My Meagre thoughts on Competitive 40k

[Brother Claudio]

I grow weary whenever I see an article or forum topic with this heading. Because in my eyes, and this is only my opinion, this tells me players just want to win. And secondly that they want to moan about losing.

Competition seeks to find the best overall player. Certain dex's have a higher proportion of better units but it doesnt mean these players will win. Yes its a dice game but thats just part of the game. Tactics, i feel, play a much bigger role. Look at the last 8 of the LVO. From what I remember Space Marines, Blood Angels, Nids, Eldar, Space Wolves, Chaos Marines, Daemons, Knights, Guard, Inquisiton and Grey Knights were all represented. Not one army looked the same. So how is one Dex really that much better than the other? How is the game not competitive? Messi is arguably the best footballer in the world. This doesn't mean Barcelona/Argentina will win every game; he is only one player just like a mantle of the laughing god autarch on a jet bike with his 2+ re rollable cover wouldn't win the game on his own. Sports teams vary so much in terms of player depth and ability I think this serves as a good analogy for 40k dex's. They vary but sports teams and fans don't moan about the state of the game. The teams practice and buy/trade players to adapt to the game.

Maybe people don't understand what competition is, maybe this should actually be the talking point. If you want a balanced game where it is literally the wits and tactics of the person in charge that wins, then play chess. But I bet you don't want to play chess because well 40k is cooler and funner, in my opinion.

Also the rock, paper scissors argument seriously? I mean come on. If you understand your meta then that's just doing your research. Sports teams do it all the time so why can't 40k gamers? Thing is if you want to play the units and lists that aren't very well represented in the meta, this shouldn't stop you. But do not play the whole "I'm holier than thou because I play a fluffy list", that's just annoying. Take a look at football (soccer). Spain's system of tika taka got them nowhere for years. The game was all about speed, strength and skill...not short passing. The Spanish team didn't turn around to FIFA and go "the game is broken and unbalanced because we can't play the football we like to play". They kept their system, they perfected it, made it work against the current meta and then won a European championship, the world cup and then retained the euro again...Just saying. I've played a few armies. I currently use my dark eldar who I think don't have as much punch or survivability than most other armies but I haven't moaned and I don't think that makes them less competitive. I still win games with the dark eldar and I lose them too. I feel like the 40k community is all about just winning at the moment. Look for a death star list and not actually buying the models you like and playing with them and working out tactics on how best to employ them in your army. When the new dark eldar codex came out I thought the mandrakes got better. When I played with a unit in my next game I realised that they weren't what I thought they were. I even cursed and said never again shall they see the field. But after that heated moment I played with them again and again and have worked out how I can best use them. And I feel like they act as an important part of my tactics.

In England we have the League cup which all teams go into. From the premier league, championship, league 1 and league 2. And guess what. Yes it's unlikely a league 2 team will win the tourney/cup. But there's every chance. Players build good lists and what's the problem with that? Manchester City have the most money in England so they buy the best players. But do other teams moan that they've got one of the best teams/lists...no. They get on with it. They play and see what happens. Again Man City will probably win no trophies this year. Having the most money, buying the best units/using the "best" lists doesn't mean you will win. Whenever I see "40k isn't competitive" i read i lose a lot and when I win it's because I use a broken list. You for me are the problem.

I agree that terrain should vary in a tournament. For me the way around that is to have a home and away roll. The players pick a table each. The player who wins can pick the table they play on. If you play away though you get more points, like away goals in the champions league . Ye it's more difficult cuz most people would pick a table that suits their army but so what. That's the essence of competition. Little advantages and big ones here and there.

Competition feeds people looking to win. That's the point! You want to win. But if you lose. Take away positives and look at why you lost. But do not blame the game, yes it has its pitfalls, but it's still perfectly fine.

The biggest problem for me is people want 40k to be something it isn't. So in that sense either play with people of like mindedness or stop moaning.

Just my 2 cents. Have at me trolls

[Charon]

The biggest problem I see is that people who do not want to play competitive just ***** and moan about player who just want to play competitive.
Just look around and try to find a single thread or post on how it is wrong to be a fluff player or how a narrative campain cant be fun and people should stop playing it.

On the other hand you will find a lot of posts trying to tell you how you are wrong when playing competitive, how you can't have any fun playing competitive and how people should stop asking for balanced rules.

[Brother Claudio]

Completely agree. Is it this hobby that forces people to hate on each other I wonder?
There is more than enough room in this hobby for competitive and fluffy play and to be honest I like to think I mix them both in. There isn't a single game I've played where I haven't narrated a story in my head About my soldiers. Why does it have to be comp against fluff or that balance is everything. If I'm playing grey knights I want the challenge of ten brothers against a swarm of daemons. **** the balance Haha.
Just feels like everyone wants to get on the last persons back about something that really shouldn't be that big of an issue.

[Houghten]

Completely agree. Is it this hobby that forces people to hate on each other I wonder?

Nah, I'm just a natural born git.

[StingrayP226]

I think its because competitive players are the ones concerned with balance the most and they are the ones quick to expose how unbalanced the game can be. By either talking about it on forums/in person, or curb stomping everyone who didn't build a competitive list to bring against their competitive list.

Many people are very defensive of their hobby and do not like others poking holes in it and exploiting its issues that everyone knows will not get fixed (because the company will not fix them). Thus instead of blaming the game designers many people blame the competitive players because these players are the ones showing how bad these issues are. If everyone played for fun... you could blissfully ignore how broken some units are (both broken good and broken unusable).

Competitive players are the scape goat so others can ignore where the real problem lies. Also I bet several players here have had bad experiences with the terrible competitors who just tear the fun right out of the game... and in human fashion they take that experience and the stereotype and throw everyone with the competitive "title" into the group of horrible people to play against and who ruin the game.

Its all their fault the game has issues because they are not playing as GW intended...

Well that is one point of view on the subject.

[Brother Claudio]

interesting points StingrayP226.
I think this strive for balance is one of the biggest problems. Competitive players aren't poking holes in the game in my eyes they are using the game to their advantage. As I said in the OP if you want balance play chess. I won't defend GW because I have my own opinion on wave serpents being OP and dreadnoughts being weak as hell considering they should be a walking tank but these are just the nuances of the game. I DO think that GW has made progress with every edition and update and that is the reason I won't really moan about the rules.
I can see what you mean about comp players being the scapegoat and everyone needs to get off their high horse about the way the game needs to be played.
It has rules. As long you play with in those rules. I have no issues with you as a player. It's those that think they know the right way that annoy me. It's a hobby for everyone to enjoy and furthermore If you play with a **** then don't play with him again and certainly don't label all comp players that way.

[Popsical]

Quite a bit of the anti comp hate probably comes from people trapped in small groups where 1 or 2 players are ultra comp and win all the time.
My group is like this, but rather than hate on the compo i just give the game a break for a while and come back when im fresh of mind.
You can play too many games too regularly imo, which can make you seek reasons for your jaded interest.
Variety is the spice of life. No one style of gamer is right or wrong, after all, you buy the models and paint them use them as you wish.

[Mr Mystery]

The bugbear for me is that just by reading the books GW put out, you see that the Narrative is their prime concern - do the battles feel cool to play?

Examples? Daemon Randomness - this is a Narrative tool and fits the capricious Chaos Gods. Chaos Champions being compelled to challenge, even when it's a bad idea (OI! Skarbrand! YER MAM SMELLS LIKE TZEENTCH!). Skaven being typically more lethal to themselves, Orcs and Goblins being fractitious and difficult to exercise complete control over.

And then the competitive players come whining about such things, as if 40k was meant to be written for them, and the designers just got it wrong.

No, the game isn't perfectly balanced. But then it's not really written and developed with those whose sole aim is to win every game by as large a margin as possible in mind. The relative lack of balance is only really noticable when someone sets out to purposefully break the game - and that will happen in any rules set where there is choice of what you can field.

It can be played that way if you so wish - but that just makes it the Family Car of Wargaming. Sure it doesn't necessarily excel in anyone facet - but it's flexible enough to cater to the majority of gaming taste and pecadillos.

[Brother Claudio]

Good shout you are probably right

[Mr Mystery]

Good example of their 'one size fits all' type approach? Warhammer The Game of Fantasy Battles.

It hasn't stuck to one particular fantasy trope. If you wanted, you could recreate a Napoleonic battle using Empire v Empire. Medieval historical using Bretonnia. Steampunk your thing? Dwarfs, Empire and Skaven might tickle your fancy.

And the rules work. If you wanted pure history, there's a reason the age of Chivalry gave away to the age of Blackpowder. That reason was Blackpowder. Yet Warhammer has it's way of making Bretonnia effective even against an Empire gunline, if you know what you're doing.