# Competitive vs Casual - A Discussion of Gaming Styles



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

Hey everyone. So what do you think of the two styles? (Bearing in mind that like all good opposing views there isn't a middle ground and if you say your in between you are just despised by both types of player  )

This is a discussion I've wanted to start up since joining Heresy a few months ago. I am aware the topic has been raised in a few boards recently, but this is more of a place to vent your opinions on the matter more specifically (yes I'm encouraging anger, hatred, and the dismissing of rational ideas because they are the opposite of yours) because its better than letting it all spill out during that fateful night at the local GW when you stomp that 8yo kids 2000pt army to pieces because he is 1pt over the limit and using lots of unfluffy units. Yeah I taught him a ...... nevermind.

Anyway, my own opinion on the matter is ..... that I hate competitive gamers .... Hooray!. 

The way I see it is a lot of us are young adults/adults/really old adults who are playing with painted plastic figures. Now I am in no way being critical of this, in fact, I'm patiently awaiting the revolution when overpaid dumbass footballers are forced to step aside for us guys with the painting skills / fluff knowledge. But until that day arrives....why the hell are people so obsessed with winning at all costs?

The most annoying things about the competitive crowd IMO are:

*1. They spend all their time creating lists that are completely unfluffy and filled with cheese.*

Now I'm not saying you can't take 2 Lash Princes, 3 Vindicators, Plague Marines and Zerkers or take Vulkan, Meltas, Flamers and Thunder Hammer Terminators in non-Salamander lists, I'm just saying that it is BORING. When I play a game of 40k, I want to win, but I want to do it in a way that both creates lots of cool moments (I.E When my CSM Dreadnought stomped a Hive Tyranid with the help of 10 Possessed CSM, but then at the beginning of the next turn went crazed and double autocannoned and flamered them for their troubles) and is actually fluffy as well. Isn't it more fun when its relatively themed armies vs each other? The point is to have fun, I mean, I'm not spending £300 + to not have fun. At least this way if someone loses you are both winners (shudder....that does sound disgusting when you say it out loud).

*2. They are constantly giving advice to new players telling them to only buy 1 or 2 units.

*You get people here on Heresy saying 'Hey I'm pretty new to the game so I'm looking for some help in creating a relatively competitive list' (which for alot of people means they just don't want to be left crying at their local GW on that fateful Monday......nevermind). They say they have units such as SM Scouts, CSM Possessed, or Tau Etherals in their lists and instead of getting advice on how to maximize the competitiveness of their current units they are told, buy all new units and never use there old ones.....OR ELSE. Oh and lets not forget when they say, 'but its supposed to an Imperial Fists army' ...... VULKAN IS ALLOWED NOW TAKE HIM AND SOME MELTAS AND SHUT UP!!! WHAT? WHY ARE YOU CRYING!!!?

I like buying/painting/ and yes actually using some of the more out of favour units. But if my opponent has created a list based on my first point, then I have to shelve them and bring out my x9 Obliterators, x2 DP's etc. This is not usually followed by fun times. See everyone loses when no-one will bother to take the odd unit thats a little different (shudder....still sounds weird lol)

*3. The constant need to play games at 2000pts and above and basically the entire 'Ard Boyz' mentality (including that website that I forget lol)

*This third point has actually been cemented in my mind by two articles i've enjoyed reading (I'll post the links in a moment). Basically the guy argues (correctly IMO) that 1500pts is probably the best all-round points level because you have to play tactically. You cant just load up on Land Raiders and charge forwards, and if you squeeze in two + an expensive HQ you find your very low on models and options. We've all played these people who, when they can't get all the goodies in their respective codexs just won't play or sulk (which is worse). At this level the Force Organization chart really comes into play, do you use Heavy Support or Fast Attack or x3 Elites etc and no two HQ's either. 

Finally I'm just getting back into 40k properly after a while off and am going to enter some tournaments next year but after reading the way people talk about some of them....what can I say lol? Should tournments be competitive and cuthroat? Yes they should. Should they reward fluffy / well painted lists with bonus points? IMO yes they should, if only for balance, so as to encourage a variety of entries and make it a more unique experience. What I mean by this is that, if I were of a competitive mindset, why bother painting your space marine army at all? Just make them all up, bring them along until the new power build comes out, shelve certain units, insert new ones, rinse, repeat.

(Links to very good articles)

http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2010/04/15/in-defense-of-1500-introduction/

http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2010/03/16/how-ard-boyz-made-american-40k-retarded/

So those are my thoughts and opinions for the moment. What say you?


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

I dont care if people are pissy at me for it, but im a fence sitter on this matter. I have both extreme cheeze lists for tournaments, and I have fun fluffy lists. I use both against my friends.

and to correct you: the competitive crowd is not the accurate term for the people who talk about nothing but winning. since the competitive crowd are more the tournament goers who go to 1. win the tournament 2. enjoy playing the games by the letter if possible. But I have seen many a competitive player help someone build a list useing more fluffy units and make it work decently.

I have to agree that 1500 is the best point number for 40k though, Tactic wise, it forces both sides to choose their units wisely, you cant just have 3+ land raiders and still be good to go. in the competitive world, the real one, it comes down to having to pick out the correct list build to maximize effective strong units without gimping attrition numbers.


----------



## stooge92 (Mar 6, 2008)

i agree on many of the points above, being competitive has its advantages though. On an individual level it leaves a nice feeling when youve employed some genius tactic and its paid off in battle. That being said, i love the story behind a game, i only play with my mates, so its basically always casual-- i actuall cheer for the other team when he is rolling for vehicle damage-- i want the LRBT to blow up and leave a massive crater! its funner that way! its hard for the younger ones to understand the need for 'fun' when alot of advice heads towards the spam/cheesey lists that are a dime a dozen. With my new BA army just arriving, im going to have fun playing with death company and drop pods and DS land raiders because it will be a laugh, even if they get destroyed, or rage straight into a flyrant.

Casual all the way, leave competitive for the tourneys


----------



## Hurricane (Feb 27, 2010)

I would consider myself a very "cheesy" player and yet I don't fulfill two of your three criteria so try not to paint all of us with the same brush. 

On point two, I tell players to proxy all the time and to figure out what they enjoy playing with. But, I also believe it is better advice to tell new players to pick certain units. This is because they may be able to use them in just about any list they make. For example, telling a new SW player to pick up long fangs with missile launchers I think is fine because they can be used in just about any list. Advising players to use certain units can also allow them to save money. If for example they find that the unit they just bought does not perform well at all and they get tired of it...well that sucks for them.

On point three, I play my tough lists at lower point levels far more often than I do high point levels. I prefer being able to fit in multiple fast games rather than one large game in a limited period of time. High point level games are certainly fun, but smaller point games are just right for me.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

If you're playing to win, you're playing competitively. If your intention is to win, and you handicap yourself by not taking the best list you can it's not the other persons fault that you lost. It's your own.

This whole thread sounds like you just had a bad experience with what some people would incorrectly call a "power gamer." Don't mistake a bad person for being the mold that all competitive players are cast from. We do take offence to that :laugh:

Oh yeah, when people recommend buying the Vulkan, melta, TH/SS list for new SM players, it's not to encourage "power gaming." The list serves 3 purposes of:

1. Being easy and cheaper to build then other types of SM lists.
2. It's easier to play then other lists.
3. Provides a good "base" from which to start a proper collection.

I will agree I like playing at 1500 points. 2000 makes my games go a little longer then I would like :laugh: Mostly I've been playing story line based games with 2 buddies lately so I'm a little rusty playing a flat out 1500 point game.


----------



## wombat_tree (Nov 30, 2008)

Wusword77 said:


> If you're playing to win, you're playing competitively.


Technically yes but I play with the hope of winning, yet not the requirement. I completely agree with all the points the OP said.


----------



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

i find it best to play casually @ different point values each week. some (most) weeks its 500 points of combat patrol (we do 1 troop choice, no named characters - everything else is a go) so if you wanna bring that badass land raider feel free too, ill have two oblits blow it up, or ill have my DP with warp time go all smashy smashy on it.

at these lower point games i think its best for a new player, why? because theres not a lot on the table to worry about my 3-5 units & his 3-5 units. its a faster game (time/learning) & you can get the opportunity to play several games a night.

of me personally im a competitive guy. my job is to win, if i dont i try to learn why or what happened that didnt make it so. certain lists of mine have been removed from playing (lash prince, vindicator, rhino 7 marines w/melta) because i didnt get any fun out of it.

i guess im @ 1.5 not quite either. i just play & try to win...whatever that is.


----------



## hippypancake (Jul 14, 2010)

I am a fluff player, I remember the first time I went into my GW with my 13th coy list started playing, and my opponent stares at my army for a few second then says "Where are the tanks?" I look down and point at my 4 rhinos and reply "That's them". I thought the guy's head was about to explode, he looked really confused then asked me why I wasn't using Land Raiders or Vindicators. I told him I was running 13th coy SW and they don't have many tanks. He then replies "so?"

I find it odd not that people are competitive players, but that everyone thinks that everyone are competitive players. However I don't enjoy playing below 2000 pts becasue GH spam doesn't work at that level...at all...so I then get systematically wrecked in three turns. But I will play under 2000 if it's the only game


----------



## search116 (Aug 9, 2010)

Well I would consider myself on the fence as I have army lists to rape and army lists that I can write a fan fic at the end of the game. Currently I am running a blood angels veteran list(looks like P.Diddys jewelry cabinet, all gold). In my own opinion everyone has a little drive in them because who doesn't like winning even though it may be a byproduct of fluff tactics.


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

Personally, I've always just been of the 'I'll play what I like' school of gaming. The entire point of the game is to have fun and enjoy yourself. Some people say competative gaming does this, but for the most part, in my experience, they've just been jerk power gamers who cry like a baby when they loose and bawl about you cheating.

I don't see why a list can't be fluffy and fun and still competative. In the end, its about how you use you units that makes them effective, not what units you've got.

SM Scouts for instance. I've seen a guy start a game by infiltrating a squad of these, and they've won it for him by being sat on an objective all game, and when he's used sniper rilfes with them, pick of enemy command easily... Yet, competative players will tell you NEVER to take them, yet as shown, they've got great worth if used right.


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

Wusword77 said:


> If you're playing to win, you're playing competitively. If your intention is to win, and you *handicap yourself by not taking the best list you can* it's not the other persons fault that you lost. It's your own.
> *DTH Emphasis*


I agree that, if your goal is to beat your opponent then focusing entirely on how units function on the table is better than choosing. using other methods

However, you appear to define winning as a narrow goal of defeating your opponent, which I feel to be the core of the casual vs competitive play debate: a casual gamer wins by achieving a goal they have set themselves (which might or might not be mutually exclusive to their opponent's goal); a competitive gamer plays with the goal of defeating their opponent.

Of course it is not that simple as people are not the simple. These are just the primary goal in the game; most competitive gamers do not take much joy from easy victories and most casual gamers alter a list that is annihilated repeatedly.

Because we all to some extent prefer to beat our opponent than not, and we all prefer a fun game to winning at any cost, we are all on the fence.


----------



## GrimzagGorwazza (Aug 5, 2010)

I'm a fluff gamer but i try to win when i'm playing. I'll write an army list completely to what i want to field rather than what my opponent is fielding and then try to squeeze the best out of it on the battlefield. 
This means i end up with units that are less than effective but i feel that i've had to try hard to win against my opponent. 
Ard case battle wagons with lobba vs space marines is a regular occurance in my army because i've had the model around forever and the battle wouldn't feel right without him. 
I managed to run a list yesturday, 1100pts vs marines and i had only 2 powerklaws in the army. Still came away with a hard fought draw and both of us felt that the game had some truly momentous highlights.


----------



## Chumbalaya (May 17, 2010)

Lots of assumptions made here; none of them good.

1) Fluff and cheese are subjective and open to interpretation. What's kosher for you is unacceptable to somebody else and so on. Fluffy and Cheese-free = what's in the Codex.

2) Stereotype, and an inaccurate one at that. Netlists and the like exist to create an easy-to-replicate framework to help folks starting out. Once you understand how and why the army works, you'll go off and adjust as befits your experience and go make your own army. There are plenty of tried and true units, but you can make a competitive army out of pretty much anything in the 5th edition Codices. Ever hear of Blood Rodeo? Loganwing? Most competitive players I know prefer to run armies that combine a cool theme with a solid build. 

3) 2000 points is preferred because you can take the essentials of a good army, but can also fit in "toys" to make your army unique and interesting. I couldn't do my Bloodwing at 1500 because Dante and Sanguinary Guard just cost too much at that level. Luck is also less of a factor, simply by virtue of having more units and rolling more dice.

Competitive players don't want to win, they want to _compete_, hence the name. A tight game between two good players and two good armies is the ideal we strive for. I have about as much fun stomping your crappy Warsser army as you do getting crushed. If there's no challenge in it, I'm not terribly interested. 

This shouldn't be a problem, people can talk about their expectations before a game and work something out. Conflict arises when somebody wants his Footdar to win all the time but doesn't want to tweak their army or play. Rather than improve, he'll just piss and moan about X being overpowered. 

It's not about casual vs. competitive players, we all play the same game and despite some minor differences in personal preference it isn't difficult at all for folks to get along. The real problem are the divisive asshats, the "my way or the highway" types. They'll show up across the spectrum and tend to make life miserable for everyone. Roflstomping noobs with a netlist just to get a cheap win, bitching about X army being unfluffy as defined by their incredibly narrow views, whining about such and such being overpowered and poor sportsmanship when they're the ones sucking all the fun out of the game, and of course the shit-stirring trolls trying to convince people that the asshats represent a majority of whichever group they're attempted to denigrate.


----------



## Kuolema (Nov 4, 2010)

D-A-C said:


> Anyway, my own opinion on the matter is ..... that I hate competitive gamers .... Hooray!.


Don't worry, I hate you too.
Not because you hate competitive gamers but because you so much of an asshat you feel the need to write a thread to whinge about competitive players. 
Also maybe you should get your facts straight before you hate a whole group of people you obviously know very little about. 




> *1. They spend all their time creating lists that are completely unfluffy and filled with cheese.*


Wrong.
Nearly all competitive gamers I know including me spend plenty of time making fluffy or silly armies that aren't competitive. 
Btw blood angel pure jumper lists are both fluff AND competitive. 



> Now I'm not saying you can't take 2 Lash Princes, 3 Vindicators, Plague Marines and Zerkers


Lash isn't cheese.



> I'm just saying that it is BORING.


What is boring to you isn't boring to everyone, you do not get to decide what is and is not fun for other people.
Competitive players enjoy competitive play, they have FUN playing competitive games.




> 2. They are constantly giving advice to new players telling them to only buy 1 or 2 units.


Not everyone who starts a tau army wants to waste money on 72 fire warriors when in a competitive list they don't need more than 6.


> You get people here on Heresy saying 'Hey I'm pretty new to the game so I'm looking for some help in creating a relatively competitive list' (which for alot of people means they just don't want to be left crying at their local GW on that fateful Monday......nevermind). They say they have units such as SM Scouts, CSM Possessed, or Tau Etherals in their lists and instead of getting advice on how to maximize the competitiveness of their current units they are told, buy all new units and never use there old ones.....OR ELSE. Oh and lets not forget when they say, 'but its supposed to an Imperial Fists army' ...... VULKAN IS ALLOWED NOW TAKE HIM AND SOME MELTAS AND SHUT UP!!! WHAT? WHY ARE YOU CRYING!!!?


You really don't understand 40k very well it seems. Vulcan is good in a list built around him but he doesn't go in every single competitive marine list. 
Also the tone in your examples has nothing to do with it being competitive advice or fluffy advice I have seen fluffy players get just as angry and caps lock happy as competitive ones. 



> I like buying/painting/ and yes actually using some of the more out of favour units. But if my opponent has created a list based on my first point, then I have to shelve them and bring out my x9 Obliterators, x2 DP's etc. This is not usually followed by fun times. See everyone loses when no-one will bother to take the odd unit thats a little different (shudder....still sounds weird lol)


No you don't HAVE to do anything. If someone wants to play competitively and you don't then it is simple you don't play that person. You are responsible for your own fun and if you know playing someone is not going to be fun then you don't play them. 



> 3. The constant need to play games at 2000pts and above and basically the entire 'Ard Boyz' mentality (including that website that I forget lol)


You'll find most competitive players prefer 1750/1850. It is the point level most armies balance nicely at. 


> This third point has actually been cemented in my mind by two articles i've enjoyed reading (I'll post the links in a moment). Basically the guy argues (correctly IMO) that 1500pts is probably the best all-round points level because you have to play tactically.


You have to play tactically at all points levels. 1500 just restricts army builds.



> You cant just load up on Land Raiders and charge forwards


Hey news flash! This isn't competitive!
There are a lot of ways to deal with land raiders, just because you suck doesn't make your opponents army cheese. 





> (Links to very good articles)
> 
> http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2010/04/15/in-defense-of-1500-introduction/
> 
> ...


blood of kittens? lol Seriously crappy name.


----------



## Viscount Vash (Jan 3, 2007)

Chumbalaya said:


> It's not about casual vs. competitive players, we all play the same game and despite some minor differences in personal preference it isn't difficult at all for folks to get along. The real problem are the divisive asshats, the "my way or the highway" types. They'll show up across the spectrum and tend to make life miserable for everyone. Roflstomping noobs with a netlist just to get a cheap win, bitching about X army being unfluffy as defined by their incredibly narrow views, whining about such and such being overpowered and poor sportsmanship when they're the ones sucking all the fun out of the game, and of course the shit-stirring trolls trying to convince people that the asshats represent a majority of whichever group they're attempted to denigrate.


That bit there is best bit I have read on the subject and it earns you reppage. .

Playing to win doesn't mean you have no fun, playing for fun doesn't mean you want to lose.
Sweeping statements on any group are just a way of showing you can't be arsed to find out the truth or ignore people that don't fit neatly into the pigeon holes you have prepared in your head

I just consider myself a *player* whatever the goals I set when playing and will try to build a list suitable for the game organized.


----------



## jaws900 (May 26, 2010)

I was once called a "competive gammer" becuase i always run Landraiders in my Blood Angels army. I jsut had to say that my army was primerally Nilla marines and so i couldn't take some of the more dedicated choices like Furiosos, Sanguinary guard or death company. I also had restricted modals as i only had 5 jump marines at the time and no named heros so landraider was the way i made up for it.....that and it's FUN! I think i have only ever won 1 game with my Dule Raider army (thank you random game lenth and my oppoent being Tyranids) but it's really fun for me and i love the OMG face as they see me place 2 land raider on the table in a 1000pts game.  
For me aslogn as i have fun then it was a good game weaither i lose on win. Hell one game which to this day was the best game i have every had was SOOOO dam close but it was abusulty epic as my Imperial fists took on 20 death company with Astrotath. He one on objectives (ya he had 2 squads of jump marines jsut to be save) and random game leath prevented my rhino contesting it. We need more people who play for fun and not to win, that is what entertaiment is for is it not?


----------



## Cocakoala (Apr 27, 2009)

Its just a game. Some people have more fun creating an epic battle with some cool stories to tell after. Some people have more fun doing better then their opponents in either the playing or the list building. Some people like feilding their fluffy well painted army everyone likes something different. The only problem is when the different types of players mix and can usually end up with nobody having fun. You just need to pick your opponents well and all should be fine (I know, easier said then done).


----------



## El Mariachi (Jun 22, 2008)

Definitely fluff orientated games for me. In my opinion, serious games miss the point entirely and probably require a re-evaluation of your priorities :biggrin:


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

I build my lists very fluffy, as per the novels I have and what's said in past and present codices for my armies.
I do play to win, but I find that people who build their lists according to "what's most efficient" are often playing a different game.
That said, I still win as often as not.
*Shrug.*
I'm in it for the fun, and if I crush some bastard with his completely unfluffy list while I'm at it, I just smile and don't rub it in.
What's the point?


----------



## hippypancake (Jul 14, 2010)

Whenever my friend and I go to GW we have two seperate games

first is the fluff game, he whips out DA, me my SW we write the fluffiest of lists that have to have Logan and...fuck...the DA Chapter Master, we refer to them as El'Johnson and Russ and then have a pre-heresy skirmish. It's fun as hell and always ends in laughter and him calling me a mutt and me calling him Chaos

But then we might play the competitive game where he is playing IG and I have my 13 Coy SW (Which is still fluffy mind you xD) and then we have a battle until one of us dies or surrenders.

People shouldn't be seperated into different groups a person can be a Casual Competitive player or a Competitive Casual player since they are the same thing


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

I tend to find people fall in between the 2 types, as long as we ignore the win at all cost player and the fluff hamsters of the gaming world. The amount of people who post on here that they have a fluffy competitive list is massive and really proves my point. Not many people want to be labelled as either, so will try to sit on the fence.

Assuming you opponent wants the same as you from a game is normally where the grumbling starts. If you are up for testing your GT tournament list, but the bloke at the club wants a narrative fluff game isn’t going to create a great game for either in all likelihood. It’s easy to say 'discuss what sort of game you want' before you start but thats not always the way things go.

Maybe the thing would be for people to relax a little bit more when playing. I don’t mean lets all become fluffy hamsters or don’t worry about winning the game, I mean laugh in the face of adversity if you’re playing against a ultra competitive player and you brought a gretchin army. Look for moral victories, like not getting tabled, or managing to fall back out of combat. If your that ultra competitive player, give yourself a challenge. What if half way through the battle you see your hammering your opponent and he really doesn’t look like he's having a good time. Maybe easy off, do something stupid or unpredictable that makes it harder for you to win the game. Put your prized unit in plain view in site of his only remaining blast template weapon. Besides making things more fun for your opponent, your giving yourself the opportunity to learn how to win without that unit, which can only be a good thing.

I like to think I’m a bit of both type of player and adjust my style depending on who I’m playing against. If I have never played a person before I default to a relaxed casual gamer. Currently I am testing a list for the winter GT so I obviously have a very beardy marine list with Vulkan, a landraider redeemer, a vindicator and some assault terminators. But that’s still fun right?


----------



## Entropomancer (Oct 28, 2010)

Seriously? Really? This argument is redundant. I find the Internet peoples are just flame warring over something to just feel important. It's a f&^*&*g game, grow up. "Competitive!" " Casual!" "Competitive!" " Casual!" "Competitive!" " Casual!" "Tastes Great!" "Less Filling!"


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

Hey everyone, glad to see so many diverse replies. 

I can understand the need for a middle ground and indeed King of Cheese has started an interesting thread about distinguishing a competitive mindset from people who are determined to Win At All Costs (WAAC). You can check out his discussion here:

http://www.heresy-online.net/forums/showthread.php?t=75079

The main goal of highlighting this problem (I feel that it is on the rise) was actually to encourage more people to just stop and think about what their goal is in playing 40k. I think the proliferation of power building and WAAC Tournaments is starting to drag the game down so that in the end we can only reliably have fun playing with our friends. Tournaments and everyones local GW should of course be competitive, but they should also encourage the use of different units and move away from power building and exploiting rule loopholes.

I mean how sad is it that we all need a law degree to interpret the rules because there are two schools of thought on the matter, Rule As Intended (RAI) and Rule As Written (RAW)? I'm not saying we shouldn't stick to the rules (I think they, points limits and force organization charts are needed in order to have fun and be competitive) but at some point it is annoying having to constantly debate every minor rule. Case in point the CSM Dreadnought 'Crazed' rule which I am going to explain for some of the folks on here in a while, but which is a source of constant debate and results in the unit being stigmatized even more as 'uncompetitive' and 'unfit for use in any list'.

I am also more experienced with the CSM Codex (Knowing less about the others) and all you have to do is head over to the CSM Army List section and look at each board and see that (in the majority of cases) the discussion gets reduced to changing the original list to, x2 Daemon Princes, Plague Marines, Zerkers and Obliterators. What I'm saying is that even competitive gamers need to try more units, no unit is truly broken and if everyone tried different units that fact would be obvious. But because alot of people won't diversify their armies, units often appear alot worse than they are, because they are running up against power builds.

Finally (SEMI-SPOILER ALERT FOR THOSE WHO HAVEN'T READ _FIRST HERETIC_)

I in no way wanted to start a 'flame war' or anything like that, more just to start a thread on a discussion which was taking place in a number of threads, but which wasn't being dealt with specifically.

In saying that:

Who votes that we get together all the competitive assholes who ruin everyone's fun just like the Emperor and Guilliman in _First Heretic_? Make them all line up in formation and kneel before us and then rebuke the lot of them for twisting our Imperial Truth (having fun in a competitive way) and then make them watch as we destroy their greatest achievement, their power build lists and models. Telling the WAAC crowd that amongst all the varied types of gamers, "They alone, are guilty of failure".

I vote to be Guilliman lol.


----------



## ArchangelPaladin (Jul 7, 2010)

D-A-C, you almost had a good post above; I saw what was a glimmer of maturity, and almost saw your point, but that last paragraph destroyed all that and reviled your ignorance. 

People can play the way they want, if you don’t like it then just walk away. Your way of play is right for you, but their way of play is right for them. It’s as simple as that, everything else is just dust in the wind.


----------



## Chumbalaya (May 17, 2010)

D-A-C said:


> The main goal of highlighting this problem (I feel that it is on the rise) was actually to encourage more people to just stop and think about what their goal is in playing 40k. I think the proliferation of power building and WAAC Tournaments is starting to drag the game down so that in the end we can only reliably have fun playing with our friends. Tournaments and everyones local GW should of course be competitive, but they should also encourage the use of different units and move away from power building and exploiting rule loopholes.


What is WAAC? What is powerbuilding? You can't pin it down because it is subjective. Maybe you should try having fun yourself before attempting to dictate how others do.

The best thing GW has done to encourage people to use more different units is releasing the latest batch of Codices. As opposed to the shit pamphlets like Dark Angels and CSM, the 5th ed books offer a wide variety of viable builds using pretty much everything in the book. Having a tight ruleset with plenty of options in every Codex is the way to see more units used. 



> I mean how sad is it that we all need a law degree to interpret the rules because there are two schools of thought on the matter, Rule As Intended (RAI) and Rule As Written (RAW)? I'm not saying we shouldn't stick to the rules (I think they, points limits and force organization charts are needed in order to have fun and be competitive) but at some point it is annoying having to constantly debate every minor rule. Case in point the CSM Dreadnought 'Crazed' rule which I am going to explain for some of the folks on here in a while, but which is a source of constant debate and results in the unit being stigmatized even more as 'uncompetitive' and 'unfit for use in any list'.


Untrue, hyperbole much? The 5th ed rules are the best GW has put out in terms of clarity. Crap like Deff Rollas not affecting vehicles, Doom affecting units in transports and Fire Frenzy are the result of dickheads looking for advantage while the rules themselves are quite clear. Once again, competitive players aren't the ones fucking up the rules, it's the asshats that ruin everything, so avoid them.



> I am also more experienced with the CSM Codex (Knowing less about the others)


I just found this humorous. Considering all the false dichotomies, misinformation and flat out untruths presented here, it's painfully obvious that you don't know shit.



> and all you have to do is head over to the CSM Army List section and look at each board and see that (in the majority of cases) the discussion gets reduced to changing the original list to, x2 Daemon Princes, Plague Marines, Zerkers and Obliterators. What I'm saying is that even competitive gamers need to try more units, no unit is truly broken and if everyone tried different units that fact would be obvious. But because alot of people won't diversify their armies, units often appear alot worse than they are, because they are running up against power builds.


Or it's just because the CSM book is a pile of shit, one of the last that GW squeezed out before they got their act together. Check out the SM, SW, BA, IG, Tyranid and now DE sections and enjoy the diversity a 5th ed Codex encourages. Fact is, some options just aren't as good as others, especially in older books. You can take marginally effective units, like Sanguinary Guard, and make a good list with them (use Dante to make them scoring), it's all up to preference.



> I in no way wanted to start a 'flame war' or anything like that, more just to start a thread on a discussion which was taking place in a number of threads, but which wasn't being dealt with specifically.


Hahahahaha



> In saying that:
> 
> Who votes that we get together all the competitive assholes who ruin everyone's fun just like the Emperor and Guilliman in _First Heretic_? Make them all line up in formation and kneel before us and then rebuke the lot of them for twisting our Imperial Truth (having fun in a competitive way) and then make them watch as we destroy their greatest achievement, their power build lists and models. Telling the WAAC crowd that amongst all the varied types of gamers, "They alone, are guilty of failure".
> 
> I vote to be Guilliman lol.


Hahahahaha

I think we've found our asshat folks. This is the kind of person that makes life miserable for all of us. It's not because he doesn't play competitively or that he wants to see more variety from older Codices, I can respect that from anybody and I too would love to see older Codices get revamped to make everything useful. It's because he's an insufferable asshole.

Get bent, grow up and feel free to come back when you aren't feeling like such a prick.


----------



## Gredus (Nov 9, 2010)

D-A-C said:


> Should tournments be competitive and cuthroat? Yes they should. Should they reward fluffy / well painted lists with bonus points? IMO yes they should, if only for balance, so as to encourage a variety of entries and make it a more unique experience.


Last time I checked, the Superbowl, Word Series, Champions League, Daytona 500 etc there was no bonus points for ethnically diverse teams or who had the nicest strips. - Thats not how a tournament to decide the best player/team works. It's all about the match results.

The only difference between competitive and "casual" players in my opinion, (see I say my opinion here I, as I'm not trying to dictate how people should play the game, or piss off an element of players) is that some people can't distinguish from the lore behind the armies and the harsh reality of the out of date rules Game Workshop has wrote for the majority of them. 

Yes there is lots of different units you can choose from in some army lists. - But then just like a manager choosing his football team, you're going to always roll with your strongest elements. Why put out little Jimmy and slow Joe on the field when you know they'll get the stuffing knocked out them?
"Becuase it's fun!"
I agree, it can be fun. However there is the right games and the wrong games to use Jimmy and Joe.

It's silly to tell someone their way of playing is wrong because it's successful. Heck do you tell Baseball players to get lost because you prefer a sunday game of rounders with your kids down the park?

At my old club the so called "power gamers" stuck to playing each other. If they're tabling new players then you've got bad club management and the guy is an asshat. That's the people who quickly find they have no one to play against, otherwise it teaches players to build stronger armies.

This divide people make up is utter nonense. To me it just sounds like lots of people are bitter their codex isn't the uber powerful army the novels claim it to be, or that someone got roflstomped by a decent tournament list. Everyone and I mean everyone I know who does "competitive" play also has a bucket load of stupid and fun fluffy armies they use. The difference is they don't expect them to win tournaments because fluff that GW want you to believe for the universe and the codexes they write to support the game are not the same thing.

People who do tournaments will keep going to them. They'll keep reporting back how fun they were and they'll keep encouraging others to try this aspect of the game. New lists will become powerful and people in clubs will get owned. That's not the gamer's fault, that's Game Workshops fault for being so slow to update army books, not doing proper FAQ's or not doing official updates to nerf overpowered stuff.

If you don't like tournaments or the way they're run, then start your own one. Bashing everyone and saying you hate then because they like to win is just sour grape dude.


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

Gredus said:


> People who do tournaments will keep going to them. They'll keep reporting back how fun they were and they'll keep encouraging others to try this aspect of the game. New lists will become powerful and people in clubs will get owned. That's not the gamer's fault, that's Game Workshops fault for being so slow to update army books, not doing proper FAQ's or not doing official updates to nerf overpowered stuff.


Im not sure you can blame GW for power gamer lists. That would be like blaming kitchen knife makers for the amount of stabbing in the country. Players havea choice how they build their armies. Some just choose to be more competative than others.

Tournaments are fun, but I think they have got a bad press. Depending on how they are run and whats up for grabs depends how amiable other players are. I go to a local one on a regular basis (ASMOH its called), and I dont think I have had a game I didnt enjoy in the 3 or 4 years I have been going. But GW's GT can get some very competative rules lawyers who are determined to win regardless of how they twist the rules. I have had some less than enjoyable games at these, no matter how much I have tried to have a good time.


----------



## louisshli (Aug 19, 2010)

Wow, loads of tension and finger-pointing on this tread. Very interesting to read about the ways people think how 40K should be played. I was at my local gaming club the other day and saw two gamers w/ their armies deployed and wanted some consent on their own interpretation of a particular rule. I was watching another game unfold, and amazingly after almost an hour of back and forth, not a single dice was rolled and not a miniature was moved. On the other hand, the game I was watching had these two guys laughing their a$$e$ off and generally just having a blast.

When my BA army is complete, guess who I rather be playing with? I believe that the so-called competitive lists are best left for tournaments where everyone participating at least have a basic knowledge that the goal is to win & hence should be prepared to face some very 'un-fluffy' army lists. In that environment, I can see that winning is at all cost so one s/b prepared.

Then at the other extreme, as mentioned numerous times above are the casual gamers. They want an army full of character and don't really care about the winning or losing, just the pure notion of having their models painted and on a terrain filled table is enough satisfaction for them. Personally I really prefer playing in this environment as it's more sociable and just allows fellow gamers to talk about some fluffy stuff post game.

In between these two camps, however is the campaign group. I can see both camps finding a nice middle ground where teams are set and runs for a couple days, or even weeks. Numerous games played and results are all linked and changes the over-all flow as campaign unfolds. This allows the 'competitive' folks to build a very technical army where the 'fluffy' guys may find very helpful. The storyline, objectives, missions chosen for the campaign can be a cooperative thing between all participant.

Both sides may find this a very enjoyable but key is to ensure that the 'competitive' gamers and 'fluffy' gamers are blended together so there's a good balance.

Obviously there might be a chance of 'competitive' gamers not admitting they are competitives and vice versa. But the notion of designing a campaign for the purpose of everyone to enjoy s/b enough of an incentive for both camp to get together and enjoy the hobby for what it is....


----------



## Gredus (Nov 9, 2010)

I'm always at a loss when it comes to 2 people arguing over a rule. Anytime I've had an issue like that it's always been resolved with a simply d6 dice roll.

1-3 you're right, 4-6 i'm right. And then the game goes on. 



> Im not sure you can blame GW for power gamer lists


Well you can really. The nearest thing you can compare Warhammer or Warhammer 40 with would be either an online RP game or something like Dawn of War or Starcraft 2 - Build an army to a set rules and fight. If things in those games become too powerful they are patched. This is done to keep balance. GW don't give a crap about balance, they only care about selling models. Now I'm not expecting GW to cancel current codex's and print new ones but they could at least do proper official FAQ's for the outdated stuff. 

Competitive vs Casual exists only in 1 place - The Internet. Bored people start these topics because they're either annoyed their fluff list got tabled or they're annoyed they can't get anyone to play against their "off the shelf" standard net list, or have been baited by someone looking for drama.
I've never been in a club and heard someone say "I hate competitive gamers" or "that's not the right way to play"

Can't people just accept that people play this game for different reasons and move on?


----------



## shas'o Thraka (Jan 4, 2010)

Personally, I don't like competitive gamers. Fair enough in a tournament, but against a friend, it isn't fun.

But don't take that the wrong way, because I'm as competitive as the next guy. I'll take what I like, and shut up you lot who tell me to do otherwise.

That being said, I play Broken Angels so I can't have a fun, casual list:grin:


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

D-A-C said:


> *1. They spend all their time creating lists that are completely unfluffy and filled with cheese.*


In a casual setting these people can go fuck themselves. It drains every last ounce of fun out of the game and honestly made me stop playing fun games(They became anything but).

Also I god damn double dog dare you to create a fluffy chaos marine list that doesn't lose every game. It's fucking impossible.



D-A-C said:


> *2. They are constantly giving advice to new players telling them to only buy 1 or 2 units.*


I take it from the standpoint of when I started chaos. People tried to warn me away from dreadnoughts, and possessed, but the reviews weren't scathing they were "Try it this way! Herpadoo maybe it'll work durrhurr"
So I ended up spending money on useless models that aren't effective or fun to play.(Possessed blow, but the dreadnoughts are okay). So when I see people asking for list advice * I tell them -exactly- what works* I doubt people are here to spend gobs of money and then fucking die all over the place in competitive play.



D-A-C said:


> *3. The constant need to play games at 2000pts and above and basically the entire 'Ard Boyz' mentality (including that website that I forget lol)*


Ard boyz is a lot of prestige and money, and some of the most fucktarded players I've ever met, I met through Ard Boyz. For me, the entire day is about making fat neckbeards regret ever showing up, and finding the two to three who are worth the air they breath. 
Ard Boyz is the end-all-be-all for competitive play so naturally it carries weight.
Plus it's fun playing with more models, 1500 sucks dong for templar.


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

LordWaffles said:


> Also I god damn double dog dare you to create a fluffy chaos marine list that doesn't lose every game. It's fucking impossible.


I spent last Tuesday using my Tzeentch marines and their daemonic toys army: Winged Daemon Prince, Thousand Sons, Summoned Daemons, Defilers (so no Lash, Berserkers, Obliterators, Plague Marines) and won both games, so fluffy and competitive are not impossible.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Dave T Hobbit said:


> I spent last Tuesday using my Tzeentch marines and their daemonic toys army: Winged Daemon Prince, Thousand Sons, Summoned Daemons, Defilers (so no Lash, Berserkers, Obliterators, Plague Marines) and won both games, so fluffy and competitive are not impossible.


I doubt he meant it literally.


----------



## ROT (Jun 25, 2010)

Urgh, everyone at my local GW just use their powerbuild lists - I really hate it, you try and have fun with a new casual list, and everyone there has their tournie built lists.

I really dislike competitive gamers - If you can't play a game without using a stupid powerbuild, you're completely ruining it for the rest of us.

That's why I barely play, cause everyone I know is just an asshole WaaC player.


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

Dave T Hobbit said:


> I spent last Tuesday using my Tzeentch marines and their daemonic toys army: Winged Daemon Prince, Thousand Sons, Summoned Daemons, Defilers (so no Lash, Berserkers, Obliterators, Plague Marines) and won both games, so fluffy and competitive are not impossible.


I could say exception proves the rule. But I'd rather simply say that you must have been mistaken and lost both those games anyway, the other person didn't have the heart to tell you.

Lord knows tsons, summoned daemons and defilers are garbage.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Dave T Hobbit said:


> I spent last Tuesday using my Tzeentch marines and their daemonic toys army: Winged Daemon Prince, Thousand Sons, Summoned Daemons, Defilers (so no Lash, Berserkers, Obliterators, Plague Marines) and won both games, so fluffy and competitive are not impossible.


Agreed.
I play Khorne lists, by fluff; I win more than I lose.
I think someone might need to either stop being arrogantly opinionated, or start taking prozak.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Vrykolas2k said:


> Agreed.
> I play Khorne lists, by fluff; I win more than I lose.
> I think someone might need to either stop being arrogantly opinionated, or start taking prozak.


It just means that you're beating people that aren't as good at the game as you are. Player skill can often overcome a discrepancy between lists.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

In all fairness to LordWaffles, when discussing the strengthe and weaknesses of the chos dex, he does make god points, even if he does express them alittle strongly. I think of the chaos dex as my "playing for fun" army, and my blood angels as my more competitive army, both because of the lists themselves, and how they play. personally I fail to see how the two are exclusive, as you can both play to have fun, and be competitive at the same time.

Personally I think that the community as a whole needs to wake up, and see that we are euphemising bad behavior. It isn't "competitive players," It is simply Jerks. I don't mean that wanting to win is bad, so much as to say that 40k is not
a serious wargame, not by a long shot. 

this is because the designers intended it to be a collaborative affair, mixing wargames with role-playing games. if you want serious wargames, ones appropriate for tournements, you need to move to one of the historic wargaming systems, as their rules are balanced in such a way as to eliminate winning through your list ( if they didn't have balanced rules, you could never win as russians in napoleonic wargaming, for example) this is what is appropriate for tournament play.


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

I in fact prefer using my fluffy list because then again I like using my battle results influence the next chapter of the story. 

I also take the units I like but I make them effective. For example I like to take my harlequins ahead of the other elite eldar choices because they are fun and pivotal to my background. However I make them work in battle by taking the right choices. E.G. a shadowseer prevents them getting shot to pieces.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Son of mortarion said:


> It isn't "competitive players," It is simply Jerks. I don't mean that wanting to win is bad, so much as to say that 40k is not a serious wargame, not by a long shot.


Oh, right, I forgot - attempting to be good at something makes you a jerk.

As for 40K not being a serious wargame... tell that to the thousands of tournament players the world over, event organizers and so on. People might not want it to be serious, but it's becoming more competitive by the year.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Katie Drake said:


> Oh, right, I forgot - attempting to be good at something makes you a jerk.
> 
> As for 40K not being a serious wargame... tell that to the thousands of tournament players the world over, event organizers and so on. People might not want it to be serious, but it's becoming more competitive by the year.


Sorry Katie, Usually I respect your opinion, but here, you are part of the problem. What is being discussed isn't simply a matter of 'being good" it is an antisocial behavior that amounts to comparing penis sizes. by confusing those that want to win because they are competitive by nature, but are not obsessed with it with those that will do anything, regardless of whether or not it is sportsmanlike behavior, is the problem. by simply calling it "competitive," we allow them to continue with undesirable behaviors and we further divide the community.

Again, you are confusing two things, just because there is a sizable portion of the 40k community that takes the game seriously does not mean that the game is a serious wargame. The game is a casual wargame. When was the last time you played 40k and had to draw up your orders before each game turn started, you had to be concerned about moving units through each other, facing of individual models, formation of same, smoke, weather, fg of war, or many other factors that serious wargames factor into gameplay?

This isn't to say that 40k is not as good, it's different. it isn't meant to play in a tournament environment due to those rules being missing. it does play a lot faster, and with a lot less headaches due to eyestrain after poring over charts for combat resolution.


----------



## Imperious (May 20, 2009)

If you want a game with limited or no rules and just want to play for "fun", I strongly recommend co-ed drunken _twister_ in your underwear. There are no real winners or losers, no rules to argue, and you might even get laid...


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Son of mortarion said:


> Sorry Katie, Usually I respect your opinion, but here, you are part of the problem. What is being discussed isn't simply a matter of 'being good" it is an antisocial behavior that amounts to comparing penis sizes. by confusing those that want to win because they are competitive by nature, but are not obsessed with it with those that will do anything, regardless of whether or not it is sportsmanlike behavior, is the problem. by simply calling it "competitive," we allow them to continue with undesirable behaviors and we further divide the community.


No, it has nothing to do with measuring... gah.

There's competitive players and WAAC players. Check out Cheese's thread, it explains things perfectly.



> Again, you are confusing two things, just because there is a sizable portion of the 40k community that takes the game seriously does not mean that the game is a serious wargame. The game is a casual wargame. When was the last time you played 40k and had to draw up your orders before each game turn started, you had to be concerned about moving units through each other, facing of individual models, formation of same, smoke, weather, fg of war, or many other factors that serious wargames factor into gameplay?
> 
> This isn't to say that 40k is not as good, it's different. it isn't meant to play in a tournament environment due to those rules being missing. it does play a lot faster, and with a lot less headaches due to eyestrain after poring over charts for combat resolution.


This I won't argue anymore just because I don't think anyone's going to be convinced ever.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Katie Drake said:


> It just means that you're beating people that aren't as good at the game as you are. Player skill can often overcome a discrepancy between lists.


Thank you for the compliment.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Vrykolas2k said:


> Thank you for the compliment.


You're welcome.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Sorry for the double post, but I'm hoping to bump this up to the top of people's subscription thingies so they'll read this.

http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2010/11/balancing-game-competitive-balance-vs.html

One man's awesome view. Read and enjoy.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

Son of mortarion said:


> Sorry Katie, Usually I respect your opinion, but here, you are part of the problem. What is being discussed isn't simply a matter of 'being good" it is an antisocial behavior that amounts to comparing penis sizes. by confusing those that want to win because they are competitive by nature, but are not obsessed with it with those that will do anything, regardless of whether or not it is sportsmanlike behavior, is the problem. by simply calling it "competitive," we allow them to continue with undesirable behaviors and we further divide the community.
> 
> Again, you are confusing two things, just because there is a sizable portion of the 40k community that takes the game seriously does not mean that the game is a serious wargame. The game is a casual wargame. When was the last time you played 40k and had to draw up your orders before each game turn started, you had to be concerned about moving units through each other, facing of individual models, formation of same, smoke, weather, fg of war, or many other factors that serious wargames factor into gameplay?
> 
> This isn't to say that 40k is not as good, it's different. it isn't meant to play in a tournament environment due to those rules being missing. it does play a lot faster, and with a lot less headaches due to eyestrain after poring over charts for combat resolution.


By the logic you've given for what makes a wargame "serious," it is very limiting in scope. You're also trying to take 1 games rule set and compairing it to another.

The wargames you state are "serious" are designed to be based on Historical battles and have a time scale that is different from 40ks. 40ks battles are disigned to be a small window of time, in a small area. This is why issues such as fog of War, unit formation (though this would only really affect armies from very early history), and weather. It also states clearly in the rule book how you deal with issues such as moving troops through each other, model facings, and smoke. As far as issueing orders, that just seems like a constricting rule for an overly stuffy game.

Adding a ton of rules does not make a game competitive, nor does it make it serious. A game being "serious" is dependent on the mind set of the player base. For competitive play you want the rules to be easier and the games to go faster, it lets the games finish quickly so you can get more games in for a tourny.

I think the word you're looking for those historical wargames, that are loaded down with rules and require hours upon hours to complete is "Hardcore" Wargames.

As far as the OP goes, there's a big difference between playing a game competitivly and just being an Asshat. Most arguments on this topic is people want to lump competitive players into the WaaC label but it is not true, nor is GW making the game "non-competitive" (like such a thing is even possible) an answer to the issue.

No matter what games you play there shall be Asshat, jerks, dicks, Bags of Douche (or Douchebags if you prefer), and any other names you can come up with. We've all played "casual" players who are asshats, just like we've played "competitive" players that are asshats. "Casual" asshats are no better just because they play a fluffy, or just flat out crappy, list.


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

Katie Drake said:


> Sorry for the double post, but I'm hoping to bump this up to the top of people's subscription thingies so they'll read this.
> 
> http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2010/11/balancing-game-competitive-balance-vs.html
> 
> One man's awesome view. Read and enjoy.


Well written and logical; thanks for sharing it.

The only downside to implementing his theory that more competitive rules is that it would almost certainly require more proof reading and testing for each Codex; does anyone think they are released too often at the moment?


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

I think codices are re-leased too often Dave, it might not seem like a short time, but it really is. Especially since a lot are released without accompyaning models, which in of itself can be a detterant leading to or from competetive/casual play. 

Also, it seems like they are more just out to spam codices, without really editing/proofreading and or just generally making sure the thing is airtight.


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

Dave T Hobbit said:


> does anyone think they are released too often at the moment?


Yes they definately are, I'm also not thrilled that certain space marine codices are seperate. I'm a passionate chaos follower and I definately wouldn't want any seperate codices for each legion/deity. 

IMO, one a year done properly and when they are done don't just move on to the 6th edition and that would be great. 

But I bet they make a sh*t load of money getting young gamers to pester their parents for new cool looking and powerful models. 

(Random thought; but It's starting to bug me that there isn't an Adeptus Mechanicus codex; I think they, the space marines, all the Ordos, and the imperial guard should be 4 codices vs x2 for Chaos, theirs being Space Marines and Daemons as I like that they are seperate.)


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

Lord Sven Kittyclaw said:


> I think codices are re-leased too often Dave, it might not seem like a short time, but it really is.


I think the statistics are slanted by Space Marine releases; taking DH or DE as examples, they do not appear to have been updated frequently enough for players.

The current release cylcel leads to vastly disproportionate lags between an issue being identified and a solution being released. Maybe the release cycle should be:

(i) Release Rules Set and Armylists for all races simultaneously
(ii) Analyse problems raised and release Amendments for all books as a single release once solution has been tested internally whisly updating miniature range.
(iii) Amalgamate experiences into next version
(iv) Increment version number
(v) Repeat from step (i)

That way all armies would be written and amended for the current rules.

Of course, that would have a large impact on GWs business model.



Lord Sven Kittyclaw said:


> Also, it seems like they are more just out to spam codices, without really editing/proofreading and or just generally making sure the thing is airtight.


I agree that there is a flaw in their process; however, having tried to write legislation, airtight is very tricky. I am not saying making the rules set better would not be possible; I am just saying it would change either the cost per cycle or the speed of cycle.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

Dave T Hobbit said:


> I agree that there is a flaw in their process; however, having tried to write legislation, airtight is very tricky. I am not saying making the rules set better would not be possible; I am just saying it would change either the cost per cycle or the speed of cycle.


The best way to ensure that the rules are tighter, they should be looking to the winners things like 'Ard Boyz and other such tournaments. These are the people that will find the loop holes in the rules so let them play test them.

Other companies, such as Wizards of the Coast (makers of D&D, MTG, Pokemon, ect.) have followed this plan and it's worked out well for them. Their games are fairly balanced, most of the time.


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

Wusword77 said:


> The best way to ensure that the rules are tighter, they should be looking to the winners things like 'Ard Boyz and other such tournaments. These are the people that will find the loop holes in the rules so let them play test them.
> 
> Other companies, such as Wizards of the Coast (makers of D&D, MTG, Pokemon, ect.) have followed this plan and it's worked out well for them. Their games are fairly balanced, most of the time.


Not really, because that just rewards those types of a**holes that find the loopholes in the first place. Besides they would have a direct influence on rules and would probably continue to find more anyway.


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

D-A-C said:


> Not really, because that just rewards those types of a**holes that find the loopholes in the first place. Besides they would have a direct influence on rules and would probably continue to find more anyway.


In my experience of software projects and laws there are always issues that some people feel are clear and others do not; calling the people who find issues bad names only serves to drive out the moderates (people at extremes do not care about bad names because they just support the belief that the countering other person is wrong).


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

Dave T Hobbit said:


> In my experience of software projects and laws there are always issues that some people feel are clear and others do not; calling the people who find issues bas names only serves to drive out the moderates (people at extremes do not care about bad names because they just support the belief that the countering other person is wrong).


No offence but your slightly misquoting me. He suggested rewarding the same people who find all these loopholes to begin with, also because it would be the 'Ard Boyz' winners that would make those tournaments even more cutthroat as people would want the job of advanced playtesting rules and winning those tournaments with cheese/power lists would be the way to do it.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

More external playtesting would be awesome, but not as awesome as releasing trial rules in White Dwarf would be like they used to. The studio publishes what they have in White Dwarf for a particular Codex and the gamers of the world go over it and offer feedback. The studio again goes over things with a fine-toothed comb using the feedback received from the fans and makes the necessary adjustments. Product launches six to twelve months later. Everyone is happy.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

D-A-C said:


> No offence but your slightly misquoting me. He suggested rewarding the same people who find all these loopholes to begin with, also because it would be the 'Ard Boyz' winners that would make those tournaments even more cutthroat as people would want the job of advanced playtesting rules and winning those tournaments with cheese/power lists would be the way to do it.


Except the "powerlist" and "cheeselists" are still being made by the GW staff due to lack of proper play testing. They come up with the rules, that are then looked over by the 'Ard Boyz' players and any loop hools are found. Having such people find the loop holes before the release of the new product and then fixing the problem is what we want them to do.

Think about it. If the SM codex had players from the top level of 'Ard Boyz' look it over do you think that units like the Thunderfire Cannon, or Vanguard Vets would have been published under their current rule sets? No, as the units are mostly usless for competitive play. Maybe the price of Transports would have been raised, the cost of leader units decreased/increased, and so many other issues with the Dex addressed.

The problem isn't the people finding the loop holes, it's improper testing of the rules before launch.


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

D-A-C said:


> No offence but your slightly misquoting me.


I read your post as saying 'Ard Boyz' winners and other people of a similar playstyle were a**holes. If that was not what you meant then the mistake was mine.


----------



## OpTi (Aug 29, 2009)

D-A-C said:


> No offence but your slightly misquoting me. He suggested rewarding the same people who find all these loopholes to begin with, also because it would be the 'Ard Boyz' winners that would make those tournaments even more cutthroat as people would want the job of advanced playtesting rules and winning those tournaments with cheese/power lists would be the way to do it.


and you are mistaken in thinking he was suggesting that GW should allow playtest rules into tournaments, when all that was suggested was that the people who are good at making powerlists are given the rules to TEST amongst themselves and allowed to give feedback saying what unit/rules are too powerful, too weak, too expensive etc etc.

nobody would think that allowing unfinished rules into tournaments would be a good idea.


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

OpTi said:


> and you are mistaken in thinking he was suggesting that GW should allow playtest rules into tournaments, when all that was suggested was that the people who are good at making powerlists are given the rules to TEST amongst themselves and allowed to give feedback saying what unit/rules are too powerful, too weak, too expensive etc etc.
> 
> nobody would think that allowing unfinished rules into tournaments would be a good idea.



What are you talking about?

What I meant was, if *Tournament Winners* are given the job of playtesting by *being placed at the top of the Ard Boyz tables* they would seek to win those tournaments by any means in order to get the job of playtester. Therefore those tournaments would be made worse as people would try to win by any means necessary, in order to then get the job of playtester elsewhere.


----------



## OpTi (Aug 29, 2009)

D-A-C said:


> What are you talking about?
> 
> What I meant was, if *Tournament Winners* are given the job of playtesting by *being placed at the top of the Ard Boyz tables* they would seek to win those tournaments by any means in order to get the job of playtester. Therefore those tournaments would be made worse as people would try to win by any means necessary, in order to then get the job of playtester elsewhere.


how is asking good players to playtest rules in thier own time a reward?

It doesn't even just have to be winners it could be the top 50 players, then those players can take them to thier local stores or hobby groups and play some games over a few months then shoot GW an email with results and some comments.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

OpTi said:


> how is asking good players to playtest rules in thier own time a reward?
> 
> It doesn't even just have to be winners it could be the top 50 players, then those players can take them to thier local stores or hobby groups and play some games over a few months then shoot GW an email with results and some comments.


OK it seems I need to make a few things on my idea clear.

Playtesting wouldn't be done in a tourney setting.

Playtesting would be done where the players would build multi lists, or even be issued lists from GW, and play a game with each one, to see just how powerful the units rules and abilities are in actual game, not a vaccum. Battle reports must be written to showcase how well units do.

Playtesters would then meet with designers, discussing what units are viable, what aren't and where improvements could be made.

For example we'll use Vanguard Vets.

The playtesters find during list building that the unit isn't point efficent, but make a list using them anyway to see how they play. After playing against several different types of opponents (Orks, CSM, Nids, Tau) it has been determined that the unit just isn't good enough for the points.

The play tester then returns to the developers with their battle reports. After reviewing the battle report with the developers, and giving them the info thy learned about the new units, the testers leave until they are needed to test new rules for units.

At no point are these players writing the rules for units, they simply play with the rules and let the developers know where issues lie.

The ideal would be to have every unit in the book be a decent choice for an "All Comers" style of list. Having units that are "specialists" (read: Vanguard Vets and Thunderfire Cannon) is pointless because they don't make it into general play as they are very poor choices. Better play testing would have shown this, and we might have found these units in many more lists for 'nilla SM armies.


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

But folks your missing the point I'm making.

One of the few consensus opinions this thread has generated so far is that a large part of the people who attend the national Ard Boyz tournaments are Win At All Costs players.

By making the people who win that tournament (most likely the WAAC crowd that power build and exploit loopholes) the playtesters who get to meet with the developers and participate in the release of the codices (in their capacity as playtesters, checking rules for new units etc) your rewarding their WAAC behaviour. 

That means people will link winning Ard Boyz with getting to meet developers and get an early peak at new models and rules and will encourage more WAAC behaviour in the tournaments so that they can get these perks.

Plus no amount of playtesting will ever Iron out all the kinks in new rules.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

D-A-C said:


> That means people will link winning Ard Boyz with getting to meet developers and get an early peak at new models and rules and will encourage more WAAC behaviour in the tournaments so that they can get these perks.


WAAC players should be booted out of the tournament for being assholes and not conducting themselves decently, so the point is moot.

If you're talking about competitive players... well, heaven forbid people go to a hardcore tournament to compete. =/


----------



## Kuolema (Nov 4, 2010)

I almost can't believe this thread is still going. . . then I remember it's the internet and it attracts stupid like bright lights attract moths. 

Is it really so hard to understand some people like to play competitively and that others don't? Just because someone doesn't believe the same thing as you doesn't make them wrong. If you are a casual player and you don't enjoy playing competitively then don't play against competitive players, you won't have fun, is that so hard to understand?

Yes some competitive players are jerks and make the game less fun for everyone they play against, but hey guess what?! Some fluff bunny players do the exact same shit. These people are called assholes and they exist in every single human society.

For those people complaining you can't make a fluffy AND competitive list from the current chaos codex, GET OVER IT! Internal balance is something GW has only started to understand in 5th edition. Most 4th ed books are pretty black and white in what is good and what is not, the 5th books aren't like that and offer multiple competitive builds.
Are they perfect? No, some units are still better than others and that isn't likely to change ever, I can't think of a single game with perfect internal balance but games workshop is getting better at it. 

I nearly spat my coffee out when some of you started saying GW releases books too fast. yeah I'm sure necron/DE/tau/greyknights/xenos/notvanillaspacemarine players REALLY want GW to take longer to release books.




Katie Drake said:


> More external playtesting would be awesome, but not as awesome as releasing trial rules in White Dwarf would be like they used to. The studio publishes what they have in White Dwarf for a particular Codex and the gamers of the world go over it and offer feedback. The studio again goes over things with a fine-toothed comb using the feedback received from the fans and makes the necessary adjustments. Product launches six to twelve months later. Everyone is happy.


I like PP way of going from MKI to MKII released trial rules online for all current models and had the community play test them and report back.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

D-A-C said:


> But folks your missing the point I'm making.
> 
> One of the few consensus opinions this thread has generated so far is that a large part of the people who attend the national Ard Boyz tournaments are Win At All Costs players.


It's also a consensus that most people link winning a tournament mean you have to be a WaaC player at all times. That is not true by any means. People may adapt a WaaC style of play for "Ard Boyz' but that doesn't mean they play that way for every single game. You have people in every thread like this that state they are competitive but are not WaaC players. It is possible that non WaaC players can win at 'Ard Boyz,' hell the winners might even be nice guys to play against.



> By making the people who win that tournament (most likely the WAAC crowd that power build and exploit loopholes) the playtesters who get to meet with the developers and participate in the release of the codices (in their capacity as playtesters, checking rules for new units etc) your rewarding their WAAC behaviour.


So you want the playtesters to be the people that have been failing at it for every edition up until 5th (GW) or the players disregard game balance in the favor of fluff? No you do not. You want fresh outside viewers that are going to look at the rules and see which units would be used and which would not be used.

Lawyers write laws because they are the ones that are going to see loop holes in them. Why not have the people that are going to find the loop holes test out rules to ensure there are none? Seems to me thats the smart thing to do.

All this is doing is rewarding good players. Being a good player is more then an attitude, list building, and winning. It's all 3.



> That means people will link winning Ard Boyz with getting to meet developers and get an early peak at new models and rules and will encourage more WAAC behaviour in the tournaments so that they can get these perks.


And once people find that WaaC playstyle gets them no games at their FLGS to practice their lists and tactics they'll, hopefully, change.

People need to accept that some people are just Asshats, it's life. Just don't deal with the people and move on.



> Plus no amount of playtesting will ever Iron out all the kinks in new rules.


Nothing will ever make a game airtight, but proper play testing goes a LONG way towards that goal.


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

Well two new codices a year is alot when you think about it. I think the problem is that you have to wait a full cycle for an update as codex updates are an all or nothing affair.

It would be much better and would end alot of the silly arguments if GW would periodically revisit certain units or upgrades and amend them so they are more in line with the updated codices, for example if a unit is cheaper in the new SW codex and its the exact same unit but more expensive in the old Dark Angel codex, go back and amend it. But in saying that as I said, no way should space marines get all those different codices IMO. 

But GW seem very commited to maximising profits at the moment and in a way I guess we should be glad they still produce a product that is still of exceptional (if certainly by no mean perfect) quality under those circumstances. Although I think they owe alot to us the public for investing so much effort into not only the playing of the game, but also the exploration of the fluff as well.

As for competitive vs casual of course you can try and achieve a happy medium between the two, any comments I made that indicated that I didn't agree with that idea were obviously attempts at humour that failed or missed their mark. However in regards to Heresy some of the posters in the army list and tactics section need to tone down the complete negativity towards some units. Yes some units are weak, but often people want to play them anyway, therefore suggesting how to maximise their potential rather than simply always saying 'replace them with' would sometimes be more helpful.

Also if Ard Boyz is the uber competitive tournament event in the 40k calender why not also have one other major event that deals with more fluff orientated armies and takes into account the thematic aspects of the various armies as well as table top performance? Maybe more themed mission objectives than simply kill points or capturing points. Also another large campaign would be alot of fun, especially if it was held in competitive settings as then IMO you would hopefully get a mix of fluff and skill with real meaning for the game itself.

Finally the one thing I will heavily critique GW on is their often very poor FAQ that often fail to address any of the problems that arise with new codices and at times often address issues which no-one ever brings up at all lol.


----------



## Kuolema (Nov 4, 2010)

D-A-C said:


> Well two new codices a year is alot when you think about it. I think the problem is that you have to wait a full cycle for an update as codex updates are an all or nothing affair.


It's really not. 
Codex updates are only an all or nothing affair because GW seems allergic to erratas to update the rules in an old codex without re-doing the whole book. 


> It would be much better and would end alot of the silly arguments if GW would periodically revisit certain units or upgrades and amend them so they are more in line with the updated codices, for example if a unit is cheaper in the new SW codex and its the exact same unit but more expensive in the old Dark Angel codex, go back and amend it. But in saying that as I said, no way should space marines get all those different codices IMO.


First space marines are popular, suck it up. That is why they get multiple books and regardless of what you think they should and shouldn't get doesn't change that.
It would solve some arguments but new ones will always pop up.
Something think the idea of PDF erratas to update older units would be awesome, others think it would be a pain in the ass. 



> But GW seem very commited to maximising profits at the moment and in a way I guess we should be glad they still produce a product that is still of exceptional (if certainly by no mean perfect) quality under those circumstances. Although I think they owe alot to us the public for investing so much effort into not only the playing of the game, but also the exploration of the fluff as well.


A company wants to maximize profits? Wow that is so original. 

Seriously that argument is getting old. 



> As for competitive vs casual of course you can try and achieve a happy medium between the two, any comments I made that indicated that I didn't agree with that idea were obviously attempts at humour that failed or missed their mark. However in regards to Heresy some of the posters in the army list and tactics section need to tone down the complete negativity towards some units. Yes some units are weak, but often people want to play them anyway, therefore suggesting how to maximise their potential rather than simply always saying 'replace them with' would sometimes be more helpful.


If people want to use certain units and want tips on how to use them then that is what they have to ask for.
You post a tau list with 60 fire warriors in it and ask how to make it competitive, of course people are going to tell you that you 54 fire warriors too many. 
Don't blame the community if you don't ask for advice properly and don't take it personally if people tell you your pyrovores suck, because well they do. 



> Also if Ard Boyz is the uber competitive tournament event in the 40k calender why not also have one other major event that deals with more fluff orientated armies and takes into account the thematic aspects of the various armies as well as table top performance? Maybe more themed mission objectives than simply kill points or capturing points. Also another large campaign would be alot of fun, especially if it was held in competitive settings as then IMO you would hopefully get a mix of fluff and skill with real meaning for the game itself.


What tournaments are you going to? Most tournaments use comp/soft scores to try(and fail) to encourage fluffy lists. They also use sportsmanship and painting scores to decide who wins the tournament. 



> Finally the one thing I will heavily critique GW on is their often very poor FAQ that often fail to address any of the problems that arise with new codices and at times often address issues which no-one ever brings up at all lol.


Nothing new. 
The nid FAQ was a serious step backwards for GW and hopefully they will of learned their lesson come the DE one. I wouldn't hold my breath over it thou.
The BA FAQ was very good as far GW FAQ are concerned.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

I registered here to comment on this particular failure of a thread, so comment I will. I apologize if my post appears to somewhat ramble, as it is both late, and I have lots of other things on my mind that I am trying to distract myself from. Chumbalaya and KatieDrek hit the nail on the head. You have assholes, and they come in all shapes and sizes. You can get that competitive guy who will cheat, argue rules, slowplay, or whatever to win. You can also get that hobby guy who gives his opponent a 0 on sportsmanship and comp just because he lost. A lot of this just exists on the internet of course. In real life people play whoever they can. I generally try and win all my games, I probably lose one out of every 10-15 games or so. But I also encourage friends and people to run armies that will be very difficult fights for me. I have also given tournament prize money to kids to spend on whatever they want. 

One local kid is making an all grot army, but its counts as ig, and converted. I think its a great idea. I have a friend who runs a very well painted tau army, though its not very competitive. My most recent army is a very effective shooty spacewolf army. Its made of a hodge podge of chaos and loyalist marine models I bought used, painted the whole army in 2 hours. Sprayed it champagne gold, put boltgun metal on the guns and blue on the shoulders. Its slopped on too, so no even coverage or anything. But it took me about 2.5 minutes per model to paint it, and I hate painting. None of that matters to me, as its a kick your dick in tough competitive army. 

So the 3 of us get along just fine at the local store. We cant we get along online? Ive never met anyone in this thread, yet there are people saying they wouldnt want to play against me because my army is competitive. Why do you find it necessary to stir up fighting? As was said before, I hate to paint. I find it boring, monotonous, and tedious. I have found calculus to be both more enjoyable and easier than painting, and Im bad at math. I only do it if I have nothing else to do, and lots of movies to watch. I dont go to painting forums though and tell people how to paint. I mean, how would this sound. "Whats with all these people highlighting and shading their models. Just because you can paint well doesnt mean you should." Stop painting well people, it makes armies like mine look bad. I mean thats basically what us competitive players do, spend lots of time and effort on our lists and play. I got bored stomping people running a footdar list that had 2 winged autarchs with power swords. So I went to tournaments, and lots of my fellow gamers started coming along too. The store is now much more laid back, everyone gets along great, and we can just chill and play games. It wasnt so great when we had fluff bunnies and care bears. You would have some new idea for a list, and it would get called cheese. Few guys at the store refused to play a friend because he said he was going to bring a lash prince. That kind of stuff. So why would you want to keep people arguing? Because you cant handle losing? I spent my first 2 years losing, and never thought twice about it.


----------



## Chaosftw (Oct 20, 2008)

Just agree to disagree and be done with it.

Katie said it best "heaven forbid people go to a hardcore tournament to compete"

There is no right answer to this problem. Competitive players just want to keep playing hardcore lists in hopes to hit opponents that will make them go back to the drawing board which in turn helps them better their lists even further. Then you have your casual players that always want to have games which is all fine and dandy but as soon as you reach one of those competitive players and you get your arse handed to you you go and squabble over it. 

A competitive player in my eyes is someone who goes for the Win at all costs. The only difference between a casual and a competitive player is that the competitive player has admitted they are going for the win. Where as a casual player will play for the win but if they get out played or what ever you want to call it they will just fall back on their scape goat excuse 'I only play casual' or 'that list was cheese'. I say fuck that everyone plays and aims for the win, nobody plays to lose. Thats a load of shit. Everyone is competitive its human nature.

What does it matter if your a competitive player or a casual player anyway? Just play each game and take it for what it is and be done with it.


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

Kuolema said:


> It's really not.
> Codex updates are only an all or nothing affair because GW seems allergic to erratas to update the rules in an old codex without re-doing the whole book.


I always thought that erratas were not produced because it would result in different people having different varients of the rules.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

In response to chaosFTW

I think a lot of people have ran into a noobslayer. Someone who finds bad players, or people who dont care, and makes a point of stomping on them. I think a real competitive player only plays hard when they know they have competition. I played my bugs against a 13 year old ultramarine kid who was just starting, and got tabled. Largely because I was more concerned about helping him with the rules and basic tactics than beating him. I dont need to smash beginners or casuals to grow my E-peen. But youll get guys who will run 6 pred blood angels against beginners whos army has minimal anti tank. 3 MC nids in a 750 beginners event. Stuff like that. And I think thats the distinction that needs to be drawn between competitive gamers and assholes. You get assholes everywhere, they exist in all parts of the hobby. 

I believe in the dark eldar book it says that the archons are so jaded they only really get a rush from doing incredibly extreme things. Thats sort of who real competitive gamers are. We only put on our game face when its time to kick ass against a solid opponent. An asshole just wants to smash everybody so he can brag.


----------



## Orochi (Jan 28, 2009)

I play my army quite effectively. I like to win. I like to have a good time. I play my OWN lists. I happily accept advise from those who offer it to help my army lists.

If I lose, I like to work out what I did wrong. I respect my opponent for besting me. I enjoy player WH40K

Guess what! I'm not a Space wolf/Blood Angel player. Can you tell?


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

Yes, the amount of bitching you do signals to us you are a scrub who feels self righteous about not playing 'power builds'.


Good players and scrubs are like sharks and blood, we can smell you a mile off.


----------



## Orochi (Jan 28, 2009)

Well, we all love a little bit of self justification don't we. 

I am however, not going to argue with you, especially over two threads. If you're going to spend you're time hunting down my posts in order to try and insult me, go ahead, it's kind of flattering you'd waste your life on it.

Second time, nice try kid.


----------



## Yodhan (Apr 8, 2010)

I am somewhere down the middle. I like playing for the sake of playing, but after a bit of getting my rear handed to me, I got tired of not having competitive lists. That being said, I try and keep my armies as close to 'fluff correct' as possible. I primarily play Wolves right now and am trying to make a list that can open up and hurt, yet still stay true to Russ. 

As for point levels, I like having big games, but right now am playing with a group of guys who have smaller armies due to a lack of money. We are currently going with 1000pts because, at that level, we can have a decent sized force, yet still not drop a ton of cash on making the list. After a bit, we plan on going bigger, eventually ending up with 2000pt lists. 

I don't mind the uber-competitive player, but I don't like it when they come to a friendly game with their GT or 'Ard Boys wannabe list and feel like crushing some newbie to show that they are better.


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

Orochi said:


> I'm not a Space wolf/Blood Angel player. Can you tell?


Yes

Your armies are listed below your avatar


----------



## CLT40k (Jun 18, 2010)

Orochi said:


> I play my army quite effectively. I like to win. I like to have a good time. I play my OWN lists. I happily accept advise from those who offer it to help my army lists.
> 
> If I lose, I like to work out what I did wrong. I respect my opponent for besting me. I enjoy player WH40K
> 
> Guess what! I'm not a Space wolf/Blood Angel player. Can you tell?


Gosh, I play both those armies... does that mean I'm a bad person?

Really, don't be that guy? If somebody is struggling to learn a particular aspect of the game, and they get help from the Net is that really so bad? (for example, I've learned a lot about painting from the Project Logs - and have incorporated some good advice - does that mean it's not my own painting?)

So when you say "I play my OWN lists" you really just sound a bit pompus and a bit sanctimonious... good for you... but does your list writing skill equal a fun game for your opponent?


----------



## Orochi (Jan 28, 2009)

I really hope so. I try very hard to make gaming me a fun experience. If peple dont enjoy it..well, they can never say I didn't try.


----------



## CLT40k (Jun 18, 2010)

And that's the crux of the issue... If I come with a really strong list, and you don't then there is a good chance that neither one of us will be happy. You'll be bummed out cause you just got smashed by a cheesey beardy netlist dirtbag waac army list, and I'll be unhappy cause your army list just sucks and it was "I'm shooting Swooping Hawks and tabled the guy turn 2, WTF?!"... sure you're playing lots of "fun" models, but I never got challenged from a tactical sense so that equals no fun for me... 

BTW, Not saying you write bad lists, just showing this as an extreme example.... 

The key to a good game is balancing forces. On one hand, we have points to do this... but 1500 or 2K points per player are not always equal.... So it's OUR responsibility, if we were to play a game, to talk through what we want. We might agree that this week, I run a non-optimized list and take some silly stuff like Skyclaws... And next week you optimize your stuff and give me a real tactical challenge cause we're more evenly matched... 

But YOUR fun and MY fun do not have to be exclusive... But it's up to us to make sure we're actively working on having a fun game. For my part, I can't say "I only run hard lists... wanna play?" --- I gotta bend too... Or if I have 2k of really ugly and you don't, then maybe I could suggest you take a few more units to balance it out... Or, we could set a game up where I bring a more non-optimized version of my normal list... 

Whatever, the point is that we all need to set the expectation about what kind of game we'll have.


----------



## Kuolema (Nov 4, 2010)

humakt said:


> I always thought that erratas were not produced because it would result in different people having different varients of the rules.


That is what GW says and it might be true but how many 40k players do you know who don't have the internet? The few who don't can easily ask a friend to print out the pdf for them.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Kuolema said:


> That is what GW says and it might be true but how many 40k players do you know who don't have the internet? The few who don't can easily ask a friend to print out the pdf for them.


Or go to the local library and do so themselves.
I assume most people who play are functionally literate, though... and occasionally it seems that's a bad assumption.


----------



## Hialmar (Feb 19, 2008)

I generally think I am a competitove player who chooses to play fluffy for the most part. While I like winning as much as your reasonably average next guy, I rarely take the same list two games in a row as I enjoy trying different combinations just to see how they work, and certain models I take in almost every list because I like the model or the painting I have done on the model, even if I know it is not the most effective or cost conscious choice. In my marine army I have been known to take Vanguard Veteran Squads or even all foot slogging armies in this age of Mech.

I win more games than I lose, but for the most part I think both sides end up with a fun game and I do not generally get bent out of shape if I do lose. I can think of three instances where I was truely unhappy after a game. Once was because the guy was one of those that had dice that were hard to read across the table and which he quickly would scoop up the "successful" dice rolls he made, would not let me see his army list which appeared to fluctuate throughout the game and had a liberal interpretation on how to measure movement of his troops. 

On the other two of those occassions against two different players, I had been asked to bring a particular army at a certain point level and was under the impression we were just playing our normal fun game. In both cases however, the army that I ended up facing was tailored to specifically beat the army I was asked to bring and their lists were based off of some internet list that my opponent had read was great for bashing the type of army I was running. In both cases, had I known in advance that we were actually going to be playing as competitively as possible it would not have been an issue with some advance warning.

I do not enter tournaments that often, but when I do, including 'Ard Boyz one year then I expect to face less fluffy armies and more players who are looking to win at all costs. I do not generally care for that environment as I am looking to have fun at all costs generally, and unfortunately too many of the "competitive" players tend to get upset easily when things do not go accordingy to plan, and through bad dice rolling or just poor play they end up losing. This seems to especially be the case if they lose to someone who is not taking the entire affairquite seriously enough and who is using a list they (or perhaps the internet) view as sub-optimal. I have enjoyed the tournaments I have entered as I went in expecting certain types of behavior from some players, and therefore I was not that surprised or disappointed when I encountered it. 

In the end I think there is not a right or wrong answer as to whether it is best to be a competitive or casual player and in most instances I think to some degree we all have a little of both in our gaming styles. As long as you, and perhaps more importantly, those you are playing are enjoying themselves then everything is fine.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

Hialmar said:


> On the other two of those occassions against two different players, I had been asked to bring a particular army at a certain point level and was under the impression we were just playing our normal fun game. In both cases however, the army that I ended up facing was tailored to specifically beat the army I was asked to bring and their lists were based off of some internet list that my opponent had read was great for bashing the type of army I was running. In both cases, had I known in advance that we were actually going to be playing as competitively as possible it would not have been an issue with some advance warning.



I hate those assholes. If you want to list tailor let me know in advance so I can too, or ill just lie about what army im bringing. List tailoring is only cool if both players agree to it before hand.


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

ChugginDatHaterade said:


> I hate those assholes. If you want to list tailor let me know in advance so I can too, or ill just lie about what army im bringing. List tailoring is only cool if both players agree to it before hand.


Good call on the whole list tailoring side of things, I hate when people do that, especially in a casual setting. That's the one good thing about Tournaments, you have to have an all comer's mindset, but what my friend did in a couple of competitive games was bring an armylist no-one would really expect (i.e. full of sub-optimal units) and it can actually be really tough as you are designed to fight more optimized lists and it can really throw off your strategy.

As a petty sidenote ....how the heck did you get 65 Rep on 31 posts lol?


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

D-A-C said:


> Good call on the whole list tailoring side of things, I hate when people do that, especially in a casual setting. That's the one good thing about Tournaments, you have to have an all comer's mindset, but what my friend did in a couple of competitive games was bring an armylist no-one would really expect (i.e. full of sub-optimal units) and it can actually be really tough as you are designed to fight more optimized lists and it can really throw off your strategy.
> 
> As a petty sidenote ....how the heck did you get 65 Rep on 31 posts lol?


I dont really know what rep is or how it works lol.

I would never ever advise bringing a list full of sub optimal lists. You run into a competitive player with a solid army and hes going to stomp you. Everytime ive ran into some goofy weird build at a tournament it has gotten completely annihilated.


----------



## Perriwinkléé (Jul 13, 2010)

At the end of the day Warhammer 40,000 is a game, and like any other game invented it is for entertainment, which equates to fun and happiness (putting aside GW's profit making goals). 

I think playing competitively is absoluetly fine if it stays within the confines of tournaments because thats what they're there for, its just when you get some seasoned gamer who enjoys knocking the stuffing out of a new kid it simply goes too far.

It's good to win yes, I think the best way to win though is in such a manner that both players come out of the other end smiling and joking with each other about how one Stormtrooper beat his way through five Khorne Beserkers (thats actually a true story :laugh or any other funny situation like that. In my humble opinion it completely ruins the playing experience, the freindly spirit and most importantly the fun of 40k when you have competitive players bringing a 'winwinwin' attitude into a freindly playing zone.

Rant over.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

Perriwinkléé said:


> I think playing competitively is absoluetly fine if it stays within the confines of tournaments because thats what they're there for,


Why should I have to pay to play when care bears dont? And a lot of the guys I run into at tournaments are non competitive players who just showed up to play games.


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

I just thought given how some threads here have progressed recently maybe a few people who are unaware of this thread would like to express their own views on the subject.

Are you competitive?

Are you casual?

What's you opinion on both styles?


----------



## comrade (Jun 30, 2008)

Personally I'm into 40k because of the fluff of the game, the who dystopian feel..So I cringe when I see Khorne Bezerkers fighting beside Noise Marines, or when Dark Eldar are allied with Space Marines etc etc.

I always smile when I go to tournys, and after I lose a game that i find to be a challenge and interesting, the opponent goes on to give me advice saying etc etc (he's trying to be helpful) I just smile and say, "It doesn't fit my play style"

And I'm pretty sure my play style hasn't changed since 3rd Ed.

Lots of guardsmen
Spattering of Commissars
Things that make the big boom (Basilisks)


----------



## 5tonsledge (May 31, 2010)

Well i useually dont give advice to people unless they ask for it. im am a very competitive gammer not because im a in your face player, but simply because i hate losing. I still make fun list but those list are useual still meant to be competitive. And yea i take 2 daemon princes with MoS, but its my damn right to field it because i play Emperors Children. the people that field one with a multi god list are annoying because they are strictly playing to win. I hate seeing list with rival gods together it makes me sad. but what is more sad is newer players dont even know that there are rival gods in chaos. Fluff to them is nothing


----------



## Nave Senrag (Jul 8, 2010)

5tonsledge said:


> Well i useually dont give advice to people unless they ask for it. im am a very competitive gammer not because im a in your face player, but simply because i hate losing. I still make fun list but those list are useual still meant to be competitive. And yea i take 2 daemon princes with MoS, but its my damn right to field it because i play Emperors Children. the people that field one with a multi god list are annoying because they are strictly playing to win. I hate seeing list with rival gods together it makes me sad. but what is more sad is newer players dont even know that there are rival gods in chaos. Fluff to them is nothing


But surely, there are times when the chaos gods get together to take down a target. There is even an example in the rulebook. And the loyalties of the gods are constantly changing. Two rival gods might join forces simply in the name of power. If you didn't feel like thinking too much about it, it could simply be several gods' forces coincidentally fighting for the same place.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

Surely there are times when playing with what overpriced plastic models you want is more fun than following the half assed story.


----------



## FlowAndEbb (Dec 25, 2010)

Why are people so against people who play to win? It is a game after all, with a winner and loser. That being said, people should not be rude about it.

Also I've never understood why some tourneys reward good painting with extra points. Some people just can't paint. And its intensely subjective.

Personally I think players could be awarded bonus points for a fluffy army though. Or having bonus points for using rarely seen models. Although that'd be insanely subjective too.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

ChugginDatHaterade said:


> Surely there are times when playing with what overpriced plastic models you want is more fun than following the half assed story.


Then again, fluff is part of the hobby.
Without the fluff, I wouldn't have gotten started waaay back in the beginning of 3rd at all.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

FlowAndEbb said:


> Why are people so against people who play to win?


Because many, many people aren't able to come to the realization that their preferred way of playing isn't the best and/or only way. People meet a few noobslayers and from that point onward anyone that plays well and puts a lot of time and effort into improving their game is immediately an asshole all because of some past bad experiences. It's really sad.

EDIT: I don't mean sad in a "that's pathetic" way either, I mean it more like a "That's too bad, what a missed opportunity" sort of way.



Vrykolas2k said:


> Then again, fluff is part of the hobby.
> Without the fluff, I wouldn't have gotten started waaay back in the beginning of 3rd at all.


It's part of the "Total Hobby" that Games Workshop has created, but it's not necessarily a part of everyone's hobby. Some people are into the hobby entirely to paint and/or read fluff and never play a single game. Some people hate painting and spend all their time playing games. Neither way is wrong.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Competitive players are fluffy players. Winning is a theme. Think of it this way...... Do you think a chapter master would choose the units that will preform the best in certain situations or do you think he will pick the units that look the purdiest?

"Gee, I know if I don't take transports my marines will get gunned down, but gee golly gosh, wouldn't it be swell to see a fuck load of marines charge into a wall of bullets?"

A clue: no. He would take what would win.

So, you see we are all fluffy players...we just take a different approach.


----------



## Luisjoey (Dec 3, 2010)

competitive at tournaments

for the rest playing casual! 

i like the fun of the game always!


----------



## Sherudon (May 31, 2011)

best points value you want for a fun tactical game is realy 750.. low model counts no god heroes takes a hour or less to play and ever mini is important.. rather than in 1500.. you lose a squad ow.. in 750 you lose a model and you feel it.

1000 is a great point value for experimental playing.. new unit, never used it and like to find out if it helps or I like how it works.. like possessed.. generaly not helpful, but a great random result can make them either cabbage or god hood.

1500 alows for a better paced game that can take you a good 2-4 hours to play with generaly even neck and neck game play and a few laughs.

2000.. this is starting to get competitive and power units packed.. full heavies, elites, and HQ.. maybe fasts aswel depending on the army.. but almost never full on troops.. starts becoming a game of who has more templates or who shoots first.

10k games become stupid.. you lose a side of a table in one round and you dont blink a eye but its a great way to spend doing stupid crap with a freind or 2 and talk about the week.

and to the would he take whats the most powerful unit/s and nothing else?, thats a boring stupid game where 2 players look at eachother like they had some bad curry the night before.. generaly they only get sniggered at and made the store joke.. wall of marines into bolter rounds? my doom eagles are 5th or 6th company.. {never remember}.. its more fun that way! my wall of marines run into a fuck load of bullets.. and live!.. go the 3+ T4 marines! we gots medics!.. meh.. miss my old medical chapter..


----------



## Flash (May 11, 2011)

In response to original post:

I think any list can be made competitive. I play competitively, but I also make sure my lists are made of units I like. Any unit can be made to function a certain way or be played in a certain way.

For example with my eldar I play dark reapers a lot because I like the unit even though it's considered a 'broken' unit by alot of competitive players. I've always done really well with them because I use them in a way that compliments my play style. So I get to use a unit I like and use it effectively.

This can be done with pretty much any unit, so it's more than possible to build armies out of models you like for whatever reason (fluff, models) and it can be used for fun or tournaments.

There are some on here who have the audacity to tell people what to play, but that's completely missing the point of the hobby, which as rightly stated is having fun.


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

Flash said:


> There are some on here who have the audacity to tell people what to play, but that's completely missing the point of the hobby, which as rightly stated is having fun.


To an extent I do this.

What I challenge are fads or trends that I feel negatively impact the game.

Three I've debated so far are:

1. General Approach to the Hobby - Competitive / Casual

2. The increasing rise in points levels wereby 2000+ is the norm

3. The phenomena of Spamming 'the best' units of each codex


I'm not necessarily telling people how to play, more I'm highlighting what I feel are negative aspects of the hobby that aren't natural to it. 

For example we could 'theoretically' argue that it is since the game expanded in a America that larger points games and competitive play has been introduced to such a degree.

Therefore I'm commenting on a trend that is moving away the hobby from its original iteration in a negative way.

This is due to the fact that it is a social hobby, and how others enjoy and play it can impact me in my choice of army lists, or even worse, might influence games workshop decisions, i.e the increasing mechanisation of armies etc.

So thats why I start these threads and debates. To discuss gaming trends and get peoples opinions of them.


----------



## gally912 (Jan 31, 2009)

Flash said:


> There are some on here who have the audacity to tell people what to play, but that's completely missing the point of the hobby, which as rightly stated is having fun.


I have run into very, very few people who will tell me "what to play", when unsolicited. 

These forums are actually really good about that. 


Interestingly, I usually find the fluffers to be the ones to tell people their list is somehow "incorrect", because counts-as/doesn't fit/ZOMG TEHY WOULD NEVEH EVEH DO THAT


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

gally912 said:


> Interestingly, I usually find the fluffers to be the ones to tell people their list is somehow "incorrect", because counts-as/doesn't fit/ZOMG TEHY WOULD NEVEH EVEH DO THAT


Interesting indeed. Amusing too, considering how many of these individuals make competitive gamers out to be monsters and bad for the hobby.

@D-A-C: Can you provide any data that the number of new players that choose to play competitively is increasing? Additionally, can you prove that those people are choosing to play competitively because of influence from others rather than that of their own personal preferences?


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

Katie Drake said:


> Interesting indeed. Amusing too, considering how many of these individuals make competitive gamers out to be monsters and bad for the hobby.
> 
> @D-A-C: Can you provide any data that the number of new players that choose to play competitively is increasing? Additionally, can you prove that those people are choosing to play competitively because of influence from others rather than that of their own personal preferences?


Well Katie, my local gaming group has five regulars and around three alternates and to be honest it isn't that competitive. We try to win of course, but the lists aren't significantly altered week to week, and its a generally relaxed atmosphere in terms of gamestyles, rule interpretations etc.

But then as your well aware from my posts, I wouldn't associate with them if they were over-competitive, so thats not really a scientific survey is it?

What could be analysed as raw data, and where I get the majority of my assertions are the various 40k forums.

Whilst I am a member and contributor for Heresy, I read Dakka Dakka, Bolter & Chainsword and 40k Online, and the majority of Lists that are posted are competitive. They are asking for help to improve the competitiveness of their armies, while giving a bogus account of fluff or ignoring it all together.

Rarely are theme armies or more casual lists posted and critiqed. Instead its all about tournaments and winning.

My other two points are validated in the same way. There are alot of people asking for 2000pt+ army lists and there is an awful lot of spammed units, both in the original lists, as well as the advice being given. 

So the advice being given to new players seems to be competitive in nature, features spam, and is usually of points of over 1000. This supports my assertions as well.

So if you want we could do a poll of all the lists posted in the various 40 websites that are 2000pts+ and ask for competitive advice and feature spammed units, then I bet it would support my arguments that these are large trends within the hobby and community. 


(Also the amount of people asking about using proxy codices and seeking ideas is on the rise, which further suggest things are headed in a competitive direction in general).


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

D-A-C said:


> Well Katie, my local gaming group has five regulars and around three alternates and to be honest it isn't that competitive. We try to win of course, but the lists aren't significantly altered week to week, and its a generally relaxed atmosphere in terms of gamestyles, rule interpretations etc.


Cool.



> But then as your well aware from my posts, I wouldn't associate with them if they were over-competitive, so thats not really a scientific survey is it?


Nope.



> What could be analysed as raw data, and where I get the majority of my assertions are the various 40k forums.
> 
> Whilst I am a member and contributor for Heresy, I read Dakka Dakka, Bolter & Chainsword and 40k Online, and the majority of Lists that are posted are competitive. They are asking for help to improve the competitiveness of their armies, while giving a bogus account of fluff or ignoring it all together.
> 
> Rarely are theme armies or more casual lists posted and critiqed. Instead its all about tournaments and winning.


That's probably because people who play casually or with a strong theme aren't interested in other people's input since they're looking to play with what they enjoy rather than what's best.



> My other two points are validated in the same way. There are alot of people asking for 2000pt+ army lists and there is an awful lot of spammed units, both in the original lists, as well as the advice being given.


I'm not sure what 2000+ point army lists have to do with anything, but okay.

As for spammed units, again, that's because if someone is asking for critque, they're doing so because they want their list to become more powerful on the tabletop.



> So the advice being given to new players seems to be competitive in nature, features spam, and is usually of points of over 1000. This supports my assertions as well.


For reasons stated above.



> So if you want we could do a poll of all the lists posted in the various 40 websites that are 2000pts+ and ask for competitive advice and feature spammed units, then I bet it would support my arguments that these are large trends within the hobby and community.


For reasons stated above, once again.



> (Also the amount of people asking about using proxy codices and seeking ideas is on the rise, which further suggest things are headed in a competitive direction in general).


That's a cool assumption, but I don't think it's accurate. I imagine it has more to do with prices than anything else - if models were cheap, people would likely be more willing to simply purchase the models that they want instead of resorting to using Counts As. I think there's a thread posted just recently about how a player wants to use his Tau as Dark Eldar. If Dark Eldar were more affordable, perhaps this individual would just buy an army instead.

Honestly to resolve anything, we're probably going to have to discuss your three main ideas of things that are supposedly ruining the hobby. I don't have time right now to do that, but I'll post back.

EDIT: On second thought, screw it. I'm really tired of arguing this. You keep trying to convince people that competitive play is bad, I'll keep doing the opposite and maybe we'll balance each other out.


----------



## Tzeen Qhayshek (May 4, 2010)

To each their own: neither play style is better than the other. I personally don't like to play competitively, but I have lists prepared if need be. The hobby supports both - those of us who play for the trophies and those of us who play for the stories. Either way, it is about fun, and to what end you achieve your fun. It is senseless to argue as I doubt fellow Heretics are going to have overnight epiphanies and decide to hop to one side of the fence or the other.

And honestly, the only reason competitive play receives more light is because GW supports that kind of play in various tournaments and competitions. If it were the other way around then people would be a lot more concerned if their armies matched ones in stories and so forth.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Tzeen Qhayshek said:


> And honestly, the only reason competitive play receives more light is because GW supports that kind of play in various tournaments and competitions. If it were the other way around then people would be a lot more concerned if their armies matched ones in stories and so forth.


GW does _not_ support competitive play almost at all. They run what, two tournaments per year (Throne of Fail and 'Ard Boyz)? That's very little considering that GW has customers all over the world. Most tournaments are run by people that love the game(s) enough to want to bring people from far and wide to enjoy the hobby together.

Additionally, GW does too poor a job of writing rules, fixing the ones that they do write, updating old books and balancing Codecies internally and externally to even pretend that the game is intended for competitive play.

Honestly, I'm not sure where people get the idea that GW is moving more and more toward making 40k a tournament player's game. Sure, the game is more playable in that sort of environment than it was in say 2nd edition but it still has a _long_ way to go to even reach Warmachine's standards.


----------



## Tzeen Qhayshek (May 4, 2010)

Katie Drake said:


> GW does _not_ support competitive play almost at all. They run what, two tournaments per year (Throne of Fail and 'Ard Boyz)? That's very little considering that GW has customers all over the world. Most tournaments are run by people that love the game(s) enough to want to bring people from far and wide to enjoy the hobby together.
> 
> Honestly, I'm not sure where people get the idea that GW is moving more and more toward making 40k a tournament player's game. Sure, the game is more playable in that sort of environment than it was in say 2nd edition but it still has a _long_ way to go to even reach Warmachine's standards.


Heh, I suppose you are right. I really can't argue that. Kudos to the many freelance organizers out there, then. If they _did_ have notions of moving in that direction then the BRB would certainly have more in it than a blurb in the back of that damn thing.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Tzeen Qhayshek said:


> Heh, I suppose you are right. I really can't argue that. Kudos to the many freelance organizers out there, then. If they _did_ have notions of moving in that direction then the BRB would certainly have more in it than a blurb in the back of that damn thing.


If they had any desire to move the game in that direction they'd need to make some seriously large changes. Hiring a lot of new staff, finding a lot of additional playtesters, editing, communicating with their fan base, releasing beta versions of rules for feedback and much more.

Magic the Gathering has a team of playtesters that play with cards that won't see release for about a year. Wizards spends tons of time letting people figure out the kinks in their ideas for cards and so on to ensure that the game is as balanced as possible.

Games like Starcraft II release Beta versions of the multiplayer months before proper release and the developers are constantly engaged with the Beta Testers, taking feedback and suggestions. Even after the game hits the shelves Blizzard constantly updates, patches and fixes the game, both technically (similar to bad wording/confusing rules in 40k) and balance (like changing points costs, adding/removing bad rules and abilities and so on).

Again, I cannot fathom how anyone who has any exposure to 40k in real life could think that GW is making the game more competitive.


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

Katie Drake said:


> Again, I cannot fathom how anyone who has any exposure to 40k in real life could think that GW is making the game more competitive.


Funny enough I never said they are (I'm not saying you believe that I said that).

But if the trends amongst the gaming community moved away from modelling, fluff etc do you not believe GW would focus their marketing and production strategies on competitive gaming?


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

D-A-C said:


> But if the trends amongst the gaming community moved away from modelling, fluff etc do you not believe GW would focus their marketing and production strategies on competitive gaming?


It won't happen, though. Literally the only reason that Games Workshop bothers writing fluff or rules is to give people a reason to buy their models. They're incredibly out of touch with their fan base and-- actually, I'm going to stop before I go on that rant again.

I guess what I'm saying is that there is basically zero chance of 40K becoming a competitive player's paradise. Despite what you see on the internet, the majority of players are very much casual.


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

Katie Drake said:


> I guess what I'm saying is that there is basically zero chance of 40K becoming a competitive player's paradise. Despite what you see on the internet, the majority of players are very much casual.


I feel like making this into a sig or commemorative plaque of some kind lol.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

D-A-C said:


> I feel like making this into a sig or commemorative plaque of some kind lol.


Please, be my guest. I don't think any competitive 40k player would say that they expect GW to make sweeping changes to accommodate them. Typically, we stay with the game because we love other aspects of it in addition to the gameplay. There aren't many competitive 40k players that care only for the gaming and have no interest in the models, fluff, painting or anything like that because 40k simply would have very little to offer these kinds of people. Competitive 40k players stick with the game for these other reasons and hope that over time GW will get better at writing rules, will update things more often and so on.

Don't worry though, we will _never_ be the majority and most of us are okay with that. Which... is why it's so ridiculous that we're so often under fire from people that prefer other parts of the hobby.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Katie Drake said:


> If they had any desire to move the game in that direction they'd need to make some seriously large changes. Hiring a lot of new staff, finding a lot of additional playtesters, editing, communicating with their fan base, releasing beta versions of rules for feedback and much more.
> 
> Magic the Gathering has a team of playtesters that play with cards that won't see release for about a year. Wizards spends tons of time letting people figure out the kinks in their ideas for cards and so on to ensure that the game is as balanced as possible.
> 
> ...


40K would need a total system re-write to become a properly competitive game, including all the Codex's. It's just too complex and flawed to be tweaked into shape. 

That is not going to happen.


----------

