Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

First off I am not unfamiliar with running tournaments as well as judging I have judge MTG tournaments as well as most GW products even including a ADHOC Space Hulk and Warhammer Quest tourney at the store I managed.

Something that has always bothered me by GW is that they do not support a National Tournament scene with no player rankings ; and actually very little actual support considering that their largest tournament Ardboyz is a few years old and still does not exactly incite Fervor in the community due to its sometimes very piss poor implementation.

So what would go into a successful National Tournament scene?


The first fundamentals I feel are the following

1. A consistant ruling on misunderstood and/ faq revisions that is across the board used at all tournaments.

2. A set format as well as mission and tournament structure usage; IE 1500 to 2000 would be a " Normal Tournament.

3. A actual qualification level entry of Judges that would have some certification or passed some examination by GW in either personality and knowledge of rules.

4. A rankings system that is easily updateable. That shows who are the " #1 etc.. regionally".



So discuss.

I would love to see such a thing. In fact, the SCGWL has been considering doing a west coast circut of sorts, unifying the ratings from the tournaments out there. The fact of the matter is that it is probably a practical impossibility, unless done by GW itself. The main reason being, getting a bunch of isolated strong willed gaming cliques to agree to one standard on anything is like getting five people from different regions to agree on politics; not likely to happen.

I do think that the judge certification idea has some serious merrit, though. It is something that MtG used to do and could be done easily by GW, as a form of quality control. It would have to encompass more than just rules knowledge, but also the needed social skills to prod a hall full of smelly gamers to get their games done in a timely manner with a minimum of conflict.

The way to restrict player "stacking" is that Independent shops are not allowed to have more than 1 sanctioned tournament a month.

You list yourself regionally ; you do not get listed Nationally unless you play at different stores etc...

So players would actually have 3 scores

Locally IE their city
Regionaly multistate
Nationally


Players with Rankings could be allowed to rank only tournaments at Gamesworkshop events or Conventions that meet aproval for rankings with a set prize amount and no entry fee.


This way it encourages players to travel to other locales IE stores to play in order to rank Regionally and nationally.

GW could easily support prize support similar to "friday " night magic with Figures only availabe with "credits" earned through ranking points.

IE I have 235 GW tournament points and I get lets call them GW Eagles ; well I get 23 EAGLES;

That special edition figure or out of print figure is 20 GW Eagles and I am able to purchase it.

So while it rewards playing in tournaments overall it also awards getting first place etc.. in that you win prizes in addition to your Eagle points.

The one problem with your system is that you're asking GW to spend time and/or effort, and they're not going to like that.

Sidstyler wrote:The one problem with your system is that you're asking GW to spend time and/or effort, and they're not going to like that.

Yes promoting their hobby so they actually make a profit would be terrible.

The problem with GW is they want us to paint and model our little dolls. Playing the game is just something extra that some people enjoy.

GW hasn't figured out yet that its the tournament crowd that really drives the hobby. Take a look at any other hobby. They succeed because of the tournament/competitive scene.

GW hasn't figured this out yet, and until they do, there isn't going ever be a quality national competition for either warhammer game.

Basically its a race between GW figuring this out and GW folding. (I personally would bet on the latter.)

Yes promoting their hobby so they actually make a profit would be terrible.

All I'm saying is that they won't do that because it costs money, and it would mean more work.

Considering they can't even put for the effort to make their own Games Days exciting events worth attending I don't see them caring much about the tournament scene, which according to Jervis anyway is not how the hobby was meant to be enjoyed. YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!

I think a lot of problems also come from the leadership at GW and specifically CEOs that view the company a a normal business with no background in running other Hobby Gaming industries.


It's unfortunate but I will say that I see Hasbro buying GW in the next 3 to 5 years.

Why don't the large indie GTs come together and form some large sanctioning body. Don't see why the players themselves couldn't organize. Its gotta start somewhere.

I used to play Magic competitively and always loved the dedication to the tourney scene that Wizards had. Needless to say I am disappointed with the organization of the GW events. The previous posters hit it on the nose, GW runs a crappy event. Ard Boyz and the Games Day evens are barely worth attending, I usually get more excited for my local store tourney.

A national system for tournaments would take this from a hobby to an obsession for me, and while that might not be great for my sanity, it would be great for GWs profits. I'm sure that there are many out there who feel the same. A regional and national ranking system like the one with Magic would be a godsend.

I like the OP's idea for separate regional/national rankings, as well as the limit on official events. It seems to me that it would be a fairly simple process, at least the logistics of points for a win/loss, keeping track of it on a database...etc. the tough part would be in regulating the venues and formats for the tourneys. A system of certification for holding 'official' tournaments, as well as getting certification for judges would be crucial. As said before GW needs to standardize FAQs and rulings for ALL tournaments, rather than keeping its customers in a fog as it seems to like to do.

Now that I'm considering the possibility of a standardized and legitimate tournament scene, I almost feel moved to get off my ass and try to do something. Perhaps if enough 40kers voiced this opinion to GW, something would be done? eh, probably not....

The HASBRO comment chilled me to my core. That would end 40k.

Timmah wrote:
The problem with GW is they want us to paint and model our little dolls. Playing the game is just something extra that some people enjoy.

GW hasn't figured out yet that its the tournament crowd that really drives the hobby. Take a look at any other hobby. They succeed because of the tournament/competitive scene.

Right... I'm sure their market research is completely and utterly inept. I'm sure that it's the tournament crowd that made baneblades and stompas super-big sellers.

Take a look at any other hobby...

Ok, I'll take a look at three;

1) Model Railroads: Yeah, the tournament scene drives that...
2) Model Airplanes: Sure, there are tournaments, but no one cares...
3) Dungeons & Dragons: Yup, another hobby that's totally tournament driven...

Hey, I like a tournament as much as the next guy, but keep things in perspective. It ISN'T tournament players that drive hobbies. Even WotC admits that the tournament player is the minority - even as they support a tournament scene. I'm not saying that we couldn't use a better tournament scene, but it isn't nearly as important to the hobby as you think it is.

I think Hasbro owns 80 percent of Hobby games / Board Games / RPG games; They own DND.

Hasbro buying GW is not far fetched AT ALL.

There was actually a huge bidding war between Hasbro and Microsoft when FAFSA went under to buy Mechwarrior etc..

Hasbro though understands GAMES. its a GAME company and toy manufacturer


They support Wizards of Coast pretty well too. I mean really DnD etc.. is doing excellent MTG is still incredibly Strong.
The reason though MTG is strong is it has HUGE support for its community; tournaments ; special events; special editons.

Oh here is a list of Hasbro subsidiaries

* Avalon Hill (an imprint of Wizards of the Coast, see below)
* Claster Television
* Coleco
* Galoob
* Kenner
* Maisto
* Milton Bradley
* Parker Brothers
* Playskool
* Selchow and Righter
* Tiger Electronics
* Tonka
* Wizards of the Coast
* Wrebbit



MTG is a fantastic example of a gaming company that did a ton of right things at the beginning and have really made the bucks over it.

Honestly, Hasbro buying out Warhammer and 40k would do wonders for the hobby.

As far as tournament players driving the hobby:

Yes, they are a minority. However they constantly push for the best lists and best units. And that forms a national meta game (much like MTG) which in turn makes players push towards creating lists like theirs. (even if they aren't big time tournament players they still want to compete.)

The tournament players make the hobby competitive, they drive sales of certain things, depending on what is the flavor of the week.

So in fact tournaments do drive hobbies.

Model trains/planes ect do not have a competition inside of them. They are not a good refence for how a completely different hobby is driven.

(btw having a job high up in a company doesn't make you smart. It usually just means you have connections/friends at the top.)

Hollismason wrote:I think Hasbro owns 80 percent of Hobby games / Board Games / RPG games; They own DND.

Hasbro buying GW is not far fetched AT ALL.

There was actually a huge bidding war between Hasbro and Microsoft when FAFSA went under to buy Mechwarrior etc..

Hasbro though understands GAMES. its a GAME company and toy manufacturer


They support Wizards of Coast pretty well too. I mean really DnD etc.. is doing excellent MTG is still incredibly Strong.
The reason though MTG is strong is it has HUGE support for its community; tournaments ; special events; special editons.

Oh here is a list of Hasbro subsidiaries

* Avalon Hill (an imprint of Wizards of the Coast, see below)


* Claster Television
* Coleco
* Galoob
* Kenner
* Maisto
* Milton Bradley
* Parker Brothers
* Playskool
* Selchow and Righter
* Tiger Electronics
* Tonka
* Wizards of the Coast
* Wrebbit



MTG is a fantastic example of a gaming company that did a ton of right things at the beginning and have really made the bucks over it.

Have you playe D&D V4? It is terrible, don't waste your time or money playing it.

My local store/stores(there are 3, one in each city near by) has this exact system actually. There is a plaque on the wall in the shape of a triangle. On the triangle are hooks with players names. It is to see who is best in the store. It cost like ten dollars to enter and that puts you on the bottom of the triangle. You go to the stores website/forum to organzie games against people in your level or a level above you. If you beat someone who is above you, switch places. Its pretty simple and can lead to very good gams.

I know this is a much smaller scale than a national tourament scene, but it is do able.

I think the eye of terror campaign tracked wins and losses of armies to "figure out the storyline", something like that. So i wouldn't be to hard to track top players.

GW would need to rank the top 100 players based on GT or 'ard boyz and only track the top 100. Then hold certain touraments, where the prize is an invite to private or closed tournament where you play ranked players. It is possible and would be that hard. I just don't know who would spend the time to make a simple forum and then rank people.

The main problem is that not all the armies or equally ~ in the sense that not all codex are written for this edition.

Tournament play is a huge part of hobbies ; if GW supported tournaments they would ultimately make more money.

Look at sales of MTG and compare it to when they did not have a tourney organization.

They see tons of product moved etc..

Granted no they are not the same game wise and some armies are considerably stronger but I think that it would benefit GW sales if they increased Tournament support.


It was also interest other people who are interested in the comptetiveness of tourney play.

In order to have a true national ranking system it would require GW to have people simply to keep up with events/rankings in each region. Not gonna happen. These would all end up having to be listed by individual store managers, and not GW rankings employees. This allows for the possibility of mistakes and/or cheating in the rankings by the store managers. That is if the store management even wants the hassle of doing the extra work. Even if they did I think it would be a nightmare when the rankings were different in 10 or more different locations as people failed to update them, or were just not informed of new results.

I love tournaments, but I think anything more than Ard Boyz on a national level is pushing it.

I have been pushing for this as well.. with no such luck. Each store owner wants to have full control over every tournament and a lot seem to think they know the rules well enough to judge

What we need are outriders again.. and have them dispatched to local stores to judge events. This would ease the burden off of store owners and they could do what they do best.. MANAGE THE STORE

People just need to agree to disagree on FAQs and use a single unified one.. Not everyone is going to agree on every point, but its important to uphold the rules that are laid out

You may not like D&D V4 but it is far more sucessful than 3.5, had recived near unanimous critical aclaim and has brought large numbers of people who were turned off by 3.5 back to the game. ( Yes me included)

The end result is the bottom line and WOTC has seen a 17% increase in profitability since D&D 4 came out.

Back to the origional point the problem is simply that we can wish for this all we want, but until there is a major change in GW managment it will not happen.

Just read any of Jervis Johnsons Op Ed peices in White Dwarf and the company bias against the competitive gamer is very clear.

So that is why we should try to support the indy cirucit better as it is really the only kind of national program we are likley to get.

You know, the game is a hobby yeah?

So why demand everything be done for you? Sorry to sound like a dick here, but Tournament gamers are in the minority I'm afraid, so any investment made by GW is likely to see a very poor return, if indeed it manages to turn a profit.

Yes, Tournament players like to argue they buy more models/armies to remain competitive (really don't like that term) and yet, without the level of support you demand from GW, you buy to this level anyways??

Well it would also take Indy organizers and volunteers in order to create a tournament structure independent of GW.

You would need stores on board you would also have to figure out how to support the hobby and promote it.

Sure prizes are great but really without some sort of financial backing from GW you would only achieve a ranking system.

Hollismason wrote:
Tournament play is a huge part of hobbies ; if GW supported tournaments they would ultimately make more money.

Again, I like tournaments, but I see no evidence to support your claim.

Look at sales of MTG and compare it to when they did not have a tourney organization.

First of all, M:TG had a tourney organization from nearly day 1. I remember playing in sanctioned DCI tournaments as early as 1994.

Secondly, M:tG grew so fast that they couldn't stock their own product in the early days, and this had nothing to do with tournaments. I remember trying to get ahold of Legends packs and being unable to.

Thirdly, while the tournament scene really forced them to evaluate the rules and balance of the game, I don't think that it's the tournament alone that accounts for it, but rather, the fact that it's a good, balanced game (usually).

Making a 'tournament scene' for WH/40k won't fix the problems with the rules, and without fixing those, any sort of national metagame is simply based on what is powerful.

Finally, and again, they're different beasts. You can play eight different opponents, three games each, at a MtG tournament, in the time it takes to play three games of 40k. In terms of establishing who is a better player/who has a better army, you simply don't have the ability to get enough real data to overcome the effects of luck and matchups in a 40k tournament. Without the ability to play several games against people for an aggregate result (i.e. best 2-of-3, like in M:tG), I don't think that you can hang any prize support of the level of the WotC tournaments on the outcomes of games.

GW realizes it has a problem with its national events; or at least thats what they suggested when they pulled so many tournies this year. IIRC they even opened up a forum website to get our feedback on how to fix the scene.

They seem boring and hardly any news or cool stuff comes about in them if recent GD's are any indication; GW could learn from the likes of Blizzcon and add in some cool stuff for their customers to do and experience...then again Blizzcon is much more expensive?

There is also a fundamental difference twixt Magic and pretty much any Table Top game.

It depends as much upon you skill at building a deck, as it does the right cards coming out in the right combination. The only real limitation is the 4 cards, and having a banned list. Other than that, the game becomes very hard to meta your way to victory. So luck aside, it really does come down to who is the better player. And even including luck, the better player has a greater chance of winning, as they will be more adept at exploiting holes and gaps.

40k and Fantasy however differ somewhat. The books are written as much about interesting theme as potency in the game. Take the Ork Codex. Over your standard minimums, the book is constructed to allow you to field either the Klan of your choosing, or ann amalgamation of Klans. Biker Nobz are pretty powerful as the 'Klanned' units go, so you see a propensity of them in Tournament play. IG also offer the same, with a wide range of options within your basic troops allowing you to field either an entirely mechanised force, 100% foot sloggers, Armoured Columon, or a more elite Infantry Force. Yet in Tournaments, you are likely to see the units declared 'best' and not much else.

The games simply do not lend themselves as well to competitive tournament play as M:TG.

Redbeard wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Tournament play is a huge part of hobbies ; if GW supported tournaments they would ultimately make more money.

Again, I like tournaments, but I see no evidence to support your claim.

Look at sales of MTG and compare it to when they did not have a tourney organization.

First of all, M:TG had a tourney organization from nearly day 1. I remember playing in sanctioned DCI tournaments as early as 1994.

Secondly, M:tG grew so fast that they couldn't stock their own product in the early days, and this had nothing to do with tournaments. I remember trying to get ahold of Legends packs and being unable to.

Thirdly, while the tournament scene really forced them to evaluate the rules and balance of the game, I don't think that it's the tournament alone that accounts for it, but rather, the fact that it's a good, balanced game (usually).

Making a 'tournament scene' for WH/40k won't fix the problems with the rules, and without fixing those, any sort of national metagame is simply based on what is powerful.

Finally, and again, they're different beasts. You can play eight different opponents, three games each, at a MtG tournament, in the time it takes to play three games of 40k. In terms of establishing who is a better player/who has a better army, you simply don't have the ability to get enough real data to overcome the effects of luck and matchups in a 40k tournament. Without the ability to play several games against people for an aggregate result (i.e. best 2-of-3, like in M:tG), I don't think that you can hang any prize support of the level of the WotC tournaments on the outcomes of games.

Here's an example.

With MTG whenever they started supporting a new format in their tournament circuit, sales went through the rough on cards that were staples for that format. Check power cards, when MTG started supporting t1 the power 9 cards more than doubled in price (100-200 to 400+). Believe me, at even the biggest events, there might only be 200 players. Not nearly enough to support the huge jump in sales.

The simple fact is that a good tournament scene does support the hobby. Just because those attending tournaments don't make up the bulk of the sales, doesn't mean they don't drive the hobby.

A Tournament scene is no different in GW's eyes to the Store Scene and non-competitive scene. All of them drive the hobby.

Even as a non-Tourny player, I am not adverse to adding in a surprise new unit or three to my army in order to get one over on a regular opponent.

Apocalypse, an intentionally non-tournament gaming setting drives sales far more than Tournaments ever could. This is a master stroke of marketing, encouraging not only sales of big things, but people to expand their army beyond what they need for regular 40k.

Timmah, you're above example is flawed. You are assuming that the price of the more powerful cards effectively doubled/quadrupled by demand alone. This is not necessarily true, and you have jumped to a conclusion. Those people who attempt to make a living selling single cards, would be able to spot the additional utility of the cards and anticipating demand, put the price up accordingly. Supply and Demand is a strange beast. Sometimes prices rise because of actual demand, other times they rise because of anticipated demand.

bigtmac68 wrote:You may not like D&D V4 but it is far more sucessful than 3.5, had recived near unanimous critical aclaim and has brought large numbers of people who were turned off by 3.5 back to the game. ( Yes me included)

You mean when a new game system came out they made more money?

4th did not sell as well as 3rd. 3rd won the Origins award and 4th did not. The reviews of 4th products have been mixed, ask anyone who used to play in the Forgotten Realms. Actually Pathfinder has gotten more acclaim than 4th.

What's in it for the indie tournament organizers? Attendance is already strong - don't see much additional draw for the effort.

An organized/national FAQ will never be adopted - see the commentary on the Dakka/Adepticon FAQ.
Getting staffing for indie events is hard as it is - putting requirements on the judging staff will only make recruitment more difficult.
Standardized events run contrary to why most folks run an indie GT - everyone wants to do their own thing.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Timmah, you're above example is flawed. You are assuming that the price of the more powerful cards effectively doubled/quadrupled by demand alone. This is not necessarily true, and you have jumped to a conclusion. Those people who attempt to make a living selling single cards, would be able to spot the additional utility of the cards and anticipating demand, put the price up accordingly. Supply and Demand is a strange beast. Sometimes prices rise because of actual demand, other times they rise because of anticipated demand.

Uh, what?

You realize demand for those cards has stayed up. Besides they wouldn't continue to sell for such high prices if the demand wasn't there. Yet they have increased and stayed steady for 5+ years now.


@Ranthecid

Are you talking about the 100 page adepticon faq that breaks half of the basic 40k rules?

Timmah, that is absolute rubbish.

If I and others paid £400 for a single card, exactly what incentive is there for the seller to lower his price? This is the way the market works. The market will charge what the market will bare.

Again you are jumping to convenient conclusions to support an otherwise slightly ropey arguement.

Now I am categorically not saying you are wrong, just that your conclusion drawing is flawed as you don't seem to have taken into account factors which don't support your overall premise.

A high price simply does not always indicate high sales. All it shows is that the product has sold for that price in the past, so they should sell for that price in the future. CCG's and TTG's are far too niche to fit most supply/demand models, as the demand just isn't high enough to fit.

Timmah wrote:
@Ranthecid

Are you talking about the 100 page adepticon faq that breaks half of the basic 40k rules?

No, I'm talking about the 100 page adepticon faq that works to provide a consistent rules interpretation for the game of 40K

Would that Adepticon one be the same as the INAT? The single FAQ compiled from public consultation as to the rules correct interpretation, and offered freely to Tournaments so there is a single unified volume for anyone running a Tourny, saving them time before the event, and a lot of hassle during from knobends attempting to cheat with the cry of 'thats not how we play it'