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.

No offense, but half the crap in the adepticon faq was a joke. I remember tons of people boycotting it because of that.

Btw, CCGs as big as mtg provide a fine model for supply and demand.

You know why they could increase the prices so high? Because there was such a huge demand for old cards. The supply of them sure didn't change at all.

Either way, the proof is how profitable a company like WOTC is compared to GW. Didn't GW only make an income this year because of currency differences?

That being said, no matter if you agree with me or not, GW must be doing something wrong, because otherwise they would be turning an easy profit considering the ridiculous prices they charge.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
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.

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

Sorry to stray slightly off-topic, but I just wanted to correct this mis-statement. There is very much the concept of "meta your way to victory" in M:TG. The creator of the game actually coined the phrase, "meta-game". Granted its usage and definition has evolved since then, but meta-gaming is a huge part of the M:TG tournament scene.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: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'

Seconded, you beat me to it. The ladz at AC have a better grasp of the rules and tournament structure than the makers of the game. Pity, but good for the fanbase. Paizo did the same thing with D&D 3.5; they LISTENED to the fanbase and came out with the superior Pathfinder product (think of it as 3.75) and it has been flying off the shelves. Just waiting for WotC to pull the OGL on that success like they did to HackMaster. Sorry, back on topic.

Timmah wrote:No offense, but half the crap in the adepticon faq was a joke. I remember tons of people boycotting it because of that.

And this is one of the main problems that GW tournaments face. A bunch of tournament players got together and came up with answers to rules ambiguities. Rather than accept these answers for what they are (a way to have a consistent set of rulings), people focus on the specific issues that they personally disagree with, and throw the whole thing out the window.

I don't agree with all the rulings in the INAT FAQ, however, my gaming club uses it in our friendly games, because some consistent answer is better than no consistent answer, even when one or two of their rulings are pulled from their arses.

That being said, no matter if you agree with me or not, GW must be doing something wrong, because otherwise they would be turning an easy profit considering the ridiculous prices they charge.

Maybe you don't understand the market. Materials cost money. Talented sculptors cost money. When taken as a miniatures company (as opposed to a gaming company) GW offers high quality figures for a price that is not out-of-line with their competitors. It's only when you consider them as a gaming company that comparisons with WotC are even remotely reasonable, and even then, WotC's costs are minimal comparatively.

Yeah I mean I dont agree with the Adepticon FAQ 100% maybe 5% of it I think is just bs, but we still use it as our definitive source.


Speaking of which Adepticon people should just keep updating the FAQ through the year lots of clubs use it.


Anyway back to topic.


How would rankings work out would you be able to submit your own win/ loss ratio?

I was viewing Games played and thought of a interesting way to do it.


Say you play your buddy tim ; now you win and post you won. Tim confirms this but you need a third person to finally confirm.


Now naturally these dont account to ratings in the over all but it would be a nice statistic for players to see.

Timmah wrote: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.

But you had clearly stated:

Timmah wrote: 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.

Thus Redbeard's use of model trains / planes is a good reference. Just points a fallacy in your argument. Don't say "any other" hobby if you don't want people bringing up other hobbies.

And as far as tournament players driving the hobby. You're right, whenever there's a tournament scene a metagame will develop. But, what does this metagame apply to? Tournaments, or for a better term "competitive play". If tournament players are in the minority and a metagame only affects tournaments, how exactly does the formation of a metagame drive most of the hobby?

Tournaments are a social events as well; I think people miss this point. It builds a stronger community of gamers and helps people meet others.

I've met several people that I played against in tournaments and later became friends.

By sponsoring Tournaments GW also sponsors playing their game more the more people play the more interest in products.


It's just a big circle. Also with a system set up so that winning in tournaments even not placing awards you certain amounts of redeemable points towards merchandise etc.

This will naturally lead to people purchasing more or trying different armies etc..

Hollismason wrote:Tournaments are a social events as well; I think people miss this point. It builds a stronger community of gamers and helps people meet others.

I've met several people that I played against in tournaments and later became friends.

By sponsoring Tournaments GW also sponsors playing their game more the more people play the more interest in products.


It's just a big circle. Also with a system set up so that winning in tournaments even not placing awards you certain amounts of redeemable points towards merchandise etc.

This will naturally lead to people purchasing more or trying different armies etc..

Now this I can agree with. I do love tournaments, as I get to meet and play against people that I might not have otherwise. I went to Adepticon 2009 and I've been to the past two Necronomicons. At this years Necro, I even got to play an opponent that I had played the year before. He recognized me first and we had a short little "How's it going?" before we started the game.

I much prefer "hobby tournaments" over 'Ard boyz style tournaments. I find that these tournaments drive the hobby more than an 'Ard Boyz style tournament, simply because it requires participants to take part in all aspects of the hobby. Playing, modelling / painting, and sportsmanship. And yes, I truly believe that sportsmanship is a facet of this overall hobby, considering how the main point of 40k is for both sides to have fun. I can safely say that I've probably lost more games than I've won, but as long as my opponent isn't being disrespectful, I have plenty of fun.

And while a tournament like 'Ard Boyz might drive sales for the "most powerful armies" and the "uber units", it doesn't drive any of the other two facets of the hobby.

Zomro wrote:

Timmah wrote: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.

But you had clearly stated:

Timmah wrote: 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.

Thus Redbeard's use of model trains / planes is a good reference. Just points a fallacy in your argument. Don't say "any other" hobby if you don't want people bringing up other hobbies.

And as far as tournament players driving the hobby. You're right, whenever there's a tournament scene a metagame will develop. But, what does this metagame apply to? Tournaments, or for a better term "competitive play". If tournament players are in the minority and a metagame only affects tournaments, how exactly does the formation of a metagame drive most of the hobby?

Sorry to derail the topic but there are aircraft/car/etc modelers out there that do enter in competitive environments but its strictly painting/modeling events. Definitely not tournament wargaming but a competition nonetheless; also there are surprisingly a decent amount of model publications out there where they showcase such awesome work.

Anything can be a competition if cup stacking has taught us anything.

Competition feeds most hobby industries and helps them acquire more patrons.


I think ultimately that it will be a independent source of GW that creates a National system of ranking.


It's just a matter of laying the ground work ; it would take a huge amount of effort on Dakkadakk or any other sources part to create such a system.


Optimally what you would have is the following.


A set formate of time and point value.

A set rules FAQ.

A website where Independent Retailers are assigned a number and Players list themselves regionall with their profile.

After the tournament the Organizer simply updates under his store profile.

Players are able to update their own profile with personal private games that do not affect "rank".


Websites cost money though so it would take a modest investment as well as a LOT of volunteers to help sign up Independent Retailers.


The thing is with this sort of website tracking tournaments for other games such as Warmachine could also be done fairly easily.

^ Yea such a service could potentially be a website goldmine. SO WHO IS UP FOR THE CHALLENGE!?!

The problem with that is ultimately with nonsupport from GW it will fail as you really cannot have a non prize supported ranking system and expect people to want to be part of it.

It's why prize support is important.

I think the problem with trying to create a national tournament system is that there simply aren't enough people for it. It's hard to create a national system when most people will only play locally. It's easy and practical to have a ranking system for a store or area when people will play each other, not for a national scene where top ranked players may never play each other and face totally different opponents. Not that 40k needs a national competitive system anyway. It's novel idea, but I don't think the support is there for it.

That's why rankings are available for the Local Level and Regional etc..

I think the support is there if people can / harrass / convince Independent Retailers to get on board.

Functions of Website

To provide player profiles ; store profiles.

News source for announcement for Area Tournaments ; Regional Events ; Conventions.

Think of it as a "myspace" for miniature gaming.