the game. New people come in and do well but there are literally people who have won best general in every edition since 4th (when gw pushed more independent events).

**PaddyMick**

Playing competatively can be fun, playing for money is dumb. Please correct me if I have this wrong.

I was genuinely taken aback when I got back into 40k and heard that there are tournaments with prize money now.

I think I get what you mean when you say it's 'shallow' but it is very obviously a hugely complex game where the scope for cheating is huge.

**Slipspace**

Hulksmash wrote:
The same people have been placing in 5+ editions of the game. New people come in and do well but there are literally people who have won best general in every edition since 4th (when gw pushed more independent events).

Genuine query: given the huge changes 40k has undergone over those 5+ editions, does this indicate there is some underlying "40k skill" that separates these players from everyone else, or is it down to the factors other people have pointed out above - mainly having the time, money and enthusiasm to chase the meta with a likeminded bunch of people?

As far as 40k as an e-sport, I think it's a complete non-starter. There simply isn't enough skill or depth involved in the the game and it's too unbalanced to hold enough people's interests at the more competitive end of the game. Crucially, it's also really, really bad as a streamed experience, at least in the way it's done now. Games are too long and involve too many dice rolls and the visual spectacle is often lacking too.

**puma713**

PaddyMick wrote:

I was genuinely taken aback when I got back into 40k and heard that there are tournaments with prize money now.

Really? Have you never played in a tournament with prize support or store credit?

**LunarSol**

Honestly, the primary issue with 40k as an eSport is just the game time. 4+ hours is a LONG stream. The number of times I've seen one that's 2 hours into its runtime and still on round one is.... high. It's like watching football, but one team exclusively has the ball for an entire quarter. It's just not very dramatic unless the players are creating unnecessary drama.

eSports culture itself is also just a little weird. It's so funded by pandering and audience interaction that constantly interrupts the action in general, but there's so much dead air in 40k it REALLY stands out. That's mostly just me be an old man not hip with the new age, but I "feel" these things a lot more watching 40k than videogames or even other table top streams.

**PaddyMick**

puma713 wrote:
PaddyMick wrote:

I was genuinely taken aback when I got back into 40k and heard that there are tournaments with prize money now.

Really? Have you never played in a tournament with prize support or store credit?

Sure, like painted minis or t-shirts or token trophies at blood bowl tourneys, but never cash. However perhaps I should have mentioned that last time I played 40k was 2nd edition and I was just a kid down the local games club. I am overawed by how big it's got and mostly that's a good thing, but I don't remember anyone getting into debt for the hobby back then like I hear about now. I guess money sloshing around is a mixed blessing.

**Hulksmash**

Slipspace wrote:
Hulksmash wrote:
The same people have been placing in 5+ editions of the game. New people come in and do well but there are literally people who have won best general in every edition since 4th (when gw pushed more independent events).

Genuine query: given the huge changes 40k has undergone over those 5+ editions, does this indicate there is some underlying "40k skill" that separates these players from everyone else, or is it down to the factors other people have pointed out above - mainly having the time, money and enthusiasm to chase the meta with a likeminded bunch of people?

As far as 40k as an e-sport, I think it's a complete non-starter. There simply isn't enough skill or depth involved in the the game and it's too unbalanced to hold enough people's interests at the more competitive end of the game. Crucially, it's also really, really bad as a streamed experience, at least in the way it's done now. Games are too long and involve too many dice rolls and the visual spectacle is often lacking too.

I mean, time and enthusiasm is something that's needed to be good at anything unless you're a prodigy. But reasonably I know half a dozen people who have been winning best general/best overall when BP was king since it became a thing in 4th edition but mostly 5th edition. Most of them have taken breaks here and there from the hobby due to life or what not but whenever they play they are normally in the running. Some of them literally play less than 50 games a year (me) including all RTT's and GT's they go to. Some play a lot more. Most of them don't "chase" the meta that hard. There was some chasing with formations in 7th but honestly most haven't shifted to heavily from army to army or anything since or before. Unless you ever played nids. Then you've definitely just switched armies if you want to compete cause god they're terrible

They might tweak their army and add units here and there but that's no different than green fees, upgrading clubs, or driving range costs for people quasi competitive with golf. Are they paying to win?

The basic skills do translate from one edition to another. It's not like the game is massively different than 3rd right now. Most of the "huge" changes have been actual tweaks. Even the shift from 7th to 8th was more just a reset than a truly massive change. List building is a skill and then on the table performance is a skill. Gotta manage both but not individually. It has to be done togther. Like it or not skill is a factor. Telling yourself it isn't is just making yourself feel better about not being able to bridge that gap. Not that it's an amazing skill or makes someone at 40k better than anyone else outside of 40k. It's just another skill. I don't claim my aunt pays to win at baking contests held at county fairs because she's better at baking than I'll ever be. I just accept it's a skill that I won't have at that level and can enjoy it at the level I do have it.

That said I don't understand 40k as an e-sport. There is zero entertainment value as anything other than background and it moves to slowly to cool plays to really be picked up. The sheer amount of dice rolling is nuts and it's not generally able to be followed on screen. Underworlds I could see working of all GW's games because it's always just a couple of dice which means it's easy to see and follow with specific rigs.

**Overread**

Hulksmash wrote:

That said I don't understand 40k as an e-sport. There is zero entertainment value as anything other than background and it moves to slowly to cool plays to really be picked up. The sheer amount of dice rolling is nuts and it's not generally able to be followed on screen. Underworlds I could see working of all GW's games because it's always just a couple of dice which means it's easy to see and follow with specific rigs.

What about Chess - where the action is even slower in some competitive events.

In the end its important to realise that sometimes watching is a different hobby and interest in itself. There are many who love playing football who hate watching it and vis versa; just as there are many who like both aspects.

I'd also say that a lot of the competitive sporting side for 40K is really in its infancy. GW has never pushed it so a lot of the production elements have issues because its just not held up to a high standard nor has heavy investment in it. We don't have someone with a live video camera able to skirt the game board to dip in and out action scenes; heck many events don't even have multiple cameras to show dice rolls in trays and action on the table overhead. We don't have many commentators etc...

Basically part of the reason of its limitations is that we don't have the underlaying infrastructure and skill training to support it.

The real issues might revolve around the quality of rules writing and structure; indeed if GW wanted to get serious about it they'd likely have to improve internal and inter army balance and also the overall quality of their writing just to cut down on issues. The actual concept of a wargame being entertainment isn't the issue, its more the underlaying mechanics needing tightening up and then on top a big investment into the media side of things. All very doable. Don't forget in the past no one would have thought youtube channels playing games would have been popular or services like Twitch would ever take off. Part of that was lack of vision, part was simply lack of having the infrastructure in place to allow it - easy streaming software and internet connections being fast enough etc... Players who invest in good microphones and good audio recording etc...

**Hulksmash**

We're basically saying the same thing Overread. I dont see the value now. But thats because primarily of the set ups and such.

I dont think chess is comparable though. The core of chess is soneasy that anyone watching can at least follow the primar action and can sometimes see a bit into the future moves. 40k because of all the random plus the sheer rules depth is a different place.

**Sunny Side Up**

There are obviously games much more suited to e-sports

The are even GW games more suited to e-sports (not perfectly, suited, but better). Warhammer Underworlds for example. Much smaller board you can focus on with a camera. A game takes .. 10 minutes? You play best of 3 or best of 5 and still be done in under an hour. No tape measures, templates, etc.. that introduce unnecessary ambiguity. Etc..

But ultimately, Glasshammer Gaming, Art of War, FLG, etc.. don't wanna push the E-sport angle on the miniatures game that would be most suitable to it.

They wanna push the E-sport angle on the miniatures game they can squeeze the most money out of, and that is currently 40K.

If 40K and, dunno, Malifaux would magically switch their share in the market tomorrow, they would all switch their outfits to now do E-Sport Malifaux. Not because the game is suited for it, but because that game would then be the one with the most customers.

**Cybtroll**

There EVEN GW GAMES much more suited to become esport.

One better than (almost) anything else?

Bloodbowl. Time limita, fails close your turn, few dice, and a much more practical board. Also, an ongoing narrative with injuries and such.

That MAY become an esport (I still think at that point would be easier to play the PC version... Then what kind of esport it would be?). Wh40K? Nope.

**Stevefamine**

100% OP. Agreed completed

Tyranid Horde wrote:
If your biggest issue with 40k is the pay to win aspect, let me introduce you to card games, sports, anything else that requires an investment. Magic the Gathering, Hearthstone, F1 are all examples where cash is needed in a sport or esport that changes when regulations or rules change, it's the same with Warhammer.

Skill is a pretty real aspect of the game, and in a shallow game, I am amazed at some of the nuanced plays you actually see in 40k.

Skill of course develops where the gaming groups play competitively, it's a game of one-up-manship the entire time, that's how you get better. Casual play is never going to help your game if you aren't treating it like a tournament game. That is how you see the same names make appearances at the top tables consistently, if it wasn't a game with a high enough ceiling, anyone could do it.

Oh yeah I played in a few Hearthstone local events / grinding to near Legend and probably have $1000 on my account. Unlike MTG which I sold off my net deck

**yukishiro1**

There's definite skill involved in 40k, and the better players do tend to win. It's just within a certain bubble. Not everything is viable, and yes, you need significant money to pursue what is viable at a certain time if you want to win events.

I don't think any of those things preclude it as an e-sport. What does make me doubt it will ever turn into anything major is the sheer time requirements involved in getting an army into a good condition, combined with the sheer length of games. This makes it a tough sell both for competitors and for watchers.

A secondary element is the RNG inherent in dice games. Although dice rolls rarely actually determine games in 40k, they are a constant reminder that chance is a huge part of the basic engine, and that makes it a hard sell for an e-sports environment.

**gundam**

yukishiro1 wrote:
What does make me doubt it will ever turn into anything major is the sheer time requirements involved in getting an army into a good condition, combined with the sheer length of games. This makes it a tough sell both for competitors and for watchers.

It's not only the money but the TIME is so long, and they "require" more stringent painting standards. Cleaning and assembling takes long enough, but painting to a certain standard takes forever.

I work FT and it is HARD to find enough time to finish my army. For that reason, I started buying painted armies from ebay.

**Irkjoe**

Hulksmash wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
Hulksmash wrote:
The same people have been placing in 5+ editions of the game. New people come in and do well but there are literally people who have won best general in every edition since 4th (when gw pushed more independent events).

Genuine query: given the huge changes 40k has undergone over those 5+ editions, does this indicate there is some underlying "40k skill" that separates these players from everyone else, or is it down to the factors other people have pointed out above - mainly having the time, money and enthusiasm to chase the meta with a likeminded bunch of people?

As far as 40k as an e-sport, I think it's a complete non-starter. There simply isn't enough skill or depth involved in the the game and it's too unbalanced to hold enough people's interests at the more competitive end of the game. Crucially, it's also really, really bad as a streamed experience, at least in the way it's done now. Games are too long and involve too many dice rolls and the visual spectacle is often lacking too.

I mean, time and enthusiasm is something that's needed to be good at anything unless you're a prodigy. But reasonably I know half a dozen people who have been winning best general/best overall when BP was king since it became a thing in 4th edition but mostly 5th edition. Most of them have taken breaks here and there from the hobby due to life or what not but whenever they play they are normally in the running. Some of them literally play less than 50 games a year (me) including all RTT's and GT's they go to. Some play a lot more. Most of them don't "chase" the meta that hard. There was some chasing with formations in 7th but honestly most haven't shifted to heavily from army to army or anything since or before. Unless you ever played nids. Then you've definitely just switched armies if you want to compete cause god they're terrible They might tweak their army and add units here and there but that's no different than green fees, upgrading clubs, or driving range costs for people quasi competitive with golf. Are they paying to win?

The basic skills do translate from one edition to another. It's not like the game is massively different than 3rd right now. Most of the "huge" changes have been actual tweaks. Even the shift from 7th to 8th was more just a reset than a truly massive change. List building is a skill and then on the table performance is a skill. Gotta manage both but not individually. It has to be done togther. Like it or not skill is a factor. Telling yourself it isn't is just making yourself feel better about not being able to bridge that gap. Not that it's an amazing skill or makes someone at 40k better than anyone else outside of 40k. It's just another skill. I don't claim my aunt pays to win at baking contests held at county fairs because she's better at baking than I'll ever be. I just accept it's a skill that I won't have at that level and can enjoy it at the level I do have it.

That said I don't understand 40k as an e-sport. There is zero entertainment value as anything other than background and it moves to slowly to cool plays to really be picked up. The sheer amount of dice rolling is nuts and it's not generally able to be followed on screen. Underworlds I could see working of all GW's games because it's always just a couple of dice which means it's easy to see and follow with specific rigs.

All you have to do is compare 40k to another competitive game to see how little decision making is involved and how it is outdone in every measurable aspect of gameplay.

**gundam**

PaddyMick wrote:
puma713 wrote:
PaddyMick wrote:

I was genuinely taken aback when I got back into 40k and heard that there are tournaments with prize money now.

Really? Have you never played in a tournament with prize support or store credit?

Sure, like painted minis or t-shirts or token trophies at blood bowl tourneys, but never cash. However perhaps I should have mentioned that last time I played 40k was 2nd edition and I was just a kid down the local games club. I am overawed by how big it's got and mostly that's a good thing, but I don't remember anyone getting into debt for the hobby back then like I hear about now. I guess money sloshing around is a mixed blessing.

yeah its insane how much the hobby costs now. So many people have their life savings, hundreds/thousands of free time, etc invested in plastic toys

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Irkjoe wrote:
Hulksmash wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
Hulksmash wrote:
The same people have been placing in 5+ editions of the game. New people come in and do well but there are literally people who have won best general in every edition since 4th (when gw pushed more independent events).

Genuine query: given the huge changes 40k has undergone over those 5+ editions, does this indicate there is some underlying "40k skill" that separates these players from everyone else, or is it down to the factors other people have pointed out above - mainly having the time, money and enthusiasm to chase the meta with a likeminded bunch of people?

As far as 40k as an e-sport, I think it's a complete non-starter. There simply isn't enough skill or depth involved in the the game and it's too unbalanced to hold enough people's interests at the more competitive end of the game. Crucially, it's also really, really bad as a streamed experience, at least in the way it's done now. Games are too long and involve too many dice rolls and the visual spectacle is often lacking too.

plus dont forget the innacuracy of measuring by hand

I mean, time and enthusiasm is something that's needed to be good at anything unless you're a prodigy. But reasonably I know half a dozen people who have been winning best general/best overall when BP was king since it became a thing in 4th edition but mostly 5th edition. Most of them have taken breaks here and there from the hobby due to life or what not but whenever they play they are normally in the running. Some of them literally play less than 50 games a year (me) including all RTT's and GT's they go to. Some play a lot more. Most of them don't "chase" the meta that hard. There was some chasing with formations in 7th but honestly most haven't shifted to heavily from army to army or anything since or before. Unless you ever played nids. Then you've definitely just switched armies if you want to compete cause god they're terrible They might tweak their army and add units here and there but that's no different than green fees, upgrading clubs, or driving range costs for people quasi competitive with golf. Are they paying to win?

The basic skills do translate from one edition to another. It's not like the game is massively different than 3rd right now. Most of the "huge" changes have been actual tweaks. Even the shift from 7th to 8th was more just a reset than a truly massive change. List building is a skill and then on the table performance is a skill. Gotta manage both but not individually. It has to be done togther. Like it or not skill is a factor. Telling yourself it isn't is just making yourself feel better about not being able to bridge that gap. Not that it's an amazing skill or makes someone at 40k better than anyone else outside of 40k. It's just another skill. I don't claim my aunt pays to win at baking contests held at county fairs because she's better at baking than I'll ever be. I just accept it's a skill that I won't have at that level and can enjoy it at the level I do have it.

That said I don't understand 40k as an e-sport. There is zero entertainment value as anything other than background and it moves to slowly to cool plays to really be picked up. The sheer amount of dice rolling is nuts and it's not generally able to be followed on screen. Underworlds I could see working of all GW's games because it's always just a couple of dice which means it's easy to see and follow with specific rigs.

All you have to do is compare 40k to another competitive game to see how little decision making is involved and how it is outdone in every measurable aspect of gameplay.

**Nidzrule!**

I am not trying to say that there isnt a cadre of players that have the skill to consistently rise to the top. Clearly there has been over time and I believe it is a combination of skill, time invested and money invested.

But I think people underplay the time and money investment to be competitive in this hobby. Golf is an expensive hobby but the rules dont change suddently with a new rulebook or codex produced that necessitates beginners to catch up with both equipment and knowledge. A golf amateur can use the same skills he learnt 10 years ago today. With 40k some of the skills clearly would still apply but catching up with the meta will require a time and equipment (miniatures) investment.

**Hulksmash**

Nidzrule! wrote:
I am not trying to say that there isnt a cadre of players that have the skill to consistently rise to the top. Clearly there has been over time and I believe it is a combination of skill, time invested and money invested.

But I think people underplay the time and money investment to be competitive in this hobby. Golf is an expensive hobby but the rules dont change suddently with a new rulebook or codex produced that necessitates beginners to catch up with both equipment and knowledge. A golf amateur can use the same skills he learnt 10 years ago today. With 40k some of the skills clearly would still apply but catching up with the meta will require a time and equipment (miniatures) investment.

I disagree. The primary skills like movement and in game planning translate with every edition. People really over rate the extent of change between editions. Also while the overall rules of golf dont change the equipment does and physical skills need t9 be maintained or regained. Ask anyone who stopped playing for a few years.

@irkjoe
If the game is so shallow why is it the same people winning over and over?

Also hearthstone and magic dont have many more deep decisions during game play than 40k. But theyre c9nsidered extremely competitive.

**gundam**

Nidzrule! wrote:
I am not trying to say that there isnt a cadre of players that have the skill to consistently rise to the top. Clearly there has been over time and I believe it is a combination of skill, time invested and money invested.

But I think people underplay the time and money investment to be competitive in this hobby. Golf is an expensive hobby but the rules dont change suddently with a new rulebook or codex produced that necessitates beginners to catch up with both equipment and knowledge. A golf amateur can use the same skills he learnt 10 years ago today. With 40k some of the skills clearly would still apply but catching up with the meta will require a time and equipment (miniatures) investment.

yeah I agree with that. The money and, most importantly, the time sink needed to get started it will probably keep 40k from being a viable competitive hobby. The way the meta changes, missions, etc. Needing to read and study 3 or 4 books just for your main army, it is another underplayed time sink in this hobby.

You can more easily stop playing something else and come back with it less rest than in 40k .

In just a few editions, you would need a completely new army and 3 or 4 books. And that is only if you play one army. You are talking about several hundreds of hours in paid work and free time painting this army.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hulksmash wrote:
Nidzrule! wrote:
I am not trying to say that there isnt a cadre of players that have the skill to consistently rise to the top. Clearly there has been over time and I believe it is a combination of skill, time invested and money invested.

But I think people underplay the time and money investment to be competitive in this hobby. Golf is an expensive hobby but the rules dont change suddently with a new rulebook or codex produced that necessitates beginners to catch up with both equipment and knowledge. A golf amateur can use the same skills he learnt 10 years ago today. With 40k some of the skills clearly would still apply but catching up with the meta will require a time and equipment (miniatures) investment.

I disagree. The primary skills like movement and in game planning translate with every edition. People really over rate the extent of change between editions. Also while the overall rules of golf dont change the equipment does and physical skills need t9 be maintained or regained. Ask anyone who stopped playing for a few years.

@irkjoe
If the game is so shallow why is it the same people winning over and over?

Also hearthstone and magic dont have many more deep decisions during game play than 40k. But theyre c9nsidered extremely competitive.

The movement staying the same is not really accurate. Tau castle of 8th is completely worthless now. The movement that worked 2 editions ago, would likely lead to disaster with half of the armies now.
Another problem with 40k is the unbalance as well. The buy now meta keeps this from being completely balanced. Also I agree with Nidzrule on the reasons listed above. I can go and pick up my golf clubs and football cleats. I would probably find out I need to buy 3+ books and spend hundreds of dollars and hours assembling and painting a new army.

You dont need to reassembl/painte other hobby equipment and follow new rules.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nidzrule! wrote:
I saw the thread on the Florida Iron Man tournament and that represents my concern that 40k is being pushed too hard into becoming something it is not - i.e. Esports.

While Frontline Gaming and Nova have done a lot to increase the popularity of the "competitive" scene, the fundamental issue I have is that 40k has a pay to win element within it. Now I am not saying that this is the "be all and end all" reason for doing well in 40k as I also believe that player skill does factor into it, however, even 9th edition 40k is a much shallower game compared to chess or even League of Legends. The skill ceiling is not that high.

I have been in and out of the competitive scene and I did come to the eventual realisation that with the issuance of new editions and codices, the meta can change drastically. If you dont pivot or play a meta busting army, then you have to chase to place well in tournaments.

The fact that there are these outfits like Glasshammer Gaming, Art of War, etc. is concerning to me as they try to promote a reality where its all about player skill through their coaching services but I dont think that's true.

I think you are right about it. I dont really see 40k becoming a viable competitive scene unless GW spends a LOT of money on play testing (i.e. they dont pay their play testers, Art of War has said so on streams that they dont get paid.) and coming up with balanced books that come out in bulk instead of a drip schedule, which works towards their main goal which is sale of minis. It would require to basically redo their whole business model and game set up which they will not do.

Also your point about this game just being about exploding holes just hits the nail about this game being more swallow than other games such as League of Legends.

This thread about how the last LVO was won on a broken shady ruleset, that should have been ruled illegal, basically just went in and easily won the tournament. It was obviously ruled illegal after but at the time they judges couldn't agree that it should haven't been used.

Spoiler:

**Slipspace**

Hulksmash wrote:
Nidzrule! wrote:
I am not trying to say that there isnt a cadre of players that have the skill to consistently rise to the top. Clearly there has been over time and I believe it is a combination of skill, time invested and money invested.

But I think people underplay the time and money investment to be competitive in this hobby. Golf is an expensive hobby but the rules dont change suddently with a new rulebook or codex produced that necessitates beginners to catch up with both equipment and knowledge. A golf amateur can use the same skills he learnt 10 years ago today. With 40k some of the skills clearly would still apply but catching up with the meta will require a time and equipment (miniatures) investment.

I disagree. The primary skills like movement and in game planning translate with every edition. People really over rate the extent of change between editions. Also while the overall rules of golf dont change the equipment does and physical skills need t9 be maintained or regained. Ask anyone who stopped playing for a few years.

@irkjoe
If the game is so shallow why is it the same people winning over and over?

Also hearthstone and magic dont have many more deep decisions during game play than 40k. But theyre c9nsidered extremely competitive.

I suspect the main reason the same people win is because they're the ones who put the time and money into the game having already developed the fairly basic skills required to do well. They're also the ones who travel to most of the big tournaments (See above re: money).

As for why Hearthstone or MTG are considered competitive, I think it's likely down to more in-game decisions with hidden information leading to greater skill expression than you see in 40k. I don't really follow competitive MTG and haven't followed competitive HS for a while now, but a large part of being at the top of HS was certainly the ability to analyse the meta, build effective decks that are both powerful and not countered by the prevailing meta, and use the limited resources at your disposal better than your opponent. The way those games are structured you often don't know if your decisions were correct or not until after the game has finished and you have a chance to analyse your plays. I think that's where 40k often falls down. Information is all open in 40k and decisions are often obviously correct or incorrect because of it whereas in games like HS or MTG you need to think about plays your opponent may make even without knowing if they even have the opportunity to make them.

**gundam**

Slipspace wrote:

I suspect the main reason the same people win is because they're the ones who put the time and money into the game having already developed the fairly basic skills required to do well. They're also the ones who travel to most of the big tournaments

The ones who win the most are the ones that find the most busted combos/obscure rules (that inevitable get fixed after) not necessarily the best strategy. You would think that after 30+ years GW would have developed a balanced game. But their profit and growth relies on meta changes and broken rules.

**Irkjoe**

@Hulksmash A confluence of willingness to travel, keep up with the newest releases, and being connected to organizers. The point was that 40k is a poor vehicle for competitive play. Hope it goes the way of warmachine.

**Overread**

Irkjoe wrote:
@Hulksmash A confluence of willingness to travel, keep up with the newest releases, and being connected to organizers. The point was that 40k is a poor vehicle for competitive play. Hope it goes the way of warmachine.

Warmachine had its issues too, whilst the rules were much tighter and better written, their push toward a much more dynamic user tested system has somewhat backfired. Granted other things happened as well, but in general trying to take a PC game based speed of feedback and changing stats into a physical wargame creates a huge disconnect with physical and digital media.

Personally I think digital should support the physical, but not attempt to replace it functionally.

Warmachine has had huge issues focusing purely on the competitive to the point whre its basically where Old World Fantasy was in years past - dwindling loyal experienced gamers and very low recruitment of new gamers with a big skill level gap.

Personally I'm hoping PP is testing the waters with Warcaster and will port over working ideas into Warmachine/Hordes in a big reboot effort to get their name and games back on the mainstream market.

**Irkjoe**

Agreed, I meant that I hope the competitive e-sports element of 40k destroys itself in the same way. The video game moba influence dumbs down the rules, art, and miniature aesthetic. Pretty much everything is made worse by it imo.

**Overread**

I honestly think there's a happy middleground element, plus you can't deny that competitive events run in a more organised fashion can have major benefits including increased marketing, exposure, focus and points of regional and national geek unity.

One of the major issues we often read about online is when people of different skill levels are playing together, often (esp with GW games) the rules get blamed for the power disparity, but often as not its a secondary element to the players also having very big differences in skill level.

More networking and marketing and awareness means a chance for different hobby and game groups to network and link together. this becomes very important once people leave schools/universities and it honestly becomes a lot harder to form groups and even be aware of other groups around.

Pushing GW toward a tighter approach to rules is also not a bad thing, its something we can all benefit from.

Warmachine benefited greatly in its early and mid days from the competitive focus. Their problems were not just the competitive end which caused their issues, it was one part of many that happened at the same time.

Rules updates and Errata GW already coves with 1 annual book per game and FAQ/Errata free downloads. Many of which, for specific armies, are not that big. Plus if they were pushed to write better in the first place those documents would get smaller.

In general they could adapt to a happy middleground where competitive can help promote and advertise and make the world more aware of the game, whilst at the same time not dominating it. Ergo learn from PP's mistakes and improve.

PP did indeed have problems following the digital rules approach; it split lore and rules; it resulted in lore falling away entirely; it shifted a focus on buying and building armies and its had a long series of issues. But it can work - Infinity seems to make it work and GW could do more to make it work a bit more for them without changing anything at a fundamental level in how they operate or release the game - its more about tightening up the system that is already in place not replacing it.

**gundam**

Overread wrote:
I honestly think there's a happy middleground element, plus you can't deny that competitive events run in a more organised fashion can have major benefits including increased marketing, exposure, focus and points of regional and national geek unity.

Pushing GW toward a tighter approach to rules is also not a bad thing, its something we can all benefit from.

tbh that would be the biggest benefit. I don't think we should be wishing for the competitive side of things to fall apart but a tighter approach to rules would make the game better.

**ERJAK**

Irkjoe wrote:
Hulksmash wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
Hulksmash wrote:
The same people have been placing in 5+ editions of the game. New people come in and do well but there are literally people who have won best general in every edition since 4th (when gw pushed more independent events).

Genuine query: given the huge changes 40k has undergone over those 5+ editions, does this indicate there is some underlying "40k skill" that separates these players from everyone else, or is it down to the factors other people have pointed out above - mainly having the time, money and enthusiasm to chase the meta with a likeminded bunch of people?

As far as 40k as an e-sport, I think it's a complete non-starter. There simply isn't enough skill or depth involved in the the game and it's too unbalanced to hold enough people's interests at the more competitive end of the game. Crucially, it's also really, really bad as a streamed experience, at least in the way it's done now. Games are too long and involve too many dice rolls and the visual spectacle is often lacking too.

I mean, time and enthusiasm is something that's needed to be good at anything unless you're a prodigy. But reasonably I know half a dozen people who have been winning best general/best overall when BP was king since it became a thing in 4th edition but mostly 5th edition. Most of them have taken breaks here and there from the hobby due to life or what not but whenever they play they are normally in the running. Some of them literally play less than 50 games a year (me) including all RTT's and GT's they go to. Some play a lot more. Most of them don't "chase" the meta that hard. There was some chasing with formations in 7th but honestly most haven't shifted to heavily from army to army or anything since or before. Unless you ever played nids. Then you've definitely just switched armies if you want to compete cause god they're terrible They might tweak their army and add units here and there but that's no different than green fees, upgrading clubs, or driving range costs for people quasi competitive with golf. Are they paying to win?

The basic skills do translate from one edition to another. It's not like the game is massively different than 3rd right now. Most of the "huge" changes have been actual tweaks. Even the shift from 7th to 8th was more just a reset than a truly massive change. List building is a skill and then on the table performance is a skill. Gotta manage both but not individually. It has to be done togther. Like it or not skill is a factor. Telling yourself it isn't is just making yourself feel better about not being able to bridge that gap. Not that it's an amazing skill or makes someone at 40k better than anyone else outside of 40k. It's just another skill. I don't claim my aunt pays to win at baking contests held at county fairs because she's better at baking than I'll ever be. I just accept it's a skill that I won't have at that level and can enjoy it at the level I do have it.

That said I don't understand 40k as an e-sport. There is zero entertainment value as anything other than background and it moves to slowly to cool plays to really be picked up. The sheer amount of dice rolling is nuts and it's not generally able to be followed on screen. Underworlds I could see working of all GW's games because it's always just a couple of dice which means it's easy to see and follow with specific rigs.

All you have to do is compare 40k to another competitive game to see how little decision making is involved and how it is outdone in every measurable aspect of gameplay.

Spoken like someone who is really, really terrible at 40k.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Irkjoe wrote:
Agreed, I meant that I hope the competitive e-sports element of 40k destroys itself in the same way. The video game moba influence dumbs down the rules, art, and miniature aesthetic. Pretty much everything is made worse by it imo.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about and are just tossing out buzzwords. Seriously, MOBA? Oh right, I forgot about 9th edition added lanes and a base, and characters that level up and creeps and items you can buy with gold generated during the game or any of the other absolute basics required to call a game a MOBA. Your ideas are stupid.

**Irkjoe**

There's very little decision making involved when all of your units can do everything all of the time and threaten the entire board. Competitive 40k is just target priority where you can lose turn one without giant walls to hide behind, relative to warmachine for example.

Some more buzzwords that apply, disney's warhammer heroes the authentic and dark game returns to its roots in 9th edition. Players take on the role of Guilliman and pretend the game is good. Complete with in-app purchases.