PDA

View Full Version : Campaigns vs Tournaments



yabbadabba
31-03-2009, 14:23
I am not going to poll this, but I am interested in people's opinions.

Now I am going to say something that some will find controversial. I think a campaign is, if well run, superior in hobby skills to an equivalently run Tournament. And here's why.

I think that a tournament should be played with the purest set of the rules. There shouldn't be house rules or exceptions. It should just be - exactly how you would teach a new person how to play the game. A great example is the current DoC WFB army. I say leave it. People will find ways around this army. I think the best tournaments are the ones that leave the results up to the tactics and understanding of the competitors, without playing with army lists or rules.

A campaign I think includes everything that a tournament has - painted armies, rules knowledge, competitiveness - but with added extras. Narrative, house rules, specialist scenery, evolving forces and time commitment.To get these balanced right not only takes an excellent understanding of the rules and background, but a delicate understanding of how to manage people and results to get to an end result everyone enjoys.

Now this isn't a chance for everyone to say "Yeah, but if GW's rules weren't so @*&%.....". While I think there should be clarity, I don't necessarily think there should be perfect balance. Might as well only allow people to play with Ultramarine armies. I think that the campaign is the ultimate evolvement of the wargames hobby.

Over to you.

Llew
31-03-2009, 14:49
I see nothing controversial whatsoever in your assertion.

Tournaments would probably be much more interesting affairs if they played random scenarios instead of pitched battles. Sure, some people would get scenarios that just didn't work well for their army, but you wouldn't be able to rely on a straight build to win.

Mouldsta
31-03-2009, 15:08
I'm a big advocate of campaigns, from anything as simple as a map/conquer based ones to story driven, multisystem campaigns where every game has an effect on another (frequently similtaniously!).

Tournaments are alright, but they're a bit clinical for my taste: most boring mission, minimum terrain, large ammount of WAAC players is frequently the norm. Now obviously there's enjoyment to be had from getting to the top table and outclassing your opponents in the "purity" enviroment of a tournment, knowing that it was skill, army selection and a little luck that got you there.

That pales however (IMO) in comparison to invading the Orphellius sector, capturing all the resources, slaying your hated enemy when he tries raising a rebellion against you, before finally being defeated by a last ditch infliltration to destroy your doomsday machine.
You can have just as much of a challenge/competitive play in a campaign, and you can make it extremely balanced, but it gives it something else - a reason to be fighting.

The background is pretty important to me, if it was just a pure test of skill then I'd play chess. I like my army to be just that - a personalised army, rather than a collection of playing pieces with different abilities.

Korras
31-03-2009, 15:44
I prefer campaigns over tournaments anytime. another factor, besides the storyline, is that the people involved are purely doing it for fun, not to win at all costs.

mweaver
31-03-2009, 21:14
Yup - love campaigns for the reasons yabbadabba, Mouldsta and Korras have given. Not particularly interested in tournaments. (And I am not just talking about Warhammer!).

zedeyejoe
31-03-2009, 21:27
OK tournaments are limited in timescale (everyone has to get back to work) and campaigns can last as long as you want.

Apart from that, I don't see the difference, use house rules if you want, why not?

Master Stark
31-03-2009, 22:10
I think the problem is that you have theory, and you have practice.

In theory, campaigns are great because everyone gets into the spirit of things, and makes a special effort to create conversions and get their armies painted just for the campaign.

In practice, you get the local uber-nerd WAAC gamers from the local gaming group turning up with their unpainted cheeseball armies simply so they can add a few more scalps to their belt, people dropping out of the campaign, and people simply not participating.

yabbadabba
01-04-2009, 07:49
I agree about theory vs practise bit, especially if you don't keep control.

GW could be missing out on an angle here. But they do miss a lot of things for various reasosn ;)