How would you define competitive?

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

This seems to be a point of break down in communication for some discussions.

 

So I’ll say for me, a list or faction that can expect roughly a 50% win rate in a competitive environment is competitive.

[OldWherewolf]

I think it's the agreement between players. 

 

IG right now are at a 40% win rate, so a full-meta guard list doesn't qualify under that definition.  But using too many "meta" units and I dominate my (lower point) crusade games. 

 

The problem arises (and I face this myself) is when we don't ask our opponent is this a friendly game or a competitive game.  If you don't ask, it's competitive.  If your opponent doesn't answer, it's competitive.  If your opponent says "what's the difference", it's competitive.

 

Usually, I find that in friendly games, people are more open to discussing & adjusting lists & terrain before the game. 

[chapter master 454]

You still haven't defined competitive and yet use it to describe something.

 

You can be competitive in a casual setting, players who don't actively get the new hotness but rather try to be the best with what they have and what they get (which is whatever they think is cool, not effective).

 

You can be competitive in a serious setting, players who are actively testing lists they intend to go to tournaments that have prizes for top places and thus are getting whatever units they need.

 

You can be competitive in an experimental setting, players who are actively testing things and while they will get what they need (regardless of cool or effect) the main objective is to just find wacky and strange combos. This may lead to the discovery of the next big thing.

 

Now we have to keep in mind that when I say setting this sort of thing doesn't apply just to scenes. Your scene could have a mix of players in various settings but top that with also add in they may not even be trying to compete; just have a good time. Competitive is by its nature and definition is when you compete to be the best at something, be it painting, building or rolling dice about plastic soldiers! The competition however is what matters most here and thus with my 3 examples, only 1 I suppose isn't being competitive in the sense many would expect where as the other 2 will be competing for roughly the same goal but at different "power levels" (get yer scouters!)

 

Little timmy and the teens likely aren't interested in tournament scenes too much and more about being the best player in their group which thus means they aren't actively being competitive to outlookers but within it could be heated between who is the Goku and Vegeta of the group. There is a sense of casual competing that exists.

 

Big Richard and the try-hards however are in the know of every tournament scene, and know every list inside and out. Their lives are the tournament scene and being number 1. Some of the group are more chill than others despite being complete monsters on the table (but are polite and fun to play against. They haven't lost sight like their figurehead member) while others can be massive sharks.

 

I would personally put myself in a spot, if using my own examples, between experimental and serious with a small touch of casual for my competitive nature. I like to take games seriously (as in not do silly things all the time. Not that I won't on occasion if I know I am done for...and it would get a laugh!) but if I win I want the win to be mine, not someone else because I didn't make the list. To me, list building is as much a part of the game and your army as building and painting it. There is a certain signature that anyone building a list might not even know they have, certain quirks they can't shake. Maybe its always having a melta bomb around, maybe you NEVER have pistols if they are an option (even when free).

 

However a fundamental point I want to put across for myself is simple: If you didn't play to your fullest, I find the game less fun. In extreme cases I find pulling punches or not being serious can even be insulting but that is extreme cases. Kind of why I am a bad teacher for a lot of games...I lack that kind of patience and...well...find holding back hard to do (I have a terrible sense of how much to hold back. Often I can feel like I am insulting someone by doing so as well).

[MARK0SIAN]

Just to be clear, are we talking about a definition of what makes a faction/sub faction/unit competitive or a definition of what makes a game/player a competitive one?

 

I think, based on your post you’re asking about the former. In which case I would agree. A competitive faction should have a roughly 50% chance against any other faction on an averagely terrain dense table and using a ‘takes all comers’ list.

 

Obviously skewing your list in a particular direction or playing on tables that are at either extreme end of terrain density is going to mess with that.

 

To be able to accomplish that, factions need units that are appropriately costed and perform their job well, survivability or the ability to build in redundancy, a range of secondaries they can select so that there’s always an appropriate selection no matter what you’re facing, a reliable way to take and hold objectives and the right tools to deal with any of the things they could face from hordes to knights.

 

If a faction doesn’t have all of these as an absolute minimum then I would say it can’t begin to be considered competitive.

[AenarIT]

A faction that consistently sits between 45-55% wr is balanced. It means that the most optimized lists can push toward the upper boundary of those rates.

Any faction consistently above or below that range should be looked at.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Just to be clear, are we talking about a definition of what makes a faction/sub faction/unit competitive or a definition of what makes a game/player a competitive one?

 

I think, based on your post you’re asking about the former. In which case I would agree. A competitive faction should have a roughly 50% chance against any other faction on an averagely terrain dense table and using a ‘takes all comers’ list.

 

Obviously skewing your list in a particular direction or playing on tables that are at either extreme end of terrain density is going to mess with that.

 

To be able to accomplish that, factions need units that are appropriately costed and perform their job well, survivability or the ability to build in redundancy, a range of secondaries they can select so that there’s always an appropriate selection no matter what you’re facing, a reliable way to take and hold objectives and the right tools to deal with any of the things they could face from hordes to knights.

 

If a faction doesn’t have all of these as an absolute minimum then I would say it can’t begin to be considered competitive.

faction or list

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

You still haven't defined competitive and yet use it to describe something.

 

You can be competitive in a casual setting, players who don't actively get the new hotness but rather try to be the best with what they have and what they get (which is whatever they think is cool, not effective).

 

You can be competitive in a serious setting, players who are actively testing lists they intend to go to tournaments that have prizes for top places and thus are getting whatever units they need.

 

You can be competitive in an experimental setting, players who are actively testing things and while they will get what they need (regardless of cool or effect) the main objective is to just find wacky and strange combos. This may lead to the discovery of the next big thing.

 

Now we have to keep in mind that when I say setting this sort of thing doesn't apply just to scenes. Your scene could have a mix of players in various settings but top that with also add in they may not even be trying to compete; just have a good time. Competitive is by its nature and definition is when you compete to be the best at something, be it painting, building or rolling dice about plastic soldiers! The competition however is what matters most here and thus with my 3 examples, only 1 I suppose isn't being competitive in the sense many would expect where as the other 2 will be competing for roughly the same goal but at different "power levels" (get yer scouters!)

 

Little timmy and the teens likely aren't interested in tournament scenes too much and more about being the best player in their group which thus means they aren't actively being competitive to outlookers but within it could be heated between who is the Goku and Vegeta of the group. There is a sense of casual competing that exists.

 

Big Richard and the try-hards however are in the know of every tournament scene, and know every list inside and out. Their lives are the tournament scene and being number 1. Some of the group are more chill than others despite being complete monsters on the table (but are polite and fun to play against. They haven't lost sight like their figurehead member) while others can be massive sharks.

 

I would personally put myself in a spot, if using my own examples, between experimental and serious with a small touch of casual for my competitive nature. I like to take games seriously (as in not do silly things all the time. Not that I won't on occasion if I know I am done for...and it would get a laugh!) but if I win I want the win to be mine, not someone else because I didn't make the list. To me, list building is as much a part of the game and your army as building and painting it. There is a certain signature that anyone building a list might not even know they have, certain quirks they can't shake. Maybe its always having a melta bomb around, maybe you NEVER have pistols if they are an option (even when free).

 

However a fundamental point I want to put across for myself is simple: If you didn't play to your fullest, I find the game less fun. In extreme cases I find pulling punches or not being serious can even be insulting but that is extreme cases. Kind of why I am a bad teacher for a lot of games...I lack that kind of patience and...well...find holding back hard to do (I have a terrible sense of how much to hold back. Often I can feel like I am insulting someone by doing so as well).

yea the nature of the game inherently makes the game competitive everyone understands that, and understands that a competitive setting means tournament setting or practicing for a tournament.

 

Personal play styles aren’t the topic of discussion

[chapter master 454]

And I will re-frame the fact that what I was saying was you are literally asking an open question with no real topic. "what makes something competitive?" was your question while within your statement that "there was a breakdown of communication about what is competitive".

 

No offence frater but I suggest re-calibrating a little and consider what question you are asking here.

 

I almost feel like you have your answer to the question you asked without realising it. Yea...a list that can get about 50% win rate would be considered competitive by some but some would also claim "balanced" as definition is required here. Within this same line I would point that a list with a 60% win rate would be considered competitive by some, broken by others and "try-hard" smattered in there.

I mean, where is this list expected to perform? A competitive environment as I explained can vary greatly, do you mean at a tournament? Local club? At a GW Store? Among your own friends? I am putting forth a request that you give your definition of competitive because my view of your topic is discussing "What does competitive mean to you" as the title of your topic is "How would you define competitive" and by all accounts, my response I gave has done so.

You can't say "personal play styles don't count" because being competitive is part of the play style, as play style isn't reflected just by how you move miniatures and select targets; it is also a part of how you build a list and unit selection along with wargear. Someone selecting a full squad of Lightning Claw Jump Pack Raven Guard will be doing so for any number a reasons while any number different if it were an imperial fist or blood angels player.

My choice of using Codex Contemptors vs. FW Contemptors is something I think we can agree is something that would be viewed as mostly "using the good unit" arguments, even for a fluffy player there is near little reason to use Codex versions because...well fluff wise it is a little odd imo they don't have more weapon options (I am WELL aware it is a kit restriction I know I know I know I know!)

 

However it becomes more nebulous around contended units. I mean, Bladeguard veterans are great bulky boys who do work but also...Vanguard veterans are also pretty good. But which is better? That isn't a straight forward answer as both have pros and cons, both in their stats and their status as Primaris and Firstborn (this factor is slowly fading but could still be a players deciding point, especially if it may be a fluff thing for a fluff player who still wants to be "Competitive").

 

So my fellow frater, balls back in your court: How would you define competitive? As within the game, what does competitive mean overall? Does it mean trying to win? Have a decent chance on the table? (because those two questions aren't mutually at odds with each other).

Again I feel you presented a vague question in text but had a much deeper and narrow topic you wanted to discuss in mind but have a hard time expressing it into words. Not insulting but just observing you may need to consider that I have answered the question presented as best I could with the title and lead post of this thread as I could.

 

If the question is "What makes a list competitive?" then I would state "Any list that is built with intent to win the game. This isn't at exclusion of other possible build challenges but it is prioritised to make optimal choices over fluff based ones"

However if the question is something else, please let me know. As you did point out, the forum right now is currently having some mild bolter exchanges over this matter and so far it has been fairly friendly. I do think this topic could have some good clearing of the smoke on what each frater's view is on the matter as all of us have our own definition of competitive.

[MegaVolt87]

Competitive- adj

 

1. relating to or characterized by competition.

"a competitive sport"

 

2. as good as or better than others of a comparable nature.

"a car industry competitive with any in the world"

 

So in the context of 40k, playstyle and game balance walk hand in hand. A balanced codex + faction will create the toolbox one uses to meet 2 with the desire to compete in 1. I have said before, a casual player is not the catalyst or a good judge of balance as the tools they use don't have to be balanced + optimized for them to participate.

 

Look at it like this, a chef will want top quality custom knives, one for each task. An enthusiast home cook will have a few chefs knives and a set from a department store. The average home cook is fine with a mid range set from a department store. They all cook, but they all have a gap between them in skill. One is a good knife saves you time, skill with a good knife only widens the gap further in the preparation step. The chef is still better than the home cook, even if the chef is using the department store knives. Even if the home cook uses the chefs set of knives they will be as efficient as they are with the department store knives, the difference to them is negligible despite using the superior tool. The enthusiast isn't as good as the chef, but better than the average home cook. They know enough to get the prep/ cooking done, but the gap in skill is still noticeable enough between the enthusiast and the average joe. The chef will take a cooking challenge from the enthusiast cook or another chef seriously, there is a chance they could lose. The skill gap is so large its not even a competition at that point against the home cook. 

[Lord_Ikka]

For me, there are two definitions to competitive-

 

1) A player, list, or game mode that is intended to participate in a tournament-style setting. 

 

2) A faction in the game (or even a sub-faction/set of specific lists) that is able to win consistently (50% or more) in a competitive environment. 

[Wulf Vengis]

So in the context of 40k, playstyle and game balance walk hand in hand. A balanced codex + faction will create the toolbox one uses to meet 2 with the desire to compete in 1. I have said before, a casual player is not the catalyst or a good judge of balance as the tools they use don't have to be balanced + optimized for them to participate.

I agree with the first half of what you're saying but I would argue that a casual player is as much a catalyst/judge of good balance as any competitive player.

 

A competitive player wants their codex to be balanced to provide a fair, fun and worthwhile game to themselves and their opponent. These types of players exist in both fields of play but tend to prefer the more challenging aspects of play, whether that be a tourney or the reigning "open night champ", or even taking on all of their friends at the same time in a lop-sided game.

A causal player wants their codex to be balanced to provide a fair, fun and worthwhile game to themselves and their opponent. These types of players exist in both fields of play but generally prefer to play amongst friends, or outside of tournaments, where the point may be too tell a story or just kill a couple hours.

On the furthest most extremity of competitive; the WAAC player wants the most powerful tools available to them at any time to ensure a victory no matter if that victory is fun, fair or worthwhile to their opponent, the victory is all that matters. This type of player exists in both fields of play, but generally prefers the tourney scene as they're more likely to face players like themselves. Also, if this type of player isn't careful they may find it hard to get games outside of tourney play amongst friends or casual players. Though these players tend to keep there worst combinations for the tourney scene and want a fair, fun and worthwhile game when playing outside of that scene.

 

These are all very valid playstyles and generally all the of these players will want the same thing in the long run; a fair, fun and worthwhile game for themselves and their opponent.

 

Should ANY of these player types be involved in passing notes along to the rules developers?

Yes. Yes they should. They should each have their notes read and evaluated.

 

What should those notes be evaluated against?

I feel that herein lies the true problem of this debate. Do we compare those notes against the tournament meta or the casual meta?

 

I would suggest comparing the notes to the codecies in a meta vacuum. Look into what each note is saying about the faction in question and how that codex interacts with the core rules and the other codecies.

 

But that's just my opinion.

Edited January 31, 2022 by Wulf Vengis

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

And I will re-frame the fact that what I was saying was you are literally asking an open question with no real topic. "what makes something competitive?" was your question while within your statement that "there was a breakdown of communication about what is competitive".

 

No offence frater but I suggest re-calibrating a little and consider what question you are asking here.

 

I almost feel like you have your answer to the question you asked without realising it. Yea...a list that can get about 50% win rate would be considered competitive by some but some would also claim "balanced" as definition is required here. Within this same line I would point that a list with a 60% win rate would be considered competitive by some, broken by others and "try-hard" smattered in there.

I mean, where is this list expected to perform? A competitive environment as I explained can vary greatly, do you mean at a tournament? Local club? At a GW Store? Among your own friends? I am putting forth a request that you give your definition of competitive because my view of your topic is discussing "What does competitive mean to you" as the title of your topic is "How would you define competitive" and by all accounts, my response I gave has done so.

You can't say "personal play styles don't count" because being competitive is part of the play style, as play style isn't reflected just by how you move miniatures and select targets; it is also a part of how you build a list and unit selection along with wargear. Someone selecting a full squad of Lightning Claw Jump Pack Raven Guard will be doing so for any number a reasons while any number different if it were an imperial fist or blood angels player.

My choice of using Codex Contemptors vs. FW Contemptors is something I think we can agree is something that would be viewed as mostly "using the good unit" arguments, even for a fluffy player there is near little reason to use Codex versions because...well fluff wise it is a little odd imo they don't have more weapon options (I am WELL aware it is a kit restriction I know I know I know I know!)

 

However it becomes more nebulous around contended units. I mean, Bladeguard veterans are great bulky boys who do work but also...Vanguard veterans are also pretty good. But which is better? That isn't a straight forward answer as both have pros and cons, both in their stats and their status as Primaris and Firstborn (this factor is slowly fading but could still be a players deciding point, especially if it may be a fluff thing for a fluff player who still wants to be "Competitive").

 

So my fellow frater, balls back in your court: How would you define competitive? As within the game, what does competitive mean overall? Does it mean trying to win? Have a decent chance on the table? (because those two questions aren't mutually at odds with each other).

Again I feel you presented a vague question in text but had a much deeper and narrow topic you wanted to discuss in mind but have a hard time expressing it into words. Not insulting but just observing you may need to consider that I have answered the question presented as best I could with the title and lead post of this thread as I could.

 

If the question is "What makes a list competitive?" then I would state "Any list that is built with intent to win the game. This isn't at exclusion of other possible build challenges but it is prioritised to make optimal choices over fluff based ones"

However if the question is something else, please let me know. As you did point out, the forum right now is currently having some mild bolter exchanges over this matter and so far it has been fairly friendly. I do think this topic could have some good clearing of the smoke on what each frater's view is on the matter as all of us have our own definition of competitive.

it’s not open ended you’re just being obtuse.

 

If someone posted in a faction sub forum and asked “is this list competitive” you’d be an ass to reply with something like “well ya, if you play against someone it’s competitive”

[gideon stargreave]

He isn't being obtuse. Your op is very open. I came here to discuss points made about discussion between players, as in "how do we define the game we're about to play? Will it be competitive or will we play an overtly unbalanced game that one of us will surely lose, in order to play out the last stand at macragge."

I then saw that this discussion is about list building, or army selection or something.

[Wulf Vengis]

I had thought it was about the possible results of adding tournament winners to the development process in an attempt to bring a better form of balance to the overall game and it's multiple methods of play.

[jaxom]

So I’ll say for me, a list or faction that can expect roughly a 50% win rate in a competitive environment is competitive.

 

The second half seems tautological to me, but from context I'd guess that a competitive environment is one where all involved want to win? 

 

Alright then, here's my perspective. A codex/faction/sub-faction is competitive if three or more lists with at least 50% variance in their composition have an overall win-rate of 50 +/- 5 percent in matched play and narrative play when used in a game with a player of equal skill.

[Schlitzaf]

There is “competitive (enviroment)”, “Being Competitive” and “Playing Competitive”. All 3 have nuances and make uo whay we call “competitive”. Let start. The latter two overlap but not always.

 

Playing Competitive: Using every facet of the rules and their army to win as they play the game. (THIS NOT NECCESARY WAAC). They believe they are “playing” to win. And in that sense their expectation is that their opponents are doing the same. One of my best friends who is a grinder. Outright told me, he plays in a tournament, “I want to be challenged. I am not here to ‘play’ I am here to win. Not because I need to win. But because I want the ability to lose. For me that rush of the adrenaline, the clash of wits, win or lose is why I play”. So playing pick up games at our LGS wasn’t fun for him sense he just played at a level beyond most of us regulars. Cause we played to play. While winning was the point it was not the goal. While his goal was to win, his point was to play a game against an opponent of equal ability.

 

Being Competitive: To Be the Best. Not neccesarily you play to win every game. But your goal is “be better than the guy next to you”. Often seen in WAAC but it can be seen in Fluff inclined players too. They aren’t playing to win, they are playing to be the best. This can mean “Mh army is best punchiest in the store” or Podium’ing at a tourny. Often this where “Balance” or other mindsets come to 40k. Sense to be the best you need to not be “weak”. (For same reason balance discussion can be related to play comp, but not always. Sense in playing comp your goal or endpoint is ultimatelt matching wits against another skilled played. Balanced enviro is not neccesarily requires here).

 

This is the mindset of goal and purpose is to win. Not neccesarily the act of playing itself. It also means people are more likely to feel cheated if they felt unfairly gamed. Conversely these players love to those same gacha’s. Being Competitive is not a Bad Thing. Its just how you approach, and finding those gachas can be just as cool for other sense “Oh :cuss O didn’t think to uss those units or abilities in thay combination that awesome”.

 

Competitive Enviroment: Where everyone goal is achieve victory. Not neccesarily craft a story or win. But to achieve a success. And tje enviroment is focused “on tje successful achievement of x”. Where tried and true is name is the game, everyone is playing togetbor to win. Often has people of tje first two mindsets but not always. Even a flavorful campaign can be this. Your goal is achieving success in tje campaign whatever that is defined as.

 

So what is competitive? I say it depends. What you mean.

Edited March 1, 2022 by Schlitzaf

[tychobi]

For me competitive 40k is using all available legal means to outplay your opponent and win the game you are playing. The "legal" caveat holds some nested intention.  Legal to me means informed decisions made by both sides are fully informed and made with full knowledge of the game.  Present rules are scattered across a myriad of supplements and faqs and partially out of date books and magazines and no one can be responsible for knowing them all. Therefore informing your opponent during the game of the implications of their moves as they interact with yours is YOUR responsibility as per the player pact and any gotchas are ILLEGAL as they were are the result of your incomplete communication.  This ideal is impossible but the intention of informing your opponent so that they have every opportunity to make the best decisions they can is part of competitive play to me.  I want to beat my opponents at their best, no mistakes, no misunderstandings, no gotchas.  I do not always succeed in my communications and many of my opponents do not subscribe to my "tell em how you are beating em as you do so" mentality.  I am only bothered when my opponent does not try their level best to beat me. I want to learn from every game, I want to get better.  Save the glad handing for a non competitive match. 

[jaxom]

Being Competitive: To Be the Best. Not neccesarily you play to win every game. But your goal is “be better than the guy next to you”. 

 

For me competitive 40k is using all available legal means to outplay your opponent and win the game you are playing  *SNIP*  I am only bothered when my opponent does not try their level best to beat me. I want to learn from every game, I want to get better.  Save the glad handing for a non competitive match. 

 

For me, it's playing to win, but not necessarily looking to play the most point-efficient army. I see that as the difference between competitive play and serious tournament play. I'll design a list to handle objectives, play it to my best, but I don't sit down and crunch out wounds per points or % efficiency increase for different strats.

[Domhnall]

My definition of competitive in the context of army lists:

 

 

An army that provides the units and options to allow for a win against an opposing army, but avoiding being too strong as to be unbeatable by some/all opposing armies.

 

That's about as simple as I can make the definition, because after that, too many factors come into play to skew the balance that have to be ignored to consider an army competitive: such as player skill, units that the player actually has, terrain on the table, dice rolls etc.

For example, a good player with a poor list 'could' defeat a poor player with a good list. A good player with a poor list would struggle against a good player with a good list.

A player plays a super competative army, but only has a few infantry squads from that army can't be considered 'competitive', unless they were playing against an opponent of similar composition.

A fully mechanised army is hindered by dense terrain; close combat units are at a disadvantage on an open board with no terrain. 

Dice rolls should be obvious. 

 

Sometimes, an army is just bad. Sometimes an army is just too strong. With so many factions and having so many options, it's next to impossible to be fully balanced, and everything being competitive. otherwise we're playing a variation of rock/paper/scissors. 

[b1soul]

Think OP is asking by what metric and cut-off (e.g. 50% win rate, etc.) do people here judge a list to be "competitive". It's almost like asking how people define Tier 1 and maybe Tier 2 lists

[Tyberos the Red Wake]

Generally when a game has a competitive metagame develop, the cutoff for competitive is whether or not it has a realistic shot at taking an event. A dark horse with 40% win rate against the field can still win the tournament, but it's not competitive. If the pilot is unlucky or is of average skill, they're not going to win with this pick. For this reason, I feel OP's minimum bar of 50% average is a reasonable standard. Armies won't always be 50/50 against every other common list, but a 50% average ratio against the expected field is what's required to not be disadvantaged at a major event, and a superior pilot with a 50/50 matchup will still theoretically beat all other players.

 

If you can facestomp factions nobody plays or you facestomp every faction but lose to the most overplayed faction, this will affect your ratios. If 75% of players play Eldar and Space Marines and are going to continue to play Eldar and Space Marines at all future events, and your army has a 90% win rate against every faction but a 75% lose rate against Space Marines and Eldar, it isn't competitive. If your army is 50% against everything but you can win the tournament by making one less mistake than your opponents or simply being better, I feel it's reasonable to call the army competitive.

 

Historically, all you need is a 55% win rate to be a "top" pick, because being slightly advantaged across the board is actually extremely advantageous assuming two equally competent opponents. In less balanced editions/other games, some choices have gone as high as 60% to even 90% win rate, and this is when people start complaining about it being "broken", "cheese", "unbalanced", etc, and it's usually nerfed.

 

We do have to keep in mind this is a dice-based game, and a D6 one at that, so luck is a large component of competition.

Edited February 2, 2022 by Tyberos the Red Wake

[Silas7]

This seems to be a point of break down in communication for some discussions.

 

So I’ll say for me, a list or faction that can expect roughly a 50% win rate in a competitive environment is competitive.

Competitive to me is when both players are no longer laughing and pulling stunts for that one-in-six chance of success. Like that one time a decade ago my cadian lieutenant w power sword killed a daemon prince in CC; you won't see that kinda thing in competitive environments.

 

As for a win-rate ratio; 50% sounds boring but we're talking in the context of try-hard so even if my army baseline is 50% and my mental effort increases that percent by 5-10% before my opponents tactics mitigate that percentage then yes I'd say it would be balanced.

[apologist]

Yes, as gideon stargreave says, the question in the original post is very vague, and I think it could do with some clarification from the OP if they're after more meaningful discussion.

 

However, there are a lot of interesting points that have popped up. For example, Schlitzaf makes a number of interesting points on different interepretations:

 

There is “competitive (enviroment)”, “Being Competitive” and “Playing Competitive”. All 3 have nuances and make uo whay we call “competitive”.

[...]Being Competitive: To Be the Best. Not neccesarily you play to win every game. But your goal is “be better than the guy next to you”. Often seen in WAAC but it can be seen in Fluff inclined players too. They aren’t playing to win, they are playing to be the best. This can mean “Mh army is best punchiest in the store” or Podium’ing at a tourny. [...]
Competitive Enviroment: Where everyone goal is achieve victory. Not neccesarily craft a story or win. But to achieve a success. And tje enviroment is focused “on tje successful achievement of x”. Where tried and true is name is the game, everyone is playing togetbor to win. Often has people of tje first two mindsets but not always. Even a flavorful campaign can be this. Your goal is achieving success in tje campaign whatever that is defined as.

So what is competitive? I say it depends. What you mean.

 

 

Certainly the word 'competitive' has taken on implications of a sportslike attitude online – usually being defined against 'friendly' or 'casual' gaming – but I don't think that's inherent in the idea, and nor do I think that the three terms are mutually exclusive.

 

As a mostly narrative gamer (by which I mean that I mainly play to illuminate stories or enjoy the spectacle of two thematic armies), I certainly aim to play in a friendly manner – that is, in an open and engaging way – but I also want my games to be relaxing and leisurely. A successful game for me is one with plenty of time to chat and discuss stuff beyond the events on the table; one in which the models, board and players combine to explore a 'what if' scenario between two forces.

 

Is there still competition? Certainly. Part of the enjoyment and engagement of a war game is engaging with the mission at hand with the army at hand – but I don't think I'd use the label 'competitive', as that has so many other connotations within the hobby. The lopsided or absent victory conditions of scenario play make competition here, however, far less easy to define or resolve.

 

Likewise, I don't think that 'big-c Competitive' gaming necessarily lacks friendliness or an aspect of casual leisure. Having been to a couple of tournament events, while the atmosphere was typically more game-focussed and energised, it wasn't unfriendly or unfun. All of these things exist on a spectrum – and while on balance, I've found that I prefer slower games with more open lists and discussion beforehand, I can see that competitive gaming can still be enjoyable and rewarding.

 

+++

 

So how would I define competitive, then, to answer the opening question? I think in context, the definition has to go beyond being completely open-ended. It's not simply playing to win, whatever your other objectives; but rather with a focus on playing to win that excludes or minimises other aspects of the game – like working cooperatively to explore a story, or bringing roleplay into the decisions you make for your forces.

 

Let me be clear that that's not intended as a pop at Matched Play gaming; because you can bring a competitive attitude to a Narrative  game or even an Open Play scenario. However, I'd argue that Matched Play tend to lend itself better to competitive gaming because both bring with them certain implications of 'fair play', 'even sides' and so forth that can be absent from Narrative or Open Play (a 'last stand' scenario, for example, rather relies on one side being overmatched).

 

In short, it's easier to tell if you're playing competitively in Matched Play or a similar tournament-style game because the game mode is set up to make streamlining and focussing on clear, balanced and even objectives easier. 

Edited March 1, 2022 by apologist

[Schlitzaf]

Apo, what you are saying is exactly my point. "Competitiveness" is really broad and has some negative connotations when it really shouldn't be. Like in the example, I'd argue if the goal is to telling the best story, your gonna be angling your play to do so. A very very classic example I like to use is something like this. 

You have a SuperScaryDudebro (Nightbringer or something) that you Khorne Zerkers really really shouldn't charge. But you do so anyways, its not the best play, but its the play that achieves what you are trying to 'create'. Most people "say that playing flavorfully", and I would agree. But its also you played the game and endeavor to tell a story where that is the outcome. Why? 

Because damn its awesome. Like one of my favorite stories back in late 5th ed. My story ran apoc games regularly. It was 1500 points + SuperHeavy or Datasheet. All of fifth the regulars were building up the ladder. We had a full titan maniple, a Ultra First company etc. A bunch of things. One of them brought a Lesser deamonhost for 1500 and then Angron + Thristers. And placed them in front of our Titans (and my shield company, 1,500 points of Templars, Baneblade Platoon, and few other things). 

Ultimately was right before new GK Book dropped. So we deployed our GK Teleport Strike Force, Assassin Forces and some sisters. Angron Endured (somehow). Then we sent my Black Templars to hold the line. He Smashed. My IG Stood to Recieve. Angron Breached. We redirected Ultra First Company, Uthwe Seer Council, and March of the Ancients and more. Angron Annihilated. His forces took the shots from 2 Reaver, 3 Baneblades and more. He Breached our Center Line. 

He took out the titans. By all rights He shouldn't have endured. He should have fallen. But he survived. He even insisted on that spot in the Chaos lines. Why? "Because its what Khorne Desires." He played his best and he rolled well. All of us were going all out. This was a conclusion of what was essentially an edition long campaign. And it was amazing. But he played the best within the context of the game. And while he won, we all know he wouldn't been just as happy if he lost because he played 'his best'. Is that 'competitive'? I mean in many ways yes he played competitively. Alot of why he survived was because 30 minute turns for each side. So we didn't fire EVERYTHING at him just the CoolThings. So we could our charges and fight phases. 

But this is 100% within the scenario of what Apo you just described. And I yet to know anyone who wouldn't describe what happened that day as Awesome. 

[The Neverborn]

There's a good video on YouTube about the importance of defining words. Search "The Dictionary - Zero Punctuation Style"

 

It goes into detail about "defining" flight. By the literal oxford definition flight is only possible in air, so something moving through pure helium would not be read-as-written be flying.

 

The point is, it doesn't matter what I, you or anyone else thinks a word in this case "Competitive" means. What's more important is the two players at the time have the same definition of the word.