Competition isn’t fair, but you should still compete
Author: Nick Blackburn
Hey all, Nick here – let’s talk. Between the various discords, chats, online forums, emails, etc there’s been a lot of discussion on competitive 40k, particularly on how that should look from a player faction choice perspective. There’s been debate on whether there should be a limit to how many factions a player can access in a given season, and whether there is something inherently wrong or toxic about players converging on a “good” faction to perform at events.
These conversations eventually break down into a deluge of “What constitutes true player skill if people faction jump?” or “Meta jumping doesn’t provide a truly competitive experience”, etc., etc. Honestly, it’s a tired discussion - let’s talk a little about competition, expectations, and where we can go from here.
I have a little bit of experience in competition. This doesn’t make me an authority; I’m just providing my thoughts and point of view based on this personal experience. I’ve done high school Football (not soccer, Vik), Muay Thai/mixed martial arts, and I had to compete in several selection processes during my brief military career.
I think the one thing I’ve come to learn and accept is - competition is rarely ever, truly fair. We like to think that at its core, competition is the ultimate endeavor of pairing two individuals or teams in a test of skill over a fair set of rules or circumstances. However, I think we need to remind ourselves that the endeavor itself – more often than not – is never fair, and is never intended to be. For example, in competitive Muay Thai, aside from a catalog of illegal moves, the equipment, and accompanying personnel – “fairness” is only really determined by weight classifications. You are paired with someone who is roughly your size by weight. However, I would argue this doesn’t make the bouts between competitors “fair” in the truest sense of the word. For example, most of the time one fighter is naturally more skilled than the other - fair or not, some people have better footwork, hand speed, or reach. Sometimes, the only way for a fighter to make the event “more fair” for them is through their grit and determination. Otherwise, life isn't going to magically do it for them.
Everyone will have their own opinions about what is and what isn’t fair – but I think that’s the point. We can never really agree to a universal standard that 100% ensures competition is fair.
This brings us to ask then: what is competition if it isn’t fair? What’s the purpose if we can’t guarantee fairness? Competition is just pitting two individuals or teams at an event according to an established set of rules. Whatever it means outside of that is ultimately up to the individual. For some, the competition is with themselves - can I do better than I did last time? Can I run further, faster, or lift heavier? Can I go 4-1 instead of 3-2?
For others, competition has more meaning when it’s interpersonal - they may want to go to a particular event, beat other players or another team, and win. Competing is also emotional. We put ourselves out there. We test ourselves against ourselves or others. Sometimes the outcomes are disappointing, and can feel particularly wounding. This, too, can have an impact on how we perceive fairness or competition. This can make us want to redefine how we compete to fit our circumstances or desires better.
Which brings us to 40k. In response to some up-and-coming armies, the current mood fomenting in some 40k communities seeks to limit or provide strict boundaries on how we compete in 40k. A particularly concerning idea suggests that we limit the number of factions a player can use in a given season.
I’ll admit that for the longest time I was a disappointed Thousand Sons player in a powerful Drukhari-heavy meta. I blamed the circumstances. First, I blamed game design or the faction choices others made (“Drukhari are just too strong!”). Then I complained about my army - that Thousand Sons don’t have the tools, etc. I bounced back and forth between these mindsets for a while, when what I should have been doing was asking myself:
What do I want to achieve?
Do I want to win events, or do I want to continue playing Thousand Sons as best I can?
If I wanted to continue playing Thousand Sons competitively I would need to acknowledge that they have bad matches that I would have to accept. Eventually, I graduated to a more positive outlook. I decided I would do my best with Thousand Sons. I continued to play them for a while, but I found something was still missing.
After finally being honest with myself, I realized that what I actually wanted to do was to start placing well at events and potentially winning. So, I dusted off my Necrons (when they got good) and did reasonably well. I secured some top 2 finishes and a best overall finish at a GT. Then Flamers hit. I initially discounted them. I didn’t think they closed the gap that Thousand Sons needed. However, through discussions with much better players than myself, I was made to recognize that maybe they offered something that the army was missing. Cutting a 10 man Scarab Occult Terminator unit meant I could almost pay for a complete Tzeentch detachment that included 3 units of Flamers and a Changecaster. There are multiple benefits to this. Flamers shore up some movement limitations of Thousand Sons since they are extremely mobile. They are also very difficult to pick up with shooting (given their 3+ deamon save). They are infantry so can provide early game board presence and put down banners while getting into position. There are also very few units that like to get shot by them. Additionally, the Changecaster provides 2 or 3 potent Tzeentch spells to amplify the already devastating Thousand Sons psychic phase. So, I took out my Dusty Bois, added some Flamers, and accomplished my goal - winning a local GT (within a reasonably cutthroat meta). I had to take a powerful army, yes, but in NASCAR or Formula One, teams aren’t given cars to compete with – they must engineer and test their own.
Recently we’ve heard that maybe we can change the system to make it fairer. For many players new to the competitive side of the hobby, it seems like this will never happen. However, the current state of balance for 9th Edition 40k is by far the best it’s ever been. There have been times that once you received your codex, that’s what you had for years with all the errors and unanswered questions. Essentially, if you wanted to play that army, you had to deal with it. In stark contrast, GW’s current points and quarterly data slate adjustments are unprecedented in their level of care and commitment to the competitive meta. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But for a game system with the sheer density of rules interactions, secondary downstream effects, etc. – it's better than it’s ever been.
It has been suggested recently that we can fix the system by committing players to 2 or 3 factions at the start of the season. Ask yourself, what is this meant to achieve? Is this an attempt to make the tournament landscape fairer, or discourage meta-hopping? Consider what would happen to the poor player that picks 2 factions at the beginning of the season that ends up being very weak for most of it. Is that fair to them? How are they to predict this? Would this lead to more list or faction diversity at events?
First, I think it's important to acknowledge that we are seeing more diversity than ever at the top and across events. More importantly, I think an early, and narrowly focused faction commitment would likely have the opposite effect. The meta would have more predictable, cyclical homogeneity in the top 10/top 4 than what we see now. People with committed factions that are currently underperforming would be less inclined to attend events. For example, we can see this in the current count of Marine players. Harlequins have also witnessed a degree of faction drop-off (Fig 1). From April 2022 to September 2022 following 2 dataslate adjustments we see the meta representation of Harlequins go from over 5% of the meta to 2%. Their representation does rebound somewhat starting in September, hitting approximately 3% of the meta by November. This could be due to players' re-ignited interest given the faction has maintained a near 60% win rate since the launch of their book. Despite the rebound, though, the faction is still at only about 60% of their peak meta representation. If a player’s primary purpose is to attend, compete, and win events, losing due to a faction lock at the start of the season will discourage participation and further competition for that player as GW makes adjustments. In time, the meta would be less faction-diverse at the top and overall, and events would likely experience a dip in attendance.
Figure 1. Harlequin win rates and player representation Feb 2022 - Nov 2022
Harlequin win rates (orange) and faction representation (blue) from February 2022 to November 2022. Vertical gray bars represent the dates balance dataslates were released.
Overall, I think if you want to compete at Warhammer 40k you need to honestly ask and answer these questions for yourself:
Who am I competing against? (myself or others)
Where am I starting? (how skilled am I relative to the other competitors in my competitive context?)
What is my measure of success? (3-2, 4-1, winning majors, winning with my army, etc.)
How do I want to get there? (Bring good armies, get coaching, lots of practice, etc)
Do I have reasonable expectations? (e.g., I want to play imperial fists and win LVO).
If you can be honest with yourself and open to the idea that competition isn’t inherently fair and that you may need a bit of grit to make things happen sometimes, then you’re going to have a good time. Blaming others for tipping the odds in their favor by engineering strong lists (whether they are popular or not) isn’t going to help you succeed. If anything, it’s holding you back. Let go of that baggage, go compete and have fun. Whether you win or lose, be proud that you went out to compete. That’s true if you are a steadfast Space Wolves player trying your best in a particularly lethal meta, or if you are like me and need something a little more current.
See you at LVO
P.S. I’m bringing Tsons/Flamers – a longtime Tsons player! No really!
~ Nick
