# Playing Competitively... Casually.



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

This is an article I recently emailed in to a blog I visit every day (3++ is the new black - you should visit it too, it's a great site! http://www.3plusplus.net/ ) and was rather surprised when it actually got posted about 2 days later!

Thought I would post it here too in order to see what my fellow heretics think. I do welcome all opinions and any constructive criticism - so fear not the flaming. k:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am, at heart, a competitive gamer. I wince when I see people fielding Tri-Las Predators or five Tactical terminators in a Godhammer Land Raider. I die a little bit inside every time someone puts Tau down on the other side of the table to me (joking! Mostly...), I enjoy tweaking my lists to get the most out of them, checking the net for new builds and adding/removing units to make them fit my collection while still following the ideas they are based upon. I have a fair interest in math-hammer and enjoy working out optimal units based on it, which seems to work reasonably well for me. I have great fun at tournaments even if I don’t place particularly well because that’s when I play against other top-end gamers.

You might now be asking “Why are you talking about casual gaming at all?” and the answer is simple – the club I go to every week is incredibly casual. A few of my friends and I have been trying to filter competitive lists into it by process of osmosis for the last few years, but it is still very slow going. To illustrate, one of the better lists has 30 Sternguard in it, all with Combi-Meltas. Ultramarines are common (and not played by children either) and even the most cutting edge codices are generally played with units that “look cool”. There is no unit spam, no 8-Razorback/6-Hydra/9 Venom lists. Even outdated tourney lists like Lash and Nob Bikers don’t get played. Consequently, my tourney Mechdar are still undefeated (although there have been draws) in the last three years against anyone but my friends. There are a handful of players with decent armies, but there are also masses of people with bad ones, and playing the same four people gets boring fast.

This leads me into the main body of my post: How to play casually, competitively. Wait, what? Yep. There have been quite a few arguments over the old internet about casual versus competitive, the pros and cons of nerfing your army deliberately, taking bad units, letting people win, teaching new players how to improve and so on. Everyone has their own view on the best way to play with our toy soldiers, and that’s fair enough. This is my personal opinion.

1. Bad players learn nothing from being massacred. Even if you explain step by step why it happened, someone you tabled by turn 3 is not going to be receptive to criticism, explanations or a lecture on army composition. Human nature just doesn’t work that way. However someone who only lost narrowly (by 1 objective to 0, 1 kill point, whatever) will be much more likely to listen if you mention something like “You know, Long Fangs are better with 4 missile launchers rather than 1 of every weapon”.

2. People will not alter their collections overnight, or because you tell them to. It is their army, and their money. Likewise, people will absorb lessons much more easily if it is delivered in small doses. Telling someone to go out and buy 6 Razorbacks accomplishes nothing. Suggesting that “Your 10 man Grey Hunter squad could use a Rhino, and hey, since you’re getting a Rhino you may as well get the Razorback kit for the extra weapons...” might actually make them buy one the next time they consider adding something to their army. A week later you might see the new Rhino and mention “You know Las/Plas is actually pretty good, and really easy to convert...”

3. The casual player does not have an exclusive responsibility to “catch up” to the competitive player by buying more/better models. The competitive player also has an equal responsibility to “drop down” their army a bit. Instead of thinking “Damn, got to nerf my list with some crappy unit” then you might be better served by thinking “Hey, I’ve never used Guardians before, how can I fit them into my list, and how do I think I can use them well?” You can pick up a squad on ebay (where non-competitive units tend to be cheaper and more available) or something and see how well you can make them perform. See it as an excellent opportunity to try out a unit you’ve never used, give it an interesting paint job or convert it somehow, and then roll it out on the table. Minimal investment is a plus, because you’re hardly going to be using them in every single game.

4. No-one has fun if one player whitewashes the other, unless you’re the kind of person who enjoys clubbing seals and who should therefore be safely removed from the gene pool and shot behind the barn for the good of the species. By having the casual player “play up” and the competitive player “play down” a more balanced result can be achieved, and more fun can be had (which is why we play games, right? For fun?). By adding a squadron of War Walkers to my Mechdar, removing a Fire Dragon unit plus Serpent, adding some Guardians on foot and removing a Falcon (basically making the list slightly worse) then my opponent gets to build a kill pile that is more than one or two Wave Serpent turrets and the odd unit of Fire Dragons. Likewise, his dead pile isn’t 7/8ths of his army by turn five.

What I need to make clear now is that I am not recommending that you play badly, or let the other guy win, or write a 100% terrible list. What I am suggesting is that you take the time to place yourself in deliberately more challenging situations, which you must then play competently to get out of. This sharpens your own skills outside of the tournament scene – you learn to use units in different roles than you might normally, or play in a style you don’t often do (mech, hybrid, foot, whatever). Pick a unit that is “bad” but you always loved the fluff/miniatures for and try to make it work to the best of its ability. Take three different heavy support choices instead of the same one three times. Here’s the important bit: _All the time you are doing this, keep helping other players develop their skills, their army list, and their tactics. A bit at a time, every week._

Claiming that you have no responsibility to approximate the level of your opponent is openly admitting that you are an elitist dick, regardless of how much “advice” you try to unload on them during the game where you win by 17 KPs to 1. Your games will be closer, more challenging, and more fun for both of you, and eventually, you will both be better players than you were. I’ll reiterate: This is just my opinion.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to get back to painting my new Daemon army...


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

Very well written and very accurate. Tabling people of lower skill is a dick move.


----------



## DecrepitDragon (Aug 2, 2011)

Sethis said:


> Claiming that you have no responsibility to approximate the level of your opponent is openly admitting that you are an elitist dick, regardless of how much “advice” you try to unload on them during the game where you win by 17 KPs to 1. Your games will be closer, more challenging, and more fun for both of you, and eventually, you will both be better players than you were. I’ll reiterate: This is just my opinion.


An interesting read. It did surprise me slightly by being very unbiased, and at the very least, a fair interpretation of how I imagine "good" or "sporting" competitive players treat the game. When I reached this paragraph, above, I was nodding in a sage and wise manner - like I'd been playing touneys, all my life.

I've competed in only one. Which ended in a middle of the table result. Good enough for me.

The guys that I game with, are all good players, but none have played "Competitively" (the capital letter is deliberate). I think we see the game from a slightly different point of view, in that we like to test each other from a more gamesmanship and tactical style, rather than using tried and tested competitive lists, with tested tactics.

Now, to be clear, I mean no disrespect to anyone of the tournament mentality - I merely mention preferences, not absolutes that must be adhered to.

We still vary our lists, change our tactics, and try to improve our game, but I dont think that being "Competitive" is as much of a driving force for us. We all, if we're absolutely honest, want to win. It is a game of two sides after all. But that never becomes the sole reason, which from my, admittedly limited experience, is what tourneys are all about. 

Again, by this I am not being definitive - there are always exceptions. I just mean to say that one can assume with a fair degree of confidence, that if you enter a competition, then you will be attemting to win it (even if you dont think you can, you'll still try).

To the point of my long winded story though. Its all much of a muchness. We're all different. We all play differently. We all have different priorities when gaming. . .

But we all still play.

Or at least enjoy the hobby our own way. Reading this blog article you wrote has opened my eyes a little more to the attitudes and ideas of "Competitive" gamers, and I find it a refreshing look with some ideas that had never crossed my mind till now. This goes some way to rubbishing that stereotype that "Competative" equals "POWER!".

That can only be a good thing. Nicely written friend.:biggrin:


----------



## ohiocat110 (Sep 15, 2010)

One other thing to keep in mind. Bad players will sometimes surprise you by making an unexpected move that you're unprepared for because a better player wouldn't make it. 

Like a Devastator unit leaving cover to get a lascannon shot at a Landraider with a cover save, and blowing it up anyways. Or charging your deathstar with an inferior unit that somehow survives the first turn and keeps you from getting to where you wanted to go. 

It helps to keep you honest, by thinking about what the enemy both should do, and what they can do.


----------



## Lord Azune (Nov 12, 2011)

Just as in real war, a desperate move can indeed sometimes turn the tides of war. Still it helps if you have a properly worked out army if you're gonna stand on equal footing before things get dire.


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

Very well said.

My best friend and I exactly replicate this scenario. When the two of us where playing each other and others every week (in 2nd ed) at a local game shop, we approached the game from both directions. He was always serious math-hammer min/max, often at the expense of fluff. 90% of his game was played with the army book and a calculator, maximizing his army's efficiency and capability on paper, and then going to the store and usually playing it better than is enemies.

I was the opposite. I wrote what I felt was a fair and balanced army, often forgoing more powerful min/max options in favor of flexibility and army balance. Mind you not taking anything bad or handicapping myself, but not taking anything I felt was cheese*. I wrote a good army and then took it in and played the board. My goal was always to outplay my enemy; to use each part of my force to do whatever it was intended to do as appropriately as it could. Sometimes I ran into a min/max army that I didn't have the oomph to deal with, but most of the time I out generaled them.

And the only times my friend lost was playing me. He won a bit more than half the time against me, and even then only moderate victories. And this was almost as true in fantasy battle as well, only reversed. I was ever better at out generaling him with blocks of troops when movement needs to be much more precise. Though when I lost to him in fantasy it was usually a tabling and my victories while more consistent weren't tablings.

I find your article striking because it describes the dichotomy of our styles. I came at the game as a casual gamer with a competent list. And my friend approached the game in a completely competitive way. And we always pushed each other to become better players.

Cheers,
Kreuger


* - And by 'cheese' I mean anything from my army book I'd think was abusive if somebody set it down across the table from me. I approach it from a very do-unto-others perspective.


----------



## DecrepitDragon (Aug 2, 2011)

Kreuger said:


> * - And by 'cheese' I mean anything from my army book I'd think was abusive if somebody set it down across the table from me. I approach it from a very do-unto-others perspective.


Precisely why the Doom of Blue Stilton . . . er . . sorry, Malantai, is banned, by all of us in a majority vote, within my gaming group.

Mutual respect can be achieved from both sides of the coin, either casual or competitive, without sacrificing the game.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Doom isn't overpowered, it's T4, no EW, and can't hurt vehicles or, more importantly, units in vehicles. Not trolling here, but if you have to ban a certain unit then it's just your poor _sportsman_ship.

Midnight


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

It's not poor generalship, it's personal preference. If the entire gaming group agrees, then why not? You could have a blanket ban on Pyrovores instead if you liked.


----------



## DecrepitDragon (Aug 2, 2011)

MidnightSun said:


> . . . if you have to ban a certain unit then it's just your poor generalship.
> 
> Midnight


Such is your opinion, and you're welcome to it friend. Its worth mentioning though, that without knowing anything about me, you have made a very sweeping generalisation that has absolutely no basis in fact.

And you missed the point entirely.



Sethis said:


> It's not poor generalship, it's personal preference. If the entire gaming group agrees, then why not? You could have a blanket ban on Pyrovores instead if you liked.


Thanks Sethis. Perceptive again. :victory:

This, Midnight, was my point. That as long as all parties within a gaming group agree, then the mutual respect those decisions generate, can only lead to better gaming for all involved.

Poor generalship? I think not.

Good sportsmanship. I like to think so.

No hard feelings though mate. As I said, its your opinion, and you're welcome to it.


----------



## Lord Azune (Nov 12, 2011)

The only problem I see is that by banning any unit from the standard codex, you're basically gimping that army instead of learning how to deal with it. I'll agree that it may not reflect on your generalship as a whole but it is better to learn to deal with the unknown or unexpected than not. Doom really isn't that powerful when it comes down to it, you just need to instadeath it which is pretty easy in my opinion.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

Playing "down" to your competition is one way to improve your gaming skills, but it's no where near as effective as playing someone who is equal or above your skill "level." Same thing with handicapping yourself against lesser skilled players, it might give you minor insight on how to use an individual unit "better" (as you need to get more out of them) but that's relative to the less skilled player you're playing against.

That being said the real problem with playing "down" to your competition is your competition never tends to play "up," for various reasons. Most players that play 40k (or any game) "competitively" will have access to much more resources then a "casual" player would have, especially if they have been playing for an extended period of time. Playing "down" becomes easy when you use units that were good in a previous edition of a codex but now aren't so great any more, while playing "up" may require several new units along with new strategies to use them. While you can proxy units for a while, this may become an issue after an extended period of time.

If this happens it means that the "casual" player is expecting the "competitive" player to cater to their needs to make the game more enjoyable for them. Why must one type of player, who carries a stigma in the community for their play style, be forced to play a certain way, while the complaining players can continue playing how they want?

Edit:




Lord Azune said:


> The only problem I see is that by banning any unit from the standard codex, you're basically gimping that army instead of learning how to deal with it. I'll agree that it may not reflect on your generalship as a whole but it is better to learn to deal with the unknown or unexpected than not.


1000x this. Very well said Lord Azune


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Wusword77 said:


> If this happens it means that the "casual" player is expecting the "competitive" player to cater to their needs to make the game more enjoyable for them. Why must one type of player, who carries a stigma in the community for their play style, be forced to play a certain way, while the complaining players can continue playing how they want?


Because that's how this hobby works - if you bitch loudly enough and shun people that think differently than you do you get your way.


----------



## Dicrel Seijin (Apr 2, 2011)

@Sethis: This was well-thought out and well-written, you've articulated what I've been struggling to rationalize for a couple of months now. +rep.

As of this writing, I've been playing 40K for about 13 months. The players that introduced me to this game have been playing for 10+ years. Playing every other week, I've only recently (back in January) gotten my first few victories. My friends went easy on me for the first few games in Feb of 2011 and then the kid gloves came off--hell, one friend didn't even bother and tabled me in a Spearhead-Annihilation game (he was Tau, I was SM--that was the longest footslog across a board ever). But my friends know me, I'm tenacious, especially if I find something I like (e.g., 40K). 

In the past couple of months, I've been the one doing the recruiting, trying to convince other friends to play 40K. A couple have taken the bait and there are now two new players. Knowing these two for decades now, I know that if I were to table them, I'd lose them; they'd stop playing. I've had to ease off on the aggressive tactics. I would rather have others to play with for months and years to come rather than add to my "win" column.

So now for me, there's a bit of a schism in my play style (though my army builds are all-comers so there's no real change there) depending on who my opponent is. And the best part is that I know this is only temporary. With the progress that I see, I know that for one the players, I can soon discard the kid gloves, and suggest taking it to 1,000-point games (we usually play 500 to 750).


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Wusword77 said:


> Playing "down" to your competition is one way to improve your gaming skills, but it's no where near as effective as playing someone who is equal or above your skill "level."


Correct, but as I said in my initial post, this is me talking about situations where finding such players is either difficult or impossible. I didn't say this was the best way to improve, just that it was one way of doing so.



Wusword77 said:


> That being said the real problem with playing "down" to your competition is your competition never tends to play "up," for various reasons.


That depends. Several of the people at my club have become markedly better over the last year, mainly due to the influence of me and my friends. Others, of course, will never improve because they refuse to take advice, or because being good at the game is not important to them, which is their choice.



Wusword77 said:


> Most players that play 40k (or any game) "competitively" will have access to much more resources then a "casual" player would have, especially if they have been playing for an extended period of time. Playing "down" becomes easy when you use units that were good in a previous edition of a codex but now aren't so great any more, while playing "up" may require several new units along with new strategies to use them. While you can proxy units for a while, this may become an issue after an extended period of time.


And this was my point in doing all of this gradually, over a period of many weeks. Once you find someone willing to get on board with improving their army then you can help them plan purchases or give them advice on what to avoid.



Wusword77 said:


> If this happens it means that the "casual" player is expecting the "competitive" player to cater to their needs to make the game more enjoyable for them. Why must one type of player, who carries a stigma in the community for their play style, be forced to play a certain way, while the complaining players can continue playing how they want?


Uh, I think you missed the majority of my point. It's not about one player forcing his style on another, it's about compromise. Unless you like mashing casual armies into the ground with your GT Winning tourney list (and are, by extension, a complete tool) then no-one enjoys a completely one-sided affair, to the point where those players may never play each other again. I know that there are people at my club who avoid playing with me, and there are people I avoid playing against in turn, simply because I literally can't lower my army to the point where it would be an even fight. I would have to deliberately play badly to even give the illusion of a fair fight - and that is what I am trying to avoid.

Remember this is all in the context of someone who enjoys playing competitively, but who lacks a decent number of similar people to play with. It could equally apply to the only person in a gaming club who builds fluffy armies facing down 20 people with min/max netlists, and the same principles would apply. The fluffy player tries to improve, the competitive players try to have fun with units they would never normally take.



Lord Azune said:


> The only problem I see is that by banning any unit from the standard codex, you're basically gimping that army instead of learning how to deal with it. I'll agree that it may not reflect on your generalship as a whole but it is better to learn to deal with the unknown or unexpected than not.


Just banning a unit doesn't necessarily gimp a codex. For example in Magic: The Gathering, my local playgroup has always heavily frowned on Land Destruction decks. That doesn't mean that we've gimped Red or Black, it just means that as a group, we do not find Land Destruction fun, and although we could build decks to counter it, we prefer to just remove it from the equation when we're having social games. In tournaments, of course we'll play against it (and if we think it's a likely choice to come up, we may start practicing against it as well) but there are still plenty of red decks you can build that don't involve Stone Rain (or whatever).

Likewise agreeing not to use the Doom doesn't mean the Nid dex is gimped (the majority of competitive lists don't even take him) it just means that if your local scene has less Mech than normal, and likes plasma a bit more than melta as a result, amicably banning the Doom prevents games that are not fun for one or both players.


----------



## Lord Azune (Nov 12, 2011)

So you'd be cool with the group saying: "Hey, no AV 14 vehicles. They're no fun to play against"?

Magic the gathering has a crapton of cards to pull from if you're playing legacy, less if you're playing standard but it has options because you can mix colors. Removing units from an already limited pool as it is, gives the player less strategic choices.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Lord Azune said:


> So you'd be cool with the group saying: "Hey, no AV 14 vehicles. They're no fun to play against"?
> 
> Magic the gathering has a crapton of cards to pull from if you're playing legacy, less if you're playing standard but it has options. Removing units from an already limited pool as it is, gives the player less strategic choices.


No, I wouldn't care much, because I play Eldar and (currently) Daemons. :laugh: If anything it would let me use my Elites slots for things that aren't Fire Dragons, which would be interesting.

On a serious note, then no, I wouldn't be cool with it because:

- Many different books can (and often do) take AV14 vehicles. SM, SW, BA, IG, Orks, BT, DA, GK, CSM. Only one book can take the Doom.

- AV14 vehicles are a central component to certain archetypes of army. You build your list around them. You don't build your list around the Doom, you just take it because you think you have enough Hive Guard for the people you're playing against, and you have 125pts free.

- There is less of an excuse for being unable to counter an AV14 vehicle. The way to counter Doom is to mech up, which involves buying a lot of £20 models for 35pt units. This is monetarily expensive and prohibitive for some people. Dealing with AV14 requires you to have a few meltaguns which come on the sprue anyway, and if not meltaguns then at least Lances/Lascannon/MCs/Chainfists/Meltabombs/Multimeltas, some of which you'll find in any army.

- And finally the most important one... You would never get a unanimous vote to disallow them. Unless it was somehow a small group of people who only ever played with Xenos armies. If the vote is not unanimous, then it is not ethical, because you're forcing someone to comply with what you believe is the "right" way to play, above and beyond what is written in the rules. This is why I passionately hate comp in tournaments.

Lastly, if a miracle occurred, and there was a gaming group somewhere that did amicably choose to not play with AV14... what's your problem? It's their choice. If everyone is happy, why not leave them to enjoy it?


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Seems strange that a unit would be "banned" and yet everyone was happy with that choice? for something to be tagged as "banned" you would expect that thing to have been a issue for people to deal with,generally for something to be banned people have to express a negative view of it and if enough people agree with that then the thing becomes "banned".
So it follows that if a group banned the Doom, i would think the people using it effectively would disagree with the ban but were likely outnumber in the vote.

Obviously this is just a hypothetical observation/opinion, but its very rare for people who are enjoying something to want to ban it. Personally if the group of wargamers i played with started to even consider removing a unit from any armys codex i would have to leave and find elsewhere to play because i think that a persons choice to choose to field a unit should not be decided by other players who i might face in a game,tournaments is a different matter, but in normal every day games no unit should be out of bounds.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

Sethis said:


> Uh, I think you missed the majority of my point. It's not about one player forcing his style on another, it's about compromise.


But at it's core that's what your asking. You asking for Competitive players to play "down" (implying their normal play style is better) to their Casual competition. Even if a Casual player plays "up" they still will not be playing at a Competitive players level. So the compromise is "Competitive players should play more casually, Casual players should suck less."

It's not much of a compromise if you're a Competitive player playing as a Casual player, while the Casual Players still play casually.


----------



## neilbatte (Jan 2, 2008)

The only thing I'd see banned are the 5 point missiles on Dark eldar flyers.
The joys of setting out large guard infantry armies are dubious at best made even more irritating when your opponent then rolls a 4 and lands twelve large templates on your troops killing on 2s and says well that's a well spent 60 points now for the rest of my shooting as you pack away half your army without firing a shot.
The best way to counter this is mech but I refuse to spend the best part of 2-3 hundred quid to counter a small part of someones list.
I'm a competative gamer with a fairly uncompetative army, against a competent opponent I'll probably lose half ,against a competative list it's fairly even as well but get a competent general with a good list I'll lose maybe 75% of the time because the cost of the truly competative stuff is out of my price range unless I've got some bit's and build it myself.
I try and play as hard as my army let's me as it's cheating your opponent if you only put half effort in what can they learn if your not trying and let things slide, My army at the moment isn't optimised and would get ripped on any armylist forum but against most opponents it holds it's own. If I win against a good opponent I've earnt it if I win against a weaker opponent as long as I don't act a dick and put them off then hopefully they will learn something and be better next time and if they want advice I'm willing to help.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Wusword77 said:


> But at it's core that's what your asking. You asking for Competitive players to play "down" (implying their normal play style is better) to their Casual competition. Even if a Casual player plays "up" they still will not be playing at a Competitive players level. So the compromise is "Competitive players should play more casually, Casual players should suck less."
> 
> It's not much of a compromise if you're a Competitive player playing as a Casual player, while the Casual Players still play casually.


I'm not making a value judgement on which style of play is better. How you play is a personal choice that rewards you in the manner you appreciate best, whether it be through narrative, funny situations, or winning games.

My personal opinion is that the promulgation of skilled players through our ranks is a good thing. Even when playing casually (i.e. not with min/maxed lists), skilled players are generally more fun to play with because they are more able to understand how to make decisions on the table, whine less when their units get spanked, and can chat with you pre/post game about things like army composition, tactics, and so on.

I find that the best way to illustrate this is to have a scale of 1 to 10. 10 is Maximum competitiveness, 1 is an army made entirely out of grots. Most casual players hang around the 2-4 zone, and most "competitive" players hang out in the 7-9 zone. By having both players strive to play games in the 4-6 zone initially (with that number rising as time goes on), you are opening the door to both players enjoying an equally balanced game.

I don't understand why you think this penalises the competitive player more than the casual one. I agree that if the player who normally plays at 8 is forced to play at 3 all the time, that is unfair, but I've stated repeatedly that that is not the idea. I have said more than once that the whole idea is for more skilled players to help lower skilled players improve so that eventually they can play on the same level, and I don't know why you can't see that? :scratchhead:


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

I think the other point to keep in mind as we debate this, is that tabling some casual player on turn 2 is likely not fun for either a competitive player or a casual one. It's more like practicing set up and putting away your armies. 

It's only slightly worse than playing an indecisive horde player, and running out of game time in their second movement phase.


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

Sethis said:


> I don't understand why you think this penalises the competitive player more than the casual one.


I think the confusion is being caused by different opinions on whether both players have bought into your approach: you seem to be saying that a casual player who wants to improve plays a competitive player, so both meet in the middle, whereas some posters seem to be trying to apply your approach to situations where the casual player is not actively to improve, which does penalise the competitive player more.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Dave T Hobbit said:


> some posters seem to be trying to apply your approach to situations where the casual player is not actively to improve, which does penalise the competitive player more.


Is it any less of a penalization when a casual player gets tabled again and again by the same person, with the same army that they just can't beat? Is that fun for them?

Meeting halfway makes sense for everyone.


----------



## neilbatte (Jan 2, 2008)

But then the casual gamer has a few options, He can hopefully try his list against a less competative list or another gamer or try and improve his list and refine his tactics.
I'm not saying go out and buy hundreds of pounds of models to beat 1 gamer but a a rule collections evolve so just think a little before impulse buying.
Everyone has the scope to improve and in a game of chance there is always the small chance of a fluke win but if you only play the same list over and over then regardless of whether it tables you or not it won't be as much fun as playing varied lists.
Some armies have a heavy bias towards beating certain other lists DE vs infantry for example and Necrons vs mech if your on the receiving end of a bad matchup it's just as bad as getting tabled by a more experienced gamer regardless of skill levels but no one suggests playing badly or nerfing your list if your opponents army is naturally weaker against yours than a different army.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

Sethis said:


> Is it any less of a penalization when a casual player gets tabled again and again by the same person, with the same army that they just can't beat? Is that fun for them?
> 
> Meeting halfway makes sense for everyone.


The Casual player gets tabled because they refuse to adapt to the other persons tactics and list. Making the Competitive player change their list so they give an advantage to the Casual player isn't meeting half-way, it's catering to them.


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

Wusword77 said:


> The Casual player gets tabled because they refuse to adapt to the other persons tactics and list. Making the Competitive player change their list so they give an advantage to the Casual player isn't meeting half-way, it's catering to them.


That is a crap explanation. Using your logic I can say that casual gamer gets tabled because the competitive player refuses to take a unit which might not make a perfect army list or enjoy any other part of the hobby apart from winning in gaming.

I am a casual player. My army lists are not that great. But I play because I enjoy making models (next project after my Corsairs is to make as many of the characters from the IA 9 and 10 books using only GW stuff) and therefore I generally pick units that are not as good in a game because I think the models look cooler.

I don't see why if I want to play against a competitive player why I must ditch my unit I like fielding and have spent a long time painting or converting just to give you a better game.


----------



## Samules (Oct 13, 2010)

There are different power levels.
Playing an equal power level is fun for everyone.
The OP states that if he wants a game with even power levels he has to reduce the power level of his army.

As far as I can tell he is not making blanket statements about "no one should powergame" or "competitive players need to cater to casual ones". He is stating that he, and his opponents have the most fun when their armies are equal in power and as they aren't going to change their power levels he has decided to change his to achieve the ideal gaming situation. Some people might want to do this, and they can, and some people might not, and they won't. Different people are situations where casual players DO make an effort to play as well as competitive ones and so this is unnecessary and perhaps counterproductive. I'm not sure I quite understand where the argument came from.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Wusword77 said:


> The Casual player gets tabled because they refuse to adapt to the other persons tactics and list. Making the Competitive player change their list so they give an advantage to the Casual player isn't meeting half-way, it's catering to them.


Now you just seem to be wilfully ignoring what I'm writing down - both players are expected to change their lists, I've said that. The competitive player expands his collection with a unit or two he wouldn't otherwise take. The casual player expands his collection with a few more competitive choices.

Both of the players have a responsibility to compromise with each other. If you are refusing to do so, you're the elitist prick everyone says competitive players are, because you're saying to the casual player "play the game my way or lose every single time, because I have no interest in having a fun game with you". How does that help anyone? Does it improve you? No. Does it improve the casual player? No. Does it lead to a fun time for anyone involved? No. Does it piss off every casual player you ever meet? Yes.

If you want to bring your tourney list to every game you ever play, that's cool with me. Just don't expect to get on well, make any friends, or have any fun in a club populated mostly by casual gamers. /shrug


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

Seems legit. The casual player would have to be trying for it to work for me, but I have no issues downgrading to help someone with their game and it is boring curb stomping badly made lists anyway. As long as both parties are willing and having fun, no issues. Personally, I avoid casual players, but this would be an acceptable solution that could allow me to expand my number of opponents.


----------



## DecrepitDragon (Aug 2, 2011)

Sethis said:


> Both of the players have a responsibility to compromise with each other. If you are refusing to do so, you're the elitist prick everyone says competitive players are, because you're saying to the casual player "play the game my way or lose every single time, because I have no interest in having a fun game with you". How does that help anyone? Does it improve you? No. Does it improve the casual player? No. Does it lead to a fun time for anyone involved? No. Does it piss off every casual player you ever meet? Yes.


I couldn't agree more.

The statement I've highlighted above, is a perfect description of a stereotyped "Competative" player. What I find really dis-heartening is the fact that these people actually do exist. Its not just an exaggerated "cartoon" description made up by sore losers.

I think we have to remember though, that its not the nature of competative players that is being debated. Neither is it the failings of the casual players.

What I believe Sethis is getting at is basically, "How do we all play and improve together?"

Competative players exist. Casual players exist.

If you consider yourself to be from one of these groups, whats wrong with trying to play the other group in a way that maximises fun, whilst broadening experience?

Surely nobody out there believes they have seen and done all things 40K? So whats wrong with just playing the game in a way everyone gains? if you dont think you can gain anything from this idea, then I suggest you dont take any fun out of helping less experienced players.

Karmically, at least, the game as a whole, would suffer if that was the opinion of everybody, as fewer good players would result.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

Sethis said:


> Now you just seem to be wilfully ignoring what I'm writing down - both players are expected to change their lists, I've said that. The competitive player expands his collection with a unit or two he wouldn't otherwise take. The casual player expands his collection with a few more competitive choices.


What you quoted was a direct response to this:



Sethis said:


> Is it any less of a penalization when a casual player gets tabled again and again by the same person, with the same army that they just can't beat? Is that fun for them?


Which was in response to a post by Dave T Hobbit about how many Casual players may not try to to improve their skills. That's what I'm pointing out. Many Casual players play the way they do, not because they're bad, but because they WANT to play that way. They want to take non optimized units for various reasons (fluff, looks, ect.) and just because they didn't get tabled that match isn't going to change that perception. For these people you will NEVER get the point across that their <insert bad unit here> are a poor choice, no matter how many games you play against them with non competitive lists. 

Sethis, your idea is commendable in it's overall goal, bringing up the skill level of various players, but I feel this idea asks for more sacrifice from the Competitive players then the Casual ones.



> Both of the players have a responsibility to compromise with each other. If you are refusing to do so, you're the elitist prick everyone says competitive players are, because you're saying to the casual player "play the game my way or lose every single time, because I have no interest in having a fun game with you". How does that help anyone? Does it improve you? No. Does it improve the casual player? No. Does it lead to a fun time for anyone involved? No. Does it piss off every casual player you ever meet? Yes.


And if the Casual player doesn't want to actually learn anything through said compromise (which is it's intended purpose)? What if they don't want to alter their list with "harder" units because they don't like them? What are they? Or are they just playing as intended? 



Stephen_Newman said:


> I don't see why if I want to play against a competitive player why I must ditch my unit I like fielding and have spent a long time painting or converting just to give you a better game.


But that is being asked of the Competitive player in this scenario. Why should the Competitive player have to play a list they don't like to give Casuals a better game?




DecrepitDragon said:


> Surely nobody out there believes they have seen and done all things 40K? So whats wrong with just playing the game in a way everyone gains? if you dont think you can gain anything from this idea, then I suggest you dont take any fun out of helping less experienced players.
> 
> Karmically, at least, the game as a whole, would suffer if that was the opinion of everybody, as fewer good players would result.


The problem with this example is it asks more from the Competitive player then the Casual. It's like a 70/30 (Casual/Competitive) split in my eyes, as Casuals still get to play anything they want (while being told that a specific unit is bad and to try other things), while the Competitive player must handicap themselves by taking units they know have little synergy/are over priced/are flat out bad for their lists. All of this in hopes of both parties having a "satisfying" game.

Some competitive players may not even find the experience satisfying, as they aren't playing at their best.


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

Wusword77 said:


> What you quoted was a direct response to this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If anything the game should be more satisfying. It is forcing you to take an army that is not so good into making it good. It is improving generalship on the competitive players part as much as the casual players mainly because it puts the reliance off a list for a competitive person to win.

My views in awesome MAGENTA


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

Wusword77 said:


> ...a post by Dave T Hobbit about how many Casual players may not try to to improve their skills. That's what I'm pointing out. Many Casual players play the way they do, not because they're bad, but because they WANT to play that way.


My point was not that many players do not want to improve; some do not for whatever reason but some do but are put off by completive lists being overwhelming.

To restate my point for clarity some posts are assuming that Sethis' idea fails because not all casual players want to improve, whereas Sethis is describing two players agreeing to meet in the middle not a competitive player trying to use a less competitive list against someone without discussing it first.


----------



## C'Tan Chimera (Aug 16, 2008)

Alright, I'm clearly walking in late and blind into the heat of a debate, but I just wanted to say regardless that I couldn't agree more with the original quote. There really doesn't need to be a broad chasm between "casual" and "competitive" that you can only pick between. 

I'm just glad I'm not the only one who thinks that way as a player who admittedly has always wound up playing with underdog'ish armies like pre-update Necrons, Tau, and Chaos. Doing so got me into the unique mindset and balance of having an objective to win games with unlikely combinations but prepared to lose and simply make the most of it- I always thought that kind of approach would make the game more enjoyable to most.


----------



## neilbatte (Jan 2, 2008)

I think your taking the stereotypes to far though, I'm a self confessed competative gamer as are about half the people at the club I go to but I've never had a problem having a good game against any of the players competative or otherwise, Yes some armies are easier than others to beat and some are stupidly hard and take every bit of concentration I've got but that's more about army book selection than any actual game play or list building, There are a few new gamers and with them it's different as your teaching as much as playing but that come down to self interest as you can never have enough opponents.


----------



## OddJob (Nov 1, 2007)

What the OP talks about is what I do on a weekly basis: play with less hardcore stuff for the chumps (in the friendliest way!) down at the local club. But I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding on casual vs competative: these aren't really lists, they are players. I still usually win big against most of the local crowd, and always have deep games against the same people regardless of lists used.

Then again, my tournament lists tend to be a bit eccentric and not what teh interwebz would call optimised. I still do ok.


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

Maybe people who are fluff gamers dont feel the need to add different units? They have built a list that is very fluffy and taking away one of their non-optimal units to replace it with a points effect unit destroys the narrative of what they have built. So I can see this as a potentially good idea, just not one that all gamers will go for.


----------



## ArchangelPaladin (Jul 7, 2010)

> People will not alter their collections overnight, or because you tell them to. It is their army, and their money, *and also their time*.


This is the most important thing competitive gamers need to understand. 

I’d like to consider my-self a competitive gamer, I read the army list & tactics sub-forums every day, I so desperately want to one day have a cheesy long fang wolf army & battlewagon ork army, but what I have is a shity space marine army, and a trukk list with nob bikers. A combination of work, family, other hobbies, my almost ocd desire to always field a painted wysiwyg army and my slower style of painting makes it very difficult for me to make rapid changes to my list. My 2012 40k project plan(yes I have a project plan, I’m a software developer) has me completing 4 pieces of terrain and 10 units, most competitive plays can do that in a month.

Be patient with those whom you give advice, 40k armies do not grow on trees.


----------



## Antonius (Jan 10, 2012)

I definitely agree with the OP on this matter. However, instead of doing something that may "weaken" my list as such, i play slightly different styles to allow for some more "fun" aspects for more casual gamers (especially noobs). At my local gaming club, i think the thought of having a single plasma pistol wrecking a chimera in DoG, or wraithlord slicing a metal box in two is slightly more fun for the opponent than simply being tabled in 3 turns (i play mech gunline IG). 

Some casual gamers sometimes have the "oh this is what i did today" approach (and this is what encourages them to play from the start), and tbf its their hobby as much as it is yours, and its what can encourage them to improve. Tabling someone with a competitive and optimised list can make people upset, because they start to believe their army's crap (when even the worst legal list should be ok at least occasionally - this is bad when you have an anti infantry geared army and you happen to face heavy/full mech lists), and this is not what you want at all. 

If it helps, i say that competitive lists don't always have to be modified, but perhaps try to show mercy on your opponent without intentionally letting them win (Tank shocking an MC etc etc). At the end of the day (as other posters have probably mentioned), this is only a game, and if anything people should build an army that they WANT to play, not simply one that they are told by the net and "competitiveness". I play full mech IG, but i don't envisage playing chimelta spam / Leafblower ever - heck i am more interested inmech platoons, Armoured Sentinels and some Veterans without melta/plasma (OMG).

Antonius
Casual gamer at heart (played an SM army that was mediocre at best, but i liked it for awhile), but has learnt to optimise lists for the competitive environment (Schools League atm)


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

The problem with playing sub-optimally (as opposed to building your list with sub-optimal units included) is twofold, which is why I didn't suggest it as a solution. 

If your opponent catches you doing it, by doing things such as deliberately not assaulting something, making obviously poor movement choices and so on, he will feel very annoyed/embarrassed because you're treating them with less respect by deliberately going easy on them. They might feel that you're being condescending or patronising. This doesn't lead to a good game or the development of a good relationship between players. If your opponent asks you why you took 10 Sternguard in a vanilla army, you can at least *honestly* say "I liked the fluff/models/conversion/paintjob, so I thought I'd give them a try".

Secondly, it doesn't help you improve. If you play with your normal competitive army, but deliberately play badly, you're not really learning anything useful. However if you build a list with worse units, you force yourself to play well or risk losing. You have to make the most of the resources available to you. This is essential if you're playing the same people every week, because it stops you from getting bored.


----------



## Lord Azune (Nov 12, 2011)

Sethis, how does playing with crappier units make you a better player? It makes you learn how to adapt to using crap, it doesn't teach you to utilize your better units... better. Sure, some tactics are universal but you could be learning those with your normal list, regardless of opponent skill level. 

Now, personally, I don't care what my opponent puts down on the table, if its a fluffiest list or the top competitive list of DE, I'll play my all comers list that I continue to refine to be best it can be. If I table my opponent, he should learn from that. If I am tabled by my opponent, you can bet I'm gonna be figuring out how to improve my list without detracting from my local meta. If I can't? I can't. Some lists are naturally hard from my Tyranids to beat. DE and GK to name the biggest ones. Am I gonna stop taking MCs? No, because against the rest of the armies, they work nicely.

Tabling is part of the game. Getting tabled is part of the game. The true players, casual or competitive, should not pull punches in either list or skill.


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

Lord Azune said:


> Tabling is part of the game. Getting tabled is part of the game. The true players, casual or competitive, should not pull punches in either list or skill.


If both players enjoy a brutal game then that is fine; however, would you use your most brutal list and best tactics against someone who was playing their first game to see if they liked the system?

If you would make the game less brutal in those circumstances then what about their second game?

For me the decision between playing as well as I can using the best list I can build with the models I own and playing a fun game with a fluff list begins with what type of game the players want and not whether someone is not truly playing the game if they want something other than victory.


----------



## Samules (Oct 13, 2010)

I still don't understand where the argument is coming from. If a competitive player has more fun when he plays with sub-optimal units then why not? It's not a compromise between the casual and competitive players here it is the competitive player's own choice made independently of any "meeting halfway" deals. Sure he may be putting more effort in to even the power levels but in this case he seems to be the only one with the motivation to do so. If the casual players were actively interested in evening the power levels then yes he would be getting a bad deal but that is not the case.


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

I'm not sure but it seems like you're arguing both sides at once here, which means I at least half agree with you:biggrin:



Samules said:


> I still don't understand where the argument is coming from. If a competitive player has more fun when he plays with sub-optimal units then why not?


Totally agree here. I'm also surprised there is continuing dissent in this thread. Especially, because Sethis' original article is based on a particular situation: a competitive gamer in a club/group with primarily casual or less competitive players. He proposed this as a method where a competitive player could continue to find games and not alienate anyone. 

He did make the assumption that most competitive gamers in this scenario would rather continue to play games at lower intensities (while helping and encouraging others to improve) instead of tabling everyone once and having nobody want to play him.




> It's not a compromise between the casual and competitive players here it is the competitive player's own choice made independently of any "meeting halfway" deals. Sure he may be putting more effort in to even the power levels but in this case he seems to be the only one with the motivation to do so. If the casual players were actively interested in evening the power levels then yes he would be getting a bad deal but that is not the case.


This part I disagree with. While onus is on the competitive player to begin with largely because they will likely have more models and a more developed army. The less competitive players may need time to learn new strategies or buy and paint new units.

Even the fluffiest player likely doesn't want to play _Badly_. Almost everyone improves their generalship the more they play. In Sethis' scenario, both players are agreeing to the terms of the gaming relationship.


----------



## Lord Azune (Nov 12, 2011)

Dave T Hobbit said:


> If both players enjoy a brutal game then that is fine; however, would you use your most brutal list and best tactics against someone who was playing their first game to see if they liked the system?
> 
> If you would make the game less brutal in those circumstances then what about their second game?
> 
> For me the decision between playing as well as I can using the best list I can build with the models I own and playing a fun game with a fluff list begins with what type of game the players want and not whether someone is not truly playing the game if they want something other than victory.



Against a brand-new player I would use one of the armies I have that I am rusty at playing. I would be as helpful as I can be and if possible enlist the aid of another "brutal" gamer to aid him in list construction, rules, and army mechanics. Short of the standard GW orientation battle if there's a new player we get him to use one of the older players armies. If you've started buying pieces and can field your own army, you're really past the brand new stage.

Krueger as for why the argument doesn't die, in my opinion is this: I'm a brutal competitive player and I resent the implication that it makes me a dick.


----------



## Samules (Oct 13, 2010)

Playing compititively making you a dick was never really implied except in reference to doing so against people who play casually and repeatedly tabling them without their looking for a serious challenge. That is just like kicking a puppy. If they want to improve their skills and ask to play you specifically to see how well they can do that's fine but if you don't tell a newish player that you have made an extremely competitive list and will likely table them if they haven't done the same then you are being a dick.


----------



## Skari (Dec 20, 2011)

I really liked your first post and article. +rep! 

I one hundred percent agree with your observations and I am of a very similar school of thought when it comes to the competitive nature of casual gaming. I especially liked your views on the grooming of newer players and how to approach their improvement in the hobby without alienating them or trying to reach unplausable goals. Although i find this is harder to acheive when playing with older gamers that are set in their ways. This was a treat to read and I am glad that there are others that feel the same way. 

Cheers!


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Lord Azune said:


> Krueger as for why the argument doesn't die, in my opinion is this: I'm a brutal competitive player and I resent the implication that it makes me a dick.


If that's referring to me, then I apologise for somehow giving you that impression. I am a competitive player myself and hate the competitive = twat mentality that can surface from time to time.

This is what I meant, generally speaking:



Samules said:


> except in reference to doing so against people who play casually and repeatedly tabling them without their looking for a serious challenge. That is just like kicking a puppy.





Kreuger said:


> He did make the assumption that most competitive gamers in this scenario would rather continue to play games at lower intensities (while helping and encouraging others to improve) instead of tabling everyone once and having nobody want to play him.


----------



## Lord Azune (Nov 12, 2011)

It's all good Sethis, I'll admit, I was tired when I posted having just gotten off a 12 hour shift and I did kinda have a biased from the bottom of your first post, mostly because I believe that it's not the competitve players responsibility so much as the casual/newer players to approximate opponent and own skill.



Sethis said:


> Claiming that you have no responsibility to approximate the level of your opponent is openly admitting that you are an elitist dick, regardless of how much “advice” you try to unload on them during the game where you win by 17 KPs to 1.


If someone comes up and says: "Hey, I'm a casual player with a fluffy/limited list due to the models I have on hand, care for a match?" I'd warn them that I play competitve and have a list made for that. At that point, anything that happens: They were warned. IF I'm the only person around to play against, I would grab my girlfriends army or one of my lesser fleshed out armies and play with that.

I'm sure it's wrong to assume but unless I have warning otherwise, I assume you're competitive.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Lord Azune said:


> If someone comes up and says: "Hey, I'm a casual player with a fluffy/limited list due to the models I have on hand, care for a match?" I'd warn them that I play competitve and have a list made for that. At that point, anything that happens: They were warned. IF I'm the only person around to play against, I would grab my girlfriends army or one of my lesser fleshed out armies and play with that.


Yeah, my comment can be seen badly when taken out of context - it's not meant to be aimed at people just having one-off games, it's aimed at people who are trying to develop a relationship at a club that they both frequent.

At the store, it's pure luck who you get matched up against on a random day, but if you're meeting the same people every week at the same time and the same place, you're not going to get on well if you just table them and table them and table them, all the while saying things like "I warned you I was competitive" and "You see, your list sucks because..."

That's kind of what I meant.


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

Lord Azune said:


> ...unless I have warning otherwise, I assume you're competitive.


The only real solution is very complex extended mood rings: for example a player displays primary list and style fluff and secondary mid-range list and style play for the win; anyone looking for a game knows that they prefer to play for pure fun but will play a less fluffy list and are happy to face someone who does not hold back.

Without that, I think it is up to both players to make the effort to find out if they care about these tihngs rather than either side making assumptions; as you are exchanging lists before playing anyway you should get some idea of how competitive you each are so can pull out then if you cannot agree on how hardcore the game will be.


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

Dave T Hobbit said:


> . . . as you are exchanging lists before playing anyway you should get some idea of how competitive you each are . . .


Fascinating idea. At my old FLGS we never did this. And doing so was sort of taboo. We had staff on hand to regular abuse (for a while yours truly) and there might be some discussion of the type of game the players wanted. 

But as a store we were pretty staunchly about bringing your list pre-written, and going for it. With limited tables it always took people too long to write out armies just before a game (especially during 2nd ed!).

It also kept the nature of surprise. So for instance my opponents would need to guess how many daemons I had in my list by the number of points they saw on the table.


----------

