PDA

View Full Version : Rules changes based on empirical evidence



Sgt Biffo
24-01-2008, 10:26
Its no secret or surprise that GW changes rules and codices based on statistics gleaned from tuornament play.

While these statistics can't be denied, the type of army used for tournament play differs (in some cases quite radically) from those of "friendly" games.

How many of the million or so games of 40k that are played each week are tournament games? With this in mind... how much is tournament play a true reflection of the hobby and what does this do to the relevance of said statistics?

boogle
24-01-2008, 10:35
I have played in 1 touney, and will never play in one again, i had no fun games at all (all my opponents were WAACs), and one of the staff stopped my 1st game to show off his Emperor's Chidren army to my opponent, meaning we had to rush the last 3 turns (i did complain, but nothing came of it), so fun games every time for me

Corax
24-01-2008, 11:31
Always fun games for me. In my experience, competition brings out the worst in human nature and makes for a lot of NPEs. Especially if you are like me and prefer theme based armies that follow the background material.

Yertle4
24-01-2008, 11:35
I think they should focus on making things more 'airtight' for tournament play anyway - as you can have fun/flexible/fluffy bunny games with a competitive/fit for tournament ruleset but you can't have good competitive/tournament with a fun yet sloppy ruleset.

While we're on the subject....

Takitron
24-01-2008, 11:37
I think they should focus on making things more 'airtight' for tournament play anyway - as you can have fun/flexible/fluffy bunny games with a competitive/fit for tournament ruleset but you can't have good competitive/tournament with a fun yet sloppy ruleset.

While we're on the subject....

good first post.

This scout speaks true, a good slick rules set will allow people to have more fun by having most of the kinks ironed out.

I have never played in a tournament, but that doesn't mean I don't play to win.

ReveredChaplainDrake
24-01-2008, 13:08
I don't usually go to tourneys because there's no point and it's a lot of preparation.

I built up a beautiful 2000-pt Black Templar list w/ Grey Knight allies, which I had been working on for, literally, months. The first roadblock was even getting my army to be legal, and since I didn't bring my Tyranids that day, Templars were all I had. I had to show explicitly in the BT Codex how they could use Grey Knight allies. So then, after getting into the tourney, my first round was against 9x Tornado Speeders. From here on out, I got stomped from board to board.

That's not the first time I've been pitted against ridiculous armies. I went to a 1500-pt tourney with Tyranids and my first game was against an Eldar Air Force. (I still won, thanks to my Uberdakkafex.) Also, I brought 2500 pts of bugs to an Ardboyz Tournament and fought (in a row) Necron Hot Wheels and 3rd ed Emp's Children (at a draw apiece, somehow).

I've since stopped prepping for tournaments and just let 'em pass by instead.

Col.Gravis
24-01-2008, 13:22
Aye Yertle4's on the ball, if the game is 'balanced' for tournament play then it will be 'balanced' for more friendly games where things are not so competative IMHO. This is as your putting up the best verses the best in terms of army selection in many cases, so they're identifying how these intereact and further by their absense what clearly is'nt working at the same level.

Gorbad Ironclaw
24-01-2008, 13:45
While these statistics can't be denied, the type of army used for tournament play differs (in some cases quite radically) from those of "friendly" games.


They do?
They don't for me. But then, I tend to settle on one list I enjoy playing with and then just use that for everything. It will slowly evolve over time, but I certainly don't have 'tournament' lists and 'friendly' lists.

But then again, I've never understod why tournament games can't be fun either. I've had maybe one bad tournament game ever, so I can't really identify with all the horror stories.

Galatan
24-01-2008, 13:55
I play at least once every week and in the vacations I almost always go to tounaments. Soooo, that would be at least 52 friendly games and 2/3 tournaments, although the last 2 years it had only been one tournament since they somehow plan them right before all my exam periods :S
, but if it was up to me, at least 3 per year.

Rhyskalor
24-01-2008, 13:57
I mainly play tournaments or tournament-style games for preparation, so actually more 1/2 or 1/3 for me.
Generally the tournament games are more fun to me (win or lose), because both sides really try to make no mistakes and give their best.
In completly "friendly" games (whoever said tournaments are not friendly?) in my experience players just tend to move their units willy-nilly around and don't think that much about their options on the tabletop. No fun for me!

Gaebriel
24-01-2008, 13:58
Hmm, I don't play tournament games, as the risk of playing an unenjoyable game is much higher. I'd rather put in a couple of non-tournament games on that given weekend.

On the other hand I don't care whether GW streamlines the rules or not - so if it's better for the tournament players, they should go with it (as they do).

Templar-Sun
24-01-2008, 17:00
A very simple alteration to tournament scoring would quite rightly address the cheese fest armies that dominate them. Sportmanship, composition and appearance scores should be worth 2 or 3-1 in value over generalship. ATM, it doesn't take an experienced general to field 3 squadrons of 3 tornado's and deepstriking 5-man termie squads with 2 AC's alongside thier min FOC obligations and proceed to wipe all opponents out in 1 or 2 turns. Personally I wish people would give equal weight to all 4 categories when attending tourneys but sadly this just doesn't and probably never will happen. Usually the cheese outnumbers the dedicated modelers/painters at tourney's. Although, I have seen some very nicely painted/modeled cheese armies too. I really don't like nerfing generalship scoring as I think it is equally important to the other 3 but I think its necessary. The hobby in general should be the most important thing not winning. GW afterall wants us to buy all the paints, terrain, flock, etc. etc. and not just tiny silver army men....


Templar-Sun

Ravenous
24-01-2008, 17:20
A very simple alteration to tournament scoring would quite rightly address the cheese fest armies that dominate them. Sportmanship, composition and appearance scores should be worth 2 or 3-1 in value over generalship. ATM, it doesn't take an experienced general to field 3 squadrons of 3 tornado's and deepstriking 5-man termie squads with 2 AC's alongside thier min FOC obligations and proceed to wipe all opponents out in 1 or 2 turns. Personally I wish people would give equal weight to all 4 categories when attending tourneys but sadly this just doesn't and probably never will happen. Usually the cheese outnumbers the dedicated modelers/painters at tourney's. Although, I have seen some very nicely painted/modeled cheese armies too. I really don't like nerfing generalship scoring as I think it is equally important to the other 3 but I think its necessary. The hobby in general should be the most important thing not winning. GW afterall wants us to buy all the paints, terrain, flock, etc. etc. and not just tiny silver army men....

I think you're looking at the wrong kind of tournaments.

I've been on the circuit for 8 years and I have only encountered 2 "powergamer" armies and they dont even do that well.

If anything sportsmanship, comp and painting are the keys to best overall, "cheese" armies usually get best general but that is usually what those players are after.

I find tournaments are just a friendly and easy going as any other game.

Stella Cadente
24-01-2008, 17:37
I have played 1 tournament and over 1500 normal games, so technically I don't play tournaments, I hated the one I did go to, and that affected my decision forever

Ravenous
24-01-2008, 17:45
I have played 1 tournament and over 1500 normal games, so technically I don't play tournaments, I hated the one I did go to, and that affected my decision forever

Some are much worse then others, it also depends on your area.

I dont blame you though, I would hate to drive to a tournament I wasnt going to enjoy.

I unfortunately traveled a 1000km to one, but I've traveled 5000km to one that I really enjoyed (despite doing much worse).

Templar-Sun
24-01-2008, 18:04
TBH, I've only played in a couple myself and the sense I got from it was winning was the most important. Of course, that might have just been me. I've tried very hard to create a very fluffy, nicely painted/modeled wysiwyg Templar army and I have simply been crushed again and again. I'm by no means an expert at the game but I know I should be able to win a couple games here and there and have a decent shot at winning best overall. I've not even come close to date, which means people are jacking me non-general scores or winning is the most important thing. Just my personal experience. I would love to play in a tourney at least once a week but as it stands now, based on my past experience, I could care less. If the tourney experience does that to a modeler/painter/gamer such as myself it will always be a niche thing and never flourish into an all-encompassing event. Again, this is all based on my personal experience and playing area. I'm sure there are better areas in the world to play but unfortunately I'm not close to them and certainly cannot afford to travel 5k to one. Kudos to you tho bro, our hobby needs more like you.


Templar-Sun

Democratus
24-01-2008, 18:11
A very simple alteration to tournament scoring would quite rightly address the cheese fest armies that dominate them. Sportmanship, composition and appearance scores should be worth 2 or 3-1 in value over generalship.

Tournament scoring should emphasize victory in battle as the most important factor. There are already painting competitions to give prizes to the best painted army. 40K tournaments are, and should be, all about facing off other players on the table top and seeing who comes out the winner.



ATM, it doesn't take an experienced general to field 3 squadrons of 3 tornado's and deepstriking 5-man termie squads with 2 AC's alongside thier min FOC obligations and proceed to wipe all opponents out in 1 or 2 turns.

All of the above is illegal in the new codexes. Just take a peek at either the DA or BA codex. The SM codex will be there soon as well. GW is changing the rules to make for more balanced play. This is the answer to those kinds of problems - not a wholesale disregard for the tactical ability of the competitors.


Personally I wish people would give equal weight to all 4 categories when attending tourneys but sadly this just doesn't and probably never will happen. Usually the cheese outnumbers the dedicated modelers/painters at tourney's. Although, I have seen some very nicely painted/modeled cheese armies too.

Around here there are two kinds of tournaments. 'Ard tournaments and Hobby tournaments. The first emphasizes battle victory above all else, the second is more well-rounded and takes into account all aspects of the army.

But keep in mind that there is cheese even in painting. Someone with enough money can commission profesional painters to do their army.


I really don't like nerfing generalship scoring as I think it is equally important to the other 3 but I think its necessary. The hobby in general should be the most important thing not winning.

You "win" the hobby just by collecting minis, painting them, and playing against your peers. Tournaments are competitive by their very nature.


GW afterall wants us to buy all the paints, terrain, flock, etc. etc. and not just tiny silver army men....

True. Model and accessories sales is where the real money is. Perhaps this is why GW sanction tournaments don't allow you to use models from competing companies.

jfrazell
24-01-2008, 18:16
Its no secret or surprise that GW changes rules and codices based on statistics gleaned from tuornament play.

While these statistics can't be denied, the type of army used for tournament play differs (in some cases quite radically) from those of "friendly" games.

How many of the million or so games of 40k that are played each week are tournament games? With this in mind... how much is tournament play a true reflection of the hobby and what does this do to the relevance of said statistics?


Respectfully, your argument doesn't hold. The same complaints made from tourney players are items that should be addressed in the codices for all gamers. Game balance is game balance. I play maybe a tournament every six to nine months, but a trifalcon list is still as empowered in friendly games as it is in tournaments.

Templar-Sun
24-01-2008, 18:17
Falcon-fest and nid-zilla are not illegal. Don't get me wrong, i'm not a big fan of nerfing generalship scoring as I think it deserves its place in the sun. But generalship should be based on tactics and achieving objectives, not on who can build the most broken army in order to achieve victory. As an aside, the above list can legally be fielded by my Templars but I simply choose not to.


Templar-Sun

jfrazell
24-01-2008, 18:32
Then you're bringing a knife to a gunfight. You go to a competition to compete. If you don't bring a competitive list then don't cry when you don't win.

I see plenty of three falcon lists in normal gaming. If there's a problem with that then it should be addressed where it belongs-the codex. Again, tournament play can show the way in that because the most "broken" lists come to the surface.

Having said that GW uses the tourney/legal players as an excuse for not writing balanced core rules and providing fresh FAQ updates on their core rules.

Templar-Sun
24-01-2008, 19:43
Give me a break jfrazell. I am here to discuss the problems with the tourney system and how to adress making it better and more appealing to more hobbyists. As the poll suggests, people will continue to NOT attend tourneys and it will REMAIN a niche gig until such things are addressed. GW is attempting to address it by streamlining codices but I'm afraid it won't be enough. With all due respect, please contribute thoughtfully or take your insults elsewhere...


Templar-Sun

Archangel_Ruined
24-01-2008, 19:53
I'm not a tournament regular, for many of the reasons listed above. I do play the occasional tournament style game, victory at all costs and the such, usually to help hone friends tournament lists. I don't like to power game though, and when playing these evil list games we have fun because we're both expecting the abuse about being filthy beardmongering cheese hoarders. That's the problem with tournaments, you're not with friends so you can't hurl abuse at them safe in the knowledge they'll know it's a joke and do the same back, so you end up with the slightly stiff, almost formal system with most games, punctuated by the occasional gem or obnoxious shocker.
As an aside, whoever you were playing against should have been docked points Boogle, that is out of order, the same for the red shirt in question. You can't wonder off mid-game, and you can't interupt other peoples games, it isn't in the spirit of a tournament at all.

MALICIOUS LOGIC
24-01-2008, 20:55
I typically only play tournaments. I've played for years and have probably played thousands of games. The only time I play friendly games now is to iron out a tournament list or help a friend with their list.

I’m a competitive person and I have a lot of fun at tournaments. In fact, the “soft scores” (Sportsmanship, Army Composition, Painting, and other scores) have made my armies more fun to play. I focus on having fun, creating a balanced list, writing a background story, having exciting conversions, etc. All because they mean something in a tournament.

I like those driving forces in a tournament. Although I think the “soft scores” should only be a few bonus points compared to the “battle points”. But they are fun and rewarding to have.

~Logic

Fulgrim's Gimp
24-01-2008, 21:20
I don't play tournament and to be honest to see some of the rules arguments makes me more firmly convinced that it's not my cup of Earl Grey. No offence to anyone who does,but for me it is background leads to the army I do regardless of the winning potential.

lanrak
24-01-2008, 22:49
Hi all.
In my experiance 40k and WH are the least suitable rule sets to used for 'ballanced competative play.'

Quite simply the GW dev team have no idea how 'real gamers' use thier army compositions.
I honestly belive the dev teams have lost control of the rule sets.They are that 'abstract, add hoc and holistic', it is impossible to be able to prove any level of balance beyond opinoinated views.

The GW devs are SUPPOSED to look at all the synergistic implications, and make 'non fun 'lists unselectable.
If a list is not much fun to play/play against , it SHOULD NOT be able to be used.IMO.(Most of these 'CHEESE' lists wouldnt even be concidered by GW devs, let alone play tested!)

I have played wargames from other manufactureres who have much more variety, and balance than 40k/WH.
(And the rule sets are far more efficient.)

So the real issue is why are 40k gamers putting up with 3rd rate game development ?
Codexes with no evidence of proof reading , let alone any thought to game play conciderations...

So get a much better developed rule set,(preferably one NOT proped up with 50+ special rules !)
Then look at promoting competitions....

Ravenous
24-01-2008, 22:53
Hi all.
In my experiance 40k and WH are the least suitable rule sets to used for 'ballanced competative play.'

Quite simply the GW dev team have no idea how 'real gamers' use thier army compositions.
I honestly belive the dev teams have lost control of the rule sets.They are that 'abstract, add hoc and holistic', it is impossible to be able to prove any level of balance beyond opinoinated views.

The GW devs are SUPPOSED to look at all the synergistic implications, and make 'non fun 'lists unselectable.
If a list is not much fun to play/play against , it SHOULD NOT be able to be used.IMO.(Most of these 'CHEESE' lists wouldnt even be concidered by GW devs, let alone play tested!)

I have played wargames from other manufactureres who have much more variety, and balance than 40k/WH.
(And the rule sets are far more efficient.)

So the real issue is why are 40k gamers putting up with 3rd rate game development ?
Codexes with no evidence of proof reading , let alone any thought to game play conciderations...

So get a much better developed rule set,(preferably one NOT proped up with 50+ special rules !)
Then look at promoting competitions....

Im half tempted to go into a GW store with some friends with all of the 4th ed stuff GW made useless and ask for a refund.

Now, before anyone gets upset at the above, take this into consideration:

If you get sold a car that is broken, do you return it or pay them MORE to fix it?

Halcyon504
25-01-2008, 00:10
40K in this respect isn't any different than video games that I play. Take a specific fighting game, called "Guilty Gear," the developer of the game called Arc Systems, listens to the competitive player over the casual player. This is key, because like in fighting games, in 40K it is seen that only the Competitive player will actually take lengths to try to "Break the game."

A Competitive player's mentality is one who will try to get as many advantages as they can to try to get a heads up, either through army building, "dirty tricks," or what not, and it is because of this, that GW looks at Tourney play over Casual play when changing rules to buff or nerf armies or rules.

A Casual player isn't likely to go out to make the most broken army imaginable in a codex, and thus is "off the radar" as far as making appropriate rules changes is concerned.

I don't mean offense, I truly don't, but GW won't look to us Casual players in 40K until we start "caring." It is because that it seems that brokenness is the majority realm of the competitive player, and that balanced, fluffy play is the realm of the casual player, it is the Competitive player that is more likely to find and point out the bad imbalances within the rules or an army.

It's the same thing with a lot of video games. A developer just won't listen to casual players, because they don't have enough "care" to break the game and tell the developer what to fix/add/remove.

max the dog
25-01-2008, 00:18
I've always had a fun time at tournaments but if I'm close to winning and don't, it brings out the worst in me. But it is fun to play against some really good players (and really bad) and test yourself vrs competitive lists. Soaking up the tournament scene is also pretty cool. I love walking around and checking out the other armies and seeing how people play them.
If one is serious into this hobby and never plays in a tournament then they're missing out of part of what makes the hobby great.

Sgt Biffo
25-01-2008, 00:51
I play maybe a tournament every six to nine months, but a trifalcon list is still as empowered in friendly games as it is in tournaments.

I'm unsure as to where I inferred that friendly games are less empowered.

Knowing your opponents army type and general composition means you can create a more unforgiving army to counter it- a one trick pony that you would virtually never see in a competition that takes all comers!

The poll shows that most gamers play 100+ "friendlies" to every tournament game- if they ever play a tournament.

If you go back and re-read my original post you'll notice that I never deny that the stats collated in tournament hold value (something that you've said doesn't hold water I might add).

The poll was merely to point out that the vast majority of 40k games are not tournament games and hence the thin edge of the wedge when it comes to the hobby as a whole.

I asked the question of the forum members as to how much relevance they thought these stats hold to the hobby as a whole (which you have some how misconstrued as my position in an argument:wtf:), a topic which you've only briefly touched on.


Hi all.
In my experiance 40k and WH are the least suitable rule sets to used for 'ballanced competative play.'

I think this is a good point. Warhammer has never been a "balanced" system... and in all likely hood never be one. To use a time wearied cliche; Thats better left to chess.

Game balance has been a problem in the past because of rule of cool and fluff. To date- the streamlining has been about reducing the factors conferred by such things to overly simplified status (Mandiblasters spring to mind).

Vaz84
25-01-2008, 01:00
As soon as you buy a car and drive it off the lot is considered used ~

Never been a tournament player myself, I think missions are lackluster (would love to see random missions like 2nd edition., take this, kill that, etc, without opponet knowing what your doing directly).

thinkerman
25-01-2008, 01:25
Too many Power Players - not enough fun

Seth the Dark
25-01-2008, 01:27
I love playing in tournaments. Its true that some people are dicks but for the most part I think tournaments are a good thing. I wouldn't advise people to judge tournaments based on one outing or someone's else's experience.

Captain Micha
25-01-2008, 01:31
I can't see myself playing in a tournament on any serious level. I have a thing against exploitation of rules. (and yes I count Waac lists as exploitation of the rules)

Ravenous
25-01-2008, 02:04
Too many Power Players - not enough fun

Thats a generalization, Ive only ever encountered 2 in 8 years.

Halcyon504
25-01-2008, 07:18
The poll was merely to point out that the vast majority of 40k games are not tournament games and hence the thin edge of the wedge when it comes to the hobby as a whole.

I still point out that even though the majority of 40K games are indeed casual, I still stand by my statement that BECAUSE casual players do not seek to break the games in the way competitive players do, casual players have less of a say when it comes to rules changes/balances/fixes. A casual player isn't one to experiment with how broken an army could be, because it's "Cheese." If you're not willing to break this, then why should GW take stock in what you have say in regards to rules changes/balances/fixes? This is why, as I said before, GW listens to the tourney players. They see what needs to be fixed in "broken" lists and fixes it in whatever way GW sees fit.

Sgt Biffo
25-01-2008, 12:42
I still stand by my statement that BECAUSE casual players do not seek to break the games in the way competitive players do

:confused:This is one heck of generalization. I've played against some tedious rules lawyers in casual games. I just don't bother playing against them again!


casual players have less of a say when it comes to rules changes/balances/fixes.

Less of a say?!?:wtf: Thats a very bold statement! I'm really not sure I see you point let alone agree with it. I will try to treat your point of veiw seriously though...

As of this post tournament players have said that they play 3981 "friendly" games to every tournament game (1-1x4, 2-1x6, 5-1x11 10-1x21,100+ -1x37) and those that only play in tournaments are vastly out numbered, in excess of 15-1.Using these figures lets look at how many "friendly" games we can expect compared to tournament games:

I'll be conservative in say that the average tournament would have 3 games for each player. That would mean that just shy of 12,000 "friendly" games would be played- and thats just from one player at one tournament.

In a tournament like my local Conquest 120 players have 6 games over a long weekend... that results in excess of 2,850,000 "friendly" games!

You can't reasonably expect me to believe that problems encountered in tournament play will not be encountered "friendly" game that are legion compared to their tournament counter parts because of one generalization.

None of this is factoring in statistics of those that only play tournaments or those that never play them (though there are <15x as many non tournament players so perahps we could put a total of around 59,715 "friendly" to every tournament, going by previous statistics).


A casual player isn't one to experiment with how broken an army could be

Again, this is a generalization and I've touch on how ruthless and competitive a "friendly game can be albeit in a different way to tournament style of play here...


I'm unsure as to where I inferred that friendly games are less empowered.

Knowing your opponents army type and general composition means you can create a more unforgiving army to counter it- a one trick pony that you would virtually never see in a competition that takes all comers!

...and bearing that in mind, one could easily imagine that there in "broken" rules that would be encountered in this way that would not come up in tournament play as often.

big squig
25-01-2008, 13:07
Fun games are #1 for me.

But I host tournys. I've seen a lot of bad tournys (almost all of them) so I go very far out of my way to ensure I host the best that I can. There's a few do's and a whole lot of don'ts to running a tourny.

Bob5000
25-01-2008, 13:21
While these statistics can't be denied, the type of army used for tournament play differs (in some cases quite radically) from those of "friendly" games.



For competitive tournaments where I dont want to ' take a knife to a Gunfight ' I take Eldar , sometimes Tau .
Friendly games , DH or Necrons

Vanger
25-01-2008, 13:56
Hm... actually thinking about it, it's more complicated than it seems at the first glance.

I try to have one or two games every week. But when a tournament is comming, we tend to prepare for it and we use competitive army lists.

I visit 9 'local' tournament games a year (I live in the capitol, where the major tournaments are held, so they're local for me) for which I have approx. 5 training games. Then I like to visit tournaments abroad (I was lucky to be in the ETC team for Hungary last year) and that meant 2 months of training.

So I mainly play fun games when there is no tournament in the comming 2 weeks, campaign games in our club and when I get tired of training and want to have fun.

If I count all the training sessions as tournament games, then my figure would be 3 to 1 :(

jfrazell
25-01-2008, 14:06
Give me a break jfrazell. I am here to discuss the problems with the tourney system and how to adress making it better and more appealing to more hobbyists. As the poll suggests, people will continue to NOT attend tourneys and it will REMAIN a niche gig until such things are addressed. GW is attempting to address it by streamlining codices but I'm afraid it won't be enough. With all due respect, please contribute thoughtfully or take your insults elsewhere...


Templar-Sun
Where do you want the break? :confused:
Not an insult, its a reality check. If you go to a tournament bring a tournament game or, as my wife would say, put on your big girls panties and don't complain if you don't win. I play in a tourney maybe once or twice a year. I usually play a list that is strong but not completely uber maxed. I donít expect to win every game, much less the tourney because of that. But I donít complain about it.

Hereís the original thread:


While these statistics can't be denied, the type of army used for tournament play differs (in some cases quite radically) from those of "friendly" games.

How many of the million or so games of 40K that are played each week are tournament games? With this in mind... how much is tournament play a true reflection of the hobby and what does this do to the relevance of said statistics?


My argument is that:
1) Tournament lists are not necessarily different than in friendly games.
2) Tournament lists and tournaments are helpful in pointing out the imbalances between the lists.
3) Everyone from fluffmeister to powergamerfreakazoid, want balanced equally competitive lists.
4) Therefore, donít slam the tournaments. GW should use them to balance their codexes more properly in the future.

So Iíll turn it back to you. Please contribute thoughtfully or take your insults elsewhere.

Templar Ben
25-01-2008, 14:08
First Biff, you have a self selecting sample so we don't know what percentage are playing them. That and you can't have a tournament everyday but you can have a pick up game everyday so the true desires may be masked by real world logistics.

Secondly, the point about casual gamers not having a say is more about them "not having a dog in that fight" to use the local venacular. Tournaments require a strong ruleset. Tournaments require units to be costed effectively. That is not true in a non competative setting.

jfrazell
25-01-2008, 14:22
Exactly Templer Ben. I’m not disparaging non-tournament play. I’m not much of a tournament fan and would much prefer an organized game day with thematic missions, opponents etc. But I do believe tourneys are a driving force in pointing out the myriad flaws in the various codexes.

Templar-Sun
25-01-2008, 15:35
All very well thought out jfrazell. Nice bullet points and punctuation to carefully disguise your troll and flame. I suppose I should have just read your sig which explains your distaste for a player that carefully and methodically models, converts and then paints a fluffy, wysiwyg army. Flame on bro


Templar-Sun

njfed
25-01-2008, 15:57
I was at Baltimore last Fall. On Friday night they had the finals of the 'Ard Boys. The 'Ard Boys was a WAAC with no score for painting or sportsmanship. The 'Ard Boys used 2500 point armies verses 1750 for the tournament. Good thing no one had to bring two different armies to play in both. Most just removed the difference in points. Draw your own conclusions.

I had fun at the tournament even though I went 2-2-1. That being said, I would not mind one bit if GW used a different FOC for tournaments. The rumored changes would effect army composition, but so would the missions used. Baltimore got a tumbs up for using missions that did not focus on killing. They get a tumbs down for not going far enough. Not one mission used escalation, since that would have hurt some of the WAAC armies.

jfrazell
25-01-2008, 16:23
All very well thought out jfrazell. Nice bullet points and punctuation to carefully disguise your troll and flame. I suppose I should have just read your sig which explains your distaste for a player that carefully and methodically models, converts and then paints a fluffy, wysiwyg army. Flame on bro


Templar-Sun
I see, you're approaching this from the land of "if you disagree with me then you're a troll." I must have touched a nerve. Now I understand. Just call me trollie :cool:
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q145/jfrazell/mytroll.jpg


Interesting that you call me a troll yet completely miss the meaning of the sig-coined after some firefights when I discussed playing my all converted demon army, using counts as tyranid rules. unless you have a completely converted horde army apologies are in order, I'm afraid.

Seriously, can we respectfully get back to the topic-care to disagree with any of the actual points made?
I do find the concept noted above of different FOC's for tournaments to be something that could be explored.Apocalypse does that inversely with its completely different system.

Eldartank
25-01-2008, 16:33
I think I must have been lucky with the 3 RT tournaments I took part in over the last couple years. I generally dealt with opponents who were decent people. The decent people far outnumbered the problem players I had to deal with.

In my first RT tournament (at the height of 3rd edition), there was an Ork player writing up his army an hour before the start of the tournament. He was using the "looted vehicle" rules to make a looted Space Wolf Venerable Dreadnought with the official venerable dreadnought rules. I pointed out that he couldn't do that, and that dreadnoughts couldn't be looted anyway. EVERYONE else in the store verified this, and several of us pointed out the specific rules for looting and explained them in detail to the point where he stated that he understood. After the tournament, he loudly complained that he couldn't have his looted venerable dreadnought because I "wouldn't let" him. What a *****. At least I had the pleasure of playing against him with my Space Marines and wiping him out to the last man in 4 turns.

Other than that rather strange experience, all my tournament games were fun, even the ones where I got brutally stomped. You can have fun even when you lose badly, when your opponent fields a fully painted army with a great paintjob and he is polite and friendly.

My tournament record is as follows:

Tournament 1: (Flesh Tearers) 3 Wins, *Overall Winner*
Tournament 2: (Flesh Tearers) Win, Draw, Draw, *Best Army* (Everyone liked my Flesh Tearers paintjob and fair army list. I was well aware of 3rd edition Blood Angels "brokenness" and deliberately toned down my army)
Tournament 3: (Crimson Fists) Win, Draw, Win, *Best Sportsman*

Mr Zephy
25-01-2008, 17:18
Wow, there's a really good exponential curve going...

AmBlam
25-01-2008, 19:33
I just added to the bottom...

Eldartank
25-01-2008, 22:27
Wow, there's a really good exponential curve going...

If you're talking about the tournament record I posted, I won that first tournament because most of the players were very new at the game - The Ork player I mentioned, being my first opponent, was more interested in trying to find rules to unfairly exploit rather than trying to play his army properly. Everyone else at the store seemed quite happy that I totally annihilated his entire army by the end of the third turn. The second person I played was very new to the game, a really decent guy with amazingly well-painted Space Marines of his own homemade chapter. He had the best looking army in the entire store that day. The third guy I played was a veteran gamer with a few more years experience than me (and also the only other veteran gamer at that tournament besides me). He played decently painted Space Wolves with some nice conversions. That third game was a win for me, but very close.

Mr Zephy
25-01-2008, 22:48
If you're talking about the tournament record I posted, I won that first tournament because most of the players were very new at the game - The Ork player I mentioned, being my first opponent, was more interested in trying to find rules to unfairly exploit rather than trying to play his army properly. Everyone else at the store seemed quite happy that I totally annihilated his entire army by the end of the third turn. The second person I played was very new to the game, a really decent guy with amazingly well-painted Space Marines of his own homemade chapter. He had the best looking army in the entire store that day. The third guy I played was a veteran gamer with a few more years experience than me (and also the only other veteran gamer at that tournament besides me). He played decently painted Space Wolves with some nice conversions. That third game was a win for me, but very close.

Umm, no, but well done anyway. I totally agree on the painted army thing, it's not the most fun thing for everyone (painting, that is) but when it's all there it's much better.

I was talking about the poll results, which if put on a graph would looks close to an exponential curve.

Eldartank
26-01-2008, 04:52
Umm, no, but well done anyway. I totally agree on the painted army thing, it's not the most fun thing for everyone (painting, that is) but when it's all there it's much better.

I was talking about the poll results, which if put on a graph would looks close to an exponential curve.

Heh.... I thought you were talking about me in that other post. But I should mention that I'm not particularly bothered if my opponent doesn't have a painted army, as long as he acts decently. However, if my opponent fields a fully painted army against my own fully painted army, that does definitely add to the fun, sort of like icing on the cake.

;)

MALICIOUS LOGIC
26-01-2008, 06:27
The poll was merely to point out that the vast majority of 40k games are not tournament games and hence the thin edge of the wedge when it comes to the hobby as a whole.


The poll does show that the vast majority of games are non-tournament games. But that is at least partially due to the fact that tournaments are far more rare than non-tournament games.

It is also important to note that according to this poll more than 54% of the gamers go to tournaments as opposed to players who never go to tournaments. (As of the time of this post on 25 Jan 2008.)

~Logic

Corax
26-01-2008, 10:08
My argument is that:
1) Tournament lists are not necessarily different than in friendly games.
2) Tournament lists and tournaments are helpful in pointing out the imbalances between the lists.
3) Everyone from fluffmeister to powergamerfreakazoid, want balanced equally competitive lists.
4) Therefore, donít slam the tournaments. GW should use them to balance their codexes more properly in the future.

Some counterpoints:

1. That depends a lot on the local play environment. In some areas, you can play Mech Eldar all year long and no-one will care. In other places, you play that twice in a row and you will have trouble finding a game the following week.

2. No. Tourneys are useful for seeing just how much people can exploit the rules to their own best advantage. It is not a test of the limits of the rules, its a test of the depths to which the players ethics (and sense of fairness) can sink. That it also highlights flaws in the rules design is merely a coincidental side effect. No power player goes out to find rorts in the system so that GW will fix them. They find them to exploit them for as long as possible. There is nothing desirable or ethical about taking advatage of GWs incompetence. If anything, exploiting the rules is using a crutch, because you are amplifying a disparity in the system to help you. If you really wanted to prove how good you are, you would use a list that did not exploit the rules.

In many cases, units that are considered to be 'broken' are only an issue when they are taken en masse. One Falcon is perfectly balanced. Its only when people start taking three of them with all the shiney upgrades that they become a problem.

3. That's true, but they will have vastly different conceptions of what 'balanced' and 'challenging' mean, which is essentially at the root of the whole debate. 'Friendly' gamers want rules that represent the background of their army, and want to be able to make funky theme armies with rules that allow both players a fair chance to win without having to resort to min-maxing. Power gamers care nothing for the background, and simply want to make the strongest list they can in order to win at (almost) all costs.

4. The problem is that the two environments have very little in common. If they use tournaments as the basis upon which armies are designed, you get a game that is 'balanced' (for tournament play), but contains less diversity for creative gaming. We have all seen this occurring with 4th Ed. codexes that have taken away previous options and abilities in order to standardize the rules in the name of balance. The result is that while some of the more 'broken' things have been taken away, so have a lot of the theme-friendly aspects of various armies. Besides which, GW should be producing balanced armies during the design process, not after they have released it!

In the end, I believe that it really comes down to different groups of players with different ideas of what makes 40k 'fun', and the two definitions are simply incompatible. I know that I don't enjoy super competitive play, so I don't go to tournaments. If I am playing someone whose play I dislike, I pack up and walk away.

logosloki
26-01-2008, 10:29
I believe that instead of trying to rectify the standard codex lists for both casual and tournement play they should just release a tournement restriction pack, make it a pdf or something so that it can be edited as new "cheese" and "spam" lists come to play.

Try and drum it into people, that to win a tournement you don't need to stress test the rules and FOC until it becomes a pretzel

I know it would lead to some people still constructing these so called "cheese" or "spam" lists for casual play, but unless that is the norm in your local, they will find themsleves with less games to play....

Gaebriel
26-01-2008, 12:39
Do games with a somewhat complicated design approach need tournament play to improve? Tournaments are one of the easiest way to get reliable empirical data. When relying on constantly patching a system I can see no better way than that.

Thud
26-01-2008, 15:10
The only tournament experience I have is Winter War (in Norway) four years in a row, and I have to say I don't recognize the power gaming you guys talk about. With -one- exception every tournament game I've played has been against a decent opponent with a competative yet well-balanced and fair army.

Last year I even won the tournament despite my less-than-average generalship, but thanks to painting and high sportsmanship scores.

As for the rules changing on tournament empirics; there's another aspect to that other than the competative mindset. In a tournament you're more likely to play someone you do not know, and unlike in a friendly game against Bob from the store, you don't know how he or she plays and how the different units are used in a game setting.

Alessander
26-01-2008, 15:27
results show that very few people play real tournies.

HOWEVER too many people use tourney rules ethic (rules lawyering) in friendly games too.

Eldartank
26-01-2008, 15:36
I believe that instead of trying to rectify the standard codex lists for both casual and tournement play they should just release a tournement restriction pack, make it a pdf or something so that it can be edited as new "cheese" and "spam" lists come to play.

Try and drum it into people, that to win a tournement you don't need to stress test the rules and FOC until it becomes a pretzel

I know it would lead to some people still constructing these so called "cheese" or "spam" lists for casual play, but unless that is the norm in your local, they will find themsleves with less games to play....

Your idea of a "tournament restriction pack" to curb powergaming min-max players is probably one of the best ideas I've seen for dealing with such problems at some tournaments.

Years ago at my Local Game Store, we did some things to try to limit the min-maxing. One of our house rules for local tournaments was that you lost points if your army had more Heavy Support, Elites and/or Fast Attack than it had Troops. That one was meant to deal with one kid who played Tyranids. He would have 2 squads of 8 Termagants each, and then the rest of his army would be 2 Winged Hive Tyrants, 2 Carnifexes, 3 Zoanthropes, Warrior Broods with all kind of upgrades, Raveners, etc. There were a couple other min-max players, but that Tyranid player was the worst.

Sgt Biffo
26-01-2008, 15:44
Nice bullet points and punctuation to carefully disguise your troll and flame.

Ah... yeah... I'd say the comments were directed at me. While a) I do enjoy being championed (who doesn't) I'd like to fight my own fights and b) I thought the points were good strong arguments put forward in a diplomatic way.


I see, you're approaching this from the land of "if you disagree with me then you're a troll." I must have touched a nerve.

Mmm... Were getting some decent dialogue going here guys. Lets not get the thread shut down because of a flame war.

How about we police ourselves and volunteer to delete those posts personally before the moderators have to step in?!?


First Biff, you have a self selecting sample so we don't know what percentage are playing them.

Yes- you are 100% correct. I was merely using current statistic on this thread to illustrate that the comparison is ludicrously in the majority for "friendly" games and even if more conservative numbers were to be applied the result would still heavily favour the "friendly" games.


Secondly, the point about casual gamers not having a say is more about them "not having a dog in that fight" to use the local venacular. Tournaments require a strong ruleset. Tournaments require units to be costed effectively. That is not true in a non competative setting.

Another good and valid point. The purpose of this thread was merely to expand peoples idea of a "fight" or indeed a "dog". (As I've tried to elude to here: )


I'm unsure as to where I inferred that friendly games are less empowered.

Knowing your opponents army type and general composition means you can create a more unforgiving army to counter it- a one trick pony that you would virtually never see in a competition that takes all comers!


Tournaments require units to be costed effectively.

One could easily argue that this is true of any sort of game.


I totally agree on the painted army thing, it's not the most fun thing for everyone (painting, that is) but when it's all there it's much better.

I think this is a good point. I'm seen as a bit of a snob because I refuse to fight an army that isn't more than 95% painted.

I feel that if I've gone to the trouble of painting a decent army for my opponent to fight; they could do me the same courtesy.:angel:


It is also important to note that according to this poll more than 54% of the gamers go to tournaments as opposed to players who never go to tournaments. (As of the time of this post on 25 Jan 2008.)

True. I would, however, consider 4% to be a marginal majority; where as the number of tournament games pale in comparison to a vast disparity of "friendlies"


I’m not disparaging non-tournament play.

No. At no point do I believe that you have. I have tried to put forward reasonable arguments to others who have made bold statements however.


But I do believe tourneys are a driving force in pointing out the myriad flaws in the various codexes.

Yes, and of course they are. I'm only trying to raise awareness of how small a "thin edge of the wedge" these games represent.

Perhaps the World Wide Campaigns that GW has run is an attempt on their behalf to glean some sort of empirical study into these under-represented games? If so; I think it is our duty as active and community aware persons to assist them with this... though the "self policing" aspect of these studies may throw true statistics into a dubious light:eyebrows:.

Templar Ben
26-01-2008, 16:22
Yes- you are 100% correct. I was merely using current statistic on this thread to illustrate that the comparison is ludicrously in the majority for "friendly" games and even if more conservative numbers were to be applied the result would still heavily favour the "friendly" games.

It is nice to find ways we can agree even when we disagree. Thank you. I will quickly say that I play more friendly games than tournament games. I play many games so that others can better prepare for tournaments so there is little difference in those games and a tournament game except for the fact that we know each other very well.


Another good and valid point. The purpose of this thread was merely to expand peoples idea of a "fight" or indeed a "dog". (As I've tried to elude to here: )

I have said many times that if GW would build the game based upon the tournament players they could still make it fit the fictional background however they wish. The problem as I see it isn't that Space Marines can take 18 assault cannons in 1500 points or that three kitted out Falcons can rule a board. The problem is the cost of those units is so low compared to the alternatives that it is foolish to not take them when given the opportunity. If the points accurately reflected the unit's ability to give and receive damage as well as manuever around the board then there would be no issue. In my dream system, people would struggle to decide if they want to take unit A or unit B for the elite and should I upgrade that weapon or not based on points.


One could easily argue that this is true of any sort of game.

Well I have found that is not as much the case when the game is truly a "what if" type game. An example was a no turn limit game where I had about 500 points of marines and played against about 1000 points of the (3rd edition codex) Orks. I was trying to hold a downed Aquilla (from the BfM set) and he was trying to take it on a Cities of Death board. Obviously this was very much inspired by the Battle for Mogadishu.

We didn't look at how many points until it was all over. We were just trying to see what it would be like to play that scenario. In friendly games you can do that because in the end the points don't matter, the fun does.

Sgt Biffo
27-01-2008, 01:43
Initially the scenario based games was what Rogue Trader was more about scenario, almost to the point of being a skirmish/narrative/RPG which was what the game Necromunda tried to evoke.

The hobby as it stands today has evolved into something that is some what removed from this, though it still does remain mission based.

Most missions are territory grabs or simple bonuses in addition to obliterating your opponent.

Has tournament play influenced this shift?

I'd think so; To a certain degree... but having a quick mission generator for a fun bit of carnage to while away the afternoon is useful too.

A thought out scenario takes time to prepare and is constrained by factors such as terrain, gaming space, etc. It may not be fair for all opponents as well, but with the narrative such imbalances can be "reasoned" out.

Kill teams are a great way to play some missions that are highly mission oriented.

rintinglen
27-01-2008, 07:26
[QUOTE


My argument is that:
1) Tournament lists are not necessarily different than in friendly games.
2) Tournament lists and tournaments are helpful in pointing out the imbalances between the lists.
3) Everyone from fluffmeister to powergamerfreakazoid, want balanced equally competitive lists.
4) Therefore, donít slam the tournaments. GW should use them to balance their codexes more properly in the future.

So Iíll turn it back to you. Please contribute thoughtfully or take your insults elsewhere.[/QUOTE]

1. Not necessarily different, but the ones that I have seen winning are Vastly Different. I have never encountered the dread Falcon Fest in casual play, but in a 3000 point partners game, I had three uber falcons on one side and three of the old style Wraithlords on the other. The worst IW list I saw was at a tournament. But the worst WH list I have run up against was a "friendly game".

2. I heartily agree, You want cheese, you go to Wisconsin, that's where they make it.

3. Horsepuckey!!! There are a great many out there who delight in twisting every advantage out of their codex and their army is chosen solely for those advantages, so they can beat someone elses army without recourse to much in the way of tactics. The "hah, my-army-is-great-so-therefore-so-am-I-crowd" has a p;;; pot full of members, and I have seen many more at Tournaments than in pickup games.

4. they should, they should have chapter approved to reconcile rules errata, they should carefully edit each codex to avoid unfortunate vagueness, they should tweak codices, not break them. GW has a great many things it ought to do, they just don't do them.

Draconian77
27-01-2008, 08:01
My experience is a little different. I use to play a lot of friendly games(1-2 a week, 1500+) but I discovered that I am quite a competitive person which means that often I did things that made tactical senses but ended the game in 2-3 turns and it was really quite annoying for my friends. Now I go to lots of tournaments and I have a lot of fun winning against the "cheesy" lists. When I do play my friends I try to take less powerful lists but I am thinking of just letting them make my army list(after all its only a friendly game right? Right?!)

oCoYoRoAoKo
04-06-2008, 12:26
i think that these stats are somewhat misleading. from my experience, i go to 2 tourneys a year (the GTs), giving 12 tournament games. i also try to get in a game of either 40k or fantasy per week (granted there are some times where i get in more/less but i think it all averages out).

so:

52 weeks x 1 game = 52 games
2 tournaments = 12 games

ratio of non-tournament to tournament games: 52:12 or 13:3

those who say that they have a ratio of 100:1 non tourney to tourney are saying (in effect) that, assuming a standard, 3 game tournament, they have 100:1 x 3 = 300:3 = 303 games a year which is one every 1.2 days.

Cy.

Bran Dawri
04-06-2008, 12:36
If there's a problem with that then it should be addressed where it belongs-the codex. Again, tournament play can show the way in that because the most "broken" lists come to the surface.

There's just one problem with that. By the time tourneys get to test what are and aren't broken items/units in lists, the codex where it should be addressed isn't due for renewal for several years.
Yeah, it'd be a good thing to issue errata to streamline all these kinks to get a decent, enjoyable, and more-or-less balanced game, but for some reason GW just doesn't do that.
Since GW won't take their responsibility, shouldn't we do just that ourselves and just play nice?
At least in friendly games - as you say, tourneys are meant for just such competition.

Eryx_UK
04-06-2008, 12:46
I never play tournaments and have no desire to. I prefer a fun and friendly game rather than a cutthroat one where winning is the be all and end all.

Sgt Biffo
04-06-2008, 13:14
i think that these stats are somewhat misleading. from my experience, i go to 2 tourneys a year (the GTs), giving 12 tournament games. i also try to get in a game of either 40k or fantasy per week (granted there are some times where i get in more/less but i think it all averages out).

so:

52 weeks x 1 game = 52 games
2 tournaments = 12 games

ratio of non-tournament to tournament games: 52:12 or 13:3

those who say that they have a ratio of 100:1 non tourney to tourney are saying (in effect) that, assuming a standard, 3 game tournament, they have 100:1 x 3 = 300:3 = 303 games a year which is one every 1.2 days.

Cy.

Assuming (there is and old adage about assuming) that everyone is talking about their games in one year your statistics are correct.

You, however, are the only one who has placed the statistics within a time constraint, so the point is only really relevant to your post alone.:(

oCoYoRoAoKo
04-06-2008, 14:02
Assuming (there is and old adage about assuming) that everyone is talking about their games in one year your statistics are correct.

You, however, are the only one who has placed the statistics within a time constraint, so the point is only really relevant to your post alone.:(

aha, you are quite correct sir. i did add a time constraint to my statistics, which i shouldnt have done if i want to make a more general assumption (assumptions for everyone! :D ).

Eryx_UK : i think that it is this kind of mentality that only serves to fuel the current stigma towards the tournament scene. i have (so far) played in 2GTs (heats and finals), 4 Regional Conflict Tourneys (one of which was doubles), and 2 Local Store Tournaments. Out of all of these, i have only won one of them and have only had one difficult opponent (in the doubles tournament) where he insisted that, even though we aggreed that it was not possible, he could shoot through the lone window in a solid brick wall (granted, once the rest of his army was behind said window, me and my team-mate proceeded to pump 36 disintegrator shots into his units of battle sisters). We also got bad sportsmanship from them because we didnt fly our raider squads out infront of 2 HB dev squads to get shot.

so out of those 30 odd games, one dodgy opponent is quite acceptable IMHO.

Cy.

Doomseer
04-06-2008, 15:27
GW tournaments can be infuriating! I havn't attended one for 2 years now, the last was a doubles event at Alexandra Palace where I very nearly accrued a real-life bodycount!
It's strictly fun with friends for me now, I prefer 40K to be a game/system that everyone involved enjoys equally, with as little pressure as possible!

MrGiggles
05-06-2008, 00:34
I haven't played in a tourney yet, but I probably will. The FLGS runs Hall of Heroes every few weeks and it's generally a nice group of folks.

Honestly though, I've not the free time I'd like and I'm picky with whom I spend it. I've seen enough folks out and about that I'd rather not be around that I'm not in the hobby solely for the tourneys. If I'd wandered into the FLGS and found a bunch of annoying gits in the tourney, I'd probably not care if I ever played in one.