Competitive players to warhammer 40k are toxic to the overall game...

[Lord Asterion]

Apparently you did need to make up the rules if you wanted the fun fluffy games, but you're ignoring that.

No you don't, now the people that need to make up the rules are those wanting a more competitive game, which was always the case anyway, its just more so now.

[Charon]

Ok please enlighten me. Which rules you had to make up to create a fluffy fun game from edition 2 to 6. Im really curious. And please keep in mid that I was a "fluff or die" player for 2 full editions. But you seem to know it way better, so please explain instead of tossing 2 nonsense sentences without any argument or proof.

TOURNAMENTS made their own rules. A third party provided a framework and you could either opt in (attend) or opt out (dont attend).
But turnaments are just a small part of competitive gaming. In fact most people play competitive (unless you throw a game on purpose you are playing competitive).
And also most people enjoy a rather balanced game. It does not have to be balanced like chess. No not even like a Pc game like starcraft.
But having a money advantage and choose your dice eyes rather than roll the dice in monopoly just because you happen to play horseshoe while tophat gets no money if he goes over start and gets into jail instantly if he is under 100 $ will probably make the game rather unfun for tophat. Same goes for 40k.
Playing a narrative Eldar force on foot against an Imperial guard army is so utterly doomed to fail that is is absolutely no fun at all. Zero. Your buddy doesnt need to break the game in any way. He doesnt need to spam units in any way. He just needs to play a narrative imperial guard army.
And that, my friend, is not a good design.

[Anggul]

Poorly written, unbalanced rules are bad for all kinds of player. Anyone arguing otherwise is the most blind of fanboys.

Whether you're in it for the competitive challenge or for recreating epic battles of the 41st millennium, the rules do not succeed at doing so. The rules for many units don't properly represent those units at all, and our most loved units with epic backstory often just die without accomplishing much.

Don't try to defend a pathetic attempt at a product which they actually have the nerve to charge money for.

Profile pic related. I love Mandrakes. I really, really wish I could use them in-game as they're supposed to act in the backstory, rising from the shadows of the hapless enemy to claw and tear and feast. As it is they're pathetically weak and incapable of accomplishing much of anything. That isn't a cool representation of some of the darkest fears in the galaxy, that's crap. GW suck at forging the narrative.

[Lucidum]

I wholeheartedly agree. While an optimized list for competitive play is sometimes understandable, all to often I find uber-competitive gamers spamming overpowered units or playing an army for synergy (i.e., *******izing the allies chart in 6th for the most powerful combinations) rather than playing around a narrative or theme. I mean, it’s just a game, and when it comes to building your army I tend to take a “to each their own” attitude, but there are so many power-lists out there that just aren’t fun to play against.

[Caitsidhe]

There are lots of issues tied up in one thread, and many of them have nothing to do with each other. I see it like this:

1. The OP was trolling from the start. The very "subject" title is a clear indication.
2. Competitive does not equal WAAC.
3. Competitive Players care more about fairness than anyone else. If we are measuring ourselves in battle, victories only mean something if it was fair.
4. We hear a lot about how horrible competitive players are and yet it is only the supposedly non-competitive players acting like rude gits.
5. Competitive players do not spend their time complaining about how the other half lives.
6. Most competitive players have (and do) play fluffy, theme, and tournaments and thus can speak with authority about all of it.
7. Many of the people complaining about competitive players admit they have never played in tournaments, nor do they play with those kinds of people.
8. A balanced, consistent set of rules benefits everyone and would reign in the kind of WAAC types that competitive players keep FALSELY being painted as being.
9. Games workshop claims its game isn't built for competitive play and yet many of its marketing ploys involving rules seem geared to an arms race.
10. Non-competitive players are, in my own experience, just as competitive as anyone else.
11. People who say they don't care about winning seem to constantly contradict themselves by caring about losing a LOT.
12. People who live in glass houses.... shouldn't throw stones.

[ElectricPaladin]

12. People who live in glass houses.... shouldn't throw stones.

Or walk around naked.

[The Tisroc]

Where I live (New Braunfels, Texas... just outside of San Antonio, Texas) I know plenty of players who are quite happy playing games without the 'ardest of lists. I know a whole crowd that has a great time playing beer and pretzels games, having fun as they win and having fun as they lose...

I don't think the competitive/fluffy divide is as wide as the interwebz would have us believe...

[silashand]

There are lots of issues tied up in one thread, and many of them have nothing to do with each other. I see it like this:

1. The OP was trolling from the start. The very "subject" title is a clear indication.
2. Competitive does not equal WAAC.
3. Competitive Players care more about fairness than anyone else. If we are measuring ourselves in battle, victories only mean something if it was fair.
4. We hear a lot about how horrible competitive players are and yet it is only the supposedly non-competitive players acting like rude gits.
5. Competitive players do not spend their time complaining about how the other half lives.
6. Most competitive players have (and do) play fluffy, theme, and tournaments and thus can speak with authority about all of it.
7. Many of the people complaining about competitive players admit they have never played in tournaments, nor do they play with those kinds of people.
8. A balanced, consistent set of rules benefits everyone and would reign in the kind of WAAC types that competitive players keep FALSELY being painted as being.
9. Games workshop claims its game isn't built for competitive play and yet many of its marketing ploys involving rules seem geared to an arms race.
10. Non-competitive players are, in my own experience, just as competitive as anyone else.
11. People who say they don't care about winning seem to constantly contradict themselves by caring about losing a LOT.
12. People who live in glass houses.... shouldn't throw stones.

This. IMO the toxic element in this hobby are the people who think it's okay to allow unfair situations to exist because they've bought into the GW drivel that "games not made for tournaments" means it's okay to have sloppy rules. I don't care how people play this game. I do care when one side thinks it's the only one that matters and espouses the opinion that "their" game would better if the people they disagree with would just leave.

[DarkLink]

I feel it's an appropriate time to link to one of the best blogs I've seen on competitive gaming ever: [url]http://www.sirlin.net/[/url]

There's a lot of stuff on there, but I'll specifically mention this: [url]http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html[/url]

[Thaldin]

Or walk around naked.

I dunno, some people might enjoy that