A lot of people seem to think that there is ultimately a skill level that is higher in competitive play than in normal friendly games. Supposedly the purpose of tournaments is so that players can be involved in a higher level of competition and that ultimately the best out of them wins the prize.

It also follows the belief that tournament play is somehow inherently more difficult than friendly games and that at tournaments is where the "meta" game of 40k comes out in the form of dominating armies which provide proof ultimately of which armies are superior.


These are all false, in fact their actually worse than false because they give the wrong impression upon which armies are more dominant.


Here are the following reasons why ultimately overall Tournaments do not really matter in larger scale of playing 40k.

1. Without a Standardized point and mission set up along with standardized rules your armies performance will vary according to which convention/ tournament you go to and place in. Your army may be fine tuned for a 1850 tournament but fall apart at the 2000 point level at another even. Without non standardized missions you can ultimately gear your army to play according to the convention rules you play at.

2. 1 Game matches indicate that your army succeeded against that mission and player once, which does not indicate anything. Odds, miscellaenous factors can more than attribute to a victory. This is why in baseball as well as other tournaments we have more than one match up against an opponent.

3. Scoring, most tournaments score players and match highest versus highest. However with compositional, painting, sportsmanship scores, you can face players who ultimately won through extraneous methods. Without a clear system of match up it is perfectly possible for you to play 2 players in a row that are not at your level of experience. Think of it if the Chicago Cubs started playing 2 rounds versus little league teams. Without a player ranking system and the addition of other misceallaneous scores indicating player skill and Age Ranking systems accordingly then this is not a indication of skil lat all.

4. Compositional Scoring, Sportsmanship, and Painting are not indicators of players skill level at the game. They are all opinions, you cannot state a opinion as a fact. Where as you may say Jim's painting is excellent, I may say it looks like dogshit. However, stating Jim won his 3 games by X and has this many points is a fact. When in the form of Composition and army structure simply are just opinions on how armies should be built. The game already has a composition in the form of FOC slots which are equal for everyone. The balance is that some armie have stronger Fast Attack options to make up for their weaker Heavy support options.

5. Sportsmanship; short of cheating there is not reason to have a sportsmanship award at all. It also creates the possibility of collusion for wins between players, if 4 people participate together in a 20 man tournament and state to each other before hand. We will give all of our opponents low sportsmanship scores then what happens is that the odds of their sportsmanship awards increasing is greater and places their winning in greater odds.

For Example.

At Z tournament, Sportsmanship Scoring by opponents is a 1 to 3 ration and you receive 5 points for a win. 4 Players agree to score all opponents 1s. Where as if Matched they will score themselves 3.

In a 24 Person Tournament your odds of getting one person from that group is 16 percent of receiving a score of 1. At the beginnning of the tournament. Lets say you have 4 rounds and everyone evenly matches and goes 2-2. 2 losses and 2 wins for each player with each player having the equal number of points and a equal chance to play each other player.

So you have 10 points, you have a 16 percent chance each round to score 1.


This is why collusion and sportsmanship awards and points are ultimately a horrible idea. This isnt even factoring in that you could play all 4 players win each game and still lose.



6. Missions ; without a standardized set of missions that all armies are equally capable of adjusting to these automatically place some armies as well as compositions in a disadvantage to win or place a handicap unnecessarily onto certain players as well as armies.

Ultimatley it is the luck of the draw at your table if you have randomized missions. Granted this does lead to more take all comer lists so to speak but still presents a randomization of winning which does not indicate skill at all.




In closing, without standardized points, player ranking, age ranking, removal of compositional score, sportsmanship , painting and a system of determinination that does not involve randomization of handicaps, tournaments ultimately are not a indication of anything but who won on that particular day and under what circumstances.

Replying to each statement in order.

1. Fine, some armies excel at certain point ranges and not at others. Some excel at more point ranges or more common point ranges than others. Thus we still have a best army. Also, most armies can keep the general idea of the 2000 point winning army when downgrading to the 500 point zone, and any army that is owning in the 1850 zone will be able to just add a squad or two and get up to 2000 without much change.

2. This is why it depends how much of a margin you win by. If I sweep the table of my opponent, that's a bigger win than the guy who wins by one objective due to a last-turn landspeeder denial. You can attribute one match to luck, but if a person successfully tables his opponents nearly every time, I'd presume he/she has some skill.

3. I agree, painting should be a separate contest. In many cases it is. There is no need for age matchup. If little eight year old Johnny wants to play in 'Ard Boyz, he faces opponents from 'Ard Boyz.

4. Exactly. So let's have a tournament where all that is taken out of calculations. I'm sure some do it that way, and those are the ones we judge by. Even so, if Orks win a tournament consistently, I'd say something is being said about them.

5. Like painting, sportsmanship is a thing on the side. It should never come into the rankings. Some people like to recognise courtesy though.

6. Missions are points of adaption. Your army may take all objectives, but when killpoints roll around, you lose big time. Missions prove who can adapt and win in a pinch.

Don't forget also that the pool of players at a tournament is entirely made up of people who could afford to spend the money and take the time to go to the tournament.

While I have seen players attend a tournament series and consistently win (5/6 tournaments, with one tournament every two months) most tournaments are one-off events. If a person is consistently winning among of a pool of players, it does show that player has more skill than the other players who attend the event.

If a person wins one tournament, it means that he is likely to be a good player, but he might also have received more favorable matchups than the other players, had some particularly good dice luck during one more more matches, etc.

Placing Age Restrictions on Tournaments is completely legit. It's like the example stated, players may be fine to play other 12 year olds but not older players.

This is why tournaments should dissuade that.

They may be good at just winning that particular style of tournament.


Such as the Hardboyz tournament lists can be customized to maximize success at the missions. Some armies are able to do this alot better than others.

Tournaments are little indication of skill, but the are often a good indication of army balance (or lack thereof).

If tournaments aren't a good indication of skill, then they can't be a good indication of army balance either. We can like or dislike it, but player ability factors into the quality of their list-making and their selections from the codex overall.

For example, if somebody shows up with a hard-as-nails 4th edition Nidzilla list and runs up against three new/bad players whose Space Marine army is selected entirely from 4 Battle Force kits and completely stomps them, then that says as little about the quality of the SM codex as it does about the Nid player's skill level.

Of course tournaments are a good indication of skill. It takes a massive amount of planning to use Lash/Oblits or Nob Bikers.

*spits* Fething tournament gamers. They're like the STD of the gaming world. *spits*

I'd much rather continue being a casual gamer - the very paragon of humanity and the apex of creative spirit.

H.B.M.C. wrote:*spits* Fething tournament gamers. They're like the STD of the gaming world. *spits*

I'd much rather continue being a casual gamer - the very paragon of humanity and the apex of creative spirit.

Another broadcast from the casual gaming mafia? (CGM)

our way is the only way!

H.B.M.C. wrote:*spits* Fething tournament gamers. They're like the STD of the gaming world. *spits*

I'd much rather continue being a casual gamer - the very paragon of humanity and the apex of creative spirit.

Dunno if this is intended as satire, sarcasm, etc. but in my experience nothing motivates myself or the others that I know to get fully painted and attractive display armies, or to perfect our lists and tactics like knowing a tournament is around the corner.

H.B.M.C. wrote:*spits* Fething tournament gamers. They're like the STD of the gaming world. *spits*

I'd much rather continue being a casual gamer - the very paragon of humanity and the apex of creative spirit.

You sound like the Hitler of wargaming.

Are you going to round up tournament gamers and force them into painting chambers?

I didn't post that. The CGM did. Don't blame me.

And I'm suddenly having the weirdest sense of deja vu... like we've had this exact converstation before - not the OP - just this conversation, with Sourclams and Cheese and me. Weird...

H.B.M.C. wrote:I didn't post that. The CGM did. Don't blame me.

And I'm suddenly having the weirdest sense of deja vu... like we've had this exact converstation before - not the OP - just this conversation, with Sourclams and Cheese and me. Weird...

I believe you have had a similar conversation when the whole casual gamer mafia comment first came about and was sigged by someone

H.B.M.C. wrote:I didn't post that. The CGM did. Don't blame me.

And I'm suddenly having the weirdest sense of deja vu... like we've had this exact converstation before - not the OP - just this conversation, with Sourclams and Cheese and me. Weird...

It's like some kind of eternally looping orgy.

Yeah I wouldn't have used the word 'orgy'... but then again, you would, and that's what I hired you for. Good work.

I'd agree that winning any given RTT is not necessarily something that can be attributed to player skill, winning at the larger events, where there are more games, and a larger pool of players does seem to require skill. There has to be something to it when you have some players who have won GTs year after year, with multiple different codexes in multiple editions of the game.

Face it 40k tournaments are about luck. Luck with your dice, luck with your match ups, and luck with the judges. When you win a 40k tourney all it says about you is that your the luckiest S.O.B that attended.

Linkdead wrote:Face it 40k tournaments are about luck. Luck with your dice, luck with your match ups, and luck with the judges. When you win a 40k tourney all it says about you is that your the luckiest S.O.B that attended.

This only applies in any meaningful way at lower points values. At 1850-2500 the amount of dice being rolled evens out the luck factor enough so that you can't say it's "all about luck"

Canonness Rory wrote:This only applies in any meaningful way at lower points values. At 1850-2500 the amount of dice being rolled evens out the luck factor enough so that you can't say it's "all about luck"

Your entirely correct...

The last tournament I won I got a draw against a rock player in the first round, and went on to massacred two people playing scissors. I was playing rock and I only saw one person playing paper. My 2nd round scissors opponent beat him pretty easily so I know I would have owned his face. Anyway I took first place and exude skill.

Linkdead wrote:Your entirely correct...

The last tournament I won I got a draw against a rock player in the first round, and went on to massacred two people playing scissors. I was playing rock and I only saw one person playing paper. My 2nd round scissors opponent beat him pretty easily so I know I would have owned his face. Anyway I took first place and exude skill.

He's trying to say that tournaments involve no skill by drawing a comparison to needing skill to win at paper/scissors/rock.

A false comparison, that is.

Hmm, see IMO any game/event/campaign where players have focussed excessively on the metagame will not be a good indicator of skill. This is why I have no interest in designing powerful lists, and why I think metagaming is generally harmful to the hobby, whether you're a casual player or not. If competing is important to you, in terms of proving your skill, games should be won or lost based on how well people play, not on how refined their lists are. And for casual gamers it kills variety and prevents us from being able to play 'friendlies'.
But that's just me. Any group of gamers who are happy to compete in that way are of course free to do so. I would never tell someone else how to enjoy the game.

Hollismason wrote: A lot of people seem to think that there is ultimately a skill level that is higher in competitive play than in normal friendly games. Supposedly the purpose of tournaments is so that players can be involved in a higher level of competition and that ultimately the best out of them wins the prize.

It also follows the belief that tournament play is somehow inherently more difficult than friendly games and that at tournaments is where the "meta" game of 40k comes out in the form of dominating armies which provide proof ultimately of which armies are superior.


These are all false, in fact their actually worse than false because they give the wrong impression upon which armies are more dominant.

First, my experiences are based upon playing in the U.S.

I'd have to ask the question; who are these 'a lot of people'? I've never really read or heard anyone make a claim like that. I also question what you state the purpose of a tournament is for. GW hasn't posted a statement like that (except maybe for the Ard Boyz) for their GT's that I can ever recall. Many of the 'Indy GT' events appear to follow in the same tradition (scores for Sportsmanship, Painting and Army Comp). They are events that help showcase the hobby. There are folks who attend these events as a way to get together with old friends (myself included).

I agree with you that some folks will look at the armies that win these events and equate them to top performing armies. I don't agree, but it makes for interesting conversation.

For the most part, a person would need the following to win at one of these events:

a. not get chipmunked
b. have a decent to very well painted army
c. get lucky with army comp scores
d. actually win some games (how many games and by what margin is greatly impacted by a, b, c).

Is there some skill involved at winning games? Sure. Are GW events or Indy GT's based purely on player skill? No, but I don't think they've ever made that claim either. If folks do believe only player skill will win at a GW event, it's most likely they've never attended one.


For the record, I thought GW was going in the right direction back in 2007 as they dropped Army Comp.

"40k tournaments are no indication of skill at 40k."

Thats cool.

I'm more skillful at 40k tournaments than you are then.

lol this game is based entirely on a dice. you could create the most point efficient killing machine ever but it wont matter if you roll ones all day long. the game is based on luck. if you play this hobby to win all the time i dont think you'll find it very fulfilling. its a hobby. its about having fun.

Deadshane1 wrote:"40k tournaments are no indication of skill at 40k."

Thats cool.

I'm more skillful at 40k tournaments than you are then.

Several of these issues could be obviated by everyone playing the same exact list. Then it comes down to talent and dice rolls. Frankly you need the dice rolls or else the talent aspects make themselves apparent immediately (although list making is indeed its own strataegery with random minimization see I are smart too).

Just being a good 40k player is no guarantee of winning a tourney. You need some luck, either in dice rolls or match-ups or both. But, being a bad player can guarantee that you won't win.

If you don't want to play in tourneys, don't. They're not the end-all-be-all gaming experience. I enjoy them, mostly because it: 1) motivates me to paint and 2) is a chance to get away from the kids and play 3-4 games in a day (which maybe the only games that I play for a couple months).

Winning a 40k tourney is like a sports team winning a championship - especially sports where this a single play-off matchup (NFL, NCAA Basketball, etc.) instead of a series (MLB, NHL, NBA). Sometimes, the 'best' team doesn't win. That helps to make it more exciting. And while a bad team may occassionally win (except for the Detriot Lions), they won't win consistently enough to win a championship.

The Angry Commissar wrote:lol this game is based entirely on a dice. you could create the most point efficient killing machine ever but it wont matter if you roll ones all day long. the game is based on luck. if you play this hobby to win all the time i dont think you'll find it very fulfilling. its a hobby. its about having fun.

There are so many things wrong with this post I think I have to break it down:

1. Game based on dice/Won't matter if you roll ones.

The problem with statement is that it is ignorant of probability. Whilst yes, every roll of the dice is random, number crunching 40K allows a player to work out what is more likely to occur. Doesn't mean that what he wants will happen, only that it has more of a chance of happening. At its most basic 40K can be broken down to finding a statistical advantage over your opponent (via a list) and then pressing that advantage.

2. The game is based on luck.

No. It's not. A player with a crappy list and a player with a great list, or equal skill level (comparatively) will not have their game decided on luck. You'd be mad to think that true.

3. Playing this hobby to win all the time.

No one has said that. You're the first person to mention it. Red herrings and straw mans are not appreciated. Please refrain from such silly and pointless utterances in the future please.

I always thought that tournaments where for powergamers so they dont have to use there horrible powerleist on us casaul gamers

This is one area where games like FOG & DBx games tend to trump 40k/WHFB/Warmachine/Hordes since they were designed for tourney play.

I will never play in a tournament unless if its free (which I have, and Ive always won funny/oddly enough).

Im a competitive person by nature in everything I do. I dont play to win at all costs, as I choose to do things that follow my moral beliefs, and to make it fun for everyone if possible. However, I almost always do things at a competitive nature (otherwise I get bored), but 40k just isnt designed for tournament play.

Coming from a close substitute for 40k - RTS games - I can say that not only is the gameplay a bit of a joke, but so are the rules and how GW backs them up.

First off, most of the game is decided before you even do anything. If you bring a list and your opponent just so happens to have the counter, theres very little you can do once the game starts. Looking at Dawn of War 2, if your opponent brings out a walker, you need to buy anti-tank, where he'll then need to buy assault/AI troops, and so on. Seeing as the game is completely static, your left with what you have, and due to the simplified rules of 40k, there are very few tactics. The fact is, cover means diddly squat a lot of the time, so if you want to shoot your enemy, your exposing yourself to fire the next turn. Moving into cover does nothing for things like marines against non AP fire. Movement in general is far too easy and requires little thought. If youve played Fantasy, youd know that movement is everything.

I think this game would greatly benefit from a flanking/suppression/cover system. This would place more weight on skill and maneuvering and take away the current emphasis on heavy, APing units. The thought of having a unit pin an enemy behind cover only to have a squad move around and flank them just seems so awesome and so much more skillful.

Second, the update system is a joke. RTS games with fewer units and far fewer armies cant make the game balanced. They also dont have to deal with horribly written rules. One quick trip to YMDC will let you see how far people are willing to take these poorly written rules. Arguments range from silly - ex. Chaos Dreadnought Frenzy - to mindnumbing - ex. rerolling all dice opposed to the missed ones on warptime - to absolutely insane - ex. Only units with eyes can shoot (meaning no marines for example). I dont want to deal with these idiots, which you know will come out when their money is on the line. Even in the free tournaments Ive had people tell me some BS, so Im not dealing with hardcore idiots.

The FAQ system sucks. Period. No need to go into this. How you can release a poorly written book and then not clarify things is beyond me.

Im getting tired of typing, so basically to sum it up - Too much emphasis on lists, poorly written rules, idiots, and luck based are the reason Ill never play in "hardcore" tournaments. This is ontop of what the OP said.

Any large body of tournament data will show that the same small handful of players will win events regardless of rule set, tournament style or army list. Dakka used to have a player data base & so did the Chicago region (not sure if either data base is still available). In rough terms, 10% of the players will win 90% of the time. The only explanation I have is that some players are more skillful than others.

Hmm.. Tournament vs. Casual friendly play?

Its simple its like the x games over the weekend. Lets say you are a moto x rider and your hangingin with your boyz all year jumping hills and pulling tricks left and right... Lets say you land a 720 out on the dunes of Neew Mexico and your boyz see it happen thats great you are the man. Now you choose to go to the xgames(tournament). there are people in your crew that know you can land the trick, seen you do it, lived to tell the tale. You turn at the plate on national television with 1 shot you try, you fail, you lose.

Thats the difference between friendly and casual. Playing in tournaments with warhammer 40k is essentially a practice in available luck and skill. Can you bring the right army, play the right opponenets, have the best possible dice rolls, etc....Its about proving your skills in front of a larger audience. For some this is not enticing and many people will not admit to why they dont like playing in tournaments. Some people have stage fright, others may actually totally disdain playing cheese lists, Others may fear losing, Some cant afford to play the list they want to, there are so many unspoken reasons for not playing in tournaments. I have alot of fun playing for fun. I actually had more fun games practicing for Ard Boyz than i will probably have playing in Ard Boyz. The thrill of winning when it counts for something more than bragging rights with your friends is sometimes very exhilirating, more so than a stuning win amongst nothing but strangers. Now if you let the thrill of competition turn you into an idiot then you have lost focus. Have fun, play well , maybe you will win.

So let me just make some guesses here...
I'm assuming that most of the pissed off posters here didnt do well at 'Ard Boyz round one this year, I'll also assume that you took an army that isnt great in the first place then decided to write out a terrible list but in your head you thought it was amazing,(like all the other twenty termies with storm shield lists i saw) then said and I quote "I'm just gonna play for fun and don't care if I win" then got there, tried to win despite the above statement and got curb stomped like that guy in American History X.Then you went home and decided to unleash the rage all over the guys and girls who did do well. Now I myself went to 'Ard boyz with a well thought out Tau list and went undefeted, and you cant say "so your another guy with Lash, Nob Bikers, or Eldar cheese that won 'Ard boyz good for you slow" because I'm not. I took a low tear army, played it very well, beat the compitition through well layed out plans DESPITE THE FACT THAT I ROLLED WORST THAN A DRUNK THREE YEAR OLD WITH DOWN SYNDROME, so I dont wanna hear "it's because you got lucky". Game one I fired a squad of broadsides at a Wraithlord and rolled three ones to wound, just an example of my luck in that tourny. But I out played them and came out on top. So stop b****ing, go to the Adam Vickers School for Book Learnin, practice your game and win next year... Jesus F'n Christ you peaple KILL me. (I have already had this conversation with a friend that bombed at 'Ard Boyz if you were wondering)
P.S. Dont give a damn about your smart ass respnoses whatever they may be.

I think the OP is right and wrong.

He is right that someone could get lucky with die rolls, and get easier matchup's which could make for an easier tourney experiance for players at times. However he is worng when he says they are noe indication of skill "at all". Of course you have to have SOME skill to win a tourney. No one just purchasing an army off of ebay, and just read the rules the night before, and never played wargames, is going to win a tourney.

I do agree with the over theme of the post, in that I think winning a tournament in and of itself isn't an indicator of an Uber Gamer. But lets face it the alpha players will consistantly develop a pattern of winning.

I have said it before and I'll say it again. A serious 40K/ fantasy tourney circuit needs to have "tourney" lists like they have in Star Flet battles, or you will always have this problem of rock/paper/scissors, and winning through superior list building.


GG

RanTheCid wrote:In rough terms, 10% of the players will win 90% of the time. The only explanation I have is that some players are more skillful than others.

Agreed.

CatPeeler wrote:

RanTheCid wrote:In rough terms, 10% of the players will win 90% of the time. The only explanation I have is that some players are more skillful than others.

Agreed.

Super Agreed.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

The Angry Commissar wrote:lol this game is based entirely on a dice. you could create the most point efficient killing machine ever but it wont matter if you roll ones all day long. the game is based on luck. if you play this hobby to win all the time i dont think you'll find it very fulfilling. its a hobby. its about having fun.

There are so many things wrong with this post I think I have to break it down:

1. Game based on dice/Won't matter if you roll ones.

The problem with statement is that it is ignorant of probability. Whilst yes, every roll of the dice is random, number crunching 40K allows a player to work out what is more likely to occur. Doesn't mean that what he wants will happen, only that it has more of a chance of happening. At its most basic 40K can be broken down to finding a statistical advantage over your opponent (via a list) and then pressing that advantage.

2. The game is based on luck.

No. It's not. A player with a crappy list and a player with a great list, or equal skill level (comparatively) will not have their game decided on luck. You'd be mad to think that true.

3. Playing this hobby to win all the time.

No one has said that. You're the first person to mention it. Red herrings and straw mans are not appreciated. Please refrain from such silly and pointless utterances in the future please.

fair point

I've had some bad experiences in tournaments. Players who use tactics outside of the game, like dragging time out so as to end a match in turn three or having buddies act as peanut gallery commanders are irritating. Besides nerdraging antisocial, and sometimes shady, players the format of tournament play just isn't my thing. I've done well in them, even won a couple, but winning a box set a codex or a battalion just isn't worth the loss of good fun and fair play. I do have to say that, at least the tournaments that I've participated in or witnessed aren't the best showcase for skill. A tournament spread out over the course of several days to allow full games would be better. I've seen plenty of matches where if the losing player had one more turn they would have had a decisive victory, but the time ran out on them not even half way through what a normal game would have been.

Let's take a look at some of the hypothesis presented here.

40k is a game of luck based on dice rolls...
No one consistently rolls good or bad. It all averages out over the course of a couple games. A great example is shooting at a squad of Space Marines. Your first squad shoots them and they make all their armor saves. Your next squad shoots them and again they make all their armor saves. Then your next squad shoots them and yet again they make all their armor saves. You have shot the same squad three times with three different units and have killed nothing! But if you were to shoot them again suddenly your opponent rolls all 1s and 2s. I've seen this happen many many times and it's a classic example of dice averaging out over the course of a game. Most often people think they have bad luck but in reality they are actually making bad tactical decisions. They do not focus fire on one enemy unit at a time... They take risks that yield low odds of success rather than going for something that has much higher odds of success. For example charging an independent character solo into a large enemy squad... The independent has a higher initiative, higher weapon skill and a close combat weapon that ignores armor saves... But if he does not roll well to both hit and wound he will bounce and could even lose combat. A smart player knows that it is much better to attach the independent character to another unit and charge them both into an enemy unit. Now the independent character enhances the unit he has joined and there is much better odds of winning combat. Another example is poor choices of targets while shooting. A player shoots all of his plasma guns at a predator annilihator instead of targeting a squad of Space Marines. The predator at best could be glanced while the player could have wiped out the squad. The game is over, the player who has consistently made bad choices loses and he blames the loss on his dice. This happens all the time. People don't understand the game mechanics and won't be honest with themselves.

Here is another... It all comes down to who gets the best matchups. If you are using a Swiss style system it all takes care of itself. Again players blame their matchups for their losses instead of fielding a balanced army. I have never seen anyone who is a poor player win a big tournament... It just does not happen. I have seen good players knock each other out of winning a tournament... It happens but it's not going to happen to the same player consistently if they strive to improve and learn from their losses. That's really what it's all about - being honest with yourself when you lose and learning how to improve. If you keep bringing the same army list and keep losing it's probably your army list and the choices you made.

There is never going to be a tournament where the TO provides everyone with the same identical army to play. Let's be honest... You have to learn how to build a good list and learn how to make it work for you.

People that consistently win know what they are doing. You won't see them posting that tournaments are rubbish. They have learned how to play the game well.

Thinks Tyras and Afrikan Blonde, you actually make since and think before you post... unlike some peaple.

The premise of this post is absurd.

I tend to use kid gloves when replying to just about anything on a message board. But I've got some pretty big refutations for this line of thinking.

First of all, army identity is completely ridiculous. Most players who identify themselves with an army "My name is Blood Angels Bobby, I play Blood Angels, GW hates me." miss out on tons of great fun, they tend to have a very "woe is me" attitude, and then look for places to lay the blame. Tourneys often take the brunt of this.

I have NEVER seen a tourney where your choice of army was somehow pre-determined. When you choose to go to a tourney, you may take any army you feel is appropriate. In the vast majority of cases, the rules for scoring, and even the missions are available before the tourney starts. If you were unable to acquire and digest these rules, and make tactical army list building decisions, then that is your failing as a tourney player.

You do not need identical army lists to determine who is a better 40k player, because list design, and play style are also measures of skill. The identical lists would be biased if they were more forgiving for a certain style of play.

If tournaments aren't the best gauge of player skill, then what is? Should we all just secretly write down our records in our home and FLGS games and reveal them on the count of 3?

All the points about sportsmanship, painting, and social engineering are moot. There is a best general award, and one who consistently wins best generals, should be respected as a player who is good at getting more battle points than other players (read: a winner)

Consistently well performing tournament players have reputations, they have those reputations because they consistently win. Trust me, they aren't all millionaires. They don't "spare no expense" to make every tourney, and their army isn't always the newest codex with brand new shiny models. They shrewdly choose which army to take based on experience, and based on other factors like what they already own, how much time they have to paint and how much they can afford to spend. Then they pay attention to the mission objectives, which are a challenge, and require mental clarity to keep them in mind. Its not just another spearhead seize ground.

From the outside looking in, tourney results seem to show nothing. But if you actually go to tourneys in a local area, consistently, pay attention to people's names and tourney results then you will start to notice three sets of names. Guys who you're not familiar with, guys who you've seen at multiple events and who seem to win or place high every time, and guys who you've seen at multiple events that never seem to do well.

Without attending tourneys at least semi regularly, you won't be able to see this trend. I'm relatively new to the "scene" and I've had the privelage of playing people that are just naturally better at wargaming then I am. There is skill to be measured, and tournaments are where its measured.

And the whole dice thing. The only games ever lost to dice were close games. I've seen lots of players get blown out. In the middle of their spanking, they rolled a couple ones... on their way to being tabled, they latched on to a couple statistical abnormalities and pinned the loss on the dice. I've had opponents do it to me as well. It's disrespectful to your opponent to try to take the thunder out of his win because you'd rather believe you had a chance of winning but were victimized by lady luck. In more rare cases a game will be very close, impossible to call, right up until a big event happens. All players submit to the same vageries of chance here, and there is an equal chance of that happening to either player, but for the roll to completely decide the game, that means both players were doing well, and both could be potentially deserving of the win. It is not statistically impossible for a set of random events to stack so horribly against you, that no amount of generalship can dig you out of your hole. But that is no different than a star quarterback getting his knee blown out in preseason, or when an opposing player sucks out a full house to beat your flush that you made on the flop.

Good players are usually very aware of the probability sets associated with each game choice they plan to make. Some sit in front of a calculator and hammer out probability sets, others just play so much 40k that their own play experience is a robust sample set. Either way, a good player's decisions are informed by this data. Its not luck when his close combat unit charges yours and wins, its because he didn't settle for a 50/50 chance to win, he waited and manipulated the factors until the odds of success were much higher.

Ultimately, if there is a better measure of skill in 40k, that'd be great. I'd love to hear about it. If the purpose of this post was to criticize some of the tourney systems out there, then I'd be more inclined to at least partially agree, the tourney systems are far from perfect, but in the absence of a perfect tourney... well, saying your better than the guy who won the big tourney is pretty ridiculous.

Jesus Christ and I thought my explosion was huge,
well said very well said.
BTW he is very right about how the same usuall people will top three most of the time. At the tournies in my area it comes down to three out of six of my friends and I. It's very rare that anything else happens. I myself am undefeted in tournament play, if it's all about luck how do you explain this reaccuring event?
P.S. The players in my local area are very talented so lack of compitition is no excuse!

Shep wrote:The premise of this post is absurd.

I tend to use kid gloves when replying to just about anything on a message board. But I've got some pretty big refutations for this line of thinking.

First of all, army identity is completely ridiculous. Most players who identify themselves with an army "My name is Blood Angels Bobby, I play Blood Angels, GW hates me." miss out on tons of great fun, they tend to have a very "woe is me" attitude, and then look for places to lay the blame. Tourneys often take the brunt of this.

I have NEVER seen a tourney where your choice of army was somehow pre-determined. When you choose to go to a tourney, you may take any army you feel is appropriate. In the vast majority of cases, the rules for scoring, and even the missions are available before the tourney starts. If you were unable to acquire and digest these rules, and make tactical army list building decisions, then that is your failing as a tourney player.

You do not need identical army lists to determine who is a better 40k player, because list design, and play style are also measures of skill. The identical lists would be biased if they were more forgiving for a certain style of play.

If tournaments aren't the best gauge of player skill, then what is? Should we all just secretly write down our records in our home and FLGS games and reveal them on the count of 3?

All the points about sportsmanship, painting, and social engineering are moot. There is a best general award, and one who consistently wins best generals, should be respected as a player who is good at getting more battle points than other players (read: a winner)

Consistently well performing tournament players have reputations, they have those reputations because they consistently win. Trust me, they aren't all millionaires. They don't "spare no expense" to make every tourney, and their army isn't always the newest codex with brand new shiny models. They shrewdly choose which army to take based on experience, and based on other factors like what they already own, how much time they have to paint and how much they can afford to spend. Then they pay attention to the mission objectives, which are a challenge, and require mental clarity to keep them in mind. Its not just another spearhead seize ground.

From the outside looking in, tourney results seem to show nothing. But if you actually go to tourneys in a local area, consistently, pay attention to people's names and tourney results then you will start to notice three sets of names. Guys who you're not familiar with, guys who you've seen at multiple events and who seem to win or place high every time, and guys who you've seen at multiple events that never seem to do well.

Without attending tourneys at least semi regularly, you won't be able to see this trend. I'm relatively new to the "scene" and I've had the privelage of playing people that are just naturally better at wargaming then I am. There is skill to be measured, and tournaments are where its measured.

And the whole dice thing. The only games ever lost to dice were close games. I've seen lots of players get blown out. In the middle of their spanking, they rolled a couple ones... on their way to being tabled, they latched on to a couple statistical abnormalities and pinned the loss on the dice. I've had opponents do it to me as well. It's disrespectful to your opponent to try to take the thunder out of his win because you'd rather believe you had a chance of winning but were victimized by lady luck. In more rare cases a game will be very close, impossible to call, right up until a big event happens. All players submit to the same vageries of chance here, and there is an equal chance of that happening to either player, but for the roll to completely decide the game, that means both players were doing well, and both could be potentially deserving of the win. It is not statistically impossible for a set of random events to stack so horribly against you, that no amount of generalship can dig you out of your hole. But that is no different than a star quarterback getting his knee blown out in preseason, or when an opposing player sucks out a full house to beat your flush that you made on the flop.

Good players are usually very aware of the probability sets associated with each game choice they plan to make. Some sit in front of a calculator and hammer out probability sets, others just play so much 40k that their own play experience is a robust sample set. Either way, a good player's decisions are informed by this data. Its not luck when his close combat unit charges yours and wins, its because he didn't settle for a 50/50 chance to win, he waited and manipulated the factors until the odds of success were much higher.

Ultimately, if there is a better measure of skill in 40k, that'd be great. I'd love to hear about it. If the purpose of this post was to criticize some of the tourney systems out there, then I'd be more inclined to at least partially agree, the tourney systems are far from perfect, but in the absence of a perfect tourney... well, saying your better than the guy who won the big tourney is pretty ridiculous.

I agree with what he said.

There will never be a perfect balance in 40k for tournaments. If you want a perfect tournament for player skill, go play chess. But as another poster said: if you see the same 10-15 people at GTs and Indy GTs at the top 10 for battle points, they must have some skill at playing the game.

thehod wrote:If you want a perfect tournament for player skill, go play chess.

No way.

White is way OP compared to Black, due to having Army-wise Special Rule: Always Strikes First...

Casual gaming: Trying just as hard to win as everyone else, but loudly proclaiming that this is not what you were doing.

Wang was cool in his reply. I respect that.

Its amusing to me that in most competitive endeavors, there are those that swear skill isnt needed to win.

This sort of statement is generally made by those that dont win very often at said endeavors.

In 40k tournaments you do see good players, with good armies lose games.

You also see less skilled players, with medicore armies lose games.

What you dont see, is the less skilled players winning the tournaments on a regular basis. In any given region there are the players that are routinely placing in the top end of the tournaments. Its safe to say these are your skilled players.

What makes them skilled? They usually make fewer mistakes, and utilize theier armies strengths and weaknesses in any particular scenario no matter how random. And, when the bad luck strikes their game- they adapt to make the best of a bad situation.

Whining about how army A cant do mission C as well as Army B can, is a crutch. Adapt and improvise, and move on.

If you think sportsmanship shouldnt be part of scoring, it tells me that you're likely a rude opponent that loses points from it- or paranoid that everyone else is 'more popular' than you and has an unfair scoring advantage. Its in place to keep the juvenile behavior in check.

So, dont blame the army, dont blame the dice. Thats like blaming the car, or the gas, for driving into a wall- when its obviously the drivers problem.

Take responsibility, that will get you farther to finding a solution, rather than looking for problems that dont exist(to hte extent some think they do), simply to avoid the real issue.

Fearspect wrote:Casual gaming: Trying just as hard to win as everyone else, but loudly proclaiming that this is not what you were doing.

Exactly what I said in the recent 'Difference between casual and competative gamers".

A competative gamer creates a list in order to win a game.
A casual gamer creates a list in order to win a game but pretends he didn't.

Mistress of minis wrote:

If you think sportsmanship shouldnt be part of scoring, it tells me that you're likely a rude opponent that loses points from it- or paranoid that everyone else is 'more popular' than you and has an unfair scoring advantage. Its in place to keep the juvenile behavior in check.

I was with you until this quote. I have personally seen a number of people get screwed over on soft scores simply because they beat their opponent. There is no way to "improve yourself" with regards to soft scores that isn't completely overshadowed by the other person simply being a sore-ass dick.

sourclams wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:

If you think sportsmanship shouldnt be part of scoring, it tells me that you're likely a rude opponent that loses points from it- or paranoid that everyone else is 'more popular' than you and has an unfair scoring advantage. Its in place to keep the juvenile behavior in check.

I was with you until this quote. I have personally seen a number of people get screwed over on soft scores simply because they beat their opponent. There is no way to "improve yourself" with regards to soft scores that isn't completely overshadowed by the other person simply being a sore-ass dick.

Ya, thats happened to me a few times as well. Its not a perfect system, but its also something a TO can overturn if its obviously something they scored low out of spite from a loss.

Eh, sportsmanship is something that should be enforced by the TO, but is not something that should be scored, nor can it really be scored accurately because of human nature.

Some people are always going to give their opponents max sports, just because they don't want to be seen as a "narc."

Some people are always going to give their opponents a lower sports score, simply because they think they gain an advantage by doing so.

The best solution is to have TOs who are actively looking out for unsportsmanlike behavior:

First a warning. If the player doesn't shape up, they get booted from the tournament.

A competative gamer creates a list in order to win a game.
A casual gamer creates a list in order to win a game but pretends he didn't.

Not trying to win eschews the tenets of capitalism.

You don't want to be a communist now, do you?

Life should be about standing on top of a pile of the broken bodies of those that dared stand before you while you scream a challenge to the gods to face you.

Basically I treat tournaments as ways to win free stuff. Otherwise I'd have to buy it, which sucks. Can't we all just get along and win free stuff from GW and RTTs. They already took our hard earned cash hand over fist just to get a chance at an army worth playing to win at a tourny. Why shouldn't we try to at least get something back from them.


For example 'Ard Boyz got me a free Pred. Can't wait to see what the semi's has in store for me this weekend.

Lord-Loss wrote:I always thought that tournaments where for powergamers so they dont have to use there horrible powerleist on us casaul gamers

That would be fine if the casual gamers would simply stay out of the tourney scene.

I'll believe the premise of this thread when I see someone who doesnt do well at tournements stomp someone who cleans house at tournements.

Whatever.

Mistress of minis wrote:

sourclams wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:

If you think sportsmanship shouldnt be part of scoring, it tells me that you're likely a rude opponent that loses points from it- or paranoid that everyone else is 'more popular' than you and has an unfair scoring advantage. Its in place to keep the juvenile behavior in check.

I was with you until this quote. I have personally seen a number of people get screwed over on soft scores simply because they beat their opponent. There is no way to "improve yourself" with regards to soft scores that isn't completely overshadowed by the other person simply being a sore-ass dick.

Ya, thats happened to me a few times as well. Its not a perfect system, but its also something a TO can overturn if its obviously something they scored low out of spite from a loss.

So you want another arbitrary decision to override a different arbitrary decision?

How about you just remove the fething arbitrary decision to begin with? Treat the source of the problem, not just the symptom.

I don't play tourneys that have soft scores, period. They keep trying to sell me on them at my flgs, but it's epic fail, imho.

imweasel wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:

sourclams wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:

If you think sportsmanship shouldnt be part of scoring, it tells me that you're likely a rude opponent that loses points from it- or paranoid that everyone else is 'more popular' than you and has an unfair scoring advantage. Its in place to keep the juvenile behavior in check.

I was with you until this quote. I have personally seen a number of people get screwed over on soft scores simply because they beat their opponent. There is no way to "improve yourself" with regards to soft scores that isn't completely overshadowed by the other person simply being a sore-ass dick.

Ya, thats happened to me a few times as well. Its not a perfect system, but its also something a TO can overturn if its obviously something they scored low out of spite from a loss.

So you want another arbitrary decision to override a different arbitrary decision?

How about you just remove the fething arbitrary decision to begin with? Treat the source of the problem, not just the symptom.

I don't play tourneys that have soft scores, period. They keep trying to sell me on them at my flgs, but it's epic fail, imho.

The TO over riding s sports score isnt an arbitrary thing- its watching the pattern of scoring. If someone has gotten 5/1/5 on sports- and happened to cream the guy in the 2nd game- and mentions to the TO "Bob was really pissy after he lost" it pretty obvious Bob is being a spiteful lil dick.

Sportsmanship scoring is just a single element out of 3 or 4, if you want something else to whine about as a reason for losing- it makes a convenient excuse. Night as well whine about tourneys that score painting and how they arent fair because not everyone can paint well.

What it boils down to- winning in the different tournament formats takes different skills in combination. Playing well is large factor in Ard Boyz, and in RTTs its a more rounded skillset. It seems pretty simple that if you dont like the tournament format for a given tourney, you're free to take your toy soldiers and go play somewhere else. And then whine about it online

Judges should ask "why did you zero this person" but few have the balls to actually do it.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Exactly what I said in the recent 'Difference between casual and competative gamers".

A competative gamer creates a list in order to win a game.
A casual gamer creates a list in order to win a game but pretends he didn't.

I agreed with you right up until you said that.

Casual gamers dont do tournaments. (well, big ones). Those who say they are casual, and do, fit into your second category.
Real casuals (that includes me, at the moment) dont go to tourneys because they're about winning, and winning is secondary.
I play to have fun. This means, I dont want to have to keep playing against TFG just because I drew him as my opponent, I want to be able to trundle over to a friend and say "oi, get your army out, I want to table you again" and then have a nice friendly game. That said game may include cheese lists on both sides would be by us agreeing beforehand.

TLR: People who're poor-quality Compettitive players calling themselves Casual draw flak from tourney winners. The fact that you feed the troll makes you just as bad on t'internet, regardless of W/D/L record.

A comment on Luck.

I once played a guy in Bloodbowl. I creamed him, like 4-0 or something, yet our teams were about the same Rating. At the end of the game, he was complaining about his dice luck. I made the comment that, 'Complaining about your dice luck is saying that I'm a lousy coach. I put you in a position to have to make a lot of rolls to score, and you didn't.' Now, to some degree BB is probably more about Luck than 40k (because it relies upon more individual rolls), but the point is the same. A crafty opponent will put you in positions where you need good luck (or even just average luck) to win. And a crafty opponent will do what they can to minimize how much Luck can impact the game.

Like many have said, in a given area the skilled players constantly rise to the top. I go to numerous tournaments around my state and can generally tell who I am viaing for the top spot with. I have won alot of tournaments recently and how did I get there? I don't play the newest codex...I play the oldest dark eldar. I have been playing them almost none stop for 3 years now, over and over, constantly getting better, revising my list and tactics. I spent the first year and a half never getting better then 2nd or third but I paid attention to how I lost (and still managing to have a good time to!) So now that I am winning is it suddenly luck?!

It really cheeses me off that someone could just flip out a comment like that, after I have spent so much time and effort in getting to the skill level I am at today (as I am sure alot of other people are as well). The difference between a skilled player and an unskilled player goes beyond building the list and knowing what units to put where, its what that player does when the sh!t hits the fan. What do you do when your massive assault fails miserably and gets wiped out leaving you at a huge disadvantage? Do throw in the towel or do you keep going and look for another way to win? Those players that I consider skilled are those that can consistantly pull victory from the jaws of defeat.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Judges should ask "why did you zero this person" but few have the balls to actually do it.

I must be one of the "lucky" ones. Not only have I been asked by a TO why I didn't give someone full sportsmanship points (on a 0-2 scale, I give a "1" for consistent 6.5" measurement or the like), and I've also had a TO allow opponents to review individual scoresheets, and as such players have approached me about the sportsmanship score I gave them. "Well... you see... when you constantly cursed at yourself for how the game was going, threw dice across the room, and walked away from the table on multiple occasions for several minutes at a time... that sort of factors in."

To the original topic, I will agree that perhaps a one-off tournament, with totally random pairings, imbalanced missions, fuzzy soft scores, and total strangers involved may not end up with the most skilled player on top. But I also must disagree that there is no indication of skill at all in tournaments.
I've played at the same FLGS for over three years now, and many of the locals there I faced constantly when there was a GW store in the local mall for a couple years before that. When I started gaming with this group, I didn't win very much. In fact, I spent about 6 months losing every game as I learned 40k (Fantasy was what drew me in at the time). I played in tournaments, got some lucky matchups, and placed in the top half sometimes. Today it's a different story. I've learned my lessons, and I've become a better player, and so have some of the others in our group. We still have a good time, and surprises do happen, but it's fairly consistent that the same group of players are 'in the money', so to say, in each tournament. I suppose it could be contributed to the matchups, or the army composition in general, but it doesn't seem to work out that way. I've matched another Ork army by at least 85% of my list in the tournament and shared 2/3 opponents with that list on the day, taken first and seen that army take last. In the eight 40k/Fantasy events we've held this year at our local store, there are exactly three participants that have been a part of more than one event and placed in at least one but less than four of those events, and almost all of us have brought different armies to some of those events than our "usual", so the rock-paper-scissors argument doesn't really work. Maybe I see atypical results, just as I was told in the "Orks are 3rd tier" threads, but around here, the skilled players come out on top.

Skill is a factor. The goobers who copy netlists and smash the local pubeless bunch are not the same as the guy who fine tunes his/her list and wins through experience. Eventually the goobers run into the kryptonite to their army and ebay the damn thing so they can run out and buy the next big thing, hence all the Nob Bikers and Lootas on Ebay atm. Luck enters into it, but a descent player knows how to minimize risk and take advantage of the shifts in luck when things are going their way. So basically, the skilled guys are the ones who know how to manage risk/luck and think outside the box.

It is all about minimizing reliance on luck.

Mistress of minis wrote:The TO over riding s sports score isnt an arbitrary thing- its watching the pattern of scoring. If someone has gotten 5/1/5 on sports- and happened to cream the guy in the 2nd game- and mentions to the TO "Bob was really pissy after he lost" it pretty obvious Bob is being a spiteful lil dick.

Really? And you are going to prove this how? Is it possible that the player actually was an ass to bob and bob scored it correctly? How about paint? Comp scores?

Like I said, it's arbitrary. It's arbitrary to 'up' a score. There are threads here where the tourney results were changed days later because of a judge's changes to 'soft scores'.

Mistress of minis wrote:Sportsmanship scoring is just a single element out of 3 or 4, if you want something else to whine about as a reason for losing- it makes a convenient excuse. Night as well whine about tourneys that score painting and how they arent fair because not everyone can paint well.

It's just not that. It's people that actually score well in painting that didn't paint a single model in their army. How are you going to be able to tell the diff? And how is that not against the 'spirit of the game'?

You can't. Might as well give someone full points if they wear a suit and a tie.

Mistress of minis wrote:What it boils down to- winning in the different tournament formats takes different skills in combination. Playing well is large factor in Ard Boyz, and in RTTs its a more rounded skillset. It seems pretty simple that if you dont like the tournament format for a given tourney, you're free to take your toy soldiers and go play somewhere else. And then whine about it online

Or even worse, listen to someone try to defend a very flawed tournament system online. Winning in different tournament formats does not necessarily take different skills in combination.

It means arbitrary decisions went your way that day. Despite how much of a good sport you were, how well you paint, in the end, it is up to someone else besides you to get the win.

That's fail. Epic fail.

imweasel wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:What it boils down to- winning in the different tournament formats takes different skills in combination. Playing well is large factor in Ard Boyz, and in RTTs its a more rounded skillset. It seems pretty simple that if you dont like the tournament format for a given tourney, you're free to take your toy soldiers and go play somewhere else. And then whine about it online

Or even worse, listen to someone try to defend a very flawed tournament system online. Winning in different tournament formats does not necessarily take different skills in combination.

It means arbitrary decisions went your way that day. Despite how much of a good sport you were, how well you paint, in the end, it is up to someone else besides you to get the win.

That's fail. Epic fail.

Epic fail is whining online. If you have better ideas, run your own tournaments. Until then, work with whats in place or dont play if you're that worried about losing. Not once have I said the systems in place are perfect, or even good. But Im not going to expend the effort to constantly belittle something Im not prepared to improve. Ive been screwed over more than once by the system, I learn from it and move on.

You can play the 'what if' game about holes in tournament scoring all day long.

It doesnt change the fact- if you dont have skill, and do not score battle points along with any other factors- you wont win.

Mistresss: One can observe flaws without running their own tournaments. Getting over it doesn't fix it.

Player rated sports scores is too easy to game. Scoring paint with battle results is also stupid. If the tournament is about the game, battle scores are all that should matter. I am not saying players should never rate anything, but have a separate award for best painted, general, and best sportsman, don't lump them together. I have run tourneys like this and it's great for everyone. It rewards all aspects of the hobby without making one aspect subservient to another. So the best general knows he won purely based on gaming results. Best Painted knows his was purely on paint. And the Sportsman knows he wasn't getting bagged to improve standings. Best "Overall" using a composite just encourages messing with the system.

I also like PPs way of handling sportsmanship in it's tournament rules.

jmurph wrote:
I also like PPs way of handling sportsmanship in it's tournament rules.

Can you expand on this, for those of us who don't play PP games?

I quit going to RT Tournies for all the reasons the OP said. The last RTT I went to was Atlanta back in 2000, and it wasnt untill 3 months later that my group and I found how rigged the event was.

The event was to be a full weekend - 3 games a day, as well as a painting contest, admission was $70

The painting contest was a sham as they handed us a model (non 40k at that) and told us that we had until the next years RTT to paint it and bring it back, and it would be scored then.........

The in-game painting contest was also flawed as I lost (with a full painted SM army, not that hard to paint) to a SM army that was still 1/2 in primer.

And each of us was only allowed to play 2 games before we were told that there were too many players at the event and they didnt have room/time to let all of us play to the end. I myself tabled 1 player and had a Major Victory against the second, one of my teammates was undefeated in both of his as well.

I got an abysmal Sportsmanship score from a player that tried to assault from a moving Rino-rush, and then got tabled because his entire army was disembarked within range of my gunline after I informed him that he couldnt assault.....I was given a flat 0 for my efforts. I can only assume that this happend to many other people at the event as well.

My group drove 10 hours and spent close to $300 each for food, gas, hotel room, and entry..........to play 2 games and not even make it to the top 20, because we were told to go home.

We found out later that the local group that was hosting the RTT, not only won the event but had members in 8 of the top 10 slots.......two members being the Rino-rush kid who got tabled and the kid with the 1/2 primer army...........maby I am paranoid, but that sounds rigged to me.


As for Ard Boys.....I have looked at the way they run their events and it looks like it is MUCH better. They dont have many of the scoring rules that RT had....however 2 of my friends won qualifiers in their home town and are going to the local Semi-finals.........yet I beat both players on a regular basis with Sisters and Eldar......so maby the qualifiers arnt a good gauge of skill......we shall see what the Semi-finals looks like.

So out of the blue and two games into the tourney, you were asked to leave and did so peacefully without a refund? I find it hard to believe there isn't more to the story.

They said that there were too many people signed up for the RTT and that there were not enough tables/time to run all the games, so they were only going to keep the people with the best scores at that point in the day.......this was the first day and about 2 hours after the Painting scores.......I will see if the website that gave the results is still up....it was a group called Dogs of War (unrelated to the guy who posts on here) and they had every single one of their members in the final lineup......

It wasnt just my group that was told to leave.....there were close to 30 people told to go. I imagine that this doesnt happen at every RTT but the same ability to abuse the system is still there. I am sure this has happend before at other tournies.

We didnt get a full refund because we had already played a couple of games, but we still had over $200 in travel expenses that we lost out on......at least we got a chance to go to Dave And Busters for a few hours before we went home......lol

Definitely write up a full Battle report, with links and names.

Also, I'm assuming you got at least $50 of your $70 back, right?

JohnHwangDD wrote:Definitely write up a full Battle report, with links and names.

Also, I'm assuming you got at least $50 of your $70 back, right?

I am still looking for links, but it doesnt look like I am going to find the results......maby it was too long ago. What are the chances I am going to find a winner list of a RTT from 8 years ago.......

As for a full battle list....are you refering to the game I tabled a SM player, or to the whole tourney.........both memories are a bit fuzzy, I only remember critical points of the battle.

The same with my refund.... I dont remember how much I got back, I just remember I spent it later at Dave n Busters on food and a giant Mechwarrior pod-simulator they had.

Point is, a single group was able to abuse a game they were hosting to not only make a crap load of money but to also place their own people in winning slots by abusing the sportsmanship and painting scores.

I would love to hear from someone who runs large games like this to see just how much money they made off of us, there is no other reason to sell 80 reservations for a game that couldnt handle more than 40-50 players. Even if they gave back 1/2 money on refunds they would have made $1050.00 off the 30 of us that left.

Well, at least you got back some of your money.

And got to play in the MW pod.

DJ, that happens sometimes. I do hope you and everyone that got screwed like that let GW know about it. Its not much consolation, but they will pull the RTT support from obviously crooked/abysmally ran tournies.

Sadly, some clubs have ran things like this and it winds up being the 'good ole' boys that miraculously win everything. Thats not an issue with the tournament format or rules- its outright favoritism and cheating. And in many cases fraud when theres a large fee like the 70$ you only got a partial refund on. If theyre too stupid to count reservations- and then know they'll need tables for that many games- it sounds alot like a money grab.

Mistress of minis wrote:

imweasel wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:What it boils down to- winning in the different tournament formats takes different skills in combination. Playing well is large factor in Ard Boyz, and in RTTs its a more rounded skillset. It seems pretty simple that if you dont like the tournament format for a given tourney, you're free to take your toy soldiers and go play somewhere else. And then whine about it online

Or even worse, listen to someone try to defend a very flawed tournament system online. Winning in different tournament formats does not necessarily take different skills in combination.

It means arbitrary decisions went your way that day. Despite how much of a good sport you were, how well you paint, in the end, it is up to someone else besides you to get the win.

That's fail. Epic fail.

Epic fail is whining online. If you have better ideas, run your own tournaments. Until then, work with whats in place or dont play if you're that worried about losing. Not once have I said the systems in place are perfect, or even good. But Im not going to expend the effort to constantly belittle something Im not prepared to improve. Ive been screwed over more than once by the system, I learn from it and move on.

You can play the 'what if' game about holes in tournament scoring all day long.

It doesnt change the fact- if you dont have skill, and do not score battle points along with any other factors- you wont win.

Epic fail is whining online? How about defending a system that is flawed online? I don't play and yet you accuse me of being afraid of losing even though it's a solution that you propose?

You apparently are willing to put forth the effort to defend these systems or at least tell people that's the way it is and stfu.

And what exactly did you actually learn by getting screwed by the system more than once? That it's just fine to get screwed more than once?

There is no need to play the 'what if' game about holes in tournament scoring. They exist. They happen. Yet all you can say is that's the way it is and to bad, live with it.

Amazing.

And for further proof, just look here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/251019.page

Even painting contests are rigged. At a gw event no less.

But I guess that's just to bad and folks should just live with it, eh?

Nobody_Holme wrote:I agreed with you right up until you said that.

Truth be told my comment is more there to raise discussion and draw ire than something I actually believe. Of course not all 'casual players' make lists and then pretend they aren't trying - most of them just play games. The problem lies when you get a 'casual' player going on about how they don't play to win and it's just about fun and blah blah blah - it's all nonsense.

Fact - No one plays to lose.
Fact - Everyone plays to win.
Fact - Anyone who says they don't play to win is either lying or deluded.
Fact - Playing to win does not = power gamer/WAAC, not matter what some of us here might like to claim (JHDD).

Does that mean that everyone makes killer lists designed to destroy the enemy, even in 'friendly' games? No. Of course not. But what was said on the previous page about casual gamers trying just as hard to win as tournament gamers is true. They're trying to win.

This is part of the reason I refuse to classify myself as a 'casual gamer'. There's too much of a 'holier than thou/my gak don't stink' attitude associated with the term 'casual gamer', as though that's somehow better than a tournament gamer (GW seems to think so, given that they consider tournament gamers to be a 'fringe group' that they don't cater to - all the while taking your money at 'Ard Boyz tournaments, fething hypocrites).

So I'm a 'gamer' - singular - I play competitively, casually, and most importantly to tell a story. I try to win my games, I don't bs about doing it 'just for fun'.

Mistress of minis wrote:DJ, that happens sometimes. I do hope you and everyone that got screwed like that let GW know about it. Its not much consolation, but they will pull the RTT support from obviously crooked/abysmally ran tournies.

Sadly, some clubs have ran things like this and it winds up being the 'good ole' boys that miraculously win everything. Thats not an issue with the tournament format or rules- its outright favoritism and cheating. And in many cases fraud when theres a large fee like the 70$ you only got a partial refund on. If theyre too stupid to count reservations- and then know they'll need tables for that many games- it sounds alot like a money grab.

We filed a complaint, but nothing came of it, we just quit going out of town for orginized events. 'Ard Boyz may be the thing to bring me back to the tournament scene, but I still have more fun on the local level.

A main point of my rant (sorry to drag this off topic) is that a well organized group was able to do all of this "by the rules" by scoring each other high and sabotaging other players. And from what I have seen, a lot of places charge $60+ for GT and RTT............Unless I know the group running the event I am now scared to go to any event that costs more than $10..........I can still have $10 worth of fun at a horrible event by trying new tactics on the fly and not caring about the points.......

Well, there's playing to win and there's throwing all other considerations to the wind to win.

I want to win when I play, especially at tournaments.

I will not stoop to being rude, attempting to exploit my opponents, cheating, or otherwise engaging in antisocial behavior in pursuit of winning. I won't call 5.9 inches 6.1 when my opponent wants to charge, and will not call 6.1 inches 5.9 on my turn either. I give my opponent the benefit of the doubt, and expect the same.

Wanting to win != Win at all costs.

imweasel wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:

imweasel wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:What it boils down to- winning in the different tournament formats takes different skills in combination. Playing well is large factor in Ard Boyz, and in RTTs its a more rounded skillset. It seems pretty simple that if you dont like the tournament format for a given tourney, you're free to take your toy soldiers and go play somewhere else. And then whine about it online

Or even worse, listen to someone try to defend a very flawed tournament system online. Winning in different tournament formats does not necessarily take different skills in combination.

It means arbitrary decisions went your way that day. Despite how much of a good sport you were, how well you paint, in the end, it is up to someone else besides you to get the win.

That's fail. Epic fail.

Epic fail is whining online. If you have better ideas, run your own tournaments. Until then, work with whats in place or dont play if you're that worried about losing. Not once have I said the systems in place are perfect, or even good. But Im not going to expend the effort to constantly belittle something Im not prepared to improve. Ive been screwed over more than once by the system, I learn from it and move on.

You can play the 'what if' game about holes in tournament scoring all day long.

It doesnt change the fact- if you dont have skill, and do not score battle points along with any other factors- you wont win.

Epic fail is whining online? How about defending a system that is flawed online? I don't play and yet you accuse me of being afraid of losing even though it's a solution that you propose?

You apparently are willing to put forth the effort to defend these systems or at least tell people that's the way it is and stfu.

And what exactly did you actually learn by getting screwed by the system more than once? That it's just fine to get screwed more than once?

There is no need to play the 'what if' game about holes in tournament scoring. They exist. They happen. Yet all you can say is that's the way it is and to bad, live with it.

Amazing.

And for further proof, just look here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/251019.page

Even painting contests are rigged. At a gw event no less.

But I guess that's just to bad and folks should just live with it, eh?

I like how you totally dodge the point about putting forth the effort or ideas on how to improve it, and instead nitpick anything I say. Great tactic, Im sure that play style has won many tournaments for you.

I acknowldge the system has flaws.

Whining about it is wasted energy- as it obviously wont change the system- as people have been whining about it since 3rd ed. GW doesnt care (shocker)

I ran my own 40k tournaments, at my home. I broke out the grill, the boys brought the beer and minis, good times had by all. Sure, I can only offer up 6 tables. But I also keep the whiners off the guest list

If you want to keep posting just to be contrary and have the satisfaction of feeling like you're right- go on ahead and stroke your e-peen. Doesnt change the fact you arent doing anything to change the things about tournament organization that you dislike so much. Which brings up my next point- if you dont like tournament rules- dont play in them. If you just play in them to find things to complain about- try runnin your own tournament and get some perspective.

That's a total cop-out attitude.

At least by pointing out problems, by vocalizing them in some form, the start for changes takes shape. You have a chance to polarize a community one way or the other.

If you are completely complacent, even when you yourself admit it is flawed, nothing will ever change.

Hey listen folks , I'm relatively 'new' to the game and I got a heaping mouthful of "tournament" one time and that was enough. Go to my profile and find my intro page--its enlightening (and easy to find). It tells a tale of how I was dicked not just by soft scores (we were told paint wouldn't matter), new random rules (to hold an objective over half over your unit had to be w/ in 4"), and more objectives than you can shake a burning, chaos-drenched, demonic stick at (minimum was 5- max I think 9-10).

When we got home we were... un-happy. :(

Plus, our store manager who had talked and arranged for us to head over to this venue to start trying to build some back/forth tourneying was PISSED. soooo, we decided to set up our own tournament of 40k not TourneyK as we've begun to call it.

2000pt
Standard Missions, Standard Deployment
Balanced Terrain, but different
2.5hrs to play
Victory=10, Tie=5, Loss=1
To break for ties count victory points as determined by annihilation standard--thus hard to get a tie, but it does happen
Swiss format so Best to best to best.

Everyone was happy with it, because no time was eaten up due to wonky rules for deployment and there was no super troop spamming for those that like to dig in like ticks and hoard objectives whilst clockwatching---

pretty much everyone had time to complete full games , account for scores, and then take breaks.

Now, this is basically what we like and maybe it's an idea if you guys out there wanna do something close to it.
Conversely, I think 'ard boys really is viable too. No crazy rule changes and the scenario boards are released before hand so you know what you CAN get stuck with--and it ain't that different from regular missions either.

As far as sportsmanship goes along with painting.... not my bag. I've seen nothing but corruption.

Fearspect wrote:That's a total cop-out attitude.

At least by pointing out problems, by vocalizing them in some form, the start for changes takes shape. You have a chance to polarize a community one way or the other.

If you are completely complacent, even when you yourself admit it is flawed, nothing will ever change.

Pointing problems out- and then doing nothing else? Come on, seriously? If that worked the RTT tourney format weould have been perfected several years ago. This is an ongoing problem.

Im not completely complacent- as mentioned, Ive ran my own tourneys. I played in tourneys at different shops. The shops that dont favor the locals I returned to for more tourneys.

Ergo- rewarding that which works better and avoiding that which does not.

Vocalizing the problems is only half of what should be the first step- the second half is vocalizing them to the ones that ran the tournament. Not just ranting randomly online looking for people to say 'dood you are so rite'.

Talk to your TO's, tell them what worked, and what didnt. Most TO's get alot of greif and little praise. But if you dont let them know whats not working- they cant even attempt to fix it.

The Dragon wrote:soooo, we decided to set up our own tournament of 40k not TourneyK as we've begun to call it.

Thats what Im talking about! You guys saw a problem, and rather than just lettin the nerdrage loose, you did something about it. Proactive problem solving.

I am not sure inviting some friends over for a barbeque and calling it a tournament is really going to have an effect on support for, or standards maintenance, of the current 40k tournament scene.

This is a step in the right direction. Anyway, I have to say that I just do not understand how someone can spend so much energy telling people to just ignore something. It seems contrary to your message.

Also, no one but you thinks that they 'win' an argument by just accusing the other side of 'nerdrage' and 'ranting'.

Fearspect wrote:I am not sure inviting some friends over for a barbeque and calling it a tournament is really going to have an effect on support for, or standards maintenance, of the current 40k tournament scene.

It was a full on tournament, which had the benefit of good food and beer

Fearspect wrote:This is a step in the right direction. Anyway, I have to say that I just do not understand how someone can spend so much energy telling people to just ignore something. It seems contrary to your message.

What you dont understand isnt really a concern for me- the fact you dont understand it pretty much invalidates the rest of your statements. If you arent surewhat someone means- its generally considered polite to ask.

It is tragically ironic that you lecture people on politeness.

What's more ironic Fearspect is that, having gone over all your posts, you've yet to actually respond to Mistress' points with anything more than bile and anger.

The thing is, that is most 40k tourney venues there are various ways to earn points and win a "best" catagory. They are usually for painting, sportsmanship, battle points (best general), comp, and overall champ.

The idea is that since the hobby encompasses so much more than just winning games, that all aspects of the hobby should be judged.

If a person doesn't care about the rest of the hobby and just wants to win games, then going all out for "best general" should be fine for that person....he obviously doesn't feel that painting and sportsmanship are as important - more power to him. He can still win a prize and prove that he is the most skilled player out there. Soft scores will not effect his goal. However, wininng every game doesn't mean that he will be grand champ.

Is this biased? Sure it is. Most tourneys use soft scores to make the tourney enjoyable for more people. If the only thing that mattered at tourneys was wins/loses, what would be the incentive for non-cutthroat hobbyists or newer players to go to the event? Answer: none.

The pupose of soft scores to to give players of every skill level an opportunity to enjoy the event. Soft scores alone will not win a tourney, so skill is still necessary to win overall.

Sure, there is luck involved in tourneys: who you draw early on, list matchups, soft scores, etc. However, luck is involved in ANY competition. The best MTG player in the world will lose if he gets a really bad draw. The best general in wartime can lose a battle, though no fault of his own, because of shifting weather or by being cut off from supplies/reinforcements. Just because you have to rely on luck sometimes, doesn't detract from the skill needed to succeed.

When all is said and done, this is a game of dice and chance, whether or not you are playing in a tourney. So, if you want to avoid luck and chance and prove that you have the greatest skill, and therefore should win, I only have one bit of advice.....maybe you should play chess instead.

I think the posts throughout this thread has shown that the type of people that run these terrible tournaments are not the types that would listen/care about what anyone has to say.

The problem is that someone needs to run the sanctioning process, and providing/revoking licenses to run anything that even seem official.

This will not change by running our own tournaments. This will not change if those delinquent tournament organizers (albeit not all of them, I'm sure) are spoken to directly about the problems people have with what they do. Make the GW stamp on an event mean something by taking it away from the people causing problems. It is to the detriment of the hobby as a whole to let things continue this way.

Fearspect wrote:I think the posts throughout this thread has shown that the type of people that run these terrible tournaments are not the types that would listen/care about what anyone has to say.

The problem is that someone needs to run the sanctioning process, and providing/revoking licenses to run anything that even seem official.

This will not change by running our own tournaments. This will not change if those delinquent tournament organizers (albeit not all of them, I'm sure) are spoken to directly about the problems people have with what they do. Make the GW stamp on an event mean something by taking it away from the people causing problems. It is to the detriment of the hobby as a whole to let things continue this way.

It would take a lot of GWs time and money to certify/sanction every event beyond having final say on large matters....micro-managing seems to be out of the scope of what they are willing to put up with.......I think the best thing they have done so far was make qualifier games for "ard Boyz free........less likely so see shady effort when money isnt at stake.

I support a tournament format(lets call it Highlander) where you can have no more than 1 of any unit excluding troop choices(and only because of things like Necrons who have almost none). This should allow the competitive and casual gamers to play together in events. There really aren't that many rules lawyers, maybe only 1 in 20 players is. Should still be fun for the less competitive players.

I also like the idea for the Bell of Lost Souls tournament. After the first 3-4 rounds they split the tournament into two tournaments based on the standings at that point. I feel this is a good way of handicapping the field. It also seems like players of all skill levels would be more inclined to play if they knew they always had a shot at an award. Also if you are in the bottom half of the standings you can stay with those in the top half so you do have a choice if you want to continue as an underdog.


*edited system=format(lets call it Highlander)

WC_Brian wrote: I support a tournament format(lets call it Highlander) where you can have no more than 1 of any unit excluding troop choices(and only because of things like Necrons who have almost none). This should allow the competitive and casual gamers to play together in events. There really aren't that many rules lawyers, maybe only 1 in 20 players is. Should still be fun for the less competitive players.
*edited system=format(lets call it Highlander)

The problem with that format is that armies without top-end troops like Eldar need their Elites and Heavies to do its dirty work, a single band of Banshees can do some damage, but if they get caught in the open and get shot down then the Eldar have to fall back on units to do stuff they arnt ment to do. If my squad of Dragons get ripped apart then there is little chance of fighting off a Landraider.....

Yet SM,CSM and Orks dont have that issue

Alerian wrote:The pupose of soft scores to to give players of every skill level an opportunity to enjoy the event. Soft scores alone will not win a tourney, so skill is still necessary to win overall.

Agreed. If someone showed up, won all their games, had a fluffy-bunny army list, was instantly friends with everyone, and had the best painted army - they deserve to win overall. But, that probably never happens.

So, what event organizers have to determine when setting up the scoring, is how to balance the soft scores and battle points. Should soft scores merely be a tie-breaker between two people who are X-0-0 at the end? Should soft scores let someone with a wonderfully painted army, who is 3-1-0, win over someone who is 4-0-0, and has a 3-color army? How about 4-0-0 and bare metal?

Now, my personal gripe with soft score scoring is when the tourney uses a nebulous scoring method like "1-10". Some people will default to 5 or 6, some to 8, some will give everyone but TFG a 10. Set up the soft scores to try to emulate some sort of bell curve. It's like asking people if they're a good driver, 80% of people will say they are. But, you can't have 80% really being good because that would make 'good' really be 'average'.

Good sportsmanship should be expected. Poor sports should be punished in their soft scores. And the really, really good sports should be rewarded. Use a scoring system that forces some sort of bell curve into the scoring, with 'Good Sport' being the big hump in the middle.

Of course there is skill involved.

Just because luck plays a big part does not mean skill is not involved, and saying list building eliminates the need for skill is just deliberatly ignoring the skill involved in building lists. It takes skill to choose the right list for the right environment, to taylor it to your play style and the current trends of the metagame.

I lost round 3 of this weekend ard boys for 1 reason and 1 reason only.

I played poorly.

My opponent did not have the rock list to my scisser. In fact he played a list that I have never lost too with my Mech IG ( Dual Sorcerror Lash Mech ). He rolled better than I did, but not beyond the odds that are to be expected.

I lost because I made poor deployment and reserve choices and made a bad targe priority choice on round 3. He was skilled enough to recognize my errors and pounce on them.

At the top tables of a 50 person Ard Boyz there is no room for error and it was his skill and my own failure to use mine that determined who won.

I do agree that there needs to be standards for TOs, there is way too much variety in the quality of events nation wide.

I have come to the conclusion that people just want to argue over some things.

I had been through a poorly run set of tournies and was seeing a lot of griping about tourney structure, fairness, and skill vs build on the forums. So I started this thread, http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/229566.page#554685 , just to see if anyone would be interested in a tournament setting that would be a more realistic assesment of skill.

As you can see, I got crickets, which is I why I think people will argue about this but never push for change. There were several variations that I wanted to discuss but the one below was what I was leaning towards.

Funny, If there had been more interest I was going to work with a couple of guys I know to set up such a tourney. Between us there was about 10,000pts for each army that has a codex.

You would bring in your painted army to be judged and then draw from the house armies. You'd get a half hour to draw up your list, 15 minutes to checkout your pieces, a half hour to set up, 2 hours to play and 15 minutes to check in your pieces. You'd get 45 minute food breaks between rounds with a total of 3 rounds per day(1 to 2 days depending on tournament). You'd draw for different armies each round with no repeats allowed. It would be a long 12 hour days but I think pretty fair. Was thinking the tourney would be set at 1,500 pts.


Let me know what you think
,Later

If I was not already married, I would want to marry Mistress of Minis.

And have Shep as my best man.

In point of fact, wargaming tournaments have been going on for many years. Even just the US GW Grand Tournaments go back about 15 years, and the Rogue Traders have been around since 2000.

Each organization/company decides how it wants to score its events, based on their priorities, and what they want to promote. Some companies and organizations are more dedicated to it than others. Some have more resources than others. And often based on the prior two factors, some are most certainly better at it than others. And every once in a (IME, rare) while you get some tools who run a crappy or rigged local event. Those idiots are the exception, not the rule.

No system will ever be perfect, but most of the ones I’ve seen work pretty well. I’ve met a lot more fun players at tournaments than non-fun players. I’ve seen a lot of gorgeous armies, especially at the ones which scored painting. Tournaments scoring painting give me deadlines, and deadlines have forced me to do most of the painting I’ve ever done. After ten years of practice, I’m now a pretty decent painter. I didn’t start out as one. And if tournaments didn’t score it, I don’t know if I would have had the motivation. So tournaments have led to me becoming a better hobbyist as well as player.

GW has tweaked its tourney rules many times over the last ~15 years. They’ve also run multiple different types of tournaments, rewarding different things. Gladiator and ‘Ard Boyz are two examples of “battles is all that counts” formats. Grand Tournaments and Rogue Traders have traditionally been about the overall hobby, though winning games has almost always been the lion’s share of the points.

There have often been scoring issues. Some systems work better than others. Players who care give detailed and honest feedback directly to the organizers, AS WELL as discussing the issues in the community. The internet can be a place to whine, but it can also be a place to share bad mistakes and best practices.

Many tournament organizers out there (from MoM at her home, to myself with a three tournament series I ran at my FLGS, all the way up to the Adepticon guys) are just players and fans who thought- “I like tournaments, but I think I could do it better, and people would enjoy it even more.” Concerns about the validity or accuracy of Appearance or Sports scoring aren’t new, and they haven’t gone unaddressed. The systems which the better tournies have trended towards in the last five years, for example, tend to be better than the ones we had in 2000. Conscientious tournament organizers listen to complaints and we really DO try to make better tournaments and scoring systems which address the issues.

IMO from casual game and tournament play is this....


Tournaments are less about skill...

The only real way to have a tournament based on skill is to have all the armies be default set or to be perfectly even with any other choice army. Same with mission types. If all things are equal then the only off set would be skill.

As of now all things are not equal and opinions can/may determine the winner. Don't get me wrong though tourneys are fun social gatherings and those who win should be proud of themselves. When tourney time rolls around its all about fun. Its great to win but its even greater to play. I would like a random spot light on games to watch instead of the walk around look from a distance type of thing. A player profile would be nifty.

On a side note about luck: A failure or loss at a game is the Generals fault alone and his/her sole responsibility. A true strategists worse enemy is themselves.

Gonna break it down another step: If a game comes down to luck it is because you put the game in that position. Any experienced tactician knows that it is a folly to plan on luck.

I have participated and judged many tournaments in the southeast. There is definately skill involved with winning these events as I've seen the same faces from coast to coast of the US do extremely well in their games. There wasn't trick dice or hypnotism going on, they just played well with minimal mistakes.

After being a part of organizing tournaments I must say it is a thankless job that I may not want to continue. You spend a lot of your time and money making sure your players have a great time only to put that money back into the pot for next year to make it better.

Our group has learned great lessons the hard way by not following the models of successful organisers like the folks that do GW's GTs, Apdeticon, Exterminatus and the like. Some great ideas have been gleaned from some of the posters on this topic that I will pass along to our group.

I go to tournaments to meet up with folks I only get to see few times a year, and support the tournament organisers. Yes I also go to win my entry fee back but that doesn't happen nearly as often as I like. I do like testing my metal against people I don't play often to see where my skills place me. I have even been known to throw a game when I know the person I am facing is new to the game and I have no chance of winning best overall or general.

Thanks for the ideas for modifying the soft scores. I am sure they will be implemented in our next event. There is, however, a very acute need for skill to win in a tournament.


Edited for spelling and punctuation.

Like I said. Everyone wants to argue rather than working towards improving the system.

WC_Brian wrote: I support a tournament format(lets call it Highlander) where you can have no more than 1 of any unit excluding troop choices(and only because of things like Necrons who have almost none).

Nothing wrong with this, although it's also good to shrink the points sizes for the game (1000 recommended, 1500 max).

How would the "Highlander" system work with dedicated transports?

A SM army could have 1 unit in a Rhino, 1 unit in a Razorback, 1 unit in Drop Pod, and make up the balance in Land Raiders / Crusader / Redeemer.

Eh, I go for tourneys for fun and to win who doesn't? But I think they should do something about the sportsmanship thing because I always play nicely but one guy gave me a 1 just because I was being a bit strict with the rules (He tried to move and assault with vanguard vets whe they Ds) I told him he couldn't he said he could and he didn't bring his codex, after we called over the jugde and clarified he couldn't. We argued about this and one other thing.

H.B.M.C. wrote:*spits* Fething tournament gamers. They're like the STD of the gaming world. *spits*

I'd much rather continue being a casual gamer - the very paragon of humanity and the apex of creative spirit.

I knew I sig'd you for a reason.

WarhammerTabletop wrote:He tried to move and assault with vanguard vets whe they Ds) I told him he couldn't he said he could and he didn't bring his codex, after we called over the jugde and clarified he couldn't. We argued about this and one other thing.

lol, he was actually right. They can assault after deepstriking. I can understand why he was pissed, but hey-- who the hell goes to tourney without a codex?

Don't cha know- SM sergeants have a magical pink power prism that does an infinite range Str 10 Ap1 large blast barrage 7.

JohnHwangDD wrote:A SM army could have 1 unit in a Rhino, 1 unit in a Razorback, 1 unit in Drop Pod, and make up the balance in Land Raiders / Crusader / Redeemer.

So then Imperial Guard are limited to one chimera? And Tau are limited to one Devilfish? That doesn't really sound fair.

We don't have to bother with fair when we're making up arbitrary restrictions.

The concept of "fair" is relative.

It's like when SoCal organized a no-MEQ Tournament. All SMs & Necrons & CSMs were outlawed entirely.

A non-MEQ tournament! For when you really want to cater to the elitist donkey-cave!

Let's see how many more ideas we can rack up.

But, but...

That non-MEQ tournament was one of the most fun tournaments I've played...

Sourclams isn't thinking big enough:

A non-MEQ Casual Gamer Event (ie. not a touranment - an 'event'). There are no battle points, no best general - it's all soft scores.

Run by the Dakka Casual Gamer Mafia of course.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JohnHwangDD wrote:All SMs & Necrons & CSMs were outlawed entirely.

Wow sucks to be a Necron player there. First your army gets shafted in 5th Ed, and then people tell you you can't use your army because you're too much like a Marine. Talk about kicking someone when they're down... but I'm sure you like that kinda thing Jonnyboy.

Actually someone was talking about a narrative tournament where you had one of each army already prebuilt by the store. You didn't have to bring anything everything was provided and the players rolled off to see who got to pick what.


They tracked how well you won etc.. and geared the Scenarios very well toward those 2 specific armies.


It fit into this overall structure and at the end of it you had a little personal story of how this campaign went. So each round you just moved between tables each table had 2 armies with a already prebuilt list and scenario and then you played.


Do a search for Scenario tournament.


It was really interesting; I mean you basically have two armies geared as well as they can toward scenario then the players would have to play each army given a brief but quick overview sheet of the army and what did what.


I think there was some sort of guideline as well as to what the army did etc..


Very cool sounding tournament and more a example of overall tactical skill simply because you have no control other than picking the army you like best.

I actually like that idea - just show up, you're given an army, and play.

That's an idea I've been kicking around since seeing the new Planetstrike terrain.

Something akin to Lord of the Rings (only better, in every way) where you have a third party 'Game Master' who acts as impartial arbitrator while two pre-set armies battle out a pre-set mission with points assigned on the basis of who achieves the most specific goals.

Like a head-to-head co-op mode in campaign based RTS computer games, where the third person is the AI.

I can't remember all of it. I have played in something similar though.

Basically club players donated armies; we had 10 tables set up with awesome terrain.

All armies were represented. With some overlapping on some. It was 1750 points they posted the tournament rules army lists tables ( minus what the terrain was going to be well in advance).


Each table was set up so one army was either attacking defending / with a intermix of some armies being defenders and attackers on different tables.

Before the tournament started we all raffled off the person who got the highest number out of the hat got to pick and so on.

I got fourth and picked a table that was Dark Eldar attacking Vs. Imperial Guard defending and Dawn of War night fight was in effect.


Then it went Lowest to highest IE I won my game with I think 22 so I was the highest score for the round I got to pick my table last and the lowest point last.


So each round the person who is the best gets shafted on his pick it balances out really well because people get to pick who they play against.

So usually people dont want to play the better players etc..


Was great fun every one had a great time fantastic games.

The problem is it seems like the players themselves hate any kind of new idea.. Would anyone show for a true test of skill?

I agree, something needs to be done about TOs.. People in 40k argue because they know TOs generally dont know the rules as well as players (Which is strange because in sports the judges MUST know the rules the best).. same with coaches

So they argue knowing they might get their way regardless of how absurd their claim is

If only the top tournaments could come together and use a set of rules! Even if it means they dont agree on everything. Thats the beginning of getting TOs in line. If the top events dont use the same rules what hope is there for smaller events?

The adepticon faq I know is used by several tournament people; I think its a good faq overall.

Yes, I use it as well.. There are parts I dont agree with, but overall its very solid and isnt prone to corruption like GW is

IE lets change how we rule deffrolla cause we want to sell plastic upgrade kits!

hmmm... start with 2 preset armies, no list building, no painting, nothing to bring, no sportmanship score, just skill vs. skill alone....

...sounds a whole heck of a lot like a chess tourney to me!

Oh, wait, they have been doing that for hundreds of years...

It's actually really fun. You get to play armies you normally do not get to play ; its all down to basic skill etc..

I played Dark Eldar, IG, Tyranids. 3 armies I dont have dont play.

The scenarios were all posted before hand; as were the armies that were going to be present so you knew what to get. Codexes were on hand.

I think the time was 2 : 20 hours at 1750 which is plenty of time with a break after 2nd round.

I don't know... it seems to favor people who've been around the block more than the raw skill you're going for here.

See, I'm thinking by throwing armies out there a lot of people just wouldn't have a clue about how to play them.

In that case, it's more a matter of experience as opposed to skill.

Still, I do sort of like the whole thing where the winner get the $hit-gig pick for armies right after, lol. It means you don't have people go from domination builds for chaos to ork , etc..

It worked really well and the time format was long 2 hours and 20 minutes for a 1750 is plenty of time really.


All the armies had a complete army list and brief explanation.


Also, remember that the armies are posted before hand you know what is going on what table just dont know what the terrain will be and if you will get defender or attacker.


It was actually a hard fought tournament NO ONE went 3 -0 at all. The best record was 2 and tie.

Hmmm, I'll say this-- under all those situations... I think I wouldn't mind giving it a shot.

At the very least I think it would be cool to play as one of the Eldar armies (Dark or Reg), I've never done it before myself.

you know I think it takes alot of skill to win a tournament

it takes skill to paint

skill to play

skill to not be a jerk to other players

and skill not to post whiney rants.

its warhammer, cry me a river and blow it up

I hope your post doesn't get bahleeted Kabizzle, because a lot of people need to read it and understand it.

oKABOOMo wrote:you know I think it takes alot of skill to win a tournament

it takes skill to paint

skill to play

skill to not be a jerk to other players

and skill not to post whiney rants.

its warhammer, cry me a river and blow it up

You missed a few:

Skill to mail your army to the pro-painter

Skill to lower your opponent's soft scores, so he can't get best overall

Skill to make friends with the judges and TO so they favor you

While I agree that it takes skill to consistently win tournaments, there are lots of factors used by those that don't want to play fair... and the "good guys" aren't winning when they don't.

Cheese Elemental wrote:Of course tournaments are a good indication of skill. It takes a massive amount of planning to use Lash/Oblits or Nob Bikers.

haha a stereotypical casual player, if you knew anything about what you are trying to say you would know that these armies have had little success now that most armies are mech, actually tyranids won the last major tourny (Bolscon) do a little resaerch before you make yourself look like a elitest casual gamer again.

saw54 wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:Of course tournaments are a good indication of skill. It takes a massive amount of planning to use Lash/Oblits or Nob Bikers.

haha a stereotypical casual player, if you knew anything about what you are trying to say you would know that these armies have had little success now that most armies are mech, actually tyranids won the last major tourny (Bolscon) do a little resaerch before you make yourself look like a elitest casual gamer again.

I wouldn't use tyranids winning at bolscon as an example of how tourneys are no indication of skill at all.