Casual vs Competitive

[Smurfalypse]

There was an article I woke up too this morning that talked about the growing rift between casual and comeptitve 40k players. This hit home a bit because I am somewhat in-between and do both on a regular basis, I try to play in two tournaments a month but usually I end up only getting one in, I also play super casual with my local gaming group on a regular basis.

 

The last few weeks I have been seeing some very large misconceptions about most competitive players. I have even defended competitive players to a large degree as mostly normal guys who just want to play a tight game of 40k as best they can (this is the case with myself and most people I know who play at these tourneys).

Anyhow, here is the article on Torrent of Fire (a great site if you havent checked it out yet).

http://www.torrentoffire.com/3852/weekend-in-review-demographic-isolation-and-expectation-control

 

The point is that the divide is bad for any community and does nothing cause people to argue over pointless things. I just wanted to get everyone input on this type of topic if possible :)

Then we can bro-hug our issues out and move on with our lives :P

[Wayniac]

Part of the issue is that GW has basically told the competitive crowd to screw off, and that the game isn't meant for them.  They've stated in articles that they like the idea there is no such thing as a TAC army, and that every list should be tailored, and adding new things to shake up the meta (like the Imperial Knight) are good things, and since GW doesn't care for balance you get things like where a Chaos Space Marine isn't worth the points, and isn't taken outside of flavorful armies, while Tau/Eldar are seen a lot in the competitive scene because it has no real weaknesses.

 

It's hard to NOT have a divide when the company in question ignores one entire side.

[Iron-Daemon Forge]

I just had a topic like this over on one of the facebook groups I'm part of.

 

Pretty much, I like going to events from Throne of Skulls down in Warhammer World in Nottingham & also local tournament.  For me it just to get games vs new oppents & different armies, as well as have grudge/laught with oppents I maybe re-drawn against in different events.  Also see some brilliant armies that other people have done.  See the Warhammer World page & see there events.

I would say going to events since 2002, I learnt a lot from rules, for exsample I recently found out if I miss-deep strike (back in reserve) my unit come on from reserve (table edge) the following turn & just gameing in general.

I like to take units I think can do well but I also enjoy building, converting & painting & adding a theme to those units.  I would not take a army/units I would not enjoy, for exsample the old Lash Daemon Prince army with Nurgle Marines.  I'm not all that keen on bandwagon jumping.  I take my Iron Warriors army to a lot of events because I enjoy the way they game & the time spent converting & painting the models.  I taken Space Wolves because again model wise is a big part of the hobby I enjoy.

 

Though out the years I been going to events, I only ever came across 6 terrible oppents, that 12 years of going to events & over 100+ games.  While I fought a lot of brilliant games though out the years that I will always rememeber because how great the oppent was & how hard fought the game was.  I made a lot of friends from the events & it great with things like Throne of Skulls getting a game on the Friday before the event or local as said if I am re-drawn it always going to be a laught, I know with my friend Ian, we joke & bet on what round we will be drawn against each other since 2008 any event we been to we are always draw to game against each other & it always a close fought game.

 

While none event games.  I'm lucky that I got a great gaming community with those who may not enjoy going to tournaments.  But we all know how everone is as a oppent & there never any issiue.

 

End of the day there a lot of different aspect in the hobby for people to enjoy.  Some just like reading Black Library novels, some just like buying different boxies of cool models just because they want to paint them, not really collecting a army.  Some just like gaming.  Some like all aspect of the hobby.
Just as long as people are not being gits, that all at matter that the end of the day.  I've learnt a lot rule wise from friends that go to tournament with me, I learnt a lot painting wise from friends who just do painting & enter Golden Daemon.

[minigun762]

Part of the issue is that GW has basically told the competitive crowd to screw off, and that the game isn't meant for them. They've stated in articles that they like the idea there is no such thing as a TAC army, and that every list should be tailored, and adding new things to shake up the meta (like the Imperial Knight) are good things, and since GW doesn't care for balance you get things like where a Chaos Space Marine isn't worth the points, and isn't taken outside of flavorful armies, while Tau/Eldar are seen a lot in the competitive scene because it has no real weaknesses.

 

It's hard to NOT have a divide when the company in question ignores one entire side.

Funny because I feel the current meta is geared for competitive players.

Its just also geared in such a paper, rock, scissor logic that it really hurts the "balanced" list which is what I think about when I think "casual "

 

Of course both words are heavily loaded with multiple meanings and assumptions which further complicate things.

[Wayniac]

 

Part of the issue is that GW has basically told the competitive crowd to screw off, and that the game isn't meant for them. They've stated in articles that they like the idea there is no such thing as a TAC army, and that every list should be tailored, and adding new things to shake up the meta (like the Imperial Knight) are good things, and since GW doesn't care for balance you get things like where a Chaos Space Marine isn't worth the points, and isn't taken outside of flavorful armies, while Tau/Eldar are seen a lot in the competitive scene because it has no real weaknesses.

 

It's hard to NOT have a divide when the company in question ignores one entire side.

Funny because I feel the current meta is geared for competitive players.

Its just also geared in such a paper, rock, scissor logic that it really hurts the "balanced" list which is what I think about when I think "casual "

 

Of course both words are heavily loaded with multiple meanings and assumptions which further complicate things.

 

I think the current meta being geared towards competitive players is unintentional e.g. it's just because of netlists and people finding out what the cheesiest combos are.  I've always found the pinnacle of competitiveness to be using a balanced force where your tactical acumen is what determines victory or defeat, not the listbuilding you do before you show up for the game.  There's too many things nowadays that turn into "I show up with this, you lose, no dice needed" and that's why I think the game isn't competitive at all, although I certainly think the rules should be written with more balance to allow for competitive games, and then have provisions to loosen up the restrictions for the narrative games.

[Forté]

Personally, I've had enough of reading about 'broken games', 'meta', 'net lists', and people crying because their new toy isn't as powerful as the new thing that has been released.

 

Frankly, play how you want. Not how everyone tells you too. Losing can be as fun as winning.

 

I'll be in the WIP area where it's more constructive and encouraging.

[Wayniac]

Personally, I've had enough of reading about 'broken games', 'meta', 'net lists', and people crying because their new toy isn't as powerful as the new thing that has been released.

 

Frankly, play how you want. Not how everyone tells you too. Losing can be as fun as winning.

 

I'll be in the WIP area where it's more constructive and encouraging.

 

Losing every game because the game is unbalanced is not in any way, shape or form fun.  Neither is having units that you might like but are near useless; either you field them and lose because they suck, or don't field them and play to the meta.

[Trevak Dal]

If I play how I want, I end up with a small, not very powerful force that get's wiped out to a man (Tabled).  I end up getting punked in chalenges against monstrous creatures-which blunts my unit's chance at taking them out with close combat.

 

Or I can play my Tau how I want to, and generally stomp a mudhole in just about anything's ass, without having to buy new models (heldrake or riptide).  I've had games where I don't see close combat.  

 

The only thing my Tau are concerned with, are maybe Knights, and I can pack a considerable amount of melta so :cuss em.  My Chaos...well I can make several Kill Teams, LOL.

 

I lose most of the time-on objectives.  But so long as I'm killing stuff-I'm okay.  I ran a MSU Beserker army recently where it was just the Avatar and a 5 man Zerker squad left (after they most satisfyingly cornered and ran down some Bush Wookie Snipers-which I'm all about killing snipers.)

 

I don't Want to play that way.  I'd like to take plasma pistols, and chain axes and stuff.  But putting points into CSMs/zerkers is like upgrading Firewarriors; it's pointless.

 

I'm stuck, do I 'forge the narrative' with my created Character/player insert Giselburtus, a Terminator Armored Sorcerer with Stave and MurderSword, or Do I go with a STC AxeLord on a bike with Khorne Bikers?  I know who has the bigger kill count (AxeLord).

[the jeske]

Yeah the problem never was new stuff . The problems start when you have codex that can build armies out of more or less anything , those that have limited number of builds , those that are pre build and those that have the unlucky privilage of having hard counters in one of the first two cathegories .

 

If someone plays w40k just for tournaments[i don't think there are many people like that] , the only problem maybe boring set ups [sometimes. right now eldar/taudar/doubleldar are totaly not boring]. But got forbid someone is starts the game thinking w40k is B&P and ends up with eldar/marines and let say demons play group with his tyranid or orc army.

[Redtoof]

I think in 'real life' most people are somewhere in the middle. Casual vs Competitive seems to be more of an artificial divide, the real divide is between normal players, and players who are knobs. I'd rather take a thrashing from a cheesefest army played by a fun opponent than walk all over a 'Jervis' list played by an obnoxious one.

[Rune_Priest_Rhapsody]

This is a topic I will approach with caution. I am a casual player, to the bone. I could give two :cusss whether or not I win a game or not. So I play the units and models I like and rarely attend tournaments. I don't care that I plop my money down, play a few games and lose. I still love losing, for me this game is about the models and the social interaction. But when I go to a tourney and 1/3 of the players there are playing the same list, almost to a T, then I get turned off.

I've never played 40K competitively but I used to attend a lot of local Magic the Gathering competitions and do quite well. Here is something I have noticed, a similarity if you will. The competitive players play to win, that's the enjoyment for them. Winning. Then you get this idea that you are better than others because you beat them at a game. The casual players enjoy the game for the mechanics, the card, or artwork. They enjoy sitting around a table and drinking beer while building up huge army's. They view the competitive players as braggarts because they win.

I don't care either way, for me it's about personality. If you're a dick, I won't play games with you. Plain, and simple.

 

End of Line

[Valaskjalf]

Tbh I avoid the competitive scene like the plague....Im not interested in nerd rage and WAAC lists and would rather have fun trying things out with my group of friends and not feel like destroying my codex when I get tabled. Its given me the opportunity to run some of the less "good" units in the game and if they fail, then too bad...some of them have been surprisingly effective.

So yeah, I might not play as often as I would had I been part of a 40K club, but when we do its fun. We still play to win though, its not like we just throw models and tactics out of the window but I dont have the desire that my already expensive hobby also becomes the bane of my existence. It should be a stress relief, not something that makes me break into cold sweat.

[minigun762]

A key element to this is to stop linking Competitive with WAAC, cheating or unprofessional sportsmanship.

likewise Casual isn't the realm of brain dead lazy players who can't be bothered to learn how to play.

[Wayniac]

A key element to this is to stop linking Competitive with WAAC, cheating or unprofessional sportsmanship.

likewise Casual isn't the realm of brain dead lazy players who can't be bothered to learn how to play.

 

What is the real difference between Competitive and WAAC then?  It seems the line is blurred with the current meta since something like Wave Serpent Spam or Screamerstar or O'vesa Star ARE competitive and also WAAC, but it also seems that going less than WAAC isn't being competitive since the above-mentioned things exist.

[Kol Saresk]

I don't think its GW telling the competitive community to screw off. At least, I haven't seen anything that says that. Just that GW has said the game was made with casual games in mind as such the competitive scene is something left to the players as they so choose, which has always been the case. One could argue the Eye of Terror and Medusa 5 campaigns are contrary to this, but the goal of both campaigns was to ultimately create more background material, not decide which codex was better or which faction had better players, etc etc.

 

The problem is the extremes of the community. Basically, you get WAAC, Competitive, Casual and then an insult that was directed at me but has since turned into a descriptor called "Fluffbunnies".

 

The "problem" with discerning what separates each group is where the boundaries are drawn and that is always always always always always always personal interpretation.

 

Loosely, WAAC is literally a player who will use every "advantage" every loophole, every OP unit to just win. Not play a good game, but just win.

 

Competitive is typically someone looking for a challenge.

 

Casual is typically "I play for fun." with winning not necessarily being inclusive to "fun".

 

The fluffbunnies are story first, game second. Campaigns, narrative games, or sometimes even a lack of gaming in favor of background is the key.

 

The "boundaries" become an issue because at the extremes of all four groups, there is always someone who believes their way is the only right way to view the game. For example, "This is a war game. Its only about winning. The story is for the books." That insult I mentioned earlier was used as part of such a statement in this very subforum.

 

And there are various extremes that are just as ridiculous in all four "groups".

 

The reality is, there should be common ground. And there is. But like anything else in life, there are extremists who either refuse to see it, or are just unwilling to share it.

[Scribe]

 

A key element to this is to stop linking Competitive with WAAC, cheating or unprofessional sportsmanship.

likewise Casual isn't the realm of brain dead lazy players who can't be bothered to learn how to play.

 

What is the real difference between Competitive and WAAC then?  It seems the line is blurred with the current meta since something like Wave Serpent Spam or Screamerstar or O'vesa Star ARE competitive and also WAAC, but it also seems that going less than WAAC isn't being competitive since the above-mentioned things exist.

 

No they are no WAAC.

 

Competitive, a desire to win, a desire to excel, and a desire to smash face, are all positive traits.

 

Win At All Costs, is being a dick about measurments, looking for loop holes in the rules, making questionable moves and then calling out your opponent for the same, bullying, and essentially being a prick.

 

Being competitive, that is, focusing on the competition, is nothing like that.

[minigun762]

What is the real difference between Competitive and WAAC then?

For me (and only speaking for myself), WAAC involves questionable rule interpretation, questionable table top practices, an unruly and (passive) aggressive nature that is keen to point out your mistakes while highly defensive of any their own mistakes.

 

In short, honor and sportsmanship.

[Scribe]

Thats the biggest thing, its all in the attitude and behaviors.

 

I attend tournaments, large ones. Maybe its because of our Canadian nature, but over the last 3 years, I have yet to play against anyone I would call WAAC, at a Tournament.

 

On the other hand, there is one guy in my local 'pick up games' circle, who is WAAC, constantly complains about probability and odds, and its essentially hell to play with.

[daboarder]

the biggest thing is that balance hurts NO ONE.

 

Somehow people have started defending a lack of balance by parroting that GW is a miniatures company only (Read their investor relations identification page, they refer to themselves as games designers.)

 

At the  end of the day balance is good for the game and the argument of competitive vs Casual is just a symptom of a the Internets wiliness to pigeonhole arguments and relent to mob rule. its dissension because its easier to dissent than agree GW is bad at writing rules.

[Iron_Within]

A key element to this is to stop linking Competitive with WAAC, cheating or unprofessional sportsmanship.

likewise Casual isn't the realm of brain dead lazy players who can't be bothered to learn how to play.

Minigun you've just summed up my frustration perfectly.

 

I neither consider myself casual or Competitive, I think of my preferred gaming as casual-competitive. I play for fun atmosphere, I play for the narrative, but I also play to win.

[whine mode]

 

I play in a campaign, and frankly the WAAC player is putting me off playing currently as my force is master of Chaos (current most powerful Chaos faction in the Campaign, due to winning games against our enemies, and occasionally beating the hell out of the other chaos factions to put them in their place, fun narrative). The WAAC player comes in, wins every game and it's made the campaign boring and it's spoiling my motivation for playing. I have fun in my games, I enjoy playing against the opponents I play against, I win most games atm (could change) and it's a good atmosphere, then the campaign narrative, the WAAC players have curb stomped multiple armies. What's the point? Where's the fun? There is no competitive element as it's a foregone conclusion every game. They get more games, they win the campaign because they cherry pick weaker players. :cuss: attitude to a narrative game.

[/whine mode]

 

Sorry I just needed to vent that, I didn't bother gaming tonight for this precise reason, and it underlines the difference between competitive, casual (and everything in between) and bad play styles for 40k

[Dam13n]

I've been considering going to ToS for a while now.  Mainly because I really want to play some of the people that have posted in this forum who are attendees, like IP.

 

I'd love to send my Iron Warriors up against his some time.  However, my exposure to tournament players has been coloured somewhat by the likes of the Black Sun (a UK based fantasy group, who used to play regularly at the Poole GW Bunker) and a local 40k tournament player, who insists on running his thoroughly unpleasant Fateweaver Flying Circus list, even in (what are supposed to be) friendly club games.  They aren't the sort of people I want to play (I'm not saying all Tournament players are like that, I've just had a few bad experiences is all).

 

Maybe one day I'll bite the bullet and get my list meta-ed properly and come up for some competitive games.  I'll just have to hope I get drawn against people who are up for a laugh rather than just wanting to stomp face and move on to their next game.

[Rain]

The problem with playing 40k competitively is that the game isn't really balanced for it, especially now. Also, and this is going by admittedly anecdotal experience from a while ago, but I've had some really unpleasant games agaisnt competitive players, even ones that I won (though I've obviously been tabled as well). More competitive players tend to rules lawyer and really dig their heels in about things being .1 inch out of range and all this kind of thing which makes games drag on and saps enjoyment from what is to me a "just for a bit of fun" kind of thing. If I want a proper competitive tactical game I play Starcraft 2, that's not balanced either really, but comapred to 40k it's basically chess. Plus I don't have to deal with some unpleasant--fellow double checking all of my measures and LOS and other crap, while borderline cheating himself with rather liberal measurments or picking up dice really fast.

[daboarder]

The problem with playing 40k competitively is that the game isn't really balanced for it, especially now. Also, and this is going by admittedly anecdotal experience from a while ago, but I've had some really unpleasant games agaisnt competitive players, even ones that I won (though I've obviously been tabled as well). More competitive players tend to rules lawyer and really dig their heels in about things being .1 inch out of range and all this kind of thing which makes games drag on and saps enjoyment from what is to me a "just for a bit of fun" kind of thing. If I want a proper competitive tactical game I play Starcraft 2, that's not balanced either really, but comapred to 40k it's basically chess. Plus I don't have to deal with some unpleasant--fellow double checking all of my measures and LOS and other crap, while borderline cheating himself with rather liberal measurments or picking up dice really fast.

yeah your again confusing competitive with WAAC, its a shame that you ran into soem dicks, but not everyone deserves to be tarred with that brush

[Hellios]

Stop quoting what GW says about the rules... GW just pulls stuff out of its ass. They don't care to make the best (within reason) set of rules that they can (how could they justify new editions!)... Hell according to them... they ain't even a games company (I call bull).

 

As someone else has said... most people are somewhere in the middle, with a small difference in focus. I am more of a fluff player (it varies from game to game), but I still want to win. That being said I will take what I want, and make 'tactical mistakes' during a game because I think it will make the game more interesting. Avoiding another player with my Eldar Jetbikes for three turn isn't that fun, even if I know that by doing so I will win the game.

 

However, the reason I want better rules is because I think that would narrow the divide between 'fluff bunnies' and those with a strong desire to win (where the difference is significant). Alas, we can't do anything about people who are just bad people, except punish them, or ban them from your group. Good rules make for a better game.

[daboarder]

 

 

 

Stop quoting what GW says about the rules... GW just pulls stuff out of its ass. They don't care to make the best (within reason) set of rules that they can (how could they justify new editions!)... Hell according to them... they ain't even a games company (I call bull).

 

They don't say this, only the community parrots this