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.

I kind of have wondered this for a while, MTG still has the pro tour which is a annual 250,000 dollar ( I think this is correct) tour where players compete at a ranked level for cash and prizes. I don't there is or has ever been a similar organization that gives out cash prizes for Miniature wargaming.

I don't think the games any of them be Pirate Press, or Games Workshop lend themselves to that format well. Just because of the time issue and intricaces with playing the game. Simply put they're would have to be a massive over haul of design and balance.

I will say this, the reason MTG consistently has stayed relevant is because of the Pro Tour, seriously they are on the ball with their Friday Night Magic, Seal Decks , plus tour tournaments. It's a really competitive enviroment but still allows for people to have fun with their games.

I'm sure this is not the first or the last but I figured I'd ask it.

Do you think a Proffessional League with Cash prizes would help or hinder Miniature Wargaming, I think it'd build more interest personally but we'd get people who considered themselves "pro players"

Does the Pro Tour help or hinder T:TG?

I would consider the Iron Gauntlet for Privateer Press pretty close to a professional league.

Depends on who you ask, really.

I can see both sides of it. On the positive, a pro league can generate a great deal of buzz and interest, and it is cool to see a game played at the very highest level.

But on the other side, by having a known and open 'pro' aspect, you pretty much widen the divide between the hardcore and casual players, and that creates a very toxic environment. All you need to is look at other pro gaming venues, LoL/DOTA in this example, to see a game that is amazing at the highest level, but absolute misery for anyone who is not at that high level in a social context. Of course, it does make one wonder if that would translate into the real world without a digital medium? I admit I know nothing about MTG's leagues (I stopped playing that game back when Phasing was a new, confusing rule ) so it is entirely possible that I don't know what I am talking about.

Even with an entirely new game designed for it (which has a mountain of issues of its own), I believe that a pro league for miniatures gaming is not a step that I would follow. Now don't get me wrong, I love playing in the occasional tournament and pushing my games hard from time to time, but all of the panoply and fallout from a 'pro' aspect is something that does not appeal to me in the slightest. Does that mean it won't appeal to anyone? Of course not. Does that mean that it is a completely bad idea? Maybe not, I'm a laid back kind of personality, and I tend to 'max out' on hard competitive play and take breaks.

To have a professional tour, you need a game manufacturer who chooses to write rules (and rebalance rules) to support a true competitive environment.

Computer gaming can be patched regularly to tweak and rebalance hence why it is seen as fit for competitive play.

Magic also has a good track run for balance and bans and retires cards and shifts the meta with new releases, so never can there be a single 'king of the mountain' deck which can never be beat.

PP is pretty good with their rules support and event organization as well. The question is: "Is there an audience for such a thing?"

People do enjoy watching podcasts of the top tables at major tourneys... would people sit in a stadium and watch two people play? Maybe... If I was at a convention I would consider it maybe. I think internet live streams of tourneys is really the next way to grow that exposure the same way 'replays' are for video games.

Does it help golf, rock climbing, skate boarding, poker?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I thought there needed to be a direct TV channel. Get a Jervis Show, Hobbying how toos, Will Wheaton and new games. Etc

It's an interesting concept for sure, and I would love it could happen. If they were to start with a tournament with no prize that was put on a podcast or livestream to see if it got enough views and if it was interesting enough I think it would work. The issue is in staying power. Eventually people would settle into using the same army lists and with new releases relatively few compared to MTG the meta would get stale. I personally would love if this happened and worked out, but it seems like a few too many hurdles to jump over.

nkelsch wrote:
To have a professional tour, you need a game manufacturer who chooses to write rules (and rebalance rules) to support a true competitive environment.

Computer gaming can be patched regularly to tweak and rebalance hence why it is seen as fit for competitive play.

Magic also has a good track run for balance and bans and retires cards and shifts the meta with new releases, so never can there be a single 'king of the mountain' deck which can never be beat.

PP is pretty good with their rules support and event organization as well. The question is: "Is there an audience for such a thing?"

People do enjoy watching podcasts of the top tables at major tourneys... would people sit in a stadium and watch two people play? Maybe... If I was at a convention I would consider it maybe. I think internet live streams of tourneys is really the next way to grow that exposure the same way 'replays' are for video games.

Funny you should say that. PP has been using Twitch to show live streams of the finals tables of a few tournaments. Chain Attack. MatteK and a few others have also started doing the same for Warmachine.

Heck I am even hooked and watch games when the wife and kids prevent me from going and playing a game or two at the store.

Well with an actual scored matching system you would have "competitiveness" but it wouldn't be I got beat by the guy who won LVO 8 times.

Basically you can have a proffessional tournament system that matches correctly and brackets according to skill level. I think it would actually be good for the hobby, if it was support by a decent purse with money set aside for Higher Tier tables and Gift Cards etc.. for structured Scenario based Tournaments.

What's a Scenario Based Tournament, it's pretty simple. Lists are preconstructed meaning everyone brings the same thing or the place provides the miniatures you play the scenario from both sides, usually 4 times and then the person who did the best over all wins.

There's no "ranking" in a Scenario tournament, everyone is going to play the same game 4 times twice from each angle of the scenario. Lists are premade, meaning you won't see a "deathstar" list.


If those were mixed with a Open and Restricted along with Constructed format then that would appeal to casual players as well as " pro" players.


A Ranked bracket is just this
Player A 500
Player B 500
Player C 1000
Player D 1000

Player C and D are matched in the initial round or you can subdivide the tournament into tiered ranking. It's more complicated but it also allows for better match ups of skill because a person who has a ranking of 1000 wouldn't be allowed to play in a Sub 500 tournament and Vise Versa, of course higher tier larger prizes.

I don't think the rules are tight enough to support one.

 marv335 wrote:
I don't think the rules are tight enough to support one.

There's this.

Also, I think the reason Magic's Pro Tour and other similar types of competitive scenes work is because the metagame changes constantly. There are releases for most CCGs 3-4 times annually which make huge waves in the competitive scene. I don't think GW releases often enough and you'd get a stagnant "solved" metagame very early on, that would only shift by releasing more powerful codices. It'd really be a stifling scene.

The rules in mtg are consistent and there are clear rulings on everything, a judge will give a quick answer on anything and there's no personal judgment involved.

The issue with tabletop games is that you'll alway have people arguing about how much if something is in line of sight and trying to be generous when moving figures or determining the precise direction something scatters. A game for tournament purposes shouldn't have a multitude of ways in which people can squabble about every move or measurement. I don't think it works unless people are playing in good faith, and that won't happen when prizes are to be had.

At one end of the scale is something like chess where there are only a very limited number of legal rules, you can only cheat in the most obvious ways like moving incorrectly, there's no questionable circumstances that could ever arise requiring a die roll. Then there's something like MtG that is complex but has a rigid rule system that is highly consistent. The only way to cheat is stack the deck in some fashion or incorrectly sideboard. You can cheat in game but it would be clearly cheating. Wargaming on the other hand has many things decided by human eye and is wide open to abuse. Not even cheating but people just judging their stuff favourably and being opposed to how an opponent measures and judges their things. And so often it's hard to make a decision because the game is open table and I'll defined, and arguments are settled by a die roll simply to get on with the event. Anything relying on human perception instead of rigid rules is going to be problematic for competitive purposes. The bigger the prizes, the worse people get. At least with mtg, if you know the rules and stick to them you are safe even at the highest levels, there's little room for debate, you just play. But for a table top game with someone pushing every measurement and arguing every angle? Impossible.

I think that a protour for tabletop games would be wholly positive. FLGS are constantly trying to organize leagues, as they are good for business. Some companies support tournaments. Corvus Belli does a great job in this regard. Unfortunately, the smaller companies may not be able to support large cash prizes. GW's rules are not tight enough to be used in a protour type setting. I think that Privateer Press would be the most likely candidate to start a protour. They are a fairly large company, have good rules, and regular releases.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
The rules in mtg are consistent and there are clear rulings on everything, a judge will give a quick answer on anything and there's no personal judgment involved.

The issue with tabletop games is that you'll alway have people arguing about how much if something is in line of sight and trying to be generous when moving figures or determining the precise direction something scatters. A game for tournament purposes shouldn't have a multitude of ways in which people can squabble about every move or measurement. I don't think it works unless people are playing in good faith, and that won't happen when prizes are to be had.

At one end of the scale is something like chess where there are only a very limited number of legal rules, you can only cheat in the most obvious ways like moving incorrectly, there's no questionable circumstances that could ever arise requiring a die roll. Then there's something like MtG that is complex but has a rigid rule system that is highly consistent. The only way to cheat is stack the deck in some fashion or incorrectly sideboard. You can cheat in game but it would be clearly cheating. Wargaming on the other hand has many things decided by human eye and is wide open to abuse. Not even cheating but people just judging their stuff favourably and being opposed to how an opponent measures and judges their things. And so often it's hard to make a decision because the game is open table and I'll defined, and arguments are settled by a die roll simply to get on with the event. Anything relying on human perception instead of rigid rules is going to be problematic for competitive purposes. The bigger the prizes, the worse people get. At least with mtg, if you know the rules and stick to them you are safe even at the highest levels, there's little room for debate, you just play. But for a table top game with someone pushing every measurement and arguing every angle? Impossible.

You are absolutely right that the rules if it were GW would have to be better. However, I disagree on the last point as we already have tournaments for 40k, and while yes the latter does happen it's not as common as you'd think as people being consistent rules hounds on their opposing player.

no... just no...

It works pretty well for MTG, and builds a ton of interest. I think it would be great.

Hollismason wrote:
It works pretty well for MTG, and builds a ton of interest. I think it would be great.

it really didn't. all it did was make MTG a rotating door for cash.

It might work if they developed a special electronic table, scenery and bases for the minis,

Illegal moves and LOS could easily determined with no 'personal opinion' involved

but as has been said above even with that, and a tournament friendly solid rule set like Warmachine/Hordes it probably isn't feasible to have sufficient turn over in units too keep things fresh

It would probably settle into a fairly predictable scene before too long as folk worked out optimal strategies

viewfinder wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
It works pretty well for MTG, and builds a ton of interest. I think it would be great.

it really didn't. all it did was make MTG a rotating door for cash.

What

How horrible. The game is popular and successful. Clearly this didn't work well.

what I meant was it required constant updating of decks to stay current. it used to be bad enough when people refused to play you if your deck wasn't "tournament legal" now it's like negotiating for a loan to get a friendly game in: " I don't have a Legacy, but I do have a Modern" "oh I don't do Modern, do you have Type II" whatever.

viewfinder wrote:
what I meant was it required constant updating of decks to stay current. it used to be bad enough when people refused to play you if your deck wasn't "tournament legal" now it's like negotiating for a loan to get a friendly game in: " I don't have a Legacy, but I do have a Modern" "oh I don't do Modern, do you have Type II" whatever.

There really isn't anything complex or difficult about that at all, and it makes a ton of money for WotC and game stores.

viewfinder wrote:
what I meant was it required constant updating of decks to stay current. it used to be bad enough when people refused to play you if your deck wasn't "tournament legal" now it's like negotiating for a loan to get a friendly game in: " I don't have a Legacy, but I do have a Modern" "oh I don't do Modern, do you have Type II" whatever.

And that's worse than it is currently?

One of the differences between MTG and 40k is that 40k has a built in rotation - new rules editions. MTG doesn't - they had to write it into the rules.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Does the Pro Tour help or hinder T:TG?

I don't know about you but the idea of a million dollar prize for playing warhammer does sound interesting.

First off, it's Professional.

Secondly, I believe pumping any amount of money into prize support to foment a competitive metagame is useless without the accompanying infrastructure to support places to buy the game.

No amount of prize money will make up for a healthy grassroots local tournament scene, where the real money gets made.

One difficulty is that WG are finite and single-purchase; once you've bought your army, you don't really need to update it to another, unlike CCGs, so it's hard to support the kind of money Magic pulls in (card stock, art, game design, printing, shipping vs miniature design, tooling, casting, shipping).

Also, Wargames tend to be hell of a lot more fiddly and thus not ideal for the precision a competitive game with hundreds of thousands of dollars at stake requires, i.e. Cheating can and will be rife.

Of most popular miniature game systems, the best contender I feel at the moment would be X-Wing. Tight rules, good balance, simple rules but complex gameplay, and designed with the tournament format in mind.

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
Also, Wargames tend to be hell of a lot more fiddly and thus not ideal for the precision a competitive game with hundreds of thousands of dollars at stake requires, i.e. Cheating can and will be rife.

Of most popular miniature game systems, the best contender I feel at the moment would be X-Wing. Tight rules, good balance, simple rules but complex gameplay, and designed with the tournament format in mind.

Your contention is that cheating at a card game isn't a real issue? If you think about it for a moment you'll see how silly that sounds. M:tG has dealt with the issue of rampant and absurd cheating by tightening the rules and spending money to train hundreds of competent and dedicated judges.

Since GW are not capable (or willing) to do anything like that, I do agree with you that X-Wing would be a good fit for something like this. For the reasons you stated as well as the fact that, with rounds of about an hour, you could actually get enough rounds in a weekend to reach a real conclusion to a tournament. If rounds take longer than 1 1/2 hours, I think, you reach a barrier that forces you to declare a winner based on tie breakers, which is obviously bad.

Here's my top 5 reason why it would be good for our hobby.

1. It'd encourage outside players who normally do not have interest in Wargaming to wargame.
2. With a increase of attention it would help , not hinder local gaming establishments as well as encourage others to open it.
3. Any company involved "GW, PP" etc.. would be invested in releasing on time and before the change over of a new edition, codexes armies and models.
4. It'd create a fair and balanced organization that matched players with similar skill at tournaments other than just randomization and Round Robin style system.
5. It'd build interest in the Hobby as a whole for whoever instituted it, because people would take notice of other games and other companies.


Now for the brass tax so to speak of it being "bad" or encourage "cheating" , all ofthese first can be mitigated by rules with in the tournament structure. For it being " only for winning" , sorry but that just isn't true if anything it'd encourage more casual play as more people would be interested in it.

I don't know about you but I generally don't see Magic players just building "tournament" decks, sure they build "tournament decks" but they also have decks they just enjoy playing.

Now on to the actual structure and why it's actually good to have a ranking system.

Let's say you have a 200 person tournament, that is round robin. This does not indicate skill at all, two lesser skilled players may play each other and then that winner will play a vastly more skilled player.

It's a lot more fairer to new or inexperienced players for there to be a ranking system based on scores and then subdivide the tournament into winnings for each ranked bracket. You can still have everyone be in the same tournament but you are going to have better match ups in relation to skill.

For Example. w/ a internally ranked system only players of equal or close to equal ranking play each other regardless of win/loss because there is going to be a subdivide with in the ranking.

A 1st
B 2nd
C 3rd
D 4th
E 5th
F 6th
G 7th
H 8th

1st Round
A vs B = A
C vs D = C
E vs F = F
G vs H = G

2nd Round
A vs C = A
B vs D = D
F vs G = F
E vs H = H

3rd Round
A vs D
B vs C
F vs H
E vs G

Etc..

Now of course that gets a little weird because you have 8 players but what I wanted to demonstrate is that the higher ranked players never play someone who is lower ranked until the last rounds or next to last rounds of the tournament. It's a lot more fair. It's a bracket with in a bracket. It works incredibly well with over 16 players , but less than that it does have the disadvantage of you may be playing someone you played before in the 1st round.

Where it comes in great though is that it gives out multiple 1st 2nd and 3rd for that seeded bracket. Now the higher ranked players would be playing for a bigger price and as you moved up in ranking you'd be competing for larger and larger prizes.

You could also subdivide tournaments into X ranking only which would be great for new players coming into the Tournament scene.

There was something like this that GW did once...

Ard' Boys.

That had big cash prizes from what I heard.

The problem with that was whilst as it brought good honest competitive players, it also brought in the beardy players (I.E the WAAC, TFG crowd) who would even resort to cheating just to win that big prize..

That's why whilst its a good idea to have something like this, but it usually goes down south straight to hell in terms of wargaming as where there is a big prize, there will be "that guy" not far off from there..

Again things like that can be mitigated by demerit systems. I thought Ard Boyz was a great idea but they shelved it to soon and it was when the rules just particularly were not good. They also didn't implement simple things like providing tournament only dice etc.. as well as having no actual real consequences to their tournaments.

It was a good start but yeah, I remember Ard Boyz and thought it was a great idea. Although I don't remember them offering actual cash prizes.

The Ard Boyz was also not really that great to be honest, it was a larger than normal point system barely any real over sight.

Only thing I could find that's recent

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1900168a_40K_Ard_Boyz_Rules_2011.pdf

Hollismason wrote:
Again things like that can be mitigated by demerit systems.

I disagree VERY strongly here, and this points towards my biggest problem with wargaming tournaments as they currently stand: There should be a zero tolerance for cheating or for unsportsmanlike conduct. The only reason high level Magic still exists today is that they cracked down on such jackassery. Remember: This is not a court of law. There is no burden of proof required. If a well trained judge thinks something was probably a cheat (as opposed to a genuine mistake) then it was a cheat and should be treated as such.

As for "beardyness"....it's a tournament. With prizes. If you aren't trying your very best to win (within the rules) then that's your decision, but it's foolish to blame somebody else for being "cheesy." If I go to bat against Aroldis Chapman I'm not going to call him any names because he can pitch 105 MPH. If I go to Nova Open I'm not going to get mad at Nick Nannavati just because I can't kill that many FMCs. That's the game.

I think you misunderstood me by demerit, a demerit system is just basically something that says " You have X of these you can no longer play for X time". Demerits can be used to encourage players to play quickly to not abuse rules and to not act like jack asses, basically it's a way of enforcing people to be on their "best" behavior. That's all. Issues like cheating etc.. are obviously on a Zero Tolerance policy, but people who lag or drag time isn't exactly cheating but is a hinderance to the game, people who consistently call judges to check line of sight etc..

It's just a way of saying " Green Card, Yellow Card, Red Card".


There are a lot more uh.. what's word. Angles? Situations? Event's in 40k that can lead to problems because it is a Wargame. A Demerit system is jusst a way of encouragement of quicker play etc..