For the last couple of weeks Crazy, TommyH and I have been playing a lot of the LotR system. What started on a whim has become something of an obsession, and with our first official tournament in just over a week we've been nitpicking our lists to make sure we're competitive. But that I feel may be the problem.
Now we joke a lot about 'breaking' LotR, but it's never our intent to do so. However a few days ago I posted on a LotR forum asking a rules query and got a very strong response. That response was that I was intentionally seeking to exploit a loophole and dishonoring the spirit of the game. Now you'd find this response anywhere really, this IS the internet. But what struck me was the volume of response. And what I've realised in further discussion is that our competitive meta-driven 40k thinking doesn't stretch across all the systems. This got me very interested in how different players approach ALL the GW game systems and made me wonder if the culture in 40k has taken a turn, if not for the worse, than at least down a path that this sort of gaming was never meant to take.
Crazy and I got back into the hobby by sheer chance when 6th Ed 40k had just been released. Being the excited young men that we were, we both immediately bought armies we liked the look and themes of, with no thought to competitiveness. This meant we had a bunch of fun games on our own, with lots of rules misunderstanding and breaking, before we became involved in the wider community. Now I have no idea what the 'competitive' scene was like before we began to get involved, but it wasn't too long after we did so before our gaming took on a more considered edge. We began to forget about playing lists with themes or stories, and began taking combinations that tread a fine line of 'fairness'. Soon enough Crazy had switched from his treasured DE to Tau, then from Tau to Eldar primary with Tau allies, and created his horrifying Serpent, WK and missilesides combo. I wasn't far behind, taking advantage of the Spawn Lord combos, and now having the option for White Scars grav backup. All of these things leave us in a good position competition-wise, but have we somewhere along the line missed the point of the hobby?
When we first met Ruby and 3 Colours I must admit we scoffed at their approach to the game. How could they just take armies that they 'liked the idea of'? Why wouldn't they take as many of the most powerful units they could and play to a specific strategy? We went so far as to try and give them competitive lists they MUST play. It's only now I realise how wrong we were to do so. It's not up to us or anyone else to tell another player how to play this game, or any game for that matter. And maybe it's time to think about how we play the game too.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not bemoaning the competition or any lack of success. Crazy and I have both won our fair share of tourneys, separate and together. And I certainly don't mean to tell anyone how to play the game (something we'll probably get letters about). But at what point do you look at your list and see a total of 4 unit types in an army of 60 models, and wonder if it's a bit strange? At what point does it become clear that the same group of a dozen people winning 90% of the independent tournaments are playing variations on 6 different lists? Exaggeration perhaps, but depressingly close to the truth.
I don't want to play an RP game where every model has a story, and there's no room for competition. But I'm getting dismayed at turning up to tournaments and seeing the common theme in every list is 'spam'. I'm getting tired of having to model my list in the same way in order to stand a chance of winning. Maybe I should just be avoiding competitive 40k gaming altogether, but am I wrong in feeling that this shouldn't be how it is?
How far are you willing to go to win a tournament? How far will you push the rules to get your way? How long will you spend thinking about unrealistic combinations to squeeze every shred of value from your special rules? When the tenants of the game encourage you to play 'in the spirit' (whatever that means), and goes so far as to tell you if you can't agree on something roll a dice, why are so many people so committed to the win that they'll literally throw a tantrum if they lose? I'm sure we've ALL seen it.
I know I'm being hypocritical in this, I'll keep making competitive lists for as long as the competition remains as it is, but I feel at this point that these questions bear thinking about.
So I ask you dear readers, how far is too far?
I do really want to know what you, the community, has to say. Please leave a comment below, and remember this isn't an attack, it's a discussion.
Make good choices.
Spicerack