PDA

View Full Version : How far is too far?



x2wyckedx
16-04-2010, 06:34
If you showed up to a 750pt tournament and your opponents list was a Winged Daemon Prince with warptime, two 5 man CSM squads, and two land raiders how would you feel? Is that going a bit too far?

enigma-96
16-04-2010, 06:46
Well what kind of tournament is it? Does it have Comp, Sportsmanship, No-Holds-Barred-etc.?

If it was open and there were no comp or sportsmanship scores than there is no such thing as too much. If it involved comp than I can bet he didn't win. If it is sportsmanship based than I can guarentee that he didn't win.

Personally though I do think that is WAY to much

x2wyckedx
16-04-2010, 06:50
No, no comp or sportsman or anything. just straight up wins/losses with kill points tie breaker.

enigma-96
16-04-2010, 06:54
No, no comp or sportsman or anything. just straight up wins/losses with kill points tie breaker.

Honestly then? Because this game is so poorly balanced one has to remember that at a tournament without artificial restraints (Comp and Sportsmanship) then it's entirely possible, and probably likely, that you'll encounter some real cheesy armies which means that it is expected that anyone who goes to a tourny will be bringing "der uberest coolest awesomest army of win" and should plan accordingly.

Again though I would reiterate my personal opinion that I think that army is retarded and is obviously built to win instead of just have fun.

Lusall
16-04-2010, 07:04
I'd say it's too far, but that's just because I've slapped people for less.

Vaktathi
16-04-2010, 07:10
The two land raiders is a bit much, but at the same time, a couple meltaguns will put a stop to that quickly. If you expect this sort of thing, just roll with it and counter like for like. For the same points, with IG, I could field 3 chimeras with 10 meltaguns and 2 Vendettas with some points to spare. I know what would win that firefight, and it's not the Land Raiders.

A CSM list like that is a real one-trick pony, with a severely limited model count.

Mr.selfdestruct
16-04-2010, 07:23
Well, if you mean is it too far for someone to make a list like that and expect any opponents to like you- yes, it's too far.
The simple fact is however, that 40k is a game with options like this list. The object of the game isn't to be completely fair and competitive and remain true to the spirit of the background. It's a game with winners and losers. I think the biggest problem isn't people making lists like this, it's the one dimensional approach to winning.
Look at Warseer for example. Every other post is about how well a certain unit will do against another certain unit or how uber the new codex is and how much it will dominate over this older codex, or how if you don't have 'X' in your army, you are doomed to fail. There are sadly many Chaos players who probably don't realize that you CAN WIN without say....lashprinces. Or how about the rant I saw earlier today saying that you can't really use the new marine codex if you aren't running Vulcan. How stupid is that?
I guess I'm just upset because all I see being discussed are stats and tactics. How about strategy folks? I would LOVE to fight the above mentioned list, with ANY of my armies. Why? Because I enjoy the challenge and I enjoy playing this ridiculous game regardless of what I am up against. Will I defeat any force that I come up against? Of course not! What would be the fun in that?

owen matthew
16-04-2010, 07:28
Its rough, but I think I would wreck it, with just my all-commers lists. It suffers from one-trick-pony syndrome for sure. Rest assured, it will make you no friends, and it will crush noobs, casual players, and anyone trying to play for fun. I fell it is probably out of the spirit of a very small tourney like that... its probably for kids or beginners at that point level.

polymphus
16-04-2010, 07:41
Can...can you physically fit that into 750pts?

juckto
16-04-2010, 07:48
Seriously? You guys are saying "Someone will play like this, so you better play exactly the same so you don't get whumped"? No one else sees the downward spiral?

I'd say "I forfeit, now I'm going to go talk and joke and generally enjoy myself with my friend while I watch him play his game this round. That's a better use of my time."

Vaktathi
16-04-2010, 07:51
Yes, we are, first because it's not that hard to beat, 2nd because given the way the event was described it was a competitive event. In such an environment that's the type of thing to be expected. There's a difference between being a jerk and coming prepared. Had this dude showed up with the land raiders to an event that's pretty much all sports/painting/etc then yeah, hate on it all day, he's being a jerk. Taking it to an event where the point is winning, well, be prepared.

Even just a couple of meltaguns are going to make that Land Raider list ****scared, and once they're gone it's easy to mop up what's left, and it's not exactly packing a whole lot of firepower for what its bringing.

juckto
16-04-2010, 08:00
Right, so lack of rules that are only written to encourage not playing like a douche means it is expected that you play like a douche, because actually all you're doing is "playing to win".

juckto
16-04-2010, 08:01
To clarify, I find your "I only have to be a sporting player when tournament rules force me to be a sporting player" attitude confounding.

Also, I have never seen a two raider list "**** scared" of a couple of meltaguns.

Vaktathi
16-04-2010, 08:05
:rolleyes:

If you're coming to an event where the point is to win, then bringing your best possible force is what you do. People do have fun being competitive and playing hard armies against hard armies. If you're going to complain that someone brought a hard army to an event where that's the attitude, then don't go to them. It's not a very hard army to beat, you are equating a hard army with being a douche, which is not in any way true.

It's not the army that makes the game, it's the people involved. If someone brings a list like this but is very laid back and is cracking jokes the whole time, then you're probably not going to have a terrible time. On the other hand, the dude that brought his painstakingly painted and fluffed out army who gets indignant at everything you do, being a monstrous rules lawyer, and a fluff nazi, you probably will have a terrible time. I've met both types and I'll tell you that I'll take the uphill battle and lose with the fun guy over the easy win with the fluff army and ******* player any day of the week. In fact we just had an issue with just such a player the last event I was at.


Also, I have never seen a two raider list "**** scared" of a couple of meltaguns As an IG player, I've faced armies like this, and tabled them very quickly. Land Raiders *hate* meltaguns, because they don't last long against them. I guarantee you even just 4 meltaguns (what, 40pts in pretty much every army?) are going to put a huge crimp in that guys battle strategy.

juckto
16-04-2010, 08:14
The point of any game is to win. That argument is pointless.

How are you supposed to know what the attitude of the other players is before you show up for the tournament?

4 is double "a couple".

Vaktathi
16-04-2010, 08:28
2-4, really makes no difference, the cost difference even at 750pts is negligable. Even 2 is something that LR list will have to watch out for. "A couple" in casual conversation is often simply used to mean a small number, not literally two all the time.


How are you supposed to know what the attitude of the other players is before you show up for the tournament You don't, but if the event isn't being done with comp/sports/painting scores, that should tell you the mindset that they intend for people to play with. One can come to a game with this mindset and still be great fun to play.

Nurglitch_PS
16-04-2010, 09:03
I don't understand the problem. Is the list codex-legal? If it is, what could be possibly wrong with taking it to a tourney?

Thud
16-04-2010, 09:25
I don't understand the problem. Is the list codex-legal? If it is, what could be possibly wrong with taking it to a tourney?

Exactly.

There's a tournament with no soft scores and some guy brings along an army that's (perceived as) hard, and all of a sudden he's the douche? I call shenanigans.

If you want to play fluffy, laid-back, just-for-a-laugh, uncompetitive games; call a friend or go to a tournament with heavy comp restrictions. Don't try to force a guilt trip on someone for taking a no holds barred army to a no holds barred tournament.

Mojaco
16-04-2010, 09:39
A 750 pt tournament isn't likely to be no hold bared. Far more likely is that the organisers didn't realise the sort of people drawn to a small an likelh beginners oriented event. Thanks to people like that, soft scores have become necesary for tournaments aiming at fun. Even than the WAAC players will do their very best to sqeeuze those rules to the limit.

I think it's sad, but seen it enough that it doesn't matter to me anymore.

Zweischneid
16-04-2010, 09:41
I don't understand the problem. Is the list codex-legal? If it is, what could be possibly wrong with taking it to a tourney?

RAW, 40k rulebook p.2 (rules section)

"... it is important to remember that the rules are just a framework to create an enjoyable game."

Chaos player referenced by the OP obviously failed to adhere to that rule, hence he should have been disqualified from the tourney.

Satan
16-04-2010, 09:44
I'd feel like "Why does people have such issues grasping the beauty that is comp?".

But under the circumstances mentioned above I could hardly blame anyone for bringing a list like that.

Vaktathi
16-04-2010, 09:46
RAW, 40k rulebook p.2 (rules section)

"... it is important to remember that the rules are just a framework to create an enjoyable game."

Chaos player referenced by the OP obviously failed to adhere to that rule, hence he should have been disqualified from the tourney.

:rolleyes:

*facepalm*

Again, it's really not a hard army to beat even at that points level. Bringing a hard army shouldn't remove the fun from the game, especially in an event with no comp or sports rules that's about bringing hard armies.

Perhaps that players idea of fun, and the people they play with, is having hard armies fight other hard armies, and people who bring really weak lists are the ones that aren't fun to play against?

If you're going to an event where there's no pretense of sports or comp scores, and you're in it for a challenge and as much as anything else, wouldn't having to face a soft list that presents no challenge be just as bad as facing one you don't think you can beat?

That cuts both ways.


I'd feel like "Why does people have such issues grasping the beauty that is comp?". Because comp scores honestly are very bad at what they do really. I don't think I've seen one yet that didn't punish fun fluffy armies as much as powerful ones, and what's abusive to one player is just fine to the next.

Sports scores are a much better way to go. The army you face doesn't matter, the real thing is if you enjoyed the game or not.

Khazuk
16-04-2010, 09:50
It's an endless discussion. If the Chaos player didn't field that army he might not have had an enjoyable game because he likes to win. So who is to decide what "an enjoyable game" is?
If the list is not in conflict with the tourny rules no-one has the right to deny that CSM player from wielding it. ^^

Bloodknight
16-04-2010, 09:57
Everybody should know that cheesing out is possible and usual at low points levels. If I went to that tournament I'd field an army like this:

DE Archon, Agonizer, Plasma grenades, Splinter Pistol, Drugs, Field

2x10 Warriors with 2 Dark Lances per squad
1x Raider Squad, 5 guys, Blaster

3x Ravager with 3 Lances each.

15 BS4 Lance weapons, 3 scoring units and a combat character. Should be able to tackle almost anything unless some dude shows up with 60 Orks, a Biker Warboss and a couple of Buggies.

bossfearless
16-04-2010, 09:58
Fallacious logic abounds in this thread. For starters, multiple people have assumed that a low points-value equates to a "beginners' tourney." That might not be the case. Frankly, it's unfair to assume that any event is just for beginners, unless explicitly stated. If it is reasonable to assume that you will face skillful opponents, then it is reasonable to bring what you perceive to be your most potent build.

Secondly, everyone is assuming that this guy set out from the start to make the most broken list he could. He may have come up with the idea when idly musing over his units' points costs, realizing that two of X and a Y almost fill up the whole points allotment. This list, to me, sounds like a list that was at first suggested as a joke, before it dawned on the player that such a list could be feasible.

Do I think that list is in any way broken? Not particularly. I do see some armies (Orks, Nids) having trouble with it at 750. But, I also know that those same armies can bring well over a hundred Boyz to the table at 750 (Orks) or drop 3 Trygons on your face (Nids). As Vaktathi has stated, the IG can bring their meltavet spam at any points level.

Tournament play is competitive and should be fierce. The size of a game makes no difference in how well a person should be expected to build their army.

Nurglitch_PS
16-04-2010, 10:11
A 750 pt tournament isn't likely to be no hold bared. Far more likely is that the organisers didn't realise the sort of people drawn to a small an likelh beginners oriented event.

"Based on absolutely no data whatsoever I now know more about the tourney and how it should look than its organisers do".



"... it is important to remember that the rules are just a framework to create an enjoyable game."

Chaos player referenced by the OP obviously failed to adhere to that rule, hence he should have been disqualified from the tourney.

"If anyone ever dares to have fun in any other way than I do, they shall be disqualified and beheaded!!!!!!"



Look, it's a Tourney, right? Look it up in the dictionary. It's a tournament, something about winning. Warhammer is a zero-sum game. If it was a positive-sum game there could be smaller and bigger winners, but it is a zero-sum one, so there is a winner and a loser. And that's that.

One interesting thing - I noticed a long time ago that in Warseer parlance "cheesy" means "has chances of defeating Space Marines". Did "fluffy" recently begin to mean "weak"? Is there now an automatic assumption that the proper way for all the armies of the galaxy to behave is to minimize their chances of winning a conflict? Is this considered to be "in character"?

Because if "fluffy" means "in character"... I look and look and look at this army and I really fail to see anything that's out of character for CSM. Can someone point it out to me?

Zweischneid
16-04-2010, 11:03
"If anyone ever dares to have fun in any other way than I do, they shall be disqualified and beheaded!!!!!!"



Look, it's a Tourney, right? Look it up in the dictionary. It's a tournament, something about winning. Warhammer is a zero-sum game. If it was a positive-sum game there could be smaller and bigger winners, but it is a zero-sum one, so there is a winner and a loser. And that's that.
?

Why should I look into a dictionary if I play 40k. I look into the 40k rulebook. There, it clearly says, the objective is the enjoyment of both players and disputes are to be handled gentlemanly manner (p. 2). If I tell you I will not enjoy playing the army you put on the table. Well, than we'll need to work out a compromise. But saying "it is codex legal" is not an option.

Why so? Because it also says in the rules section of the 40k rulebook that to enforce rules as sacrosant, you have to get the consent of both players beforehand. If you do not do so, it is my right to, say, move a marine 7" or even 8", because the 6" rule is a guideline, not a sacrosanct rule unless (quote) "both players agree" they are.

Does this solve problems? Maybe not. But it is as much a rule, if not more so, than the Chaos Codex List. If someone insists on enforcing his "codex legal list", then I insist on enforcing the p.2. "most important rule". Quid pro Quo!

Given, many tourneys include a statement that puts the p.2 rule out of work for the tourney. But if they do not, than I play by the 40k rulebook, not the dictionary.

marv335
16-04-2010, 11:07
The point of any game is to win. That argument is pointless.


The point of the game is to have fun. The object of the game is to win.
It's a subtle difference, but quite an important one.

Bloodknight
16-04-2010, 11:09
There, it clearly says, the objective is the enjoyment of both players and disputes are to be handled gentlemanly manner (p. 2).

Sure, but that goes both ways. I don't enjoy when an opponent brings a knife to a gunfight - which is exactly what you do if you don't max your list for a tournament, and then there's no challenge involved...


If I tell you I will not enjoy playing the army you put on the table

In a non-comp tournament you'll get a shrug from me. What should I do? My list is fixed.


Well, than we'll need to work out a compromise


Because it also says in the rules section of the 40k rulebook that to enforce rules as sacrosant, you have to get the consent of both players beforehand

Again, we're talking about tournaments. There's no compromise, if you signed up you agreed to adhering to the rules in the rulebook and the lists theat are played as long as they're codex legal. You can't change your list before a game.

Vaktathi
16-04-2010, 11:19
Why should I look into a dictionary if I play 40k. I look into the 40k rulebook. There, it clearly says, the objective is the enjoyment of both players and disputes are to be handled gentlemanly manner (p. 2). If I tell you I will not enjoy playing the army you put on the table. Well, than we'll need to work out a compromise. But saying "it is codex legal" is not an option.

Why so? Because it also says in the rules section of the 40k rulebook that to enforce rules as sacrosant, you have to get the consent of both players beforehand. If you do not do so, it is my right to, say, move a marine 7" or even 8", because the 6" rule is a guideline, not a sacrosanct rule unless (quote) "both players agree" they are.

Does this solve problems? Maybe not. But it is as much a rule, if not more so, than the Chaos Codex List. If someone insists on enforcing his "codex legal list", then I insist on enforcing the p.2. "most important rule". Quid pro Quo!

Given, many tourneys include a statement that puts the p.2 rule out of work for the tourney. But if they do not, than I play by the 40k rulebook, not the dictionary.

If you're playing at a tournament then you can't change your list, you can't come to a compromise, as changing your list would be cheating at that point.

If you're playing at a tournament with no comp/sports scores, you should have known what you were getting into. Likewise, as a general, if you didn't anticipate the potentials beforehand at least to some extent, that's a failure on your part, not your opponents. I played a 500pt tournament with just a mechanized IG infantry platoon, people brought lots of plasma guns and flamers to kill infantry, but nothing to kill off 4 tanks, and so I swept it pretty well. The next 500pt tournament people put in a couple lascannons and some meltaguns, and they guy who brought a similar list to mine at that event didn't do as well. If you don't bother to realize what people can bring, it gets unbalanced, once you do, it's not so bad.


Either way, you're basically saying "I didn't come prepared to fight this army at an event that was billed as being focused only on competitive gameplay, and I think that means you're a terrible person and I won't play you".

If you're talking about normal pickup play, all this is fine. But at an organized tournament with a given atmosphere, you chose to enter that environment, thus the onus is not on your opponent.

Nurglitch_PS
16-04-2010, 11:23
Again - can someone please tell me what exactly in that army is out od character for Chaos Space Marines?

Vaktathi
16-04-2010, 11:26
Again - can someone please tell me what exactly in that army is out od character for Chaos Space Marines?

The only thing I can see is the low squad numbers for the CSM's, fielding 2 land raiders for 10 dudes with little equipment themselves is a bit odd I'd think, but I'm sure there's all sorts of decent reasons one could come up with for such a force.

Lord-Caerolion
16-04-2010, 11:35
Why should I look into a dictionary if I play 40k. I look into the 40k rulebook. There, it clearly says, the objective is the enjoyment of both players and disputes are to be handled gentlemanly manner (p. 2). If I tell you I will not enjoy playing the army you put on the table. Well, than we'll need to work out a compromise. But saying "it is codex legal" is not an option.

And as others have said, many people enjoy playing competetive games, and have fun while doing so. You're proving absolutely nothing, except that you can't comprehend that other people might like other things than you.

Let's get this straight. It's a competetive tournament. If you don't bring a [/i]competetive[/i] list, it's a failure on your part. Don't handicap yourself entirely of your own free will, and then cry when nobody else does the same. You don't have fun in competetive, no-holds-barred games? Don't play them, but don't break your oh-so-loved rule, and deny others their fun. As you like to remind us, other people are allowed to have fun too, so don't whine when people want to play differently than you do. You aren't forced to play them.

Lastly, there's nothing in that list that I'd consider unfluffy for CSM. It can be countered easily by certain armies, but not for others. It's a one-trick pony list, and shows what they are: great in some circumstances, crud in others.

Latro_
16-04-2010, 11:36
Can...can you physically fit that into 750pts?

nope you can't :D

So i do think its going a bit to far, because its over 750pts

unless my codex pts memory has failed.

175
220
220
75
75

edit: no wait i always assume mark of nurgle so its 165

so yes its 750 on the nose.

However if i were to beard it up i'd take 5 obilterators instead of the land raiders, take two rhinos and replace WT with MoN :P

Nurglitch_PS
16-04-2010, 11:37
The only thing I can see is the low squad numbers for the CSM's, fielding 2 land raiders for 10 dudes with little equipment themselves is a bit odd I'd think, but I'm sure there's all sorts of decent reasons one could come up with for such a force.

To me it looks exactly like a proper honour guard for a Demon Prince.

Wolf Lord Balrog
16-04-2010, 11:39
I've never played in a tournament that didn't at least have a sportsmanship score, and usually comp too. I see 2 Land Raiders at 1000 points or less, his comp score is getting dinged for sure and his sportsmanship is in question.

Deathjester
16-04-2010, 11:39
Had you just gone down to your local club for 750point game and someone had put that down i'd agree that's going a little far for a "friendly" game, however in a competetive enviroment as long as it's within the rules then i'm totally ok with that.

By entering a tournament you are basically saying that you agree to the terms and conditions of the tournament (Sportsmanship, composition etc.)

And by all terms there was a composition requirement: you have to have 750pts or less taken from your codex of choice, you need to have 1 HQ & 2 troops and you can't have more than 2HQ, 3 Elites, 6 Troops, 3 Fast Attack and 3 Heavy support...

Enough said really, you entered the tournament knowing the requirements and waived all rights of complaint when you entered a tournament with no composition scoring system in place.

You have 2 "choices" for compromise: either you choose to not play the game (and lose) or you choose to play that person and have a chance to win.

One person's definition of fun is not the same as anothers!

If his army is fun for him that's fair enough, if it's not fun for you then you are not adhearing to the rules of the game and thereby cheating...(mostly cheating yourself out of wiping the smile off his face when you destroy both his land raiders on turn 1 before he moves them!)

Nice arguement!

Edit:

nope you can't



So i do think its going a bit to far, because its over 750pts



unless my codex pts memory has failed.



175

220

220

75

75

It's 155
220
200
75
75
= 745pts

Zweischneid
16-04-2010, 12:05
And as others have said, many people enjoy playing competetive games, and have fun while doing so. You're proving absolutely nothing, except that you can't comprehend that other people might like other things than you.

Let's get this straight. It's a competetive tournament. If you don't bring a [/i]competetive[/i] list, it's a failure on your part. Don't handicap yourself entirely of your own free will, and then cry when nobody else does the same. You don't have fun in competetive, no-holds-barred games? Don't play them, but don't break your oh-so-loved rule, and deny others their fun. As you like to remind us, other people are allowed to have fun too, so don't whine when people want to play differently than you do. You aren't forced to play them.

Lastly, there's nothing in that list that I'd consider unfluffy for CSM. It can be countered easily by certain armies, but not for others. It's a one-trick pony list, and shows what they are: great in some circumstances, crud in others.

I do not need to comprehend or prove anything. I just apply the rule from the 40k rulebook, page 2 of the rules section. It is even clearly labelled as "THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE"! Hard to miss, is it?

If that tourney, competitive or not, happens to be a 40k tourney, than the p.2 rule from the 40k rulebook applies. 40k game = 40k rules. Simple as that. If it is a failure on my part that I apply the rules, then so be it.

Also, if the tourney doesn't allow people to change things by agreement, the tourney is violating 40k rules and should thus not be allowed to advertise itself using GW trademarks.

Vaktathi
16-04-2010, 12:08
I do not need to comprehend or prove anything. I just apply the rule from the 40k rulebook, page 2.

If that tourney, competitive or not, happens to be a 40k tourney, than the p.2 rule from the 40k rulebook applies. 40k game = 40k rules. Simple as that.

:eyebrows:

Yes, so you'd have them violate the rules of the tournament, rules there to ensure fairness (no tailoring lists, making sure everyone faced a player on the same basis, etc), to gain a greater advantage of winning, at the cost of their fun? That sounds directly contradictory to the most important rule.

x-esiv-4c
16-04-2010, 12:10
Cheese is in the eye of the beholder.

Zweischneid
16-04-2010, 12:15
:eyebrows:

Yes, so you'd have them violate the rules of the tournament, rules there to ensure fairness (no tailoring lists, making sure everyone faced a player on the same basis, etc), to gain a greater advantage of winning, at the cost of their fun? That sounds directly contradictory to the most important rule.

The rules of the (presumably 40k) tournament are not "THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE" for 40k. So yes, they are subordinate. And fairness? Seriously, the Chaos army presented by the OP might well be seen as "unfair". Besides, again quoting the 40k rulebook, the rules are not there to ensure fairness, they are there to ensure enjoyment. Different things. If you wanna play "fair", go play chess.

shabbadoo
16-04-2010, 12:16
RAW, 40k rulebook p.2 (rules section)

"... it is important to remember that the rules are just a framework to create an enjoyable game."

Chaos player referenced by the OP obviously failed to adhere to that rule, hence he should have been disqualified from the tourney.

I would consider playing against such a list an enjoyable game; especially the part where I table it. :p Others here no doubt will agree. 13 models is a horrid thing in a tournament. As others have said, getting just a few of the right weapons in the right place will ruin this list. Also, not being naive, I would expect this sort of "creativity" in army lists I would be facing.

Tekomandor
16-04-2010, 12:16
This is why comp was invented - and why if a tournament dosen't have both comp and sportsmanship scores lowerpowered armies don't win often; even in the hands of the best general of the event.

Vaktathi
16-04-2010, 12:22
The rules of the (presumably 40k) tournament are not "THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE" for 40k. So yes, they are subsidiary. Let me ask you this then, do you realistically expect to walk into a tournament, look at an opponents army list, and ask them to change it? And if you do, do you actually expect them to change it? Do you expect the TO to allow that? How would you react to an opponent doing that? Would you actually change your list?



For a normal pickup game, all that might be fine. For a tournament, I doubt the above things would actually occur.

Finally, Tournaments are *NOT* normal 40k, they are their own thing unto themselves. They can decide what armies and lists one may bring, and what rules to follow. By entering such an event you are saying you agree to whatever rules they tell you to play the game by.


And fairness? Seriously, the Chaos army presented by the OP might well be seen as "unfair". Besides, again quoting the 40k rulebook, the rules are not there to ensure fairness, they are there to ensure enjoyment. Different things.The "fairness" comes in not so much in terms of army vs army fairness, but ensuring that nobody is facing a player on terms that another player did not have to. If I'm playing my 13 tank IG army, such rules exist so that the guy with 42 meltaguns faces my army in the same manner that the guy with nothing stronger than a heavy bolter faces it, that I'm not adding tanks or taking tanks away and replacing them with infantry or whatnot.

Satan
16-04-2010, 12:23
This is why comp was invented - and why if a tournament dosen't have both comp and sportsmanship scores lowerpowered armies don't win often; even in the hands of the best general of the event.

Because it's a strategic game, not a tactical one, which is sad. I always enjoy comped tournaments.

Zweischneid
16-04-2010, 12:27
Let me ask you this then, do you realistically expect to walk into a tournament, look at an opponents army list, and ask them to change it? And if you do, do you actually expect them to change it? Do you expect the TO to allow that? How would you react to an opponent doing that? Would you actually change your list?




Do I realistically expect a 40k tournament to adhere to 40k rules, not least of which is "THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE". Yes I do.

I think there's even legal regulation by GW that if you have a tourney using GW trademarks like "Warhammer 40k" or "Space Marines", you have to do it by the rulebooks, though with certain exceptions clearly stated. As I noted above, most tourneys do exclude this. But if they don't, and if some freak escalates the situation, than I would be willing to insist on this, yes.

Vaktathi
16-04-2010, 12:36
Because it's a strategic game, not a tactical one, which is sad. I always enjoy comped tournaments.

I've never liked comp scores, my old ST IG army under the previous codex, that won maybe 25-30% of its games, did worse on comp than most of the cutthroat competitive lists. I saw that happen with many other armies as well. I've never seen a comp system that did what it was supposed to, and the closer they come to doing so the blander and more boring armies become, and the lose much of the challenge and background feel they once had.


Do I realistically expect a 40k tournament to adhere to 40k rules, not least of which is "THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE". Yes I do. I think there's even legal regulation by GW that if you have a tourney using GW trademarks like "Warhammer 40k" or "Space Marines", you have to do it by the rulebooks, though with certain exceptions clearly stated. As I noted above, most tourneys do exclude this. But if they don't, and if some freak escalates the situation, than I would be willing to insist on this, yes.I can't think of a single event where you'd be successful. In fact that attitude would by far be more seen as in violation of the most important rule than your opponent. Have you ever played in a tournament? I honestly have a hard time believing you'd show up, demand an opponent to change their list, and get them to do so, and then get the TO to allow it. With that mindset, I can just go to every table and declare I won't find the game fun unless I'm facing 180 grots and nothing else and be perfectly within my rights under the rules.

That said, even GW states that tournaments are not normal 40k play. They have a very restricted set of army lists (remember, GW has never said that the old Chapter Approved stuff, and lists from Armageddon and Eye of Terror should not longer be used, only that they can't be used in Tournaments, and most FW stuff doesn't have any clause stating they need opponents permission and are thus legal for normal play since the rulebook doesn't say that have to use the newest basic codex's for normal play) and a very regimented style of play.

Are you going to complain to the TO that the most important rule was violated because you ran out of time and thus the game results are invalid? What about Missions? If you don't enjoy Capture and Control as much as others are you going to demand to play a different mission?

Tekomandor
16-04-2010, 12:43
Comp works if a whole load of tournies take it up and refine the system, also panel + teired is an idea that I like as it removes the possibilty of spiteful action affecting your score. Lots of comp systems work reallly well; so I don't know why you would never see a good one, perhaps just luck.

Vaktathi
16-04-2010, 12:48
Comp works if a whole load of tournies take it up and refine the system, also panel + teired is an idea that I like as it removes the possibilty of spiteful action affecting your score. Lots of comp systems work reallly well; so I don't know why you would never see a good one, perhaps just luck.
Having judges and tiers is incredibly time consuming and only works for the largest events, and is still incredibly subjective. I attended such a tourney last year, they didn't like my platoon based mech IG army, but they allowed the mechvets one with twice the special weapons (all meltaguns with BS4) and an otherwise identical FA and HS selection but with one fewer tank in total. Those systems still require a similar number of players in each tier to ensure that the tier system actually works so similarly tiered players play each other, and takes far more time and effort than most organizers have and requires a lot of planning ahead with lists in far before the event begins. It doesn't work for store tourneys of 18 people where half of them show up that morning and there's only one guy running the thing.

Most comp systems are just "% HQ, % troops, none of "X" units, no more than 2 "Y" units" etc. and these are beyond terrible at what they do.

LususNaturae
16-04-2010, 13:13
I'm just going to say this:

If you want to play a series of games that involve a fluffy list, balanced/themed armies, and comp, ORGANIZE A DAMN CAMPAIGN. Trust me, you'll haxve much more fun coming up with ideas for scenarios and stories for your armies than any tourney will give you.

If you want to play a series of games that stretch your strategical (list building) and tactical (execution of the objective) abilities, play in a tourney.

This is a game of strategy and tactics. Part of strategy is assembling a force that accomplishes what you need. Don't whine when someone brings a better list than you. There should be no set of rules preventing someone from being good at a part of this game. If you're going to rely on comp, be preparred to admit you're bad at part of this game.

That being said, the list the OP posted is not that great. With so few troops, he's not going to win objective games, and he's not going to table an opponent that doesn't want too be tabeled.

Satan
16-04-2010, 13:23
Don't whine when someone brings a better list than you.

There shouldn't be such a thing as a "better" list. I like FOW in this regard. Neither do I think of 40k as a particularly tactical game anymore. It's just about random dice rolling and boring CC.

Regarding comp, it's been dealt with in multiple threads and I don't care to repeat those arguments since it basically comes down to:

Sweden = Happy with organized comp systems
Anglosaxians = Disagrees, purposely misinterprets
Rest of the world = Mix of the above

LususNaturae
16-04-2010, 13:30
There shouldn't be such a thing as a "better" list.

Then go play chess?

Nurglitch_PS
16-04-2010, 13:33
Do I realistically expect a 40k tournament to adhere to 40k rules, not least of which is "THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE". Yes I do.

So your argument is this... if you go to a tournament and in any of the games during that tournament you are not having fun, your opponent should be disqualified and black-listed. Is that it?

Satan
16-04-2010, 13:34
Then go play chess?

No. I'm all for "different" lists though. To clarify: I wish the gap between the gaming mechanics and different unit types was either much wider, or much less so in 40k.

I've played my fair amount of chess games. Still don't make much difference as chess is a game of tactics, whereas 40k isn't. If the game was actually enjoyable then that wouldn't make much difference to me - but it just isn't anymore. As I'm fond of 5th edition I have plenty of hope for future editions though.

Love the background though. And organized Apoc games.

Vaktathi
16-04-2010, 13:34
here shouldn't be such a thing as a "better" list. I like FOW in this regard Flames of War? I like the game mechanics, but god does that game have issues with army balance and poor missions. A King Tiger list is going to have little chance of winning objective games, while a T-34 spam list with 21 FA 7 AT 12 tanks along with 10 T-70's and some ISU-122's is going to steamroll almost everything it faces except for a Panther Kompanie.


Anglosaxians = Disagrees, purposely misinterprets:rolleyes: Of course, anyone disagreeing with the point of view that comp is great must also purposely misinterpret it. :shifty:

duffybear1988
16-04-2010, 13:44
I don't see what the problem is - I mean yes that guy took a powerful list that had the potential to win big, but at the same time most other people at the tournie probably took similar 'cheesy' lists (based on my experience at tournies) in an attempt to win. It's not impossible to rank highly at tournaments with fluffy/non cheesy lists if you are skilled in the tactics department and as many have stated on here that list isn't really that daunting if you packed melta weapons into your list (and who wouldn't in 5th ed?).

If you, like me, prefer to bring fluffy lists to tournaments that are well thought out and skillfully painted and converted, then fair enough do so... but don't moan if you get taken out by power-lists. Sometimes it's not how powerful your list is that attracts people to you at tournaments... I find it's bringing a nice army that OTHERS like to play against, as well as being a good sport during games against said players. If the cheese gamer is a jerk then everyone knows it and everyone avoids them during breaks etc to come chat with you about painting/converting tips, tactics that worked/didn't work, what you plan to do next, swapping ideas, etc.

It always seems to me that the guy that brings the blatantly 'cheesy' list who only cares about winning is the guy that stands alone and boasts big time when they win... and usually everyone hates them.

It would help I think if the OP posted their list that they took, and maybe some of the other lists people used as I often find that people who moan about tournies are usually the ones who took powerful lists expecting to win, but infact were 'out-cheesed' by some other muppet :D (For example my last tournie saw 6 or 7 chaos players with dual lash obliterator spam getting wiped out by an ork twin warboss nob bikers army... and you should have seen them whine).


Take my advice and take an army that looks cool, plays how you want it and have fun... stuff winning at all costs... it's really all about swapping ideas, making friends, and playing some cool games.

Tekomandor
16-04-2010, 13:47
Well your view of comp is different to mine; as I see it as something to encourage all armies to be fun to play ganist - as that is the point of the game. However as you seem to hate comp becuse you think it dosen't work becuase your army was treated poorly in the past. Also Lususnaturae; I play Tau so comp means that I can use my startegic skills of list-making on an even playing feild to, lets say a BA or SW player, rather than my startegic skill of buying a better army.

Nurglitch_PS
16-04-2010, 13:51
If you, like me, prefer to bring fluffy lists to tournaments

This again...
WHAT was not fluffy in that list? Point it with your finger and name it. "Fluffy" does not mean "weak", it means "in character".

Satan
16-04-2010, 13:51
Flames of War? I like the game mechanics, but god does that game have issues with army balance and poor missions. A King Tiger list is going to have little chance of winning objective games, while a T-34 spam list with 21 FA 7 AT 12 tanks along with 10 T-70's and some ISU-122's is going to steamroll almost everything it faces except for a Panther Kompanie.

Depends on what the King tiger list is facing, but yeah it's not an easy one. Played against one myself just last weekend and IIRC he won with a slight margin.

In regard to the Soviets I'd say that a whole lot of lists, like my own panzers, have problems facing them. But translate that to 40k and what's been said here and the balance issues as you describe them suddenly become quite inconsequential, right?

I love the missions. Very well suited to tournament environments.

40k's main problem as I see it isn't poor game balance really. It's rather the fact that it's not an enjoyable game overall. Of course, sometimes it is, most of the time to me, it isn't. Regardless of if I'm the one whose Wolves just charged the puny guardsmen squad or if I'm the guy who's about to get tabled. Rolling 40 CC dice does not equate fun.

But doing so in an Apoc game where everything is just so incredibly overblown isn't that bad as long as the game's been tailored to suit the armies present and make sure one side doesn't field 10 super-heavies and the other none at all.

The most disenjoyable matches I've ever witnessed were between some of the best players in our country. Great strategists, and probably at the very least decent tacticians in regards to the game, but clearly not enjoying facing each other. The other matches they had against other opponents were much more fun to both players.


:rolleyes: Of course, anyone disagreeing with the point of view that comp is great must also purposely misinterpret it. :shifty:

Not at all. It was a general observation. I would've written something flattering too but just couldn't think of anything at the time. Disagreement does not incur an inferior opinion. Whereas purposeful misinterpretation does (one might say). And there's been plenty in those threads. Not to say that everyone who disagrees also misinterprets on purpose or that the majority does so either.

Just that the ones who did were those shouting the loudest. It's a game. If you don't like comp, don't play in tournies that use it, and the other way around of course.


take an army that looks cool, plays how you want it and have fun... stuff winning at all costs... it's really all about swapping ideas, making friends, and playing some cool games.

I completely agree with this statement. But I think comp makes it more enjoyable for all players involved. Just wanted to add that.

Vaktathi
16-04-2010, 14:03
In regard to the Soviets I'd say that a whole lot of lists, like my own panzers, have problems facing them. But translate that to 40k and what's been said here and the balance issues as you describe them suddenly become quite inconsequential, right? Not at all, I find having to face a late war Tankovy company with 34 tanks with a Gepanzerte Panzergrenadierkompanie a (short) suicide mission. (although transports and especially halftracks seem to be very poorly implemented in general in that game, being a liability that you have to end up sending to the rear after spending huge gobs of points on them and then missing out on their machinegun fire)



I love the missions. Very well suited to tournament environments. Ever try taking a Tiger list against soviets in road block as attacker? My first tournament I was done in 10 mins before I could do anything.




40k's main problem as I see it isn't poor game balance really. It's rather the fact that it's not an enjoyable game overall. Of course, sometimes it is, most of the time to me, it isn't. Regardless of if I'm the one whose Wolves just charged the puny guardsmen squad or if I'm the guy who's about to get tabled. Rolling 40 CC dice does not equate fun. Depends on what you like. It's all about what's rolling those dice against what and how you get them in there.




Just that the ones who did were those shouting the loudest. It's a game. If you don't like comp, don't play in tournies that use it, and the other way around of course.Yes, I agree, which is why I avoid heavily comp'd tournaments because they generally don't end up being better for it most of the time. For our store tournaments many people didn't like the comp rules, so we got them tossed, as many very soft lists were being hurt harder than the nasty lists.

duffybear1988
16-04-2010, 14:06
This again...
WHAT was not fluffy in that list? Point it with your finger and name it. "Fluffy" does not mean "weak", it means "in character".

dude I NEVER said it wasn't fluffy, I was just generalizing tournaments in general that I have been to recently. If you read the rest of my post I clearly stated that I personally didn't see the chaos list as that difficult to beat...

Zweischneid
16-04-2010, 14:10
So your argument is this... if you go to a tournament and in any of the games during that tournament you are not having fun, your opponent should be disqualified and black-listed. Is that it?

Um, no. That is not at all my argument.

I simply pointed out that the 40k RAW you require the consent of your opponent to play the army you play. If you do not get the consent, you cannot play... all RAW.

Furthermore, I raised the admittedly theoretical and hyperbole question that if a tourney organiser arbitrarly ignores this "MOST IMPORTANT RULE" of 40k, why should anyone feel compell to adhere to any other rules in the book? I might just as well start bringing 1000 marines at 1000 points, moving 50" a turn and take my shooting phase after my assault phase.

Oguleth
16-04-2010, 14:14
Personally I find the army dull, and very rock-paper-scissors designed.

However, if I would hate to play against would depend on context. If it's a no holds barred tournament (much like the OP describes the tournament as), then I wouldn't go there and expect people to put army design limits on themselves.

If it's a friendly tournament, like it states it's intended for beginners, a casual weekend between friends or whatever, I'd most likely tank whoever brought such a list on sports and comp and whatever.

All in all, it's up to the TO to communicate what they want the tournament to be (and warn people that some might bring spam/mono lists, or warn people against taking them as their soft scores will most likely be tanked), and people will often carefully consider what to bring (or just whine about the rules, like most forum posters seem to enjoy, including myself).

What I don't understand is why people seem to think every tourney has to follow their idea of how tournies should be, if every damn tourney ends up the same (for example comped to death, or just a WAAC enviroment), it would kill off all variation the game has in such an enviroment tbh.

Also, I agree with Vak's sentiments about it's people that make up the game; lists says very little about how fun it is to play against someone. The idiotic list = douche is so far out it's getting kinda funny..

Zwei: judging by your posts, I guess you should never ever go to a tourney...

Satan
16-04-2010, 14:21
Not at all, I find having to face a late war Tankovy company with 34 tanks with a Gepanzerte Panzergrenadierkompanie a (short) suicide mission. (although transports and especially halftracks seem to be very poorly implemented in general in that game, being a liability that you have to end up sending to the rear after spending huge gobs of points on them and then missing out on their machinegun fire)

Depends on how you look at it, since the transports are obligatory for some army builds and included in the unit entry. Again, apply this to 40k and it doesn't seem very poor at all from my POV. But I have heard others voice their opinion that they need to alter the rules for halftracks (or at least their MG's) somehow.


Ever try taking a Tiger list against soviets in road block as attacker? My first tournament I was done in 10 mins before I could do anything.

Ever try taking a poor guard/eldar/whatever list in a KP mission against armies posted previously in this thread? Alter it however you see fit, but I assume you get my point. Facing soviets with a Tiger list is hard. Perhaps even impossible. I don't claim to know the entire realms of probability though.

And I will gladly confess to having issues facing Soviets myself. But then again I field an SS Tank company. I guess I should bring "better" lists and suck it up! :D


Depends on what you like. It's all about what's rolling those dice against what and how you get them in there.

I agree. It's more the game mechanics I don't enjoy. In the case of the 40 dice they're just an unnecessary pretense sometimes. I believe the CC-section of 40k has a lot of room for improvement/evolution in order to create a more enjoyable game.


Yes, I agree, which is why I avoid heavily comp'd tournaments because they generally don't end up being better for it most of the time. For our store tournaments many people didn't like the comp rules, so we got them tossed, as many very soft lists were being hurt harder than the nasty lists.

I'd like you to re-arrange your wording there. Your OPINION is that they genereally don't end up being better for it most of the time, whereas mine is that it's heavily dependant on a number of factors whether they in fact actually do. Don't make it sound like empirical fact, if you'd be so kind. :)

And again my opinion is that well-executed and maybe even locally or tournamentally adapted comp system do make the game very much more enjoyable.

I'd say that we leave the comp discussion and would refer people to look at the threads already out there if they decide they'd like to know more about differing opinions. I for one can't even be bothered discussing comp on WS any more... It's not a black and white world.



However, if I would hate to play against would depend on context. If it's a no holds barred tournament (much like the OP describes the tournament as), then I wouldn't go there and expect people to put army design limits on themselves.

Neither would I.




If it's a friendly tournament, like it states it's intended for beginners, a casual weekend between friends or whatever, I'd most likely tank whoever brought such a list on sports and comp and whatever.

All in all, it's up to the TO to communicate what they want the tournament to be (and warn people that some might bring spam/mono lists, or warn people against taking them as their soft scores will most likely be tanked), and people will often carefully consider what to bring (or just whine about the rules, like most forum posters seem to enjoy, including myself).

What I don't understand is why people seem to think every tourney has to follow their idea of how tournies should be, if every damn tourney ends up the same (for example comped to death, or just a WAAC enviroment), it would kill off all variation the game has in such an enviroment tbh.

Also, I agree with Vak's sentiments about it's people that make up the game; lists says very little about how fun it is to play against someone. The idiotic list = douche is so far out it's getting kinda funny..


I agree with your sentiment. Very insightful. I believe there really does need to be an increased tolerance and understanding that we each enjoy different aspects of the game itself, but very much the METAGAME as well, which I think is central to the forming of many opinions voiced in this thread.



Zwei: judging by your posts, I guess you should never ever go to a tourney...

Not fair, and not corresponding with the rest of your insightful post. He's pretty much clearly stated what he enjoys in tournament and how he's formed his opinion throughout the thread in a highly reasonable manner if you ask me.

Nurglitch_PS
16-04-2010, 14:22
Um, no. That is not at all my argument.

Why not? Surely if someone breaks "MOST IMPORTANT RULE" he is the most despicable of cheaters, right? And cheaters should be thrown out and blacklisted?



I simply pointed out that the 40k RAW you require the consent of your opponent to play the army you play.

Let's say so, just for the sake of argument. When you enter the tourney, you give the consent. Clear?



If you do not get the consent, you cannot play... all RAW.

Yes. If you do not participate in the tourney you cannot participate in the tourney. Absolutely clear. And the point is...?



Furthermore, I raised the admittedly theoretical and hyperbole question that if a tourney organiser arbitrarly ignores this "MOST IMPORTANT RULE" of 40k, why should anyone feel compell to adhere to any other rules in the book? I might just as well start bringing 1000 marines at 1000 points, moving 50" a turn and take my shooting phase after my assault phase.

I uderstand. So if you play against some opponent and do not have fun whilst doing so you will feel completely justified when cheating. Right.

SPYDER68
16-04-2010, 14:30
2 land raiders in 750 ? I like it.

I would counter that with..

Command squad + Las cannon + Chimera

3x vet sqauds with 3x Melta guns + Las cannon + Chimera

or something to that effect if i still had IG.


Or..

Tervigon HQ
2x10 Termiguants
2x Tyrgon Prime.

for 740 pts.

seems like an amusing tourney that wont take long to play.

Zweischneid
16-04-2010, 14:33
Why not? Surely if someone breaks "MOST IMPORTANT RULE" he is the most despicable of cheaters, right? And cheaters should be thrown out and blacklisted?

No. I don't judge character. I just assume that naming it "THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE" was an attempt by GW to underline its importance when writing the rulebook. I might be wrong there.



Let's say so, just for the sake of argument. When you enter the tourney, you give the consent. Clear?



Yes. If you do not participate in the tourney you cannot participate in the tourney. Absolutely clear. And the point is...?



I uderstand. So if you play against some opponent and do not have fun whilst doing so you will feel completely justified when cheating. Right.

When I entre a 40 tourney, I assume that it plays be the 40k rules, which includes p. 2 of the 40k rulebook. If the statutes of the tourney clearly state that this rule does not apply, than that is fine, as I have pointed out before. Many tournaments do so.

If they do not say so however, than I assume "THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE" applies, thus my oppent needs my consent for fielding his army (and vice versa). If I withhold my consent feeling I won't enjoy the game, than he cannot play. RAW.

VonManstein
16-04-2010, 14:38
Um, no. That is not at all my argument.

I simply pointed out that the 40k RAW you require the consent of your opponent to play the army you play. If you do not get the consent, you cannot play... all RAW.

Furthermore, I raised the admittedly theoretical and hyperbole question that if a tourney organiser arbitrarly ignores this "MOST IMPORTANT RULE" of 40k, why should anyone feel compell to adhere to any other rules in the book? I might just as well start bringing 1000 marines at 1000 points, moving 50" a turn and take my shooting phase after my assault phase.
I still am in doubt if you are seriously about all this, or if you are just trollling. I hope actually the latter, as the first one would make you kinda strange but I'll try to prove you wrong nonetheless:

I dont know if you know anything about 'the law' in general, but one of the things is this: you can get convicted for some kind of crime, even when its not written in some kind of law book. Why? Has something to do with common sense. I wont go into detail.

Same thing with the 'Most important rule' you keep coming up with. Its generally agreed by everyone that its not a real rule. Why? Because it doesnt state whats 'fun' and whats 'not fun'. Therefore you cannot apply it in 40k. So even when its written here, it gets largely ignored by everyone with at least a common sense of social rules, rightfully so in my eyes. For most people that rule means something like: not acting like a ********, being nice to play against.

Even when you are in theory right about your 'most important rule', it doesnt have any relevance. You are one of the only ones who thinks like that and therefore you get overruled. You dont want to play me because you think its not fun? Oke, thats a massacre without playing then, i'm sure the judges agree with this.

Satan
16-04-2010, 14:43
Furthermore, I raised the admittedly theoretical and hyperbole question that if a tourney organiser arbitrarly ignores this "MOST IMPORTANT RULE" of 40k, why should anyone feel compell to adhere to any other rules in the book? I might just as well start bringing 1000 marines at 1000 points, moving 50" a turn and take my shooting phase after my assault phase.

It seems alot of people failed to read the part of this statement which says that it's a theoretical question. Doesn't mean Zwei goes around refusing to play in tournies as far as I understand.

And you can't get convicted for a crime which isn't covered by law to some extent.

Vaktathi
16-04-2010, 14:50
If they do not say so however, than I assume "THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE" applies, thus my oppent needs my consent for fielding his army (and vice versa). If I withhold my consent feeling I won't enjoy the game, than he cannot play. RAW. All true I guess, but at the same time, by entering into such a tourney without fully realizing the environment, you've basically just done it to yourself, and get to sit around for however long the rounds are being "that guy" while everyone else plays their games and makes comments about the dude in the corner who refused to play. It doesn't mean your opponent should be DQ'd for fielding an army you don't like.

Nurglitch_PS
16-04-2010, 14:52
No. I don't judge character. I just assume that naming it "THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE"

Where did I say anything about the character? According to you "THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE" is that you have to have fun when playing against anyone. It is more important than the fact that turns have phases, that S4 does not mean S20, that infantry does not move 400000" and so on. So surely if someone breaks the One Rule To Rule Them All and deprives you of your fun, this constitutes the most gross act of cheating? I mean, are you so far gone into cognitive dissonance that you cannot grasp anymore how huge a piece of nonsense this argument is?

This thing you keep referring to is not a rule at all. Saying "you have to agree to an opponents army" is something like saying "you have to agree to conform to the laws of gravity". Who can force you to agree? Who can make you play if you do not want to play? I don't think there really is some hellhole in Vietnam where American POWs still languish in bamboo cages being forced to play 40k every day against the armier they don't like. And surely where you live no one is forcing you at gunpoint to play against anybody. So, dude, what rule? You don't like that an opponent has brought an army that's in character and capable of beating yours, just throw a hissy fit and storm out. There, problem fixed.

VonManstein
16-04-2010, 14:54
And you can't get convicted for a crime which isn't covered by law to some extent.
True, but it doesnt neccesarily have to be written. Ah maybe it was a bad example:p

Satan
16-04-2010, 15:21
True, but it doesnt neccesarily have to be written. Ah maybe it was a bad example:p

Nah, I see your point. ;)

Deathjester
16-04-2010, 15:39
If they do not say so however, than I assume "THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE" applies, thus my oppent needs my consent for fielding his army (and vice versa). If I withhold my consent feeling I won't enjoy the game, than he cannot play. RAW.

No, but if you withold your consent feeling you won't enjoy the game you can't expect the tournament organisers to think you won either!

otherwise i could go to a tournament not play anyone at all claiming i wouldn't have fun and win the tournament.... yeah... that works i'll try that on sunday[/sarcasm]

But what you're saying is like going to war against the UK, and then the SAS turn up in your country, and you turn round to everyone else and say:

What? that's not fair they can't do that the SAS are too good to bring to a war... that shouldn't be allowed, they're too good to be allowed in a war they're not playing fair...

Oh, sorry i didn't realise that sending the SAS in wasn't giving you a sporting chance.... or meant this wasn't fun for you... sorry, we'll send in some tanks shall we?

No, no you can't do that we don't have anything that hurts tanks...

Oh, just a few random drunks off the street then? and arm them with Machine Guns...?

Sure that seems like a fair fight.

Ok go on then.

Yeah, that sounds like it happened.

jesusjohn
16-04-2010, 16:41
lol, I to be honest say bring it. I like a challange and mainly run an allcommers list that dosn't have much AT. I'd actualy like to face that list as it seems like a bit of a glass hammer.

Badger[Fr]
16-04-2010, 17:16
To be fair, 750 point tournaments aren't even remotely balanced, contrary to 1500+ games. Do not expect interesting games without comp.

Inquisitor_Tolheim
16-04-2010, 17:27
The two land raiders is a bit much, but at the same time, a couple meltaguns will put a stop to that quickly. If you expect this sort of thing, just roll with it and counter like for like. For the same points, with IG, I could field 3 chimeras with 10 meltaguns and 2 Vendettas with some points to spare. I know what would win that firefight, and it's not the Land Raiders.

A CSM list like that is a real one-trick pony, with a severely limited model count.

As usual, Vaktathi is dead on the money.

These kind of lists look a LOT scarier on paper then they are on the tabletop, so long as you are properly prepared. He has all of ten space marines for scoring units. With no composition or sportsmanship scores, you can be sure there will be several of these deathstar armies showing up to play. Grab the toughest build you can, tailored to blow the big units into little bits at the first opportunity, and teach the buggers why it's a bad idea to fill your entire points out with expensive gimmicks.

EDIT: Since I'm late to the party (shame on me)...

If you enter a tournament, you give tacit consent. At any time you can, of course, refuse to play. It's called forfeiture and is not unique to 40k games.

Zweischneid
16-04-2010, 17:33
Where did I say anything about the character? According to you "THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE" is that you have to have fun when playing against anyone. It is more important than the fact that turns have phases, that S4 does not mean S20, that infantry does not move 400000" and so on. .


Not according to me. According to the 40k rulebook published by GW in 2008. Page 2 of the rule section to be exact.

Pushkin
16-04-2010, 18:56
i don't understand what the problem is with this list, i know it's a bit wierd but is the argument that its too hard to beat?

Whilst i've never played against*this* list, i imagine a hlf decent player with an all comers list should be able to beat it right? Or is there something i'm not getting?

Surely the low model count makes it easy to beat? i imagine the deployment is with the marines in the 'raiders so just three models?

Just out of interest did the OP beat this guy?

Ozendorph
16-04-2010, 19:11
It's up to the tournament organizers to convey the spirit of the event to the players. This can be done through wording in the fliers, and in the tournament rules. If the organizers say "no restrictions, no soft-scores, just bring an army and fight!" that's exactly what you're going to get.

Nurglitch_PS
16-04-2010, 19:49
Not according to me. According to the 40k rulebook published by GW in 2008. Page 2 of the rule section to be exact.

OK, I've had enough :D

Listen - just sign up to any tourney. Tell the judges there is a rule that allows you to reject any opponents army list until you are satisfied that the list represents no threat to you. And that if the opponent doesn't change his list to suit you, you win. Just go on and do this. It will be fun, you'll see.

Vlad Urkana
16-04-2010, 20:21
If they do not say so however, than I assume "THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE" applies, thus my oppent needs my consent for fielding his army (and vice versa). If I withhold my consent feeling I won't enjoy the game, than he cannot play. RAW.

Fine you can do that; it's called conceding.

CrownAxe
16-04-2010, 20:25
It's a tournament

Your suppose to try and win

massey
16-04-2010, 20:35
"A couple" in casual conversation is often simply used to mean a small number, not literally two all the time.


THANK YOU!!!

I'm glad someone else understands this. :)

Nezalhualixtlan
16-04-2010, 21:01
If you showed up to a 750pt tournament and your opponents list was a Winged Daemon Prince with warptime, two 5 man CSM squads, and two land raiders how would you feel? Is that going a bit too far?

As long as I was free to field whatever MCs I wanted in a legal list and knew it was a restriction-less low point tournament going into it? I wouldn't care.

Lord-Caerolion
17-04-2010, 09:53
I do not need to comprehend or prove anything. I just apply the rule from the 40k rulebook, page 2 of the rules section. It is even clearly labelled as "THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE"! Hard to miss, is it?

If that tourney, competitive or not, happens to be a 40k tourney, than the p.2 rule from the 40k rulebook applies. 40k game = 40k rules. Simple as that. If it is a failure on my part that I apply the rules, then so be it.

Also, if the tourney doesn't allow people to change things by agreement, the tourney is violating 40k rules and should thus not be allowed to advertise itself using GW trademarks.

As others have said, when you enter a tournament, you give consent to play against all lists the opponent brings, if said lists are within the tournament rules. You can indeed choose not to play against a specific player, it's called forfeiting. This in no way violates this Most Important Rule.

What you seem to have trouble accepting is that others can find competetive play fun. This is why this rule isn't enforced as draconically as you may want it to. After all, define fun.
You want your 40k games to be casual affairs, I'm assuming. Others, like those who often play at tournaments, often prefer their games to be hard and challenging, and have fun doing so. Using your logic, these tournament players are perfectly within their rights to have you change your list to a tournament-ready list, rather than a casual one.

Simo429
17-04-2010, 10:46
Do I realistically expect a 40k tournament to adhere to 40k rules, not least of which is "THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE". Yes I do.

I think there's even legal regulation by GW that if you have a tourney using GW trademarks like "Warhammer 40k" or "Space Marines", you have to do it by the rulebooks, though with certain exceptions clearly stated. As I noted above, most tourneys do exclude this. But if they don't, and if some freak escalates the situation, than I would be willing to insist on this, yes.

this lads a stuck record

the most important rule isnt even a rule its a suggestion as I see it no one is going to throw you out of a game if you arent having fun

akinokurisu
17-04-2010, 14:03
The way I would handle this is:

a) Is the force legal game-wise?

b) Are we all having fun?

If the answer to either question is 'no' then we have an issue.

massey
17-04-2010, 14:41
A 750 point tournament isn't going to be anywhere near balanced. I think the game starts to fall apart once you go under 1000. Still, tournaments like these are often fun to see precisely because of all the cheese. It's stupid and cheesy and fun. His Demon Prince/2 Land Raiders list can run up against Bob's 100+ ork boy list, or Johnny's 20 Dark Lance list, or Mike's 9 Attack Bikes w/ multimeltas list. It's just not serious.

Morgrad
17-04-2010, 16:44
The golden rule of 40k means that YOU have an obligation to smile, be polite, and enjoy yourself when you play a game so as not to ruin the gaming experience of your opponent. It is a code of conduct for YOU to live up to, not a hammer with which to beat on your opponent because he does x, y, or z with his army list.