# What definies competitive?



## StalkerZero

So, most of my days lately I sit and read through proposed army lists to try to fight the urge I have to just field as many TH/SS terminators possible at any given point level. I am trying to find that definitive point on what makes something competitive and what makes something fluff-ridden.

I am all for having fun in the game. I really am. Started a write up on my very own SM chapter to try to enjoy them even. But at the heart of it I am getting a tad tired of having my face beat in by a Daemon Prince + Lash of Submission build around Obliterators. We have a lot of fun playing but losing every time isn't working out well. But that's really another topic (I have a deep suspicion on why he wins so often and it isn't the fact that it's a Daemon Prince Lash army).

What I really want to to know is, were I to walk in to a tournament today what things would I be looking for in all armies that would signal to me, "Okay that guy is trying to run a competitive list" versus "That guy just bought a few of everything and made a story on how it works together and plays it"?


----------



## fynn

Tbh, in tournys all you will normaly see are competeive lists, and very rarely a "fun or fluffy" list. as most (but not all) players will bring there power/cheese lists like duel lash with oblits and plague amrines, and so on. so for tounry game, you need to, i spose the phrase "up your game plan" and start building a "power list", you can still keep to the story line of yuor chapter or what ever, but allow for dealing with tourny builds and the like. and theres nothing stoping you useing your fun lists in freindly club games (unless you know a guy or 2 that will only bring tounry list to friendly games, i know a few like that)


----------



## Imperious

To answer your original question...
I'd have to go with dictionaries as a thesaurus only gives you synonyms.



To really answer your question, as stated above GTs are pretty competetive. As far as picking up a game from an unknown quantity, if they have the "power builds" that's usually a good indicator.


----------



## StalkerZero

fynn said:


> Tbh, in tournys all you will normaly see are competeive lists, and very rarely a "fun or fluffy" list. as most (but not all) players will bring there power/cheese lists like duel lash with oblits and plague amrines, and so on. so for tounry game, you need to, i spose the phrase "up your game plan" and start building a "power list", you can still keep to the story line of yuor chapter or what ever, but allow for dealing with tourny builds and the like. and theres nothing stoping you useing your fun lists in freindly club games (unless you know a guy or 2 that will only bring tounry list to friendly games, i know a few like that)


That's what has really surprised me about 40k. I originally come from Magic the Gathering where there are whole websites devoted to posting the recent tournament finishes for decks and archetypes. I cannot find anything of the sort for Warhammer at all.

You would think in a hobby that has so much about it on the internet would be plagued with the same problem CCG are: armies that win major tournaments being copied by every local gaming guy to try to win big.

I've read that Dual Lash is a solid tournament build (maybe not as much now but has been), highly motorized armies are big, some Ork variants (Nob Bikerz/Green Tide), but for the most part there doesn't seem to exist a whole lot about specific army lists that win.


----------



## Imperious

Have you considered checking the meta-game section of the forum?


----------



## fynn

if you look through some of the army lists post in the army list setion, you will find some tourny builds there, and as saud above, in the meta section as well.
You could also look over at dakadaka, as they have a very large tourny player base than we see to have here ( hence why i never post army list there as i play for fun, and hate some tounry player ripping it apart becourse its not a power/cheese list)


----------



## StalkerZero

Imperious said:


> Have you considered checking the meta-game section of the forum?


Quite a bit. It just wasn't what I was expecting I suppose. 

There is a lot of variation from tournament environment to tournament environment but what I expected to find was something along lines of:

Army needs to have xx anti-vehicle weapons
Army needs to have xx anti-horde weapons
Etc.


----------



## darkreever

fynn said:


> ( hence why i never post army list there as i play for fun, and hate some tounry player ripping it apart becourse its not a power/cheese list)


We have it here as well, and in every army sub-forum. Maybe not the exact degree of some other places, but its at least one reason why I do not get many responses when I put a list up. (On top of my lists sometimes being strange, and another thing that I'm keeping secret.)


----------



## fynn

true, but not as bad as "over there", and normaly here if you put fun list in the post, you get the right advice for a fun list, even from the tourny player, its when you dont use the word fun that you get issues


----------



## angelXD19

there is some truth in that. you do get a lot of competitive advice even when you find the two to three suggestions that are not. It does get annoying when you put up a list and everyone suggests the meta game lists. Chaos in general will do that a lot. I have almost given up on posting lists because of it


----------



## Imperious

Think about it this way though... What's the point of even putting up a "fun" list in the first place? If you're putting pieces in your army that you love regardless of power, than you probably don't care about being competetive. Whenever I see players takin Ogryn for example, they know it's an extremely inefficient use of points. However they don't care as they are playing for the "fun" of it. They get their satisfaction just from seeing their minis on the table. 

Point is, if you're putting up a list for advice, you're probably putting it up there to play competetive as fun list players generally don't care.


----------



## darkreever

Imperious said:


> Point is, if you're putting up a list for advice, you're probably putting it up there to play competetive as fun list players generally don't care.


Thats not entirely true, I often put my more theme, challenge, and fun oriented lists up for the sole purpose of getting comments on them and seeing if anyone else has any idea's that can be used.


----------



## Imperious

darkreever said:


> Thats not entirely true, I often put my more theme, challenge, and fun oriented lists up for the sole purpose of getting comments on them and seeing if anyone else has any idea's that can be used.


Guess I should've been more specific. People putting up fun and fluffly lists are generally looking for feedback for their ideas. People putting up competetive and semi-competetive lists are generally looking to kick some ass.


----------



## darkreever

Imperious said:


> Guess I should've been more specific. People putting up fun and fluffly lists are generally looking for feedback for their ideas. People putting up competetive and semi-competetive lists are generally looking to kick some ass.


Thats not you being more specific, thats you trying to save face after I proved your previous comment false.



you said:


> Point is, if you're putting up a list for advice, you're probably putting it up there to play competetive as fun list players generally don't care.


Your comment was clearly stating that all people who put lists up are looking for competitive advice because those who play friendly/fun/theme oriented lists do not care. 


In any event your latest statement is also false. I have met players who put up competitive lists looking to have them altered to be more fluffy or theme oriented and therefore risk not being able to kick as much ass. And to further complicate things, I have also met people who have put up fun lists with the desire to make them more powerful.

Its not as cut and dry as either of your posts try to put it Imperious.


----------



## Imperious

I will disagree. After looking at some of the army lists on this site, more often than not, fun and fluffy listers aren't looking for winning advice. In contrast people putting up competetive lists are looking for the most efficient units, power, etc. In other words to win. 

Edit. I don't lose face as I have none...


----------



## Fallen

StalkerZero said:


> Quite a bit. It just wasn't what I was expecting I suppose.
> 
> There is a lot of variation from tournament environment to tournament environment but what I expected to find was something along lines of:
> 
> Army needs to have xx anti-vehicle weapons
> Army needs to have xx anti-horde weapons
> Etc.


thats because just having set pieces does NOT equal winning - take the over-hyped Leaf-blower list. its ok, as long as you know WTF to do! which by no means is an easy accomplishment. everyone has their own personal "meta-game" if you find havocs work better than anything else for CSMs have at it. :victory:



StalkerZero said:


> That's what has really surprised me about 40k. I originally come from Magic the Gathering where there are whole websites devoted to posting the recent tournament finishes for decks and archetypes. I cannot find anything of the sort for Warhammer at all.
> 
> I've read that Dual Lash is a solid tournament build (maybe not as much now but has been), highly motorized armies are big, some Ork variants (Nob Bikerz/Green Tide), but for the most part there doesn't seem to exist a whole lot about specific army lists that win.


see above. 



angelXD19 said:


> there is some truth in that. you do get a lot of competitive advice even when you find the two to three suggestions that are not. It does get annoying when you put up a list and everyone suggests the meta game lists. Chaos in general will do that a lot. I have almost given up on posting lists because of it


where is this? i see lots of fluffy lists & most people get what they wanted, although the chaos dex is so...unbalanced...most fluffy advise comes across as competitive. i run noise marines, they are basically my standard starting point. lots of people dont like them because they are ungodly expensive. advise is just that - advise. it is NOT mandatory to follow it.

back to the OP - What definies competitive? to me? its tournaments - if you go to tournaments your going to play competitive armies & should expect EVERYONE to try their hardest to win, even if its a fluffier tournament.


----------



## Daddysen

darkreever said:


> Thats not you being more specific, thats you trying to save face after I proved your previous comment false.
> 
> 
> 
> Your comment was clearly stating that all people who put lists up are looking for competitive advice because those who play friendly/fun/theme oriented lists do not care.
> 
> 
> In any event your latest statement is also false. I have met players who put up competitive lists looking to have them altered to be more fluffy or theme oriented and therefore risk not being able to kick as much ass. And to further complicate things, I have also met people who have put up fun lists with the desire to make them more powerful.
> 
> Its not as cut and dry as either of your posts try to put it Imperious.


wow ! thats kinda harsh don't you think? if you say something to make someone backtrack don't you think you effected them enough with out calling them out on it. 

take it easy.


----------



## Imperious

Daddysen said:


> wow ! thats kinda harsh don't you think? if you say something to make someone backtrack don't you think you effected them enough with out calling them out on it.
> 
> take it easy.


Lolz. This _IS_ the Internet. Kindness is rather optional. Good thing this isn't Warseer...


----------



## LukeValantine

If you go to a tournament never expect fluffy/friendly lists, they may be present but they will never be in the majority. In other words "walk softly and carry a big chainsword"


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade

Playing a tournament army is strictly a matter of taste. I will say that I became a better list builder after reading a fair amount of philosophy, primarily Ludwig Wittgenstein, and deciding to study mathematics. An army is essentially an equation. And you trying to optimize that army. And easy to understand example could be the following

x+y=10
If x=5 then y=5. But if x=9 then y=1 and so forth. Only you are trying to balance all kinds of variables. Stuff like
Shooting power
Combat power
Ability to deal with psykers
Ability to deal with deathstars like nobs
Ability to stunlock enemy vehicles
Ability to take objectives
Ability to quickly seize control of the map and maintain it
Survivability
Sneaky units, out flankers and infiltrators
So the equation looks more like a+b+c+d+e+f+g+h+i=2000 for say a 2000 point army. And by adding more close combat power you will take away from every single other thing in your army. But if that close combat power comes in the form of say hammer terminators you have also added to survivability. 40k lists cant be broken into math and a simple bring 20 hammer terminators, 3 tac squads, and a thunderfire cannon to win every game.

List building is an extremely complex optimization problem. And there are some obvious choices. 3 whirlwinds are obviously not as good as 3 long fang squads with missile launchers. But auto/las predators have some things going for them, so you could argue for taking them over 3 longfang squads. And if you are going for armor overload like some armies ive seen, then 3 preds might be better. 

If you want to really learn how to play you can do a few things though.
-test out a variety of armies. Dont go and buy a 5000 point marine army so you can try such terrible ideas as 60 scouts. But sub stuff in. And borrow friends armies for games. I became much better at destroying orks after borrowing them for 2-3 games.
-dont shy away from tough games. So that guy wins a lot, and his army will probably table you. Play him 2-3 times, youll become better.


----------



## CLT40k

+rep to original poster for asking a really hard question....

I would say that a competative list is one that has all the tools needed to win against all comers. Depending on your army, those tools may change. Like ChugginDatHaterade says, there isn't a "winning combo"

As I spend most of my time here on the Space Marine Army list section... I can only really talk to that section... but if you want help with a Space Marine list, please feel free to post and you'll get responses... 

<<<Edit - I deleted the jab cause upon reflection I was beign a dick >>>>

I think Imperious has the right of it... If you post a list and say "this is fluffy" - but then don't tell anybody why it's fluffy... then what are you really looking for? A pat on the head for not taking a "cookie cutter" list? Good on ya... But if you define what you want, then folks are a lot more prone to comment in a positive manner... Normally what happens is someone puts up a "fun" list and gets some comments about how to make it a bit better without fundamentally changing it...

Back to the original question though... I think a good working definition of a competative list is one that is looking to utilize the best tools available in their codex in order to achieve a list that will minimize any weakness while maximizing your strengths


----------



## StalkerZero

I did a fair bit of thinking at this after having learned much more about the game (need to stop spending so much time _reading_ about 40k and more time painting/assembling).

When I posted this I was searching for that "your army needs x answers to vehicles, x troops for objectives". 

I have now learned that answer doesn't exist.

I think that last post hit it on the head.



CLT40k said:


> Back to the original question though... I think a good working definition of a competative list is one that is looking to utilize the best tools available in their codex in order to achieve a list that will minimize any weakness while maximizing your strengths


Or if you play Necrons it means "roll 4s or higher all night except on scatter die (6s only if you're rolling to see if you've been swept or not)".


----------

