PDA

View Full Version : 40k Composition Rules?



Compel
09-12-2011, 09:28
I'm coming in to this, with my eyes wide open about the can of worms I'm creating here but, it is something that has been playing on my mind.

To set the scene, my local Gaming Club is an old style British club, which plays a load of systems, everything from Flames of War, War Machine to 40k and Fantasy, with the most popular game system around still being Blood Bowl.

Anyhow, about 6 months ago, a bunch of the usual, very experienced, Fantasy winners decided that since 40k was getting more popular with the newer members of the club (eg me), that they'd have a go at a smallish tournament (40 odd players). Whereas, another group of us went there to play Fantasy as usual.

In short, the tournament pretty much put them off 40k entirely - and it wasn't only because the only real competition they had was who would come home with the wooden spoon.

At the tournament, literally 60 percent of the armies were either Grey Knights or Space Wolves, including one that was titled 'Ultramarine Space Wolves.'

Basically they said, and I had a hard time trying to think of a reason to disagree with them, that this was rubbish, although admittedly, it was a Tau player who won the tournament....

To contrast this, the Fantasy games were pretty even looking, with no single army dominating the shape of the tournament, with most armies and sides being present, with the same armies not looking like clones of the other. - EG, the only thing that I really noticed of remotely the same scale as 40k's issues, was that every High Elf army was led by an archmage.


So, that's a pretty long introduction, but it does outline the 'problem' as I see it.

One of the big differences between the Fantasy tournaments my club members go to and the typical 40k ones I see about, are that most Fantasy Tournaments have composition rules (as opposed to scoring).

Take, for example, the upcoming Lightning Strike (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5957016) Tournament in Bristol.

Rules for the tournament include.

No Teclis, Masque, Fateweaver.
No more than 90 shots per army.
Allowing Look Out Sir rolls for the big nasty spells
Cupped Hands is disallowed
Book of Hoeth is weakened
And others...

This seems pretty typical - a number of other recent tournaments the club have been to have been similar.

In any case, I'm more and more often starting to think that 40k needs something similar if I'm going to entice some players at the club to keep at it, in any case. Has anyone had any experience of some? Or perhaps ideas?

I know this seems like an anathema to many who play 40k, but still I'd like to keep this thread constructive.

Cheers,
Compel

Snowflake
09-12-2011, 10:18
Repeat after me. Comp does not promote diversity in army selection. It's one of the biggest misconceptions about it. It sometimes, arguably, will promote diversity within an army, but will not make new armies suddenly appear.

This is doubly true for a store like yours, where 40k is up and coming. You'll still have 60% GK and SW because that's what the players have. Older players might have an alternate army to play with, the new ones won't. They're not going to go drop hundreds of pounds on a new army if you institute comp.

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk

Bunnahabhain
09-12-2011, 11:49
Make sure you have plenty of space, 25-30% terrain (of varied types), and time to play. A decent variety of mission as well will help.

That should make it as easy as possible for people to bring out their other armies, if they have them.

Comp scoring, on the other hand, doesn't work.

enygma7
09-12-2011, 13:36
I don't share some peoples aversion to comp, in fact I'll only play in a warhammer fantasy tourni if it has some comp in place.

However I agree comp will do nothing to fix the problem in your society. From what you've said the problem isn't with balance issues in the game or codexes, but with the players themselves. The fact that 60% of the people who turned up even own a space wolves or grey knight army implies that they are big on the competetive aspect, since these are generally the go to armies for tournis. The fact a tau player won just emphasises that the problem is with the players, not the game.

Playing with plenty of terrain will help, but ultimately the players need to chill out a bit, pick armies based on factors other than trying to win before the game even starts and stop believing everything they read on the internet in the search for the ultimate easy button win list. That is, unless they want to game in an 'ard boys style competetive environment.

LonelyPath
09-12-2011, 13:39
No Teclis, Masque, Fateweaver.
No more than 90 shots per army.
Allowing Look Out Sir rolls for the big nasty spells
Cupped Hands is disallowed
Book of Hoeth is weakened
And others...

I can understand most of those, but what's wrong with cupping your hands? Can you expand on this at all please?

Snowflake
09-12-2011, 13:44
Yep. This shouldn't turn into a thread about the benefits or downsides to comp. It just won't have any impact on the problem you present. There may be other things you can do to encourage people to pick up new armies, but comp won't do that.

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk

Vaktathi
09-12-2011, 13:55
40k has several important differences from fantasy that make Comp not function in the way that many players think it will.

First, 40k has FoC slots, not %'s. maxing out one's FA FoC slots for instance can mean it forms the bulk of their army or can still be the most minor part of their army, especially as unit sizes and values are often highly variable.

Second, 40k characters are nowhere near as powerful as fantasy characters. Abaddon the Despoiler is arguably the "big" kahuna in terms of storyline bad guys, and he's something most armies can find ways to deal with in most point levels. Archaon on the other hand can walk all over many armies by his onesie. The greatest psyker in 40k is arguably Eldrad Ulthran, a very common choice by Eldar players but again, dealable with in most points levels and isn't going to single-handedly destroy the opponents army. Teclis on the other hand can outright dominate both magic phases and win games by his inclusion. Sure, some 40k characters may have balance issues and the like, no argument, but none of them have anything near the power that many Fanatasy characters can muster.

Third, many 40k armies are designed around being highly diverse. There are lots of FoC swap options and units that fill multiple roles and different units that do different things but fulfill essentially the same role in multiple armies, whereas in Fantasy most units are fairly mono-tasked and there's a very clear separation (usually) from what constitutes an Elite/Special/etc, whereas in 40k one armies Elites may be anothers Troops or anothers Heavy Support.

In general, 40k armies tend to simply have far more variety in unit choice and army selection, and comp simply doesn't work, it often hurts fluffy/less competitive forces than the cutting edge tournament armies, and the tournament lists can always be changed to be just as abusive within new comp guidelines.

Chapters Unwritten
09-12-2011, 14:09
The variety of armies that you see has nothing to do with comp rules. What you're seeing is a side effect of the internet saying how unbeatable both of those armies are (GK and SW). That a Tau player won ought to tell you something about the reality of those statements...

It does suck when there isn't a variety of armies at a tournament but it was one event, you really can't decide the whole length and breadth of this worldwide game is all akin to that, from one localized event. Sounds to me more like your mates wanted a reason to loathe the game and found one to latch onto.

Pyriel
09-12-2011, 14:14
Rules for the tournament include.

No Teclis, Masque, Fateweaver.
No more than 90 shots per army.
Allowing Look Out Sir rolls for the big nasty spells
Cupped Hands is disallowed
Book of Hoeth is weakened
And others...

Cheers,
Compel


O.O
No Teclis?... sure, Teclis would be a no-brainer for HE. but without him, High Elves CANNOT play competitively in 8th ed "blockhammer". they need the magic buffs for resilience, and they need them DESPERATELY. reove the magic buffs somehow, and the whole HE army gets butchered in one turn by any of the best units of the best armies(read: what you will meet in a tournament).
No Masque?... well, there are some points for that. i disagree, but will let it pass.

No more than 90 shots?... really?... some armies FLAT-OUT CANNOT play blockhammer, i repeat. you ruin them completely by nerfing shooting that much.

allowing look out sir for big nasty spells?... so, another boost to the idea of "armies that can esily play melee hordes" by nerfing an aspect(even a different aspect) of magic. geez...

weakened book of hoeth?... combined with banned Teclis, that is equivalent to forcing High Elves to actualy compete for worst armybook.

that and more... and please dont tell me you have a limit to the points cost of each unit, i.e. 450 pts max?... you do realise how that ruins certain armies?...


Tournaments are no place for fluffy games. live with that.

perhaps go play a themed/houseruled campaign. but tournaments are meant to be the "competitive semi-proffessional player's party".the place for the likes of people who play "practice games" and emphasize "saturation/redundancy" over "feel of the army". why ruin it and turn it into Special Olympics? they have rights too.

will you say "40k is not a sport, its a game"? i got news for you: 40k is not a sport or a game. it is whatever the players playing it decide.it can be either!The problem is not 40k-it is the difference between players that wanna go all-out and have a super-tense competitive game that is super-serious, and the other group of players that want to "relax and have some fun with whatever models they want and beers and pretzels". guess what-i would never play a Fantasy comp tournament. (houseruled campaign is another matter; in a campaign we try to relax, but a tournament is dead serious business, all for the prize)


I find it OK when fluffy players talk about campaigns and the likes(even designed a fluffy houseruled campaign myself some time ago). or themed friendly games. or fluff discussions. but i do not think it's right for them to talk about tournaments and just say "the way you play the game is inherently wrong, ours is right".

Chapters Unwritten
09-12-2011, 14:32
40k has a lot more in common with a sport than a game, if you ask me.

I agree that it's not right for anyone to say the way another plays is wrong, and I also happen to agree that it is the fluff motivated community that is most apt to say this about the competitive people.

The more constraints you put on a tournament, the more it is not a tournament anymore.

Vaktathi
09-12-2011, 14:51
What you're seeing is a side effect of the internet saying how unbeatable both of those armies are (GK and SW). That a Tau player won ought to tell you something about the reality of those statements... To be fair, the Tau victory can be the result of matchups. If most of the "power" armies are faced against each other the first round (there are events that go out of their way to ensure this happens), there's a good chance none of them will end up taking it as there will be lots of draws and minor victories, effectively knocking them from top place potential and having many of them fight each other again in the second round with more draws and minor victories, whereas the Tau player may have had a favorable matchup first round and as a result of that may have faced a different subset of opponents, wouldn't be the first time such a thing has happened by any means :p

Commandojimbob
09-12-2011, 15:13
Problem is that you cant force people to collect different armies - but if they own different armies and chose to take their most uber competitive, then you need a way to encourage them to play in a varied way.

I am aware some tournaments dont allow special characters - and in some armies this would force a new way of playing, but not others.

Again, you could simply say, unless it is painted and modelled like Gk or SW, you cant say its SW or GK - being WYSIWYG police to the nth degree. Although for some armies this discourages creativity and could be construde as subjective.

In another forum, for a bit of fun, I challenged people to write a list where you were not allowed to duplicate entries (except you have one troop duplication) - this was to challenge the fact that you can have fun lists that played well, without spamming FOC entries - again a bit of fun but something you could consider to encourage diversity - some people come up with some really good looking lists.

I think that is the best way - try and come up with ways to encourage diversity in armies and lists - making the tournament feel less competitive.

Compel
09-12-2011, 18:25
Having a quick glance down the replies (thanks Jimbob for saying what I was trying to say!) I was wondering if many people read my post or instead just saw the word 'comp' and wrote a generic response.

For example, I never mentioned a store, or going to one... I can barely stand being in a Games Workshop for more than 15 minutes at any one time without the urge rising to, do something unpleasant, to a staffmember for trying to sell me dreadfleet for the 3rd time in in as many minutes. Most of the club feels the same way.

I also specficially said I wasn't talking about comp scoring - eg, giving points to people for playing 'nice' armies, I actually accept that doesn't work.

Of course, any questions about the Lightning Strike (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5957016) tourney, should probably be asked of the Lightning Strike people, I was merely using it as an example (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2f13fsIbVe2ODNhOTJjZTMtMDcwMS00NWRhLWEwY jUtOTQ0Njc2MmQ3OWQy). One that I've seen elsewhere, such as the recent Valhalla tournament in Portsmouth and the Ribble Rumble.



I was thinking of something along the lines of what JimBob was suggesting, an example of which was at 2k. However, thanks Vaktathi, for giving me some extra thought on it.

"No army may take more than 2 (transport?) vehicles of the same type."
Exceptions: Imperial Guard are allowed 3/4 Chimeras, Dark Eldar are allowed 3/4 raiders, Eldar are allowed 3 Wave Serpents.
Variants (eg land raiders, valkyries/vendettas) count as the same type.

This would, on the face of it, mean that alternatives would need to be looked for for the Razorback Spam Grey Knights/Blood Angels / Space Wolves armies, it'd also cut down on Vendetta spam and put the brakes on Melta Vets. though it admittedly, wouldn't do anything about Hydra's or autocannon dreads.

As for the Tau player, I believe he drew in his first game, then proceeded to win all the rest.

IcedCrow
09-12-2011, 18:28
The fact that there can be tournaments that cater to different mindsets should be seen as a good thing, not a bad thing.

Uncomped no holds barred pretending you are a professional warhammer player is good to have, just as comped tournaments that make the internet wizdom listz illegal and force some variety are also good.

I don't see a problem with either. If you don't like one or the other, simply don't go to it. Bashing on it is kind of silly.

Chapters Unwritten
09-12-2011, 18:40
If you want to really blow people's minds, have a tournament with no transports allowed at all.

Snowflake
09-12-2011, 18:45
Nothing in that comp will solve your problem, though. From the way you phrased your op, your problem seems to be that you're unhappy that 60% of the armies that showed up were SW and GK. No realistic comp is going to change that, people wil still bring the army that they have, since not many players have the luxury of multiple armies.

Now if that is not your problem, and your problem is just lack of diversity in the LISTS, then decent comp can have an effect there, which is a discussion for another thread.

Again, though, that doesn't seem to be the problem.

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk

Compel
09-12-2011, 18:56
Well, those specific players were at that tournament, who'll I'll probably never see again... So, if that's what you think the issue was, then I was probably unclear.

Personally I, and my club members, saw the Space Wolves, Grey Knights predominance as a symptom of the greater issue, which is, as you say a lack of diversity in the lists which was also the armies chosen...

I think Icedcrow hit the nail on the head a little bit as well. Fantasy has a clear market for the kind of tournament I'm talking about and, I think, 40k would too but I have no idea what sort of rules could be used in one, hence well, this thread :)

althathir
09-12-2011, 18:56
Having a quick glance down the replies (thanks Jimbob for saying what I was trying to say!) I was wondering if many people read my post or instead just saw the word 'comp' and wrote a generic response.

For example, I never mentioned a store, or going to one... I can barely stand being in a Games Workshop for more than 15 minutes at any one time without the urge rising to, do something unpleasant, to a staffmember for trying to sell me dreadfleet for the 3rd time in in as many minutes. Most of the club feels the same way.

I also specficially said I wasn't talking about comp scoring - eg, giving points to people for playing 'nice' armies, I actually accept that doesn't work.

Of course, any questions about the Lightning Strike (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5957016) tourney, should probably be asked of the Lightning Strike people, I was merely using it as an example (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2f13fsIbVe2ODNhOTJjZTMtMDcwMS00NWRhLWEwY jUtOTQ0Njc2MmQ3OWQy). One that I've seen elsewhere, such as the recent Valhalla tournament in Portsmouth and the Ribble Rumble.



I was thinking of something along the lines of what JimBob was suggesting, an example of which was at 2k. However, thanks Vaktathi, for giving me some extra thought on it.

"No army may take more than 2 (transport?) vehicles of the same type."
Exceptions: Imperial Guard are allowed 3/4 Chimeras, Dark Eldar are allowed 3/4 raiders, Eldar are allowed 3 Wave Serpents.
Variants (eg land raiders, valkyries/vendettas) count as the same type.

This would, on the face of it, mean that alternatives would need to be looked for for the Razorback Spam Grey Knights/Blood Angels / Space Wolves armies, it'd also cut down on Vendetta spam and put the brakes on Melta Vets. though it admittedly, wouldn't do anything about Hydra's or autocannon dreads.

As for the Tau player, I believe he drew in his first game, then proceeded to win all the rest.

There is absolutely no way I would consider bringing my eldar to a tournament with just 3 wave serpents, more so if imp guard gets 3/4 chimeras and probably a couple valkyries (which is enough for six melta vets) same for de getting 3/4 raiders and probably a couple of venoms. Its really hard to make simple guidelines because of how different armies are, those fantasy restrictions are basically not allowing a couple of sc and wargear, transports are a lot more vital to some armies than others so it just pisses people off.

Lord Damocles
09-12-2011, 18:57
I've never seen a 40K comp system which didn't either cause as many problems as it 'solved', or wasn't just bat-poop crazy.


This would, on the face of it, mean that alternatives would need to be looked for for the Razorback Spam Grey Knights/Blood Angels / Space Wolves armies, it'd also cut down on Vendetta spam and put the brakes on Melta Vets. though it admittedly, wouldn't do anything about Hydra's or autocannon dreads.
And there's the problem.

So you stopped Grey Knight Razorback spam. Great. Now everyone will just take tripple Psyfleman Dreads or whatever. You might have solved the original problem, but now you've created another.

You could of course then say no more that one Dreadnought, or whatever, but then people will just take the next best thing, and so on.

You also manage to make armies which were nowhere near as powerful as those razorback spam lists illegal, which is rather unfair on the poor soul running a mechanised Tau cadre or whatever.


I think Bunnahabhain's advice is the best solution. I'd also limit the size of games somewhat. A lower points limit (1500) cuts out quite a few of the lists which just spam the best units over and over (or at least, it makes them less effective). Some armies also scale up far better than other as well (hello Guard!)

Comming down hard on non-WYSIWYG/blatant proxying ('My Space Wolves are just disguised as Ultramarines. Honest') also helps (even if it does require some soft scores).

yabbadabba
09-12-2011, 19:18
I'd put in a shout for soft scores as well, if you want to add extra layers of persuasion. Incorporating peer assessed painting and sportsmanship scores, while open to some abuse if not monitored, also gets people to think of things in a certain direction. Also make sure that the missions are either blind, or designed in such a way as to encourage more balanced army lists.

IcedCrow
09-12-2011, 19:37
Mission comp is my preferred way of doing things.

Missions that reward a balanced army are to me the best way to do things.

Also having missions be random prevents players from trying to game the system.

Some of the best tournaments I have ever experienced used this. No strict comp was enforced but if you min/maxed your army out and drew the missions that focused on your min, you had no one else but yourself to blame.

I know that raises the hackles of some players but understand I'm a player that enjoys a variety of armies, not having to look at the same power builds over and over again, and games decided by some skill and the events at the table, not by the army lists being abused.

Vaktathi
09-12-2011, 20:34
Mission comp is my preferred way of doing things.

Missions that reward a balanced army are to me the best way to do things.

Also having missions be random prevents players from trying to game the system.

Some of the best tournaments I have ever experienced used this. No strict comp was enforced but if you min/maxed your army out and drew the missions that focused on your min, you had no one else but yourself to blame.

I know that raises the hackles of some players but understand I'm a player that enjoys a variety of armies, not having to look at the same power builds over and over again, and games decided by some skill and the events at the table, not by the army lists being abused.The alternate issue here, to play devils advocate, then is that the mission decides the outcome not the players quite often, and often what is designed to counter power builds will hurt many non-power armies as well :p

Vet.Sister
09-12-2011, 23:13
From your initial description, I'd say the glut of Space Marines contributed to the problem. I will also echo that comp scores just don't work well for 40K.
I have a suggestion for you if you don't mind some hard work...
Go to the army list forums here (or on another site) and ask for, read/study "take all comers" army lists for all codeci and the major variants that could be crafted. Try to find at least 2 to 5 major lists per codex. Do your best to ensure that they are legal. Don't run a tournament! Instead run a 'campaign weekend' with a competitive slant. Take all those army lists and print them up. At the beginning of your announcement for interested parties, let everyone know that participants will use one of the pre-made lists (everyone gets to examine the lists beforehand, usually the weekend prior to the event.). Their name will be associated with the exact list they choose. So now everyone knows exactly what everyone is playing and what is in their list! (players may not switch lists) Make sure your tables have 50% terrain while taking care that 25% of the total terrain blocks line of sight. This will go to great lengths to take out all those 'gotcha' moments. Be prepared to make it painfully clear to those who show interested that if they think this is a bad idea, that you'd prefer that they don't participate. Tell them not to waste their time... or yours... or everyone elses. Just an idea. :angel:

enygma7
09-12-2011, 23:18
Mission comp is my preferred way of doing things.


I'd just like to second this. I've seen this idea used to good effect in tournaments I've attended and we've used it ourselves when running our own.

For example, during 4th ed one tournament I played in used the escalation mission (only infantry deploy at the start, all mech units, bikes and jump packs are in reserve). Later in the same tournament they had reverse escalation - all infantry is in reserve! These two missions alone heavily encouraged balanced armies (in particular, static gunlines which were a bit of a problem at the time couldn't do well in reverse escalation).

If the missions are designed well they'll only decide the game if one player has taken an unbalanced army, which is exactly what you are trying to discourage. They should be designed so that a balanced and versatile army can do well at all of them.

I think its best to declare the missions in advance to be fair on the players, or at least declare a range of missions and say a set number of them will be used. By using a range of deployment types, reserve options and kill points/objective missions you can shake things up a bit.

I'd recommend having a look through battle missions for inspiration. I'm liking the idea of things that adjust kill points (e.g. troops are worth 1, elites/heavy support/fast attack are worth 2, HQs 3, or units and transports are worth 1 each or a total of 3 if you bag both), adjust deployment (certain unit types MUST be in reserve or MUST be deployed at the start) and adjust win conditions.

This won't really do much to stop everyone playing space wolves/grey knights though. Pretty much all you can do there is to restrict the number of entries per faction but that's very unfair on entrants, especially those without an alternative option.

Oguleth
09-12-2011, 23:33
Sounds like you had a MEQ overdose... And unless you comp it so there is a limited amount of MEQ slots in the tournament, that problem will not go away.

Also, missions that messes up the usual routine (so that you have to think about other things than how to handle scoring the objectives OR deal with KP), often result in making people have to tweak lists a little. And is a bit more fun than "sorry, you can't use your stuff in our tournament".

yabbadabba
10-12-2011, 00:17
Sounds like you had a MEQ overdose... And unless you comp it so there is a limited amount of MEQ slots in the tournament, that problem will not go away.If those are the armies people want to play with then that isn't the problem. Those particular problems tend to be self regulating.

RandomThoughts
10-12-2011, 10:08
°My take: Don't play tournaments, play with a close circle of friends. That is essentially what I'm doing. Sometimes I get bored playing the same armies all over again and again, but we try to mix it up from time to time with unusual scenarios, restrictions on army composition and similar stuff. It also really helps that I play two game systems - if one starts feeling bland, I switch to the other for a while. (The only thing drawing me back to 40K these days, though, are some friends who only play this system and my love for some of my Eldar models...)

Aluinn
10-12-2011, 12:54
I just wanted to back up Damocles in suggesting that you play at 1,500 points. IME this is the best "comp" system for 40K, with the bonus that no one feels particularly picked on by it, for the most part.

I've noted that the most abusive netlists tend to be, at a bare minimum, 1,750 points, and are more often 2,000 or higher, and I don't think this is due primarily to most tournaments simply happening to be played at those levels, but rather to the fact that they need that many points in order to start getting truly abusive. In fact, I think the rising "standard" for tournament points levels is largely attributable to tournament players who want to build abusive lists--though of course people wanting to use most of their model collection in games or with a simple "bigger is better!" mentality also have something to do with it.

At 1,500 points, a lot of the spam you see at higher levels simply cannot happen in that it doesn't rise to the level of spam, and, moreover, what spam there can be at 1,500 often precludes taking the "ace in the hole" unit or combination of units that ties everything together. For example, you can certainly spam lots of Razorbacks at 1,500, but you probably can't also bring along a Land Raider full of Assault Terminators plus a character, or Thunderwolves, or whatever if you do so. You can take so many Chimeras that your opponents will universally struggle to deal with them, but then you have to leave out either Vendettas or Manticores/Hydras, etc.

In other words, spam isn't the problem, any more than deathstars or whatever, but spam plus is a problem. Some dude throwing down 12 Chimeras and going "herpderp u can't dealz wit deez" isn't so awful if that's all they've really got. It's when they also have a bunch of really heavy firepower coming at you that it becomes horrible. 1,500 points gets rid of almost all the "spam plus" armies.

Imagine the typical Purifier spam GK list: Crowe, Librarian, spammed Purifiers in Rhinos, 3 Psyflemen. Now strip away the Librarian and two of those Pysfleman Dreads; it's really not so scary anymore. If they go the other way and drop Purifiers, then Crowe is really just wasted and they have a deficiency of scoring units, and, again, it isn't so scary.

Arhalius
10-12-2011, 18:31
Whoever was playing as the Ultramarine Space Wolves should have been banned or had his models crushed. Unless the player had a decent reason Ultramarines where now Space Wolves ( of which there is none) i would not allow him to compete in the tourny.
In fact dont let anyone without fully painted and based models play. This would stop little kids changing thier codex every ****** week, and also unpainted models look awful on the tabletop.
You could even give points for best painted army or best homebrew colour scheme. Just to take the hyper competitive edge off the tourny.

yabbadabba
10-12-2011, 20:11
Whoever was playing as the Ultramarine Space Wolves should have been banned or had his models crushed. Unless the player had a decent reason Ultramarines where now Space Wolves ( of which there is none) i would not allow him to compete in the tourny.
In fact dont let anyone without fully painted and based models play. This would stop little kids changing thier codex every ****** week, and also unpainted models look awful on the tabletop. I can't agree with any of this.

You could even give points for best painted army or best homebrew colour scheme. Just to take the hyper competitive edge off the tourny.Soft scores are always good for toning down tournaments.

Arhalius
10-12-2011, 20:28
I can't agree with any of this.

So you think unpainted models look good on the tabletop? Nothing pisses me off more in this hobby then facing off against rows of grey plastic. Even worse are the divs who can't be bothered to put their models together properly.
Everyone should be encouraged to paint their armies, its far more immersive and cinematic.

yabbadabba
10-12-2011, 20:42
So you think unpainted models look good on the tabletop? Nothing pisses me off more in this hobby then facing off against rows of grey plastic. Even worse are the divs who can't be bothered to put their models together properly.
Everyone should be encouraged to paint their armies, its far more immersive and cinematic. Its an attitude I don't agree especially with having met plenty of great wargamers who cannot paint for various reasons. Now there is nothing wrong with a TO wanting his tournament to reflect a certain angle of the hobby, but the attitude that somehow that makes a person a better hobbyist is entirely elitist and there for exclusive.

I've seen many tournaments get started by allowing unpainted armies, unpainted scenery and incomplete models just to get going and get a positive community built, on the clear understanding that the following year the rules might change. Nothing wrong with it at all.

Arhalius
10-12-2011, 23:10
I do agree with most of what you said by i will just say nowadays it's easier then ever to paint to a tabletop standard. Even a total novice can get decent results by using army painter primers and a simple colour scheme.
I admit i am being an elitist but i do like to see two fully painted armies with nice terrain. It just adds so much more to the game.

madival
10-12-2011, 23:30
@ arhalius- The Mighty morphing power armor armies has gotten annoying at tournaments, but baning someone for an army that is wysiwyg is kind of absurd. You couldn't claim any conversions for any xenos stuff if that was the case.

Also, not playing a fully painted and based army is understandable if someone brings an army every single time they come to play, but if someone is honestly trying to build an army to a table top standard, you can at least be a little forgiving. It honestly sounds like you don't particularly care for the gaming aspect of warhammer in general.

Arhalius
10-12-2011, 23:39
I love the gaming aspect of the hobby, which is why i like to see fully painted armies on the tabletop as it improves the game.
And when i was talking about banning the guy for having Ultramarines Space Wolves, yes maybe i was harsh but this dex flipping really grinds my gears so sorry if i offended anyone. But as for conversions i would not ban them i love that kind of stuff, sames with counts as. My chapter master is a counts as Vulkan so i have no problem with that kind of thing.

madival
10-12-2011, 23:41
I just hate that people would jump on an army to win tournaments. I played old necrons and now people are band wagoning on them. It is kinda lame.

enygma7
11-12-2011, 00:20
I just wanted to back up Damocles in suggesting that you play at 1,500 points.

Definitely. By the time you've picked up everything you need to be able to deal with all comers there really are limits to how much you can spam. 1500pts high terrain density makes for the best games in my view! Also, a plain gentlemans agreement that you don't spam can go a long way.

I can't agree with Arhalius about banning unpainted stuff though even if I agree that fully painted armies add a lot to the game. I love painting (I'm a professional figure painter and golden daemon finalist) but it does take me a looong time to paint an army. If unpainted armies were banned I'd literally not have been able to play for years. Playing with a partially painted army is what motivates me to get it fully painted :) Also, there are plenty of people who have trouble finding time to paint due to jobs and having a life (and, yes, painting maybe not being a top priority) and some people simply don't enjoy it and just want to play the game. Who am I to tell them they are enjoying the hobby wrong?

It can be fun to play "slow build" campaigns though where you have lots of people starting new armies. Painted models only and slowely increase the points each month, starting at kill team and working up to a full army. Now I have fully painted armies I don't like to use new additions or new armies until they are painted though.

Arhalius
11-12-2011, 00:47
How about if fully painted armies got 10 % extra points at the end of the tourny? What would you think of that, it would encourage people to paint and give a little reward for the players with painted armies.

enygma7
11-12-2011, 01:15
I like soft scores and think points for sportsmanship, painting etc. make for a better tournament by encouraging a more rounded approach to the hobby. Tournaments I've gone to normally have a balance of 5 games with painting and sportsmanship being worth the equivilant of 1 game each. It also helps if around half of the painting points are achievable regardless of ability - i.e. simply for having a fully painted and assembled WYSIWYG army, since the aim is to encourage people to make an effort, not be a painting competetion.

Just before someone objects, I can see painting scores might not be right for 'ard boyz style tournaments where the emphasis is on pure competetion, but there is more than one kind of tournament and it sounds like the OP wants the softer kind.

Chapters Unwritten
11-12-2011, 05:10
I do agree with most of what you said by i will just say nowadays it's easier then ever to paint to a tabletop standard. Even a total novice can get decent results by using army painter primers and a simple colour scheme.
I admit i am being an elitist but i do like to see two fully painted armies with nice terrain. It just adds so much more to the game.Hate to break it to you my irritable friend, but part of the reason the OP had the problem he did is BECAUSE the two armies in question are stupid easy to paint.

If you use SM and not SW models, spray paint blue grey and wash...done. Grey Knights around my way are called "The Krylon Knights"...give you three guesses why.

Your elitist approach would solve nothing in this case.

I agree that tournaments should be fully painted models, but if you think that is going to stop much, sorry - it won't.

I think a much better suggestion for everyone involved is to simply accept that this is the internet's fault; all of those players use those armies because websites like this one are constantly pratlling on about how no one has even a hope once they hit the table. This isn't true in the slightest but that is the overarching image that has been portrayed of these forces.

Charistoph
11-12-2011, 05:37
My own LGS has a different approach to this. We usually have 2 40K tournaments a month, one is a standard 1750 affair, while the other takes a different approach, and is usually a little softer in points. For example, 1000 points FOC requirement is 3 Elites, that's it, no HQ or Troops are required. That was last month, last week it was 1000 points and must bring 3 Fast Attack. New Year's Eve, they're planning a Mega Battle where everyone brings 1500 points and they fight through New Year's.

The owner and employees/organizers are also very good about not encouraging jerks, a-holes, and other detritus to stay and pollute the atmosphere. Do we have a lot of Space Wolf and Grey Knight players? Yes. But we have 3 Chaos players (not including the employees) besides myself, at least 2 Tau players, 1 player who's building the Ultramarines Chapter (yes, CHAPTER), and a Salamanders player (great looking army with Lizardmen gear and scaly shoulderpads). That also doesn't include the 2-3 Dark Eldar players, an Eldar Player, and a die-hard Undead player that mixes Tomb Kings in with his Necron army (trust me, it looks awesome). We actually managed to collect a rather diverse group at our club, with no one complaining much.

I guess the trick is to encourage the atmosphere of alternatives and suggest people try new things out. Hard to do with a group that is starting out new, but there are ways to do it.

Arhalius
11-12-2011, 13:36
I would like to apologise for my tone in this thread last night. Just re reading my posts today and noticed how angry i must have looked.

Bunnahabhain
11-12-2011, 13:47
As ever, the problem with soft scores and tournaments...

If you want painted armies, simply make it a condition of entry.

OR

Award two ( or more) prizes.
1)i) Best General. done purely on results
ii) Best Painted
iii) Best sportsman
iv) Whatever other soft score you want

2) Tournament winner. Done on Results Plus soft scores

Keeps it open, but rewards people who paint,are sociable, etc. The hard core WAAC players, if they enter, can simply ignore the soft score if they like as they know, for them, only the results matter.

Snowflake
11-12-2011, 17:00
Hate to break it to you my irritable friend, but part of the reason the OP had the problem he did is BECAUSE the two armies in question are stupid easy to paint.

If you use SM and not SW models, spray paint blue grey and wash...done. Grey Knights around my way are called "The Krylon Knights"...give you three guesses why.


Hold on a sec, are you saying that you're allowing people to use normal SM as Grey Knights? Sorry, but that's insane. It's perfectly acceptable to interchange chapters, since many of the SW, BA, etc units don't actually have their own models. You pretty much have to use vanilla SM's to construct most of the army.

But seriously, Grey Knights are NOT normal SM's. Their model range is completely distinct, except for the vehicles. If you're allowing people to use vanilla SM's for Grey Knights for anything other than a quick playtest, then gee, three guesses why you may have a glut of GK's.

zerodemon
12-12-2011, 16:10
This is what we do in our house rules set.

Special Characters are disallowed. Army wide special rules such as Hestan's and Lysander's/Kantor's are paid for on a per unit basis (we float between 1-3 points per model generally) and can only be taken by the correct armies, ie only Salamanders armies can get the T. Hammer, flame weapon perk.
Ban on arguably game breaking units (Done to death, I know, but Purifiers? Come on.)
We play Cityfight exclusively to increase tactical diversity.

You can't avoid the "flavour of the week" nature of tournaments. We made sure that armies were all created to be tactically flexible by randomising terrain cover during tournaments, meaning players would be dealing with anything between 20% and 70% terrain cover based on a d6 roll. We have 2 imperial cities and 9 players so terrain is never a problem.

For us, this method of play is the great equaliser. Currently, we find that only Tau armies struggle, but their codex is unforgivably bad. Everyone else comes out about on a par.

Finn
12-12-2011, 17:53
The alternate issue here, to play devils advocate, then is that the mission decides the outcome not the players quite often, and often what is designed to counter power builds will hurt many non-power armies as well :p

I'll play devil's advocate to your devil's advocate!

I like the mission approach as well, and perhaps this is implicit in the support others have for it, but the best reason I have to support it is because it is the most fair/least worst option available for supporting a tournament format that results in the player who had the highest sum of skill and luck winning (because let's be honest, the dynamics of pairings and missions affect each player's placement to a great deal). To me it is the fairest way to conduct a tournament where prizes/funds are involved.

And yes, points levels are also an issue. At 2k, pretty much everyone can build redundancy for everything into their list. 1850 forces some hard choices for that last unit while allowing for some redundancy, though some armies are still able to build comparable levels of redundancy into their lists (SW, GK, IG). If you go even further down (to say 1650 or 1500), these armies are forced to make more hard choices than their opponents (say, Chaos, Eldar, Nids) and it levels the field a bit more.

It's been a long time since I played at 1500, I'm thinking perhaps that should be what I do next.

Final note on points levels: if you vary them every few tournaments, first holding 2-3 at 1850 and then 2-3 at 1500, then maybe even 2-3 at 2000, i think you might find that having to adapt their thinking to different points levels will have a positive effect on the players.

As for soft scores, I like the multiple prize approach. It rewards players who bring fully painted and nicely modeled armies as well as the players who just want to win (which if you're holding a tournament, you kind of just want to win too ;)). Tournaments are about winning games, not overall game + painting + sportsmanship + how long has it been since your opponent showered, and I therefore dislike painting requirements for tournaments in general - though I agree that painted armies should be every player's final goal. Having a supporting prize for soft scores is a great please-all solution.

Bunnahabhain
12-12-2011, 18:19
I agree making entry painting requirement too high is a bad thing.

However, something really basic, such a 3 colour minimum, which only needs to be an undercoat, a couple of bits (face, weapon, that kind of thing) blocked in, (or for necron players, spray, drybrush, and wash...)and the base quickly painted and you have something that looks 100 times better than a sea of grey plastic, and anyone can do it easily enough.

Even the obsessively slow, 12 hrs a basic model, type painters can do this, without compromising their finish.

Finn
12-12-2011, 18:24
It's true, I don't mind tides of grey, as I've only once or twice played against a completely unpainted army. Almost every player will have at least a model or two in each squad, or a full squad or two painted.