Competitive: Becoming the dark side of the game?

[Dark Shepherd]

Wouldnt call it the dark side but an annoying aspect is people, who generally dont even play in tournaments, treating units/armies that dont currently work in competitive play or make every tournament winning list as being garbage, and often droning on about it. Or the minute a unit is not uber meta its NERFED

[Lord_Caerolion]

Yeah, I don't miss the discussions of "this melee unit can't solo a full-strength unit of Hammernators when charging, therefore they suck and should never be taken".

[MegaVolt87]

Wouldnt call it the dark side but an annoying aspect is people, who generally dont even play in tournaments, treating units/armies that dont currently work in competitive play or make every tournament winning list as being garbage, and often droning on about it. Or the minute a unit is not uber meta its NERFED

 

Ideally units should be at least a side-grade to the top picks in the slots. Nothing worse than having shelved units because they aren't even competent for what they do. (cough reivers). Primaris troop units are what I consider a good example of a relatively good spread of viable options in a slot. GW did a good job there as they are all worth consideration. 

[Lord_Caerolion]

There's being equally viable, and then there's being immediately dismissed because they can't destroy one of the most durable units in the game in a single turn.

[MegaVolt87]

There's being equally viable, and then there's being immediately dismissed because they can't destroy one of the most durable units in the game in a single turn.

 

That's a symptom of the inconsistent design process overall. Some factions/units feel like you are playing a dice game, others that the game feels pre-determined in expected results. If they could emulate the balance/ viability in my primaris troop choices example 8th ed would be in a much healthier state overall. 

[ERJAK]

The Dark Side of the game has always been the people who look down on others for how they choose to enjoy the game.

 

And whether people want to admit it or not, casual, narrative, and hobby focused players are guilty of this far more often then tournament players are.

 

Perfect example, while a competitive player might criticize you for bringing a sub-optimal unit choice, a casual player will write a multiple page article about how bad competitive play is for the game and then share it on forums where other casual players can whine about how bad competitive play is for the game (despite most of them never being involved in competitive play.)

Like, you're not going to see a response article: 'Beer and Pretzels Play, Does it Make 40k Fans Gak Players and Worse People?' Even though you could defintely argue that the combination of insular, exclusionary communities and circle jerking deliberately counter-intuitive gameplay patterns (CQC can't win games because my play group thinks consolidating into nearby units is 'cheesy' and 'WAAC' and I blame GW and the ITC for it.) creates a not-insignificant number of issues.

 

 

(Note: Choosing to enjoy the game without using 'tricks' like tri-point consolidate or whatever is fine, complaining that you can't win because of it is silly.)

[Special Officer Doofy]

I've never had a competitive player tell me that I've brought a sub optimal unit choice... I have had to argue rules, measurements, them moving wound dice and somehow gaining wounds back, and not too long ago template positions and what models are in it time and time again though with competitive players at tournaments to the point where I'm feeling cheated, it's either let them get away with cheating or just argue, and either way I'm not having fun and wasting my time. Never once had that experience in casual play. The article is alarming but it's not something everyone is doing. Everybody's experiences will vary.

[Lord_Caerolion]

You obviously didn't experience the discussions with TheJeske (Barging into Chaos Marine discussions with "You want to use Raptors? Why bother, this other army's unit is far better in every way, just play that instead", etc.), and we actually have had discussions on here before of trying to argue that friendly/open/narrative play was ruining the game because it gave those players skewed ideas of balance, instead of the rational and objective opinions that tournament players had, from memory. 

 

Sure, this article is bashing a bit on tournament players, but I've not seen casual players derail conversion threads to argue repetitively that what they're doing is illegal, and they are wrong for wanting to do this, and should redo the conversion entirely as a response. However, that's a common occurrence when a person decides to show off their character conversion on a different base size, or removing the rock/terrain that the stock model comes always standing on, etc. I've not seen casual players butt into existing conversations to say that people are Doing It Wrong, every single time it's been someone refusing to go away until it's accepted that the model is ITC-illegal and they should admit to trying to cheat, and remake the model. 

[Laughingman]

One thing 40k players are not known for restraint in list building, Though this can be vindictive (there's always one in a group) I find its  generally a matter of ignorance of what kind of game you intended to play , I find reaching out to your opponent and simply asking them what kind of game you wish to play ahead of time goes a long way.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

The Dark Side of the game has always been the people who look down on others for how they choose to enjoy the game.

And whether people want to admit it or not, casual, narrative, and hobby focused players are guilty of this far more often then tournament players are.

Perfect example, while a competitive player might criticize you for bringing a sub-optimal unit choice, a casual player will write a multiple page article about how bad competitive play is for the game and then share it on forums where other casual players can whine about how bad competitive play is for the game (despite most of them never being involved in competitive play.)

Like, you're not going to see a response article: 'Beer and Pretzels Play, Does it Make 40k Fans Gak Players and Worse People?' Even though you could defintely argue that the combination of insular, exclusionary communities and circle jerking deliberately counter-intuitive gameplay patterns (CQC can't win games because my play group thinks consolidating into nearby units is 'cheesy' and 'WAAC' and I blame GW and the ITC for it.) creates a not-insignificant number of issues.

(Note: Choosing to enjoy the game without using 'tricks' like tri-point consolidate or whatever is fine, complaining that you can't win because of it is silly.)

The problem is TOs and GW both giving emphasis to WAAC mentality.

[crimsondave]

 

The problem is TOs and GW both giving emphasis to WAAC mentality.

 

 

While I agree to a certain extent, GW shouldn't have to hire an attorney to write the rules for the game.  If tournaments would do a better job of booting out cheaters and douche bags (the way a lot of casual groups do) many of the problems with the game would go away.  GW has tried to fix problems with 8th with some success but the side effect is it can negatively impact casual players.  Around here, right or wrong, just about all casual games are played by match rules.  Now I can't play my all infantry guard list with all my heavy weapons because I'm limited to 3 HW squads.  This is because GW was trying to make it impossible for somebody to bring 9 Flying Hive Tyrants to a tournament.  What I'm getting at is, the 40k community at large needs to stop depending on GW to fix the problem with new rules and do a better job of not tolerating cheating and general douche baggery.  Some tournament player bringing a list that's too spicy to a casual  game can be worked out through communication ahead of time, but the only solution for cheaters and douche bags is negative consequences to them (i.e. exclusion.)

[Gederas]

The problem is TOs and GW both giving emphasis to WAAC mentality.

While I agree to a certain extent, GW shouldn't have to hire an attorney to write the rules for the game.  If tournaments would do a better job of booting out cheaters and douche bags (the way a lot of casual groups do) many of the problems with the game would go away.  GW has tried to fix problems with 8th with some success but the side effect is it can negatively impact casual players.  Around here, right or wrong, just about all casual games are played by match rules.  Now I can't play my all infantry guard list with all my heavy weapons because I'm limited to 3 HW squads.  This is because GW was trying to make it impossible for somebody to bring 9 Flying Hive Tyrants to a tournament.  What I'm getting at is, the 40k community at large needs to stop depending on GW to fix the problem with new rules and do a better job of not tolerating cheating and general douche baggery.  Some tournament player bringing a list that's too spicy to a casual  game can be worked out through communication ahead of time, but the only solution for cheaters and douche bags is negative consequences to them (i.e. exclusion.)

You do know Rule of 3 is always just a recommendation by GW for tournaments.... right? Casual games aren't tournaments, so Rule of 3 doesn't apply....

[crimsondave]

Yes, I know.  As I said, right or wrong, that's how it's played with my group, but I could talk to my opponent ahead of time and it would be fine.  My point was that trying to fix everything with new rules can have unintended (or unavoidable) consequences.

 

 

 

Edited December 19, 2019 by crimsondave

[DuskRaider]

Rule of Three should NOT apply to causal games, but the competitive influence on the game has endured it most certainly does unless you're playing against a friend and / or this has been discussed prior. This is just one of many rules that shouldn't affect casual and yet they do because the community has allowed it ( a byproduct of GW placing an emphasis on competitive play).

[Ishagu]

The rule of 3 is a funny one because I think it makes all games better. It's simply a variety clause.

 

Stuff like Guard, who would have lines of men and tanks aren't affected.

[crimsondave]

The rule of 3 is a funny one because I think it makes all games better. It's simply a variety clause.

 

Stuff like Guard, who would have lines of men and tanks aren't affected.

 

If I bring HW squads of 3 heavy bolters, 3 lascannons, 3 missle launchers, and 3 autocannons it breaks the rule of 3.  I can assure you it affects guard.  It doesn't negatively affect guard competitively, but I don't play competitive.

Edited December 19, 2019 by crimsondave

[Gederas]

The rule of 3 is a funny one because I think it makes all games better. It's simply a variety clause.

 

Stuff like Guard, who would have lines of men and tanks aren't affected.

Counterpoint: Fluffy lists are screwed by it. Especially since Guard are, iirc, the only one who have a rule that makes non-Troop units Troops if certain conditions are met (Chaos Marines does, but that's only with the Cult Legions, for obvious reasons).

 

White Scars can only have 3 Khan on Bikes and 3 squads of Bikers (and big blobs of bikes isn't the best option, even for a fun game) for example. Same if you're playing Ravenwing (they have more options yes, but sometimes you just want to keep it simple).

 

 

The rule of 3 is a funny one because I think it makes all games better. It's simply a variety clause.

 

Stuff like Guard, who would have lines of men and tanks aren't affected.

If I bring HW squads of 3 heavy bolters, 3 lascannons, 3 missle launchers, and 3 autocannons it breaks the rule of 3.  I can assure you it affects guard.  It doesn't negatively affect guard competitively, but I don't play competitive.

Agreed. If I wanted to play a fluffy list for my loyalist Iron Warriors, it'd have to break Rule of 3.

 

Edited December 19, 2019 by Gederas

[Leif Bearclaw]

 

The rule of 3 is a funny one because I think it makes all games better. It's simply a variety clause.

 

Stuff like Guard, who would have lines of men and tanks aren't affected.

 

If I bring HW squads of 3 heavy bolters, 3 lascannons, 3 missle launchers, and 3 autocannons it breaks the rule of 3.  I can assure you it affects guard.  It doesn't negatively affect guard competitively, but I don't play competitive.

 

And this is the crux of why the 'casuals are just as bad as the tourney crowd' argument rings so hollow for me. GW changes the rules to cater to Tourneys, and that affects casual games too, whereas the inverse is not true. Any claims 'this is for tourneys only' doesn't work when they're included in the Chapter Approved type book sold as 'official 40k, the most up to date rules'. Sure you can decide to ignore them, same as you can decide to just play 2nd/3rd/4th edition. But that's deliberately missing the point imo, the majority want to play with, what's universally understood to be, the current ruleset.

[MARK0SIAN]

This is the problem with introducing a special ruleset for tournaments, it all leaks down and gets taken as gospel for normal matched play.

 

Instead it should be done on an individual basis. Any unit that is a problem if there’s more than X amount should be specifically barred from taking more than X amount whilst everything else gets left alone.

 

To be fair though, whilst tournaments probably expose this issue because the lists are very spammy, the real reason for it is bad/lazy rules writing from GW.

[chapter master 454]

Ahem...what fluffy lists are you trying to play? Like seriously...what ones? Last I checked most people play at 2000 points...oh wait sorry thats what 100 Power level since apparently everything matched play is just sheer evil incarnate.

 

Claims such as "rule of three doesn't let me play fluffy iron hands"...no it stops you bringing more than 3 vindicators which for any marine force, including legions, would actually be their limit. I want to remind people that most marines function in groups of 100-200, most of those numbers focused on their troops. The number of armour per battle we would have typically would really only have 3 of a unit anyway. You want what? 4 vindicators? 5...how many for this "fluffy" list. I mean, why not bring some back-up like obliterators or predators, the "escorts" of these siege weapons are just as fluffy.

 

There is the extremes of the scales here. Competitive is healthy for the game just as much as Casual is. Both benefit the game by having players enjoy what they like but often they really shouldn't mix just because they aren't really meant to. Basically, it helps improve the game by giving players a way to find those with similar interest in the game and not get matched up against people practising for a tournament or just wanting to see what their list can do instead of having a fluff bunny competition.

 

Also, just want to level things are people here: All of the "competitive rules" people are complaining about are optional. Every single one. Heck, the only thing you need to follow is the core rules and that's open play, the casual experience. Maybe if elements such as rule of 3 are bleeding into it...maybe...just maybe...this is a shocking thought...a terrifying truth: the rule might be good and is widely regarded as healthy for list building both competitive and casual -fainting women in the background, men grumbling loudly- I know, how terrible a rule is considered such a good idea that everyone uses it...I know.

 

Not to mention, there are casual players just as bad as competitive players but in opposite ends. "This Ork is a proxy for my space marine captain who have thunder hammer and shield. This set of 10 hormagaunts are my sternguard veterans" is the same kind of guy who attempts to cheat in competitive, not as common as you think and quite easily dealt with once caught. Not to mention...I would like to offer an open arm gesture of pointing to this thread that within this thread, the casual players have been far more brutal and aggressive than competitive players defending their version of the game.

Maybe...Casual is becoming the dark side of the game...

[Evil Eye]

The Dark Side of the game has always been the people who look down on others for how they choose to enjoy the game.

 

And whether people want to admit it or not, casual, narrative, and hobby focused players are guilty of this far more often then tournament players are.

 

Perfect example, while a competitive player might criticize you for bringing a sub-optimal unit choice, a casual player will write a multiple page article about how bad competitive play is for the game and then share it on forums where other casual players can whine about how bad competitive play is for the game (despite most of them never being involved in competitive play.)

Like, you're not going to see a response article: 'Beer and Pretzels Play, Does it Make 40k Fans Gak Players and Worse People?' Even though you could defintely argue that the combination of insular, exclusionary communities and circle jerking deliberately counter-intuitive gameplay patterns (CQC can't win games because my play group thinks consolidating into nearby units is 'cheesy' and 'WAAC' and I blame GW and the ITC for it.) creates a not-insignificant number of issues.

 

 

(Note: Choosing to enjoy the game without using 'tricks' like tri-point consolidate or whatever is fine, complaining that you can't win because of it is silly.)

At the risk of starting a flamewar that would make the Salamanders consider bringing a fire extinguisher (which is not my intention, I hasten to add) "articles" are usually utter drok. Quality journalism is a dying art, quality games journalism even more so- and that isn't limited to video games either. I haven't read the OP article, but if it's anything like what I'm imagining it's like going by responses in this thread I feel it's both A: rather par for the course with modern journalism and B: not in the slightest representative of the average "non-comp" player.

 

I myself have no issue with competitive 40K existing or people enjoying it, even if I myself think it's a bit...silly to take a toy soldier game that seriously. My problem is when individuals (hopefully a very vocal minority) start acting like tournament play is the "superior" way to enjoy the hobby and that anything in the game aimed at casual/narrative players is "dumb" and "ruining the game" (and also that 40K is a fundamentally badly made game because it doesn't appeal solely to them, as if a fork was a badly made tool because you can't eat soup with it) and this bellyaching starts affecting the ability to enjoy the game at all levels, solely to cater to a very small portion of the gaming "population". It would be bad enough if it was a game that had been intended as a "tabletop sport" for lack of a better term and just happened to have very involved fluff, but when you look at the history of the game it's quite clear it was always intended as a "garage" game. Like I say, I don't dislike tourneys existing and people enjoying them (far from it) but people claiming that the game should be a hardcore competitive game and that catering to casuals/hobbyists is bad are not just very annoying, they're actually wrong!

 

I think a close analogy would be Nintendo's money and hype machine that is Super Smash Bros. People take that game way too seriously- there are really, really heated arguments over whether characters should be allowed, stages used and items implemented, and players often seem to try and act like they're in a tournament when they're just playing a fun match with friends. This would be bad enough with any fighting game, but Smash was envisioned by its creator as a party game.

 

With regards to TTG in particular, I can't help but give Warmachine and other "hardcore" games a bit of a dodgy look. The "Play like you've got a pair" "rule" at the very beginning of each edition seems to completely fly in the face of the Most Important Rule of ANY game (be it tabletop, video or otherwise) of "It's just a game, have fun but don't be a groxfondler over it". In a vacuum this wouldn't matter; one moderately popular game with an emphasis on winning at any cost is hardly an omen of the apocalypse. But the amount of people I've seen barge into discussions about totally unrelated games screeching "Don't play X (usually 40K), play Warmachine instead, it's just better!" does concern me. It's like how Dark Souls became popular and immediately everyone declared that any game that isn't punishingly difficult is "casual crap" and if you don't like Souls and its many imitators you're a "casual noob" who needs to "git gud" and isn't allowed to criticize the sacred cow dear leader game franchise.

 

I suppose what I'm trying to say is, competitive 40K isn't the problem. People who can't tell the difference between a competitive game and a friendly game are the problem. To some degree this is GW's fault for encouraging such behaviour (which I can't entirely blame them for, they need to make money, but is still annoying nonetheless). To some degree it's the community's fault for normalizing it. But I think there's an issue that runs much deeper than 40K and GW, which has more to do with people's seemingly compulsive need to take everything to ridiculous extremes and take everything absurdly seriously. No amount of rule rewrites or segregation between competitive and narrative rulesets will help, because the problem seems to come down to the simple fundamental fact that people as a whole have the alarming tendency to be really, really silly.

 

TLDR: Nobody is blameless, but nobody is entirely at fault, and the problem is far from exclusive to 40K and tabletop gaming.

[Gederas]

[stuff]

You wot m8? In 30k, Vindicators are a Heavy Support choice that is in SQUADRONS of 1-3. Read the rules before you say something. You can have as many Vindicators in 30k as Heavy support slots you have.

 

And fluffy lists? You mean like....

• a White Scars/Ravenwing all-bike list?
• A 1st Company Veteran force?
• A heavy armour division? (yes, Marines still use those)

Or anything else that isn't "a double Battalion for max command point spam and claim the set-up for the unit choices is fluffy"? Which, let's be honest here, is what happens a majority of the time.

 

And no. Everyone DOESN'T use Rule of 3 because "it's a good rule", everyone uses it because the Metasheep see something for Competitive play and think "hurdurr, dat means dats how I have to play even tho I'm not in a tournament.", which forces people who feel that a RECOMMENDATION FOR TOURNAMENTS (not even a flat-out rule, a RECOMMENDATION) that should stay IN TOURNAMENTS, to have to abide by it, or else we get the Metasheep screeching.

 

And there's clearly a lot more metasheep than you'd think, or else we would have never needed to have this conversation about why a Recommendation. For. Tournaments is being used outside of tournaments.

 

Also, regarding the screeching: I've actually seen that happen at two different game stores. Hell, I was the target of one because I had the gall to dare discuss a list with more than 3 Heavy Bolter Devastator squads within earshot of our local ITC player . Do you know what it's like when you have someone go "Well, ACHKTUALLY!" when they're not even involved in the conversation? (and yes, he even said "actually" like that) It's not fun.

Edited December 19, 2019 by Gederas

[Warhead01]

Ahem...what fluffy lists are you trying to play? Like seriously...what ones? Last I checked most people play at 2000 points...oh wait sorry thats what 100 Power level since apparently everything matched play is just sheer evil incarnate.

 

 

Prior the the rule of three I would filed from 4 to 6 mobs of Burna boys.  I don't think that's an op unit with it's might 8" range D3 shots and 6+ save.  

When people running out the clock was all the chatter I took 5 or 6 mobs, the bulk of my army in komando mobs to save time and maybe do something clever enough to win a game. 

Other units lime Mega Nobs, to my mind, work better in several small mobs for the same points as I would spend on a large units. I was playing against a very competitive friend who has no casual setting for his non tournament games. This was what I had to leverage in my favor vs not having a codex full of stratagems and better gubbins available. 

Should there be some limits, sure. I just don't think the rule of three is the answer.  It just became normalized instead of discussed ahead of time. 

 

 

If I am honest, I would say the best thing from the ITC would be saying that ground floors just block los. But that's just because the terrain rules in the rule book are a bit of a let down. 

In my estimation probably the best thing to come from competitive play in several editions.

 

[PeteySödes]

=][=   We seem to be getting less focussed here Brothers. Let's stay on track please, Rule of 3 and assigning blame is a bit far afield of the linked article.   =][=