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.

So I recently played at my FLGS 1850 40k tournament. Only 9 people show up due to lack anyone knowing.

But I noticed something about the lists people used. 6 of the players had some standard-ish lists. Some sillyness, but not much.

The other 3?

5 Knight Titans

A transcendant Ctan and some other nercon trickery (basically everything good in the book)

5 Flying hive tyrants with 2 tervigons and 2 gaunt units.

I saw a pattern. Your standard 40k players were not these 3, these were your hyper competitive WAAC guys. The Ctan wasn't even real, it was some plastic reaper minis dragon, and yes before you ask the TO allowed it to be a "counts as" because "void dragon"...

I know all 3 of these players are basically super tryhards when it comes to 40k. People don't play them in friendly games, because they are always like this.

Has anyone else had similar experiences? If so, does your local FLGS tournaments make any changes to keep the dumb controlled?

Of note, the nercon player mentioned won, with 2nd place going to a player with pure sisters, and 3rd to myself, with mono-nurgle daemons (no psy powers outside of great unclean one)

You're upset people brought good lists to a tournament and tried to win?

Bringing a good list and wanting to win isn't WAAC. Nor are they not having fun, probably quite the opposite.

Maybe try not judging other players?

I mean, did you even speak to the guy with the guy who had the counts-as C'tan? Maybe he prefers that model and thinks its super fluffy to have a Void Dragon shard or something.

What do you care if the Necron player wanted to do a "counts as"? Personally, I would prefer a dragon to that Dr. Manhattan rip off that GW packaged with that ugly oversized monolith.

What you are describing are tournament-level competitive lists, and you encountered them in their natural habitat... at a tournament. I'm not sure what you were expecting. And besides:

Of note, the nercon player mentioned won, with 2nd place going to a player with pure sisters, and 3rd to myself, with mono-nurgle daemons (no psy powers outside of great unclean one)

...the fluffy did well! Doesn't that count for something?

Honestly, it sounds like you had more of an issue with these players than you had with their tournament lists (as you mentioned, no-one likes playing friendly games against them).

This game isn't meant for tournaments. Tournaments really are something hamfisted onto the ruleset which GW has openly stated they have zero intention of making the game suited for. Unfortunately, the phrase "Tournament" often is seen as license for many to go full-ham, and many stores/clubs haven't caught on to running events that aren't billed as "tournaments", though many are starting to do so and to de-emphasize game results as a major factor in "winning" the event and are putting a greater emphasis on painting and sportsmanship type things (e.g. giving raffle tickets to favorite opponents, etc).

I also want to point out that every list the OP mentions is fluffy.

This nonsense where people equate strong lists with being not fluffy is what drives people away from eachother.

Bringing 5 Knights is incredibly fluffy. Bringing just about any combination of any units from any codex is, by the nature of what a codex represents, fluffy.

 Vaktathi wrote:
This game isn't meant for tournaments.

To be fair, it also isn't meant for "casual" games or narrative games, or any other form of game you can imagine. The game is just something to make you think "wow, that's really cool" when you buy your space marine starter set and overpriced hobby supplies, you aren't supposed to play it.

 Blacksails wrote:

I mean, did you even speak to the guy with the guy who had the counts-as C'tan? Maybe he prefers that model and thinks its super fluffy to have a Void Dragon shard or something.

We all know he's just a powerlisting cheapass, but this was a new low. For reference, the mini is this one, exactly as seen with no paint:

So no one has played in any tournaments with some modifications to the ruleset? I've heard that some places modify the number of allowed detachments, or limit the number of formations, or even outright ban D weapons. I'm looking for feedback in that regard.

It's not fair to judge people just because they didn't pay as much as you did for their shinies.

 juraigamer wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

I mean, did you even speak to the guy with the guy who had the counts-as C'tan? Maybe he prefers that model and thinks its super fluffy to have a Void Dragon shard or something.

We all know he's just a powerlisting cheapass, but this was a new low. For reference, the mini is this one, exactly as seen with no paint:

Spoiler:

So no one has played in any tournaments with some modifications to the ruleset? I've heard that some places modify the number of allowed detachments, or limit the number of formations, or even outright ban D weapons. I'm looking for feedback in that regard.

Well, to his merit, it looks like the model he used is very much larger than the actual model, so he was giving himself a disadvantage. Cheers to the guy for throwing his punches for the sake of $$$

GW is really hurting themselves by having hampered the tournament process so much with throwing everything plus the kitchen sink into normal games. Casual players will happily go about their business, but a significant portion of GW's sales come (or at least came) from the tournament concept- that is, players who actively participate in tournaments, and others who are aspirational. They buy a ton of models, and letting tournaments (particularly the smaller ones) fall into shambles is probably a significant part of the downturn in GW's revenue.

 juraigamer wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

I mean, did you even speak to the guy with the guy who had the counts-as C'tan? Maybe he prefers that model and thinks its super fluffy to have a Void Dragon shard or something.

We all know he's just a powerlisting cheapass, but this was a new low. For reference, the mini is this one, exactly as seen with no paint:

Spoiler:

So no one has played in any tournaments with some modifications to the ruleset? I've heard that some places modify the number of allowed detachments, or limit the number of formations, or even outright ban D weapons. I'm looking for feedback in that regard.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, that model looks better than the official one.

I know nothing about this guy, and judging from your posts on the matter, I feel as though you're quick to judge others based on their lists.

As for your problem and seeking feedback, the best I can offer you is not to play in tournaments. Limiting things, changing limits, or altering the rules will only open the game for a different power list you'll likely equally dislike.

While I don't doubt there are some players who only bring the best lists at some inappropriate times, I can't help but feel part of the problem is with you and judging others too harshly based on their lists. Some people might consider you a Casual at all costs player.

So, you have an event with the entire purpose being to win games of 40k, and then you cry because some of the attendees actually tried to win?

Seriously?

If you want to have a tournament without extreme lists, you need to introduce restrictions. You can't tell people there's a tournament where they can bring whatever they want, and then have a go at them for actually doing it. "Sure, you can bring a Transcendent C'tan! Wait, you actually brought one? You cheesy, beardy WAAC douche! How dare you!?" I mean, come on!

Look into Highlander, the BAO restrictions, NOVA restrictions, Da Boyz comp, or, brace yourself for a radical idea, try talking to the people going about what kind of event you want.

This is somewhat saddening to me because it shows how unbalanced 40k is. A proper game would have things roughly equal so the dude bringing 5 Knights might have each of them really strong... but he only has 5 models so he will have trouble with infantry swarms or holding objectives and the like.

OP, the issue isn't the lists, or wanting to win. The purpose of a game is to win. The issue is that 40k does a horrible job of being a game. If you really try to win, you don't make friends because the way to win is to run cheese because the bad choices are terribly bad and the good choices are amazingly good.

Other games don't have this issue, it's almost entirely a GW/40k problem.

How does one check if a knight player is a WAAC player or something else?

Makumba wrote:
How does one check if a knight player is a WAAC player or something else?

Its just the player. Our FLGS has 4-5 40k players that are only interested in making broken combos, or doing whatever it takes to win.

Basically if you see someone who plays an army list, and not an army, and constantly adjusts it to make it better with no regard to anything else, it's one of those players.

Look into Highlander, the BAO restrictions, NOVA restrictions, Da Boyz comp

That's the info I was looking for. It seems like a few guidelines are necessary so our stores problem 40kers don't make everyone run for the hills every tournament.

 juraigamer wrote:
Our FLGS has 4-5 40k players that are only interested in making broken combos, or doing whatever it takes to win.

Really? So they cheat/rules lawyer/etc? Or by "whatever it takes" do you really mean "they take army lists that I don't approve of"?

Basically if you see someone who plays an army list, and not an army, and constantly adjusts it to make it better with no regard to anything else, it's one of those players.

IOW, anyone who works on improving how well they play the game and doesn't comply with your fluff/model/whatever demands is a WAAC player?

WayneTheGame wrote:
This is somewhat saddening to me because it shows how unbalanced 40k is. A proper game would have things roughly equal so the dude bringing 5 Knights might have each of them really strong... but he only has 5 models so he will have trouble with infantry swarms or holding objectives and the like.

OP, the issue isn't the lists, or wanting to win. The purpose of a game is to win. The issue is that 40k does a horrible job of being a game. If you really try to win, you don't make friends because the way to win is to run cheese because the bad choices are terribly bad and the good choices are amazingly good.

Other games don't have this issue, it's almost entirely a GW/40k problem.

Errr... Other games DO have that problem. Magic the Gathering takes painstaking lengths to be balanced, and there are still things that slip through like skull clamp on the broken side, and dripping dead on the opposite.
You get similar results to 40k when you pick up your finely tuned deck that was meant for attempting pro tour qualifiers, and play some guy's kitchen-counter fluffy tree folk deck. It's typically going to be 99-1 after 100 games.

 Blacksails wrote:
Bringing just about any combination of any units from any codex is, by the nature of what a codex represents, fluffy.

Indeed. It shouldn't even be possible to build a list that isn't "fluffy" if it's actually legal, and if you want to argue otherwise then you're just proving all us "haters" right and agreeing that 40k is an unplayable mess of a game which doesn't work as intended.

Makumba wrote:
How does one check if a knight player is a WAAC player or something else?

Maybe the idea is that Knight players are just WAAC in general, since Knights are a super heavy unit that some armies just don't have a reliable answer for (and thus one would pose a problem, let alone five). So just don't bring Knights and you'll be good, I guess.

Alternatively you can use the same system the "fluffy" gamers use and simply check to see if the models are painted. Painted = fluffy, unpainted = WAAC. Simple. Oh, but ONLY if you painted your own models, if someone else paints them for you then you're doing it wrong and still probably WAAC since you clearly don't care about "the Hobby".

Anyway, needless to say this is another pointless thread about how everyone is playing the game wrong with the OP and their supporters taking an almost religious-like stance on the "correct" way to have fun. There's only One True Fun and all others are from Satan. Y'all need Jervis.

Yep, tournaments are sorta no good atm. Still better than 6-th ed or late 5-th however. If you disallow forgeworld and escalation, there's even some scent of ballance in the air. Don't get me wrong, i like most stuff that forgeworld and escalation provide, however they tend to occasionally create a C'Tan and than say it's fine maintaining a poker face. We've got enough of these mini-C'Tans from GW allready.

 koooaei wrote:
If you disallow forgeworld, there's even some scent of ballance in the air.

Banning FW rules does nothing to improve balance.

 Peregrine wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
If you disallow forgeworld, there's even some scent of ballance in the air.

Banning FW rules does nothing to improve balance.

It's easier to ballance out stuff when there's not that much of it. Even if later FW is better at making rules than GW. And it's 100% better at PR and FAQ.

 koooaei wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
If you disallow forgeworld, there's even some scent of ballance in the air.

Banning FW rules does nothing to improve balance.

It's easier to ballance out stuff when there's not that much of it.

Except its not FW-specific stuff people are having a problem with...

What i'm seeing from this thread is problems with the core game. Blaming people for taking legal armies (that are fluffy too, and that void dragon looks killer) doesn't seem to indicate that the problem lies with the players.

Yep, even the 5-knight guy wasn't in top 3, eh. Basically, we've just have a C'Tan that's broken. Where's he from, escalation? Within the context of other escalation models, he doesn't seem too bad, actually. That's regular 40k armies that he invalidates with a hellstorm template.

Some of the escalation stuff was not meant to be used below 4k point games in the first place.

 koooaei wrote:
Some of the escalation stuff was not meant to be used below 4k point games in the first place.

GW must have just forgot to put those restrictions in the book then.

"lol, woops, we broke 40k. o well can't errata that gak so you know..."

 Sidstyler wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Some of the escalation stuff was not meant to be used below 4k point games in the first place.

GW must have just forgot to put those restrictions in the book then.

"lol, woops, we broke 40k. o well can't errata that gak so you know..."

The intention was to make money. You can't make money if you disallow your own models. The thing they didn't count is that the more broken stuff they introduce - the less profit they make overall cause people become unhappy and don't want to spend on a game. That's truly a mistery to me why they don't hotfix stuff and communicate with their own player base. They'd make much more money out of it rather than a new fancy site that's no better than a previous one.

But i'm not a businessman or a manager, so can't know for sure. Maybe they make more money by making the game less ballanced. Forcing sales on some exact models. Maybe such momentary profit from one product is so much higher than an overall sales decrease of other ones. However, the latest codexes show that they at least try to reduce the power creep. Maybe they're changing strategy. At least i hope so.

 koooaei wrote:

It's easier to ballance out stuff when there's not that much of it.

That's not necessarily true. It's just as frequent with a limited number of options that the options available to a given army do not allow it to counter some common tactic or unit, say, a Wraithknight. Expanding options means you're more likely to have a unit that can kill a Wraithknight, balancing the game a little bit. And even if you get your own OP unit, that just mean the Wraithknight has competition for being the most OP, which also opens up the playing field. More units will be left by the wayside, but that's not nearly as important as the fact that a much wider range of armies can now legitimately compete. That's a significant step forward in terms of balance.

Additionally, west coast tournaments such as the BAO/LVO have been allowing Forgeworld for several years now. It has caused exactly zero major balance issues during that time. In fact, after flying out to some east coast events, Reece and Frankie at Frontline Gaming were notably surprised at how cheesy the lists people ran were while they simultaneously complained about how introducing Forgeworld would unbalance their meta of Wave Serpent spam, Centurion stars, and Adamantium Lance with allied Riptide lists.

 Blacksails wrote:
You're upset people brought good lists to a tournament and tried to win?

Bringing a good list and wanting to win isn't WAAC. Nor are they not having fun, probably quite the opposite.

Maybe try not judging other players?

I mean, did you even speak to the guy with the guy who had the counts-as C'tan? Maybe he prefers that model and thinks its super fluffy to have a Void Dragon shard or something.

I'm not quoting you to single you out for an arguement, but rather your comment is a fair representation of general responces I've read to this kind of question. The point the original poster, if I may be so bold, was trying to make was that 2/3rds of the people there wanted one kind of tournament, while 1/3 brought lists that while not nessassarily overpowering, were less fun to play against. Since this isn't a "professional tournament", like what you have with 'Magic' and the overwhelming majority of the people wanted a particular kind of game, I think he was just asking if there are any rule sets in use and acknowledged as 'fair or appropriate' to help add structure to any future local tournaments.

While I agree with the premise of your responce, that the list doesn't dictate is someone is having fun or not, or is a happy friendly opponent or a WAAC jerk, some people prefer different kinds of games. Just like you can have a general consensus with your regular opponents as to what style game you want to play, there is nothing wrong with setting out a style of list that the majority of the players in a tourney want to play. As long as the majority, preferably a substancial majority, it is perfectly appropriate to set out what basically ammount to house ground rules of list building.

The only time this becomes a problem is when a small percent of the participants vary from the median power level. Is everyone is bringing "hardcore" lists, and a small handful bring "fun" lists then they are possibly ruining the enjoyment of the people who they play against at the tournament. And not just because it might give an "unfair advantage" to the people who get to walk all over those opponents, but because playing that game is likely much less fun for their opponent who was expecting (and rightfully so, given what the general consensus of what power level would be there) to face a challange and might get stuck with an inevitable curb stomp.

Yeah, and my point is that you shouldn't expect people to conform to your standards of play when no standard was made expressly clear.

These people saw a tournament, and from the info given, had no indication on what was expected of the lists, and so these players brought good lists to win with.

If the OP, or indeed anyone, is looking for a particular level of gameplay, it needs to be made known to all, with clear delineations of what is acceptable and what is not. If those criteria of communication are not met, the validity of any complaints about someone's list goes right out the window.

Then again, this raises the whole issue of dividing players even further, with some groups snubbing their nose at others for playing differently. Its gakky, but with such imbalances in the game, it pretty much inevitable.

Regardless, the labeling of people over their list is petty and ridiculous. Its fine to dislike a list and turn down a game because you both know it wouldn't be enjoyable, but calling someone a WAAC-jerk over the models they want to push around a table is patently absurd.

Anyways, if the OP wants a specific type of game, that needs to communicated clearly. If it wasn't communicated clearly, there's no reason they should be upset that people brought lists they wanted to use to a tournament.