The Idea of friendly vs competitive lists

[rae125]

Hello all

I wanted to start an open chat about friendly lists vs competitive lists . I have been playing for a few editions (7th) and the term always comes up here and there. In the past knights were always the boogy man because if anti armour was killed you couldn’t wound them at all (6s didn’t always wound). It feels like 10th edition everything has a chance to wound everything and is way more flexible. But what point does a list change from being friendly to competitive? Should a friendly list be “bad”? This is an honest question and not sarcasm. I have always themed my lists and tend to suffer because I go into list building with an idea I’m not willing to change but I still try to create a strong list from that. Does a person googling a list that won a big tournament and copying it count as being unfriendly because they are stuck in creating their own list? A new players at a recent tournament that I know contemplated not going because comments were made implying that it was a competitive or OP list they were taking. This was their first tournament and because of those comments we almost turned off someone from the hobby. So to finish my rambling what is the line? How do we know what is friendly and what is competitive in the list building, especially when we will label tournaments as friendly or competitive?

[Jack Shrapnel]

I think about this alot actually, and unfortunately I do not have a good answer.

You can't do - "no units above X points" for example, as there is no consistency in point costs in 10th. There is a huge difference between units - a repulsor executioner is 25 points cheaper than a tyrannofex for example, yet one is a tournament staple at GT's and the other is never seen in a serious list.

Something I might think is over the top, might be someone's ONLY army if they're new, because they googled how to make their army because this stuff is expensive so why buy something bad?

The same list piloted by a brand new player isn't going to be as effective as if someone like Lukas, Jordan or Kevin ran the exact same list (just an example of really good tactical players that know the game well).

This edition is just so lethal (despite what they promised at the outset) that no matter what you bring CAN be taken out. Does that mean double avatar plus nightspinners is okay for secret santa?

No local T.O. is going to know every combo, every list, and every army (I sure as hell don't) and we all have biases anyways (as I said just yesterday, as a tyranid player I hate marine tanks as they're a counter to my army - to a necron player they're often no big deal).

So points don't work as a gauge, a straight list check doesn't work great (as player skill is a huge component of many lists), and T.O. burden on rules knowledge is real.

Do I want netlists from GT's to be staples in our local scene? well that was tried several years ago and all it did was nuke the local scene to the point no one played and tournies for 40k stopped. So I've seen the results, which is why I've worked hard to try and counter that here (losing prize support for top performers, making tourney expectations up front for things like great crusade, intro tournies and secret santa etc).

Unfortunately personally it kind of feels in 10th that this is a losing battle (for me at least), which I don't really have a solution for. Kinda feels for a while now that I've been trying to pick up sand with a sieve. Other than AOS which frankly doesn't have this problem at all (and the tournies are so much more relaxed / friendly to run) as the balance is WAY better in that system (not perfect of course).

So TL/DR I'm on the verge of giving up and just saying "play what you want I don't care" and letting the chips fall where they may. Going that way doesn't end well in my experience, but things change so maybe it isn't an issue anymore.

[cmcd]

Great Question.

I would treat this the same way I would treat competitive sports vs pick up game. People who play competitively (sports) train and practice and focus a lot of their time for that task. Oxford defines Competitive sports as "A form of sport based upon competition, in which it is recognized that opponents' performances are judged in relation to each other. Competition as a character attribute can also be expressed on an individual basis, in, for example, the lone runner's aspiration to better his or her previous best time (personal best)." so having read that. I would make the jump that if your playing a list that has been to other tournaments, that you have played against other people and made tweaks to it, or you found Online as a list that won a tournament then that list is a competitive list.

The opposite of this is also true. when you look at friendly lists. These I see as pick up games. My friend calls me up and says "hey a bunch of us are getting together to play some foot ball in a park, do you want to come." I know how to play football, But I have never played with this group of people. A friendly list is a list that you have never played before or a list that you have played before and have tweaked in order to try something new out, not to tweak to make your list more synergy.

I play necrons and Tau. I Have run every unit in the necron index to try it out in friendly games. Some work better than others. IF i build a list that i have never played before, and it wins. then i take the same list and remove things that didnt work and add things that would make it better. then ran that. and if it wins more. I am running a competitive list.

You can also have Strong lists that arn't Competitive. In the SBT tournament on Saturday. I was going to bring Tau. I have played a total of 3 games with my tau units this edition. None of the units i was going to bring to the Tournament were units i had played with. On paper they look good. but I dont know if they synergize well. It was a strong list. and Zach asked me to tone it down. Which i had no problems with. Was that tau list a competitive list. Nope. Was it Friendly, ?? But the fact that it was "??" and not "yes" made my ethics kick in, and tell me i should bring units i have played before that i know are friendly.

The other part of this debate is the fact of, it's a tournament. To make the tournament run smoothly. you need to know your list, and you need to look things up as little as possible, to keep the time down. IF you are running a competitive list, you know what everything in your list does (or should know). By making a friendly list that you never played before, it boggles your time and enjoyment up. and its finding a balance between 1. units that you know how they work, and 2. not stomping your opponent, in order to make a list that is friendly.

It's hard to have a Friendly tournament without placing a restrictions like. No lists; that you have taken 60% to other tournaments. or. specific units, or no units more than x number of points. the issue with that is that your restricting players from bringing what they want.

Every tournament that i have gone to where its supposed to be a friendly list there is always one or two lists there where im like....  Not sure if that is a Friendly list.  But having said that.  Thats my definition of Friendly.  Is my opponent going to have a good time if they play my list.  If the answer is a flat NO.  then its is not a friendly list.

[Casper]

I don't know what's too strong or how to thread the needle on what's "balanced".

As a new player - we expect to lose. If we win - that's a bonus but it's not the point of the day. I'm happy to just play the game and learn at the same time. So, I think maybe a quick reminder that the primary objective is to have fun and not care about winning per say. At least in these casual tournaments. I know that there are more competitive ones that yall play throughout the year. Go ham on those!

I happened to win two games yesterday and that was cool. I didn't go in trying to win but to just have fun. Shannon absolutely destroyed me game 1 and that was totally fine for me! It was still a fun game and I learned a few tactical misplays. Nick was my second round opponent and his entire goal was to fight and lose- which was a bloodbath versus daemons. It was so much fun. And my last round was against Josh who also was a new player - and that was probably my favourite game because we were just figuring shit out. We both got to try to do our thing and we were happy tk see our opponents army do their thing.

All in all - if people put there importance on winning or losing there will be feel bad moments. If people are just there to have a good time - that'll come across in people's lists.

Regardless of any drama - this community is great. Coming from a more competitive magic viewpoint. Everyone has been awesome.

[zhivas]

So the question of competitive vs casual is a bit of a mixed bag. Player skill is definitely a big component of how “strong” a unit can be but raw numbers and context plays a big role in how powerful a unit can be. All of that combined with what it does for the overall game (how well it plays the mission and does secondaries). Utility and consistency also plays a big part in what makes a unit “good”. On top of all that there is player perception. What might be not so powerful could “feel bad” to play against and therefore be classified as more powerful than it actually is.



I’m going to just lay out some examples using marines because they are by far the most popular faction and thus most players will have some knowledge of their units / rules.



Let’s take the output of the humble aggressor squad and put that in a few different contexts. This is assuming the target has cover (which let’s face it, 90%+ of times they do in 10th).



Context 1 (raw unit)

Into power armor profile: 30 hits -> 19.5 wounds -> 6.5 unsaved damage

Into terminator profile: 30 hits-> 14 wounds -> 2.4 unsaved damage

Into rhino profile: 26 hits-> 6.3 wounds -> 2.1 unsaved damage

Into land raider profile: 26 hits-> 6.3 wounds -> 1 unsaved damage



Context 2 (With Apothecary Biologus)

Into power armor profile: 30 hits -> 22.1 wounds -> 7.4 unsaved damage

Into terminator profile: 30 hits-> 17.9 wounds -> 3 unsaved damage

Into rhino profile: 26 hits-> 11.1 wounds -> 3.7 unsaved damage

Into land raider profile: 26 hits-> 11.1 wounds -> 1.8 unsaved damage



Looking at the above numbers for a 220 point unit (275 with Biologus). One might think this unit is absolutely awful.



Context 3 (With Apothecary Biologus, in SPECIFICALLY GLADIUS detachment, with bolter discipline, using storm of fire, with oath)

Also note that there are other stacking buffs available but are not stacked in this particular example because I wanted to isolate the data to purely this unit. Also note that flamestorm gauntlet agressors in the firestorm detachment using the dev wounds strat has similar levels out output.

Into power armor profile: 60 hits -> 47.8 wounds -> 31.9 unsaved damage

Into terminator profile: 60 hits-> 41.2 wounds -> 20.7 unsaved damage

Into rhino profile: 52.1 hits-> 29.1 wounds -> 19.3 unsaved damage

Into land raider profile: 52.1 hits-> 29.1 wounds -> 14.6 unsaved damage



WOW that’s a little bit of a difference isn't it? So what does this tell us about agressors? In most scenarios their damage output at range is VERY lackluster but given the right set up they are able to take down practically anything in one activation.



NOTE THAT THIS EXERCISE CAN BE REPEATED WITH MANY DIFFERENT DATASHEETS IN EVERY FACTION.



So what does that tell us about “competitive” vs “casual” play? Well, restricting units based on points cost, unit type, perceived power, “what is in GT winning lists”, etc etc etc is an exercise in futility.



So how does that help us in terms of building casual vs competitive lists? It’s quite simple really. When building your list, the easiest thing to consider is how much damage does the thing I just put in my list do? If it does a boatload of damage, how many other units do similar amounts of damage (this is important because looking at the average list, you expect anywhere between 8-16 units and if you’ve put 6 high output units in optimal conditions you could be tabling them in 3 turns)? The idea of 40k is that it’s a game of strategy and obviously positioning and tactics impact the game as well but it’s hard to factor those in without units.



TLDR: Restricting units / unit types is ineffective but perhaps restricting “power units” i.e. units with extreme output could be a start?









Also note that I covered ONLY ranged damage output in this example. Similar (and often times more complex) context / data can be presented for melee profiles, defensive profiles, points efficiency, utility, synergy, movement, etc. If needed I can cover those aspects as well but I think just doing one ranged profile at the very least provides a detached view of the game through data.

[rae125]

Hey thank you everyone who has commented. After thinking about the question probably too much over the last few days I have two thoughts.
One is my idea of friendly vs competitive tournaments is in how you play. People will always have better lists one way or another and some times it is a rock paper scissors type thing. In friendly tournaments I believe players should be incredible open and helpful with your opponent (forgot to shoot a unit and it’s now your charge phase, no problem rewind and shoot). Both players should be open to explain why and what they are doing to help the other player learn. In a competitive event I still oppose gotcha tactics and no unit information should be hidden, but that’s the time to sharpen their skills and mistakes should cost players. That does not mean I support getting angry or taking it too serious but it’s when you can put all your practice games to work on how well you know your army and tactics.

My second thought was the idea we add a third option. A games day of some sort. There are tons of players who just want to mess around with random models and don’t care about missions. They want a day to talk with others in the hobby and get a few games in. We could arrange a day where we set up all the tables and maybe have a loose time frame but there is no need to track scores, maybe some hobby awards?

I think it could be cool and as I try and help out the Trenton 40K community with hopefully more events I’ll keep what everyone has said in mind.

[question]

I'm a little late seeing this but I'll horn in anyhow. I've been around since Rogue Trader came out. There have been many good points made that I won't rehash. The bottom line for me is that if you think there is the remotest chance of tabling somebody, it ain't friendly. After that you can start adding different aspects, the most fundamental to me being if you wouldn't want to play against your own list, nobody else does either.

[rae125]

So the comment of if you think you can table someone it’s not friendly is the kind of stuff that makes me worry. That doesn’t help a new player because they will think that’s some weird unwritten rule.

[distractedcarnifex]

I find that not all seem to get the memo about friendly lists from time to time. Perhaps they do so unwittingly, and it is also hard to define "friendly" in terms of lists. Still, I have seen some real "meta" stuff at our "beginner-friendly" events. I've also seen some really fun/soft lists so its not all doom and gloom! The swiss pairing system can also help mitigate the effects after Round 1.

I do appreciate the honesty of a competitive tourney. Bring what you want and come home with your shield or on it. I've also been on the receiving end of losing 7 of 7 games at a 6th Ed tourney when I got back into 40K after a break. I was clearly learning to swim in the shark tank!

If I am playing an intro game for somebody then I will certainly bring a soft list.

Perhaps a way to have "beginner friendly" tourneys is to keep the points low and have modified missions without Secondaries etc? There are some fun-looking Bunker missions in White Dwarf that could fit the bill. Maybe run a Combat Patrol tourney to encourage beginners?

[raceygaming]

I might weigh in here. This is an idea I have been playing around with for a while and have been trying to expand my experiences.
First off, while splitting hairs, I think maybe the terms that better reflect your question is competitive vs fluffy. I know that some times friendly vs fluffy are used interchangeably but I think that leads to a blurring of the core issues. In a fluffy setting I think that things like: list theme, unit composition and pre-game information and mutually agreed upon expectations are more central to the experience.
This type of play lets people pull any models off the shelf and play with a friend. Often things like what you are putting in your list will be available to the other player. This tends to be the type of play our local group leans into for secret Santa and Great Crusade. Power of units are usually judged based on how they will negatively impact the other players, hence the "fluffy" label they get. Game attitude tends to fall more on the learning method that allow for missed opportunity to be caught and people to help each other out.
These games can be super fun or can lead to frustration if players are not on the same page. If I put 250 ork infantry in my list cause its "bad" but my opponent brings 3 over costed tanks the game can still be a blow out where someone doesn't really play.

Competitive game setting I think that things like: efficiency, damage output, stacking buffs, scoring potentials, and unknown list composition are more central to the experience.
You are looking to maximise your score thought the game and build into a tactical plan. You find lists that are designed around stopping your opponent from playing their game (removing key pieces) or focusing on playing your game. In general these lists tend to have to be a take on all comer has list information is hidden. You will also see the attitude shift on things like miss opportunity, competitive setting or games encourage you to already have a deep understanding of rules, interactions and the data sheets. If you forget to trigger something you may not get a chance to fix the mistake. Competitive play also encourages play but intend, " I am moving to 7" away for a 6 inch charge" confirm with your opponent and make the move. These games can be super fun or can lead to frustration if players are not on the same page in terms of game mechanics or rules understanding.
Things like our teams and club champs tournaments are more geared this way.


Friendly - All games of 40k should be friendly, this can include things like sportsmanship, and people feeling the game was fair. Reminding players of trigger or rules can be helpful here at either a competitive or fluffy level of play. This is also where things like reminder might come into play like " just a heads up, if you move with 9" this unit can make a reactive move 6"" or if you see your opponent lining up on a unit you could remind " they can't be targeted out side of 12"". Finally for friendly gaming I can only suggest playing by intent...when you do something like measure of set up for an shooting attack or charge confirm that you and you opponent think its possible. Same with terrain " i am moving up to but am not touching so I can't see but can't been seen" this gives both sides a chance to agree to the game state which really helps stop gotcha moments or frustrating plays.

Overall some of my most friendly games have been on the competitive side of play. People knowing their rules tends to lead to games playing slightly faster. One of mine in most recent memory was Lukas's Guard vs my Orks at clubs, we played 20 minute rounds with a lot of models on the table, we each helped each other remember all the triggers and had a really clear game...i got smoked 90-30.



While I know this ends up just being an opinion I hope that it is helpful.

[sean]

Dec 12, 2023 12:43:40 GMT -5 rae125 said:

One is my idea of friendly vs competitive tournaments is in how you play. 

So my two cents would be this is 100% the key point, it's not what you play it's how you play it. At the end of the day we are all just playing toy soldiers to have fun, and that means both players should have the potential to have a fun time during the game. I personally don't think something like "tabling" is a relevant metric. I can have great fun getting tabled, or I can pull my hair out while someone meticulously moves 300 gaunts for an hour, it's not the score that matters it's the play experience. To my mind playing by "intent" and avoidance of "gotchas" is the key to having a fun game of 40k. But for new players it is not natural, and to some respects i feel GW has made 40k a game of "Gotchas". If both players are working to share information, "these guys are moving here, if you move up you won't be able to see them yes?" and "just a reminder if you deep strike there this unit can fire at you on overwatch..." etc. then in my opinion you are going to have a fun game of 40k.     

For events, I am 100% a fan of how Shannon runs it, with all prizes being random draw prizes. If you win first, that's great you get a handshake and your name announced.

From an individual list building perspective I agree with Jordan that it's more a separation of fluffy (making choices for lore or personal reasons) verse competitive (making choices based on a units rules in game). Curbing optimal choices doesn't necessarily make the game fun, and GW are pretty on it at balancing the game with the data slates.

   

not sure if this link will work, but this statement from Alessio Cavatore really sums it up for me.

www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerFantasy/s/OWkgVZOrWn