Competitive: Becoming the dark side of the game?

[Captain_Krash]

The solution might be a GW designed tournament ruleset and standard.

 

This is what I want to see

 

Krash

[PeteySödes]

So the playing by “intentions” is interesting actually. The way I see it, like everything there are levels:

 

Pre-measuring stuff like charges in the movement phase. You can (and should) be checking what you will need for a charge in the movement phase. It’s pretty common then to essentially agree on that roll will be needed at this point and that’s totally playing by intentions in its best form as long as the measurements weren’t fudged. This does speed things up, clear up any close measurements before the die roll and it gets tense, as well as account for stray dice and table knocking in the following phases. This part it good I think most will agree.

 

Where I think it gets lazy or exploitive is (again aside from fudging to measurement hoping for compliance) is setting up really elaborate plays without measuring leading to the situation where if they need to reroll aura, by intention they have it but because the measurement it sloppy they may also be able to have the range when they shouldn’t. If either don’t work out “But I had intended....” will always get thrown out.

 

“But you didn’t” has to be the response sometimes.

[DuskRaider]

The solution might be a GW designed tournament ruleset and standard.

I had proposed this a few weeks ago in the CA:19 thread, but unfortunately the post; along with many others; was deleted.

 

Separate rulesets for the casual, more lore and hobby focused portion of the community and the competitive, "we need to finish a game in X amount of time with the most powerful lists we can make" portion would do well to quell issues within the game itself, but I don't see GW doing it.

 

For one, would it just be base rules or would it include the codices themselves? How much of a difference is required? How long would it take the team to draft, playtest, finalize and print two unique sets of rules (and possibly codices)? Would it be profitable or would one set vastly outsell the other and result in a profit loss?

[Ishagu]

Problem is that the ITC meta, which is a different game in practice, is having an impact on unit balance and the impression people have of 40k.

 

GW need to push their own, official tournament set and put their weight behind it.

The alternative is the further growth of the current attitudes fostered in the ITC and the normalisation of the netlisting focused playstyle that's stifling other aspects of the hobby.

Edited December 15, 2019 by Ishagu

[MARK0SIAN]

Two rulesets might work but I’d really want to avoid a scenario where it’s basically tournament rules or narrative/open.

 

Matched play needs to be its own thing with tournament rules and restrictions added on top but it being made explicit that they’re optional rules designed for tournaments and cannot be used in matched play without both players consent.

 

It’s difficult because tournament stuff always filters into normal matched play and that’s why ITC and other tournaments are having such a disproportionate influence on the overall game.

[Warhead01]

I still see a lot of the bad things we hear about tournaments and competitive events as fallout for GW's Ard' Boys tournaments. They abandoned their old RTT format for a cut throat environment. Did you paint your models? Doesn't matter.  

I've heard of "playing by intent" in a battler reports here and there but never really understood what they were saying.  We all play by intent don't we. We pick a spot and move the model roll the dice ect.  If it's just another name for I am too lazy to check my measurements then..they shouldn't cry when their unit isn't where they imagined it was.  
It's not hard to measure for one or two models and drag the rest up behind those.  

 

As far as toxic goes I wouldn't say it's ever just one thing but a mix of several things.  I am sure there are a lot of cool people playing at big events but no one wants to get stuck with "that guy",  or draw several of them at the same tournament. Places like BoLS, just as a single example, are not the champions I would want representing my events.  Maybe they don't see the negative perception they create or maybe they don't care because they want the outrage and the clicks. (I believe the second.) 

In the end, for me, it's all about who you choose to roll dice with.  Will it be worth my time and money and for how much unwanted stress. 

 

[Ishagu]

I agree we ultimately have the choice of who we engage with, but for a lot of people that might not be possible.

 

Imagine having the choice between a local ITC tournament or simply not playing the game.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I think Warhead01 is completely right. When I first started playing alot of the emphasis was on painting, and sportsmanship. Now most of the local tournaments have a fair amount of store credit on the line for 1st-3rd place, and might offer some for best painted. It brings out the worst in some people. Edited December 15, 2019 by Black_Star

[CaptainMarsh]

We ran GW's GT format as a store in 2019. On the whole I enjoyed it far more than ITC. Sadly OTC is much more popular in my area so in 2020 we are switching over, despite literally every single possible TO and/or judge in the store preferring the GT format.

But whether a GW created tournament ruleset is king or ITC doesn't truly matter to the thread's germinator and point, IMHO. The mindset in the article in question- along with other forms of cheating- would exist in the GW ruleset as well. Once this sort of conduct becomes acceptable and even promoted by certain segments of the competitive scene it stops being a question of game mechanics.

[Leif Bearclaw]

Hope this isn't too dumb a question, but what's the big deal about ITC (also note, I haven't played by ITC rules, I know nothing about them other than 'a tourney rulset a lot of people online talk about')? What's so bad about it and how's it so different from 40 'as written in the rulebook'?

 

I get how tourneys can rile people up and promote poor sportsmanship/cheaintg (especially with real prizes on the line), plus how GW using tourneys to decide what gets the nerf bat can be bad for the more casual player, but surely that's more of a 'tournament/GW' thing than an 'ITC' thing.

[Halandaar]

"A player will bid on the measurements by placing the unit, measuring, and declaring what the measurement is."

 

I can't understand this, which seems to be the entire premise of the discussion. Is this hypothetical player moving a unit and then measuring to see whether they moved the models the correct distancr after the fact? Or measuring from this unit to another and then inviting their opponent to disagree?

[toaae]

Hope this isn't too dumb a question, but what's the big deal about ITC (also note, I haven't played by ITC rules, I know nothing about them other than 'a tourney rulset a lot of people online talk about')? What's so bad about it and how's it so different from 40 'as written in the rulebook'?

 

I get how tourneys can rile people up and promote poor sportsmanship/cheaintg (especially with real prizes on the line), plus how GW using tourneys to decide what gets the nerf bat can be bad for the more casual player, but surely that's more of a 'tournament/GW' thing than an 'ITC' thing.

 

The ITC gets targeted in these type of ramblings because it has become the de-facto tournament format for a decidedly large portion of the hobby's community. It got there by being favored by top tournament players and the passion of its primogenitures and maintainers, the folks over at Frontline Gaming. The current format was formed by feedback from competitive players, who preferred the secondary-selection style of NOVA Open and Renegade Open missions to the Eternal War/Maelstrom-lite style the ITC was using in 7th edition, or the minimally-altered book missions the ITC used for the first half-year of 8th edition.

 

The truth is, the game isn't changed greatly, no matter the mission format you're playing. Listen to top players on the Art of War podcast. When asked how they'd change their lists for different formats, it's usually in a very minor way. The format just allows for player skill to have a greater effect on the outcome, hence its popularity among top players.

 

Because of its rise to become the most played tournament format, people that like to complain about competitive players just lump that criticism on the ITC.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I’m sure if they played Eternal War Missions they’d quickly start to change their lists. They play completely different.

[m0nolith]

The responses in this thread is a nice reminder of the less obvious reasons for my total avoidance of the comp scene.

Its the exact reason why I play 30k instead of 40k.

"Win at all cost" type of players are the bane of my (hobby) existence.

[DuskRaider]

Competitive play has seeped into every facet of the game in one way or another, and that's all on GW. For all the "Forge the Narrative" garbage they spew, they offer little to nothing to actually do so. Open Play is an absolute joke and it doesn't matter how much they push it, no one wants to play it. Their VDR / CDR could have been absolutely awesome, but since they decided not to give points values to anything no one uses it. Even if they did, no one wants to play against anything that's not in the codex. Which... I'm surprised they even bothered to release those at all since GW won't even write rules or options for something that does have / isn't represented on their models anymore. That's been another killer for the more lore and hobby oriented aspect of the game as well. It's killed imagination in many ways.

[Noserenda]

"A player will bid on the measurements by placing the unit, measuring, and declaring what the measurement is."

 

I can't understand this, which seems to be the entire premise of the discussion. Is this hypothetical player moving a unit and then measuring to see whether they moved the models the correct distancr after the fact? Or measuring from this unit to another and then inviting their opponent to disagree?

The point as i understand it is to see if the opponent trusts or observes what you have measured on something meaningless, so you can gauge how likely you are to get away with deliberately inaccurate measurements later. IE whether you can cheat or not.

[Noserenda]

Also i wouldnt underestimate how many people DO play open, feedback to GW puts (self identified) narrative gamers massively ahead of everyone else and "tournament" gamers the smallest of all. Its just that they tend to be the most prolific, talkative and engaged players so they are disproportionately "loud".  

Of course that is also self reported so, y'know :D 

[Lord_Caerolion]

Yep, the article is basically saying "fudge your measurements and see if you get caught out".

[mughi3]

back on the main topic....it has always been that way. I played in 2 GTs and 3 local RTs between 3rd/4th edition then I stopped playing them all together because they were no longer fun. they bring out the worst players. I much prefer friendly games among the local groups.

[MegaVolt87]

Eh, if someone wants to win that bad I'll let them. They got bigger personal issues by needing self validation by cheating to win at plastic/ resin toy soldiers. I just call them out at the end when they win and just embarrass them, inform others they need to watch the mvt phase when they have a game with that person etc. 

[Panzer]

Also i wouldnt underestimate how many people DO play open, feedback to GW puts (self identified) narrative gamers massively ahead of everyone else and "tournament" gamers the smallest of all. Its just that they tend to be the most prolific, talkative and engaged players so they are disproportionately "loud".  

 

Of course that is also self reported so, y'know

 

The one doesn't necessarily mean the other though. There are lots of people who identify themselves as narrative gamers who use the Matched Play rules (with perhaps Narrative Play missions at times).

[Halandaar]

 

"A player will bid on the measurements by placing the unit, measuring, and declaring what the measurement is."

 

I can't understand this, which seems to be the entire premise of the discussion. Is this hypothetical player moving a unit and then measuring to see whether they moved the models the correct distance after the fact? Or measuring from this unit to another and then inviting their opponent to disagree?

The point as i understand it is to see if the opponent trusts or observes what you have measured on something meaningless, so you can gauge how likely you are to get away with deliberately inaccurate measurements later. IE whether you can cheat or not.

 

 

Sorry, I should have been more clear:

• Is the player moving their models and then measuring the distance moved afterwards? If so, why? Isn't this a very easy way to get pulled up on what you're doing?
• OR
• Is the player measuring the distance between two units, saying "yep, that's 9 inches" and hoping you don't check because it's actually 11"?

[Panzer]

 

 

"A player will bid on the measurements by placing the unit, measuring, and declaring what the measurement is."

 

I can't understand this, which seems to be the entire premise of the discussion. Is this hypothetical player moving a unit and then measuring to see whether they moved the models the correct distance after the fact? Or measuring from this unit to another and then inviting their opponent to disagree?

The point as i understand it is to see if the opponent trusts or observes what you have measured on something meaningless, so you can gauge how likely you are to get away with deliberately inaccurate measurements later. IE whether you can cheat or not.

 

 

Sorry, I should have been more clear:

• Is the player moving their models and then measuring the distance moved afterwards? If so, why? Isn't this a very easy way to get pulled up on what you're doing?
• OR
• Is the player measuring the distance between two units, saying "yep, that's 9 inches" and hoping you don't check because it's actually 11"?

 

 

The latter.

[Toxichobbit]

Some people in this thread are painting with a very large brush. Remember, when we paint models with a large brush paint gets into the wrong places and the end result looks bad.

 

I've played in a lot of competitive scenes. I'm completely out of date with 40k competitive, I haven't played in a 40k tournament for almost 15 years. But I have played in other games competitive scenes (UK & a bit of European) more recently, which were mostly made up by old WFB/40k players. Nowadays I play mostly narrative.

 

During the time that I was active we did have cheaters. That's inevitable. Most of them tended to be around middle of the pack, rather than spending any length of time on the top tables. There were of course players who played loose with the rules and were regularly seen on the top tables - the community grew to know who they were and when facing them we played accordingly. 

 

Winning was important, but how you won was equally important. In the tournament scene I'm using as an example, the majority of top table players were firmly in the camp of "I didn't win unless I played clean". It wasn't just cheating that they wanted to avoid, it was any kind of unscrupulous behaviour - integrity was important. They felt like the cheated themselves if they didn't play 100% within the rules and make sure their opponent knew exactly what was going on at all times. There was no gotchas, no rolls without the opponent being able to see them, no models moved until the opponent had chance to confirm the movement. Communicating intent with the opponent was vital, because otherwise there was more of a chance that something would get missed, a mistake would be made and when it was spotted, it was too late to reverse the game state. Most of the players didn't want to win because a mistake gave them an unfair advantage over your opponent. All this was done on the clock as well, but timing out was a better option for most of them than winning without their opponent getting a clean game.

 

Furthermore, while winning was the objective of each individual game, it wasn't always the objective of the player for the tournament experience. It wasn't just turn up, do anything you can to beat your opponent and then go meditate (or drink mountain dew) until your next match. Some people seem to think that tournament players are all neckbeard jerks who have no life beyond winning the next game and ultimately winning the tournament. That's demonstrably untrue. The vast majority of tournament players, at least in my experiences (again, no idea about ITC/current 40k scene) were there for the experience. The comptitive side was part of it, you were there to win games - sometimes you were aiming to win the tournament, other times you just wanted to improve on previous performances. But, you were also there to see people you'd met in the past. There's an entire group of people who you might only see a few times a year at tournaments. We'd go out for drinks, meals, movies and hang out between games just chatting. We'd talk about the latest developments in the game, we'd talk about how we were excited about upcoming releases and previews, but we'd also talk about everything else you talk about when hanging out with mates - movies, video games, politics (occasionally and with great care), sports, work, spouses etc. It was, first and foremost, a community. And that community is why I and every tournament player I knew, went to tournaments. Winning was the objective, but it wasn't the reason for attending. If all we'd done is just go there and ignore everything else while being lazer focussed to win, then honestly, I wouldn't have got past my first event.

 

Now obviously this is all anecdotal. I can't say that this is how tournaments are in 40k nowadays and I'm not trying to. I have no idea what the 40k competitve scene is currently like, I don't even know the ITC rules. It may very well be the way some people are describing in this thread. What I wanted to do is offer another perspective to banish any assumptions about tournament players. It's important that we, as a community, don't automatically assume competitive/tournament = jerk. Some of the behaviour I'm seeing in this thread is no different to someone coming along and saying that open/narrative players are all sloppy players who don't care about playing within the rules or giving their opponent a good game. It's always more nuanced than that and within any sphere of gaming, narrative or competitive, there are good and bad players.

 

As for the article - if we'd had any articles like this within the tournament scene I played in, they would have been slammed by the community. It's a bad article, it's encouraging the worst side of tournament play and the author should be ashamed of themselves. I'll be disappointed in the current 40k tournament community if they accept an article like this.

[Closet Skeleton]

Problem is that the ITC meta, which is a different game in practice, is having an impact on unit balance and the impression people have of 40k.

 

GW need to push their own, official tournament set and put their weight behind it.

The alternative is the further growth of the current attitudes fostered in the ITC and the normalisation of the netlisting focused playstyle that's stifling other aspects of the hobby.

 

You can netlist in any format.

 

Could just as easily be true that non-ITC tournaments are more fun for you because the ITC players are turning their nose up at them and not showing up.

 

I’m sure if they played Eternal War Missions they’d quickly start to change their lists. They play completely different.

 

I've been to non-ITC tournaments and seen people from ITC events use the same lists and people I wasn't familiar with show up with stuff that people insist is only good in ITC.

 

Maybe they would have been better off changing their lists, I didn't pay attention to how well every list placed and certainly didn't memorize it, but that doesn't mean that loads of people don't.