40k Inherently uncompetative?

Slave Posts : 8 Join date : 2013-05-16

Hey, just read an interesting article about 40k:

http://pinsofwar.com/competitive-40k-does-not-exist/

thought I'd give it a share.

Certainly makes me question whether it really is worth trying to build the ultimate darklight/venom spam list I was going to, and perhaps just field cool stuff for fun :p

Wych Posts : 662 Join date : 2013-01-23

I dont "chase the meta" I crush the meta.
Meta said mech was dead (still does everywhere but here), my mech lists rule, both BA and DE, Tabling Tau with shooting is my favourite so far.

Its interesting, but I wouldnt read to much in to it.
Dice rolls are far more skill destroying than lists.

And you could always do a Thud!*

*Thud is a discworld chess variant, with two different sides, dwarves and trolls. The Winner is the person who can win with one army, and then win with the second.

Subject: Re: 40k Inherently uncompetative? Thu Jun 13 2013, 22:36

Interesting article, thanks for posting.

I suspect it is mostly correct although Dominic's dice comment is painfully true.

Doesn't really matter to me as I play units for fun and as you say coolness and try to keep to the fluff if at all possible. I have a whale of a time even if getting my backside kicked from here to Poughkeepsie.

Subject: Re: 40k Inherently uncompetative? Fri Jun 14 2013, 02:25

Well... Sorry about that, but i dislike this article.

It's my point of vue. He's constatations are okay, but the analysis is ... quite questionnable, and in the end, doesn't tell anything new... I mean, when he says something important, he always add something at the beginning of the sentence, like :

"from a competitive (and not a commercial or social) logic"

"Splitting "skill" and "metagame" apart as i've done above"

It's the same kind of tricks that the ones used in maths or physics. You settle conditions since the begining to make your experiment/argumentation work and ... Oh... Guess what !? it works ! Great, but as long as you forget to analyse all parameters, you're not analysing reallity.

About metagaming in particulary, I personaly think that if we are spending so much time arguing about what's the best unit for this or that, the best weapon, transport ... It's because metagaming is a skill on it's own. If metagaming wasn't needing any skill, we'll be always agree on everything, if you see my point. Most of all, i think we have to embrace a game in it's globality, including every part of it, rather than putting metagaming away, like a plague.

Subject: Re: 40k Inherently uncompetative? Fri Jun 14 2013, 03:35

I also disliked the premise and arguments. Essentially it is arguing that because you don't have two identical opponents army-wise(rock/paper/scissors or chess). This is like arguing that no professional sports match is competitive because the teams don't have identical clone rosters. In ice hockey match up problems are what make games so exciting, particularly in the playoffs. You can have a brutal and physical team that grinds opponents all season-long run into a faster forechecking team that makes them look silly.

I think the author should stick to playing chess and stay in the shallow end to avoid these "deep insights" and non-analysis.

Subject: Re: 40k Inherently uncompetative? Fri Jun 14 2013, 06:59

I agree with ESE and HW, it's pointless comparing chess to 40k with the criticism following that 40k isn't as skilful. Part of the skill involved is choosing an appropriate list that works well together, and then in the game the skill becomes making the most of what may be sub par units to achieve objectives, the DE being a perfect example - we don't have the toughest most in your face army, but the skill involved is pulling your opponent around the tabletop to pick on part of his army at a time while minimising any return fire

Might as well say that formula one racing isn't skilful in comparison to dodgems...

Subject: Re: 40k Inherently uncompetative? Fri Jun 14 2013, 09:15

What about Go?

And what would happen if you had two identical armies and a symmetric board??

Wych Posts : 955 Join date : 2013-01-26 Location : Stadi

Agreed with most of the above.
While the ultimate competitive game is chess (or similar) where mostly skill matters, games such as Warhammer can be competitive too. The dice matters, the list matters, but so does skill, which means that a very experienced player is likely to win a newbie, but that does not mean that the starter can't beat the veteran with a little luck and talent.
I am glad though that the writer tells he likes tournaments as great fun.

Quote :: "They are a good opportunity to have some fun, meet new friends, play a few games."

This I can agree with completely. It does not matter is it competitive or not, if it's fun for everyone.
I didn't really understand his rock-paper-scissors logic, though...

Wych Posts : 662 Join date : 2013-01-23

Its awesome when you rock out a spock