I have read with interest the reports of the first two rounds of the 'Ard Boyz tournament. It appears to have been a great success in terms of play as well as revenue generation for GW. Reading the sundry 40k fora it is also clear that this event generates more buzz and enthusiasm than any other annual event. Why, therefore, is the no-comp, no soft-scoring format of the 'Ard Boyz not more widespread in the U.S.? I'm amused that this format is marketed in the U.S. as an event that is " 'Ard ". The format the 'Ard Boyz is the standard format for most European tournaments. For example, at the Irish GT the scoring was a possible 150, with 15 points of that for painting (5 for three color, 5 for based, 5 for detail). Finally, I'll note that the absence of sports scoring does not appear to have affected gameplay in any significant manner. Indeed, I've seen much more drama involving tournaments with heavy soft scoring. I hope the success of the 'Ard Boyz in the U.S. is a sign that competitive 40k has a chance to return to the tournament scene over there.

olympia wrote:I have read with interest the reports of the first two rounds of the 'Ard Boyz tournament. It appears to have been a great success in terms of play as well as revenue generation for GW. Reading the sundry 40k fora it is also clear that this event generates more buzz and enthusiasm than any other annual event. Why, therefore, is the no-comp, no soft-scoring format of the 'Ard Boyz not more widespread in the U.S.? I'm amused that this format is marketed in the U.S. as an event that is " 'Ard ". The format the 'Ard Boyz is the standard format for most European tournaments. For example, at the Irish GT the scoring was a possible 150, with 15 points of that for painting (5 for three color, 5 for based, 5 for detail). Finally, I'll note that the absence of sports scoring does not appear to have affected gameplay in any significant manner. Indeed, I've seen much more drama involving tournaments with heavy soft scoring. I hope the success of the 'Ard Boyz in the U.S. is a sign that competitive 40k has a chance to return to the tournament scene over there.

We can only hope. "Soft scoring" is a plague here that has spread all the way down to the local tournament level.

That’s funny.

I took a quick peek through the event listings for 40k events on warhammer.org.uk, and of eight tournaments listed in the below “upcoming events” thread which provided rules packs or links to them, four had soft scores included in the scoring, two did not, and two had partial (refs could deduct tournament points for poor Sportsmanship on a yellow/red card system).

http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=66596

Soft included
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Brighton_Warlords/index.php?showtopic=1332
http://flameon.co.uk/files/BOTC2010/BotC_40k_Rules_2010.pdf
http://www.warpcon.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/40-Rulespack-Warpcon-2010_v1.4.pdf
http://www.leeds-nightowls.co.uk/downloads/tournament_pack.pdf


ref yellow/red
http://middangeard.co.uk/images/NWUK40k_Rulespack.pdf
http://flameon.co.uk/files/york/Vapnartak%202010%2040K%20Rules.pdf

No soft
http://www.bhgs.co.uk/Nationals/rules/40K_Rules_2009.htm
http://forum.northernwasters.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=450


Based on that evidence, it seems obvious that on the other side of the pond events with soft scores are common just as they are over here.

As for the success of Ard Boyz; it's GW-approved & publicized, it's free to enter, and it has substantial prizes. I think those factors are more than enough to account for its success & popularity, regardless of the scoring system employed. I'm sure it would do at least as well if it required painting and included that in the scoring.

I think that people will shift eventually. The first GT level event in the United States to do away with Sportsmanship and Comp and focus solely on wins/losses to determine your tournament winner is the Nova Open. While they *do* have soft scores for painting, player judged comp, and sportsmanship - those scores are for a separate category that doesn't affect who wins the tournament -- the tournament winner will be the only person who goes 6-0 after two days of fighting.

Two months before the event, attendance is sold out at 64 entries with a waiting list approaching 30+ people; the TO is considering expanding the tournament to 94 people. The only event in the U.S. larger is Adepticon, and the Nova Open is in its first year. The TO is keeping track of attendance, I don't know the exact specs, but I think he has attendees coming from 30 states? SVDM got around 50, SoCal had mid 30s, Bolter Beach had low 20s, broadside bash had high 40s....

And the first "win/loss single elimination for tournament winner" event hit its event maximum and is looking to be the largest single GT event ever held. o.O Hopefully there's a lesson in there somewhere for other people hosting events in the future who want to drive attendance.

Wow, someone's actually doing a single-elimination style tournament?? I've been lobbying for that forever.

I still think that a pool play round for seeding followed by a single elimination bracket would be better, though.

While Ard Boyz is not personally my cup of tea (due to opponent attitude, not ruleset), I quite like that idea that painting, comp, and sportsmanship are included, but as separate categories that don't affect the overall winner for battle points. I like to show up to tournaments, regardless of how competitive they are, with my crap lists that are fun to play and then hope to win a best painted or whatnot to recoup my entry fee. I would be disappointed if the hobby aspect of tournaments were eliminated altogether.

Well, Ard Boyz doesn't do that, Oaka. The NOVA Open, that Dash has so eloquently praised, does.

We're not "true" single elmination in that everyone is competing for the Best Overall regardless of w/l, and plays the first day entirely. The catch is the Best General equivalent is determined purely by w/l, and not by ... 10 people went undefeated and I'm going to arbitrarily give it to the guy who beat on baby seals the hardest while getting there, instead of letting them all play off to a single dude.

Mannahnin wrote:That’s funny.

I took a quick peek through the event listings for 40k events on warhammer.org.uk, and of eight tournaments listed in the below “upcoming events” thread which provided rules packs or links to them, four had soft scores included in the scoring, two did not, and two had partial (refs could deduct tournament points for poor Sportsmanship on a yellow/red card system).

http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=66596

Soft included
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Brighton_Warlords/index.php?showtopic=1332
http://flameon.co.uk/files/BOTC2010/BotC_40k_Rules_2010.pdf
http://www.warpcon.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/40-Rulespack-Warpcon-2010_v1.4.pdf
http://www.leeds-nightowls.co.uk/downloads/tournament_pack.pdf

You should have had a closer look at the examples above.

Here are the soft scores for your first tournament:

Soft score points will be broken down as follows

Army Roster = 7 points (must add up to 1500 points or less, if not you get no points for roster)

Painted = 10 points (every single model must have a basic of 3 colours on the model, if not you get no points for painted)

Detailed = 10 points (every single model must have some sort of effort on them more than the measley 3 colours & in addition you must have 5 objectives. These must be army specific & look like objectives. Things in the past have been dice glued to a base..........not accepted. They need to look the part, if not you get no points for detailed)

Based = 7 points (every model that has a base needs to be textured in some manner, yes even those flying clear bases must have texture on them, if not you get no points for based)
WYSWIG = 6 points

You'll note that unlike many U.S. tournaments the above are 1) fully transparent 2) easily achievable 3) do not include sports 4) do not include comp.

Now let's look at your second example

The player who receives the highest number of “Most Sporting” votes, will gain 5 Tournament
points to their total score for the tournament.

and

The player with the most “First Choice” votes will gain 5 Tournament points to their total score for
the tournament and win “Best Army”.

So 10 points of soft-scores in a six round tournament where a win is worth 30 points! In other words, soft scores make up 0.5% of the score!

Now for your third example:
A massacre win in this 5 game tournament is worth 20 points.

Sportsmanship points
All games are noted as +2 unless we are informed of any issues.

So 10 points possible for sports scores. You also received 10 points for submitting a correct army roster!
Painting, I will grant, was worth 20 points as follows:

Zero points - Not 3 colours and based
10 points - 3 colours and based
5 points - detail broken down as follows
One for detailed painting (shading and highlighting).
One for banners and squad markings,
One for conversions.
Two for Wow.
5 points - Being nominated for the Players Choice Army.

And there was a quiz for 10 points. Composition scoring was, of course, completely absent.

Let's look at your fourth example.

Three games with 20 points for a massacre. Players rate the "cheese" of their opponent, and the one (1) player voted the cheesiest is docked 12 points. That is significant, but only affects one player. The bonus for best sports, fluff, and painting give an extra five points--less than 10% of the possible points.

In short, of the four examples you provided sports scoring is either absent or minimal; composition is absent from 3/4 and the fourth only hits one player.

Of course the marquee tournaments such at the European Team Championship and the Five Nations Team Challenge have no soft scoring at all.

Again, I'm heartened by the popularity of the 'Ard Boyz tournament in the U.S. and I do hope it signals a move towards transparent, competitive gaming.

Dashofpepper wrote:I think that people will shift eventually. The first GT level event in the United States to do away with Sportsmanship and Comp and focus solely on wins/losses to determine your tournament winner is the Nova Open. While they *do* have soft scores for painting, player judged comp, and sportsmanship - those scores are for a separate category that doesn't affect who wins the tournament -- the tournament winner will be the only person who goes 6-0 after two days of fighting.

Two months before the event, attendance is sold out at 64 entries with a waiting list approaching 30+ people; the TO is considering expanding the tournament to 94 people. The only event in the U.S. larger is Adepticon, and the Nova Open is in its first year. The TO is keeping track of attendance, I don't know the exact specs, but I think he has attendees coming from 30 states? SVDM got around 50, SoCal had mid 30s, Bolter Beach had low 20s, broadside bash had high 40s....

And the first "win/loss single elimination for tournament winner" event hit its event maximum and is looking to be the largest single GT event ever held. o.O Hopefully there's a lesson in there somewhere for other people hosting events in the future who want to drive attendance.

I expect that the novelty factor helps drive attendance up.

I suspect that after a few years these new formats will commonplace in both senses of the word.

If all tournaments go to no soft, it will only drive away the people who like soft scores. If there are enough people who don't, the tournaments will still be full but the overall world of fun will be poorer.

I can say that, for the Open at least, we're never going to get rid of rewarding the softer side of the hobby. People with a couple losses but excellent sports/presentation scores will always be eligible for their "vegas" ticket and high qual prizes, as will each of the individual cats for painting, sports, conversion, etc.

I would like to see a bigger shift toward tournaments that accurately identify that weekend's best competitor, while equally identifying and equally rewarding that weekend's best painters, converters, and the people with the biggest hearts and best attitudes. Combining them all together is problematic, b/c it encourages people to "game" things that should not be gamed ... like being a good human being. But that's another discussion.

MVBrandt wrote:I can say that, for the Open at least, we're never going to get rid of rewarding the softer side of the hobby. People with a couple losses but excellent sports/presentation scores will always be eligible for their "vegas" ticket and high qual prizes, as will each of the individual cats for painting, sports, conversion, etc.

Equal prize support is key. Let individual players decide what they value most. I also think trophies are much better than GW schwag.

When you say that EU tournaments are like 'Ard Boyz, do you mean that they include "custom scenarios" that are thinly veiled comp against mech lists, or do you mean actually genuinely comp free? Cause if it's the latter, that'd be awesome.

/bitter

daedalus wrote:When you say that EU tournaments are like 'Ard Boyz, do you mean that they include "custom scenarios" that are thinly veiled comp against mech lists, or do you mean actually genuinely comp free? Cause if it's the latter, that'd be awesome.

/bitter

Many of the small tournaments, unfortunately, do have "wacky, fun" missions. At least they are available ahead of time to playtest. The European Team Championship and the Five Nations Challenge will use standard missions.

You know I was rabidly anti-soft score, strictly from personal preferance, until I realized from KillKrazy's post that yes, even the people who prefer soft scores should have a tourney venue as well. I would prefer to see more tourney's (at least in my area) without soft scores, as I hate 'em, but I am retracting from my initial position of "just get rid of em all".

Doesn't the ETC use some kind of super ridiculous FAQ that bans a bunch of random stuff? Or did I get this wrong?

number9dream wrote:Doesn't the ETC use some kind of super ridiculous FAQ that bans a bunch of random stuff? Or did I get this wrong?

The 2009 ETC banned special characters with army-wide effects. For example, Ghaz was banned but Abaddon was allowed. That was pretty ridiculous. I'm not sure what the 2010 rules are, but I think they are going to contain a universal prohibition against unique characters--not sure.

I quite like tournaments that include a heavy comp element. you just need to embrace a few key ideas to make a high scoring comp list at most tournaments near me.

1) No repetition of non-troops
2) Variety of troop types (if possible)
3) No special characters
4) No "spamming" of special weapons in any slot (i.e., no guard lists with 4x chimeras full of 3x melta vets)
5) List will score extra points if it adheres to established fluff in either codex or novels.

you can build fairly powerful lists within these confines, with most codex. It just discourages most of the boring lists you see online, like "maximum overdrive", "leafblower", "vulkan melta spam" , and thunderwolf spam.

The soft score events I found in the UK with five minutes' looking do indeed have less impact than some. But they're still soft scores, and those events don't even vaguely resemble 'ard boys, with its seas of unpainted plastic and widespread dubious sportsmanship.

Honersstodnt wrote:I quite like tournaments that include a heavy comp element. you just need to embrace a few key ideas to make a high scoring comp list at most tournaments near me.

1) No repetition of non-troops
2) Variety of troop types (if possible)
3) No special characters
4) No "spamming" of special weapons in any slot (i.e., no guard lists with 4x chimeras full of 3x melta vets)
5) List will score extra points if it adheres to established fluff in either codex or novels.

you can build fairly powerful lists within these confines, with most codex. It just discourages most of the boring lists you see online, like "maximum overdrive", "leafblower", "vulkan melta spam" , and thunderwolf spam.

The problem here is it hurts older codices with a smaller selection of competitive variety in their dex far more than it hurts the newer ones, which have readier access to "balanced with the present" unit options outside of spam.

MVBrandt wrote:

Honersstodnt wrote:I quite like tournaments that include a heavy comp element. you just need to embrace a few key ideas to make a high scoring comp list at most tournaments near me.

1) No repetition of non-troops
2) Variety of troop types (if possible)
3) No special characters
4) No "spamming" of special weapons in any slot (i.e., no guard lists with 4x chimeras full of 3x melta vets)
5) List will score extra points if it adheres to established fluff in either codex or novels.

you can build fairly powerful lists within these confines, with most codex. It just discourages most of the boring lists you see online, like "maximum overdrive", "leafblower", "vulkan melta spam" , and thunderwolf spam.

The problem here is it hurts older codices with a smaller selection of competitive variety in their dex far more than it hurts the newer ones, which have readier access to "balanced with the present" unit options outside of spam.

Yeah...thinking of my DE here. Those rules are an instant, "Well, I can't bring this army."

Honersstodnt wrote:I quite like tournaments that include a heavy comp element. you just need to embrace a few key ideas to make a high scoring comp list at most tournaments near me.

1) No repetition of non-troops
2) Variety of troop types (if possible)
3) No special characters
4) No "spamming" of special weapons in any slot (i.e., no guard lists with 4x chimeras full of 3x melta vets)
5) List will score extra points if it adheres to established fluff in either codex or novels.

you can build fairly powerful lists within these confines, with most codex. It just discourages most of the boring lists you see online, like "maximum overdrive", "leafblower", "vulkan melta spam" , and thunderwolf spam.

Then when I show up with my 4 landraider army where all of my troops are identical, my elites are identical, and every guy is carrying a storm bolter and each upgrade character has a relic blade, it falls apart, both in comp and, most likely, in actual gameplay.

olympia wrote:

number9dream wrote:Doesn't the ETC use some kind of super ridiculous FAQ that bans a bunch of random stuff? Or did I get this wrong?

The 2009 ETC banned special characters with army-wide effects. For example, Ghaz was banned but Abaddon was allowed. That was pretty ridiculous. I'm not sure what the 2010 rules are, but I think they are going to contain a universal prohibition against unique characters--not sure.

I would argue that this is pants-on-head silly.

No offense to any ETC organizers who might be reading this. Actually yes, offense - what the feth are you thinking? ;[

Honersstodnt wrote:I quite like tournaments that include a heavy comp element. you just need to embrace a few key ideas to make a high scoring comp list at most tournaments near me.

1) No repetition of non-troops
2) Variety of troop types (if possible)
3) No special characters
4) No "spamming" of special weapons in any slot (i.e., no guard lists with 4x chimeras full of 3x melta vets)
5) List will score extra points if it adheres to established fluff in either codex or novels.

you can build fairly powerful lists within these confines, with most codex. It just discourages most of the boring lists you see online, like "maximum overdrive", "leafblower", "vulkan melta spam" , and thunderwolf spam.

.... Dumbest restrictions I've ever seen. All comp does is create a new set of "maximum overdrives", only there'll be less variety amongst them cause there are way more stupid restrictions.

Hilariously enough it would kill Ork warbiker armies, but leave Nob bikers working just fine. Oh and Since my Nob bikers are troops I'm not getting comp-docked - awesome, I'm sure you'll have fun fighting dual nob bikers with the rest of your army being nothing but a random hodgepodge of crap.

Also, Dark Eldar would like a word with you - you just killed their only non-terrible build. I don't know what kind of twisted individual would want to force DE players to use Hellions or Scourges.
Tau too.
And so on.

Seriously, you kill a ton of fluffy lists too -_-
Battlewagon brigades = Fluffy, your restrictions kill them completley.
Scoring sternguard? Dead.
Dreadbash or Kanwall? Dead.

There's no way to even theme a list when you can't take more than 1 of each non-troop choice - look at StJohn's Immolator army, if he had to take a random assortment of freakshow units that'd completely kill the list both from a theme and effectiveness standpoint....

In the my experience the biggest arguments and complainers at a tournament has come from the painters. Hell hath no fury like a painter scorned in the paint scores.

number9dream wrote:

you can build fairly powerful lists within these confines, with most codex. It just discourages most of the boring lists you see online, like "maximum overdrive", "leafblower", "vulkan melta spam" , and thunderwolf spam.

.... Dumbest restrictions I've ever seen. All comp does is create a new set of "maximum overdrives", only there'll be less variety amongst them cause there are way more stupid restrictions.

Hilariously enough it would kill Ork warbiker armies, but leave Nob bikers working just fine. Oh and Since my Nob bikers are troops I'm not getting comp-docked - awesome, I'm sure you'll have fun fighting dual nob bikers with the rest of your army being nothing but a random hodgepodge of crap.

Also, Dark Eldar would like a word with you - you just killed their only non-terrible build. I don't know what kind of twisted individual would want to force DE players to use Hellions or Scourges.
Tau too.....

There are absolutely legitimate concerns about checklist Comp scoring systems handicapping already-handicapped books.

I disagree about your specific example of “maximum overdrives”, but agree with the general concept. Comp CAN indeed “just” change which lists are the best, while still leaving some lists better than others. This is often a reasonable and desirable outcome. It fosters more variety in the tournament scene. It often narrows the range of army power seen. The hardest armies are handicapped or encouraged to dilute their builds, thus reducing the differential in sheer power between them and the weaker lists. If the power differential between armies on the table is reduced, the impact of play skill and other factors on the game and tournament outcome is increased.

DarthDiggler wrote:In the my experience the biggest arguments and complainers at a tournament has come from the painters. Hell hath no fury like a painter scorned in the paint scores.

That's a big one, to be sure. A gaming group I'm close with in Pittsburgh did a tournament where the guy with most BPs took best general, because the second most BPs had a truly top notch paint scheme, while the other had a decent table top quality job. I believe the guy who took second proceeded to do his best to bad mouth the club as cheaters to the rest of the store.

And this was with a relatively objective painting checklist, and two armies that virtually any judge would rank the same way.

I don't like how people refer to lists built with comp in mind as a "hodgepodge of crap"... its really an unfair generalization.

Here's a marine list I brought to a local tournament that was highly comp-centered :

HQ: Librarian w/ jump pack (null zone + avenger) - 125 pts
HQ: Chaplain in terminator armor - 130 pts

Elite: 5x assault terminators (3x hammer 2x claw) -200 pts
Dedicated: Land Raider (multimelta + extra armor) - 275 pts

Troops: 10 man tac squad (melta, multimelta, fist) in rhino - 235 pts
Troops: 10 man tac squad (plasma, plasma cannon, p-weapon) in a rhino - 235 pts
Troops: 5 man tac squad in razorback - 130 pts

Fast: 10 man assault squad (2x flamers, sarge w/ hammer + combat shield) - 245 pts
Fast: 2x land speeder typhoons - 280 pts

Heavy: Predator (2x lascannons + autocannon) - 120 pts
Heavy: Vindicator (siege shield) - 125 pts


It worked quite well, despite following my guidelines.

Mannahnin wrote:
There are absolutely legitimate concerns about checklist Comp scoring systems handicapping already-handicapped books.

I disagree about your specific example of “maximum overdrives”, but agree with the general concept. Comp CAN indeed “just” change which lists are the best, while still leaving some lists better than others. This is often a reasonable and desirable outcome. It fosters more variety in the tournament scene. It often narrows the range of army power seen. The hardest armies are handicapped or encouraged to dilute their builds, thus reducing the differential in sheer power between them and the weaker lists. If the power differential between armies on the table is reduced, the impact of play skill and other factors on the game and tournament outcome is increased.

In theory. I'd be interested to see a set of comp restrictions that won't leave IG as one of the strongest armies. It has great troops, including two completely different choices, and could pull non-unique units from every FOC slot to build a really fantastic army at the 1500-1850 level. Ditto Orks (who have a lot of good variety). Now, see if this comp system doesn't completely nerf armies like Eldar, Tau, Chaos, DE (all armies with maybe 6-10 top shelf units). Even Space Wolves and BA really only have one great troop (except for logan wing, natch). BA could absorb the hit by including jump packs and mech assault, and even a tac squad to be polite.

I mean, I'm with you on the idea that comp could be good, in much the same way I feel that cold fusion could be good. Alas, neither is possible in practice as of yet. Maybe some day.

number9dream wrote:

No offense to any ETC organizers who might be reading this. Actually yes, offense - what the feth are you thinking? ;[

Any decision over special characters is voted in the Captains' Council and I understand that this year they will all be banned. Our team voted internally (we voted to ban them), not sure if other teams had an internal vote or not. Given ETC has some of the best players around making that vote, that's quite a lot of poeple you are tarring with that there brush stroke.

Mannahnin wrote: The hardest armies are handicapped or encouraged to dilute their builds, thus reducing the differential in sheer power between them and the weaker lists. If the power differential between armies on the table is reduced, the impact of play skill and other factors on the game and tournament outcome is increased.

You don't need covoluted requirements to make that happen. What are the most powerful lists? Mech IG? Alright:

Rule #1: No army may have more than 9 vehicles. DE will need a bit of readjustment, but kan-walls are fine, and Mech IG has less vehicles.

What else.....SW missile launcher spam / razorback spam?

Rule #2: No army may have more than 5 missile launchers. Easy enough.

Alright....we don't want slow playing?

Rule #3: No army may have more than 120 models.

You don't have to make universal rules that affect everyone negatively. Just find the problem areas and address them.

Why would the absence of comp or other soft-scores make a tournament less fun? Because a fluffy army will get beat down? Perhaps, but it's no fun to lose with your diversified nobz/triple vendetta/whatever either, and the match-ups will pair like with like by round two or three.

torgoch wrote:

number9dream wrote:

No offense to any ETC organizers who might be reading this. Actually yes, offense - what the feth are you thinking? ;[

Any decision over special characters is voted in the Captains' Council and I understand that this year they will all be banned. Our team voted internally (we voted to ban them), not sure if other teams had an internal vote or not. Given ETC has some of the best players around making that vote, that's quite a lot of poeple you are tarring with that there brush stroke.

It just doesn't make sense to drastically reduce the variability in army builds to me :( Someone needs to explain the reasoning to me. Which special character is it that's ruining the balance? I just can't think of one.

olympia wrote:Why would the absence of comp or other soft-scores make a tournament less fun? Because a fluffy army will get beat down? Perhaps, but it's no fun to lose with your diversified nobz/triple vendetta/whatever either, and the match-ups will pair like with like by round two or three.

This hits on an important note. The current version of 40k at the tournament level is unprofessionalized, and "all comers." The 40k equivalent of a youth soccer team can show up at even the toughest tournaments in the country and play against the 40k equivalent of Beckham. Comp is effectively going "well, that's not fair, let's strap duct tape around Beckham's legs and make him hop around all day."

You might see competitiveness arise in the tournament as a result, with some 10 year old soccer playing equivalent 40k list winning the day ... but is that what you *really* want? For better or worse, this is as much a list building game as a skill game. If you acknowledge that someone willfully taking an underpowered list probably shouldn't be rolling through undefeated, then proper pairing and seeding takes care of the problem. People who bring a list at risk of losing 4 or 5 games will end up there, battling it out with their equivalents, and the range will carry through to your final matches.

Comp doesn't *actually* work ... the "best" list builders still spend enormous amounts of time "breaking" your comp system and figuring out the best way to abuse it, while the fluff builders typically just "hope" their list will be more competitive as a result of what you've done. They then are the ones the most upset when their fluffy list gets its teeth kicked in while simultaneously scoring poorly on comp b/c it by chance didn't fit in the key areas. You don't really fix anything, in actuality. If you want it to be 'purely' about skill and balance, hold a General's Touranment, where everyone has to use the exact same list.


If not, hold a tournament with enough rounds and a format proper enough to ensure that by the 2nd-4th rounds, the field has "balanced" itself and the rubber matches are as competitive and "skill" related as it gets. THAT is the best way to "comp" a system as heterogeneous and free form as 40k. *shrug*

Dashofpepper wrote:I think that people will shift eventually. The first GT level event in the United States to do away with Sportsmanship and Comp and focus solely on wins/losses to determine your tournament winner is the Nova Open. While they *do* have soft scores for painting, player judged comp, and sportsmanship - those scores are for a separate category that doesn't affect who wins the tournament -- the tournament winner will be the only person who goes 6-0 after two days of fighting.

Two months before the event, attendance is sold out at 64 entries with a waiting list approaching 30+ people; the TO is considering expanding the tournament to 94 people. The only event in the U.S. larger is Adepticon, and the Nova Open is in its first year. The TO is keeping track of attendance, I don't know the exact specs, but I think he has attendees coming from 30 states? SVDM got around 50, SoCal had mid 30s, Bolter Beach had low 20s, broadside bash had high 40s....

And the first "win/loss single elimination for tournament winner" event hit its event maximum and is looking to be the largest single GT event ever held. o.O Hopefully there's a lesson in there somewhere for other people hosting events in the future who want to drive attendance.

You are correct that is currently the case. However, remember GW used to run their own Grand Tournaments with 100 40k players and 100 fantasy players, and right there at the end some lord of the rigns folks. Vegas usually sold out and Baltimore usually sold out the others, not so much. So it isn't quite the largest single GT event ever held, at least not yet! Ghengis Con and Tacti-con in Colorado usually pull between 45-55 people so it's on par with SVDM and SoCal. I dont know what the numbers for BoLSCon were for last year. Before GW quit going to GenCon it also had an approximate 100 player tournament, while Origin's racked in the 40s-50s.

However the Nova Open looks to be doing a spectacular job their first time out so far! I don't want to detract from that just wanted to provide a little more history.

No-one needs to explain anything to you and given the number of people involved in the voting you shouldn't expect anyone to be able to.

I voted to remove them as it increases variability in builds. If the Doom of Malantai was available, almost every Tyranid army would have him. As they can't each Tyranid player will spend those points on something different and will probably come up with something different. The same logic applies to Ghaz, Vulkan, Eldrad..

That's rather the point, Torgoch. Someone drops the Doom against me, instead of another set of hive guard or zoanthropes even, I'll thank him for advancing me closer to a win. The game has more ways of being run and won than people think. Comp is run by people who a) don't really realize who it helps, and who it hurts, and b) are convinced there's only one best way to run each army, and so want to change that.

C'est la vie.

torgoch wrote:No-one needs to explain anything to you and given the number of people involved in the voting you shouldn't expect anyone to be able to.

I voted to remove them as it increases variability in builds. If the Doom of Malantai was available, almost every Tyranid army would have him. As they can't each Tyranid player will spend those points on something different and will probably come up with something different. The same logic applies to Ghaz, Vulkan, Eldrad..

At the same time you also make it so that a player can't play a Deathwing army or a Ravenwing army. A biker army via wazdakka is also out. You've now restricted necrons to exactly one hq choice since their other two hq's are special characters.

You also kill fluffy lists like a Saim Haim Wind Rider host or a valkryie "drop troop" imperial guard army, etc.

So while you are limiting/eliminating a lot of the most powerfull models, you also hamstring a lot of actually "themed" armies.

torgoch wrote:No-one needs to explain anything to you and given the number of people involved in the voting you shouldn't expect anyone to be able to.

I voted to remove them as it increases variability in builds. If the Doom of Malantai was available, almost every Tyranid army would have him. As they can't each Tyranid player will spend those points on something different and will probably come up with something different. The same logic applies to Ghaz, Vulkan, Eldrad..

Sigh, obviously nobody HAS to explain, I'm saying I don't get it and would love for someone to tell me why the decision was made.

Clearly you were offended by my initial comment, sorry about that but I still don't get why this decision was made. I've seen tonnes of Tyranid lists in competitive events that don't feature the Doom. ETC is 1500 points right (I'll freely admit that all I know about this event is that it's the premier 40k competition in europe, and that it's somehow team based - if it's a further departure from regular 40k than i thought it was, then there may be some obvious reasons for the SC ban).
EDIT: Looked it up, and it's 1750 points, each match consists of 8 games between the two teams, so just regular 40k - nothing like a doubles competition right?


Having said that, I pretty much 100% agree with Warmaster's post above me.

I also feel that there's a lot more alternatives to the character you listed than you are suggesting.

Competitive Ork lists without Ghaz:
- Nob bikers
- Kanwall
(this is assuming every mech ork list would bring Ghaz if they could, at 1500 pts I'm really not convinced this is the case)

Competitive SM lists without Vulkan:
- Biker marines
- Critical Mass and its like (http://www.yesthetruthhurts.com/2010/01/critical-mass-mech-space-marines-1500.html is what I'm thinking of specifically)
Can't say I know marine lists all that well.

Competitive Eldar lists without Eldrad:
- Bike-council lists
- ... Tonnes of mech lists? I might be wrong but I don't think Eldar is an auto-include at 1500 points in mech lists?
I.E http://www.yesthetruthhurts.com/2010/01/mafty-asked-in-this-thread-i-realize.html

For both Ghaz and Eldrad, isn't the only effect of banning them to make people take "lesser verisons" of the same character? If someone was gonna run Ghaz but now they can't, won't they just run a Warboss? If someone was going to run Eldar, won't he just be replaced with a tooled up Farseer?

My point is that as long as there is variety in the format of tournaments every type of player will be able to find an event they like.

I am using tournament to describe an event where a bunch of players who don't know each other visit from different areas and have some games. This lets them experience some different opponents, armies and playing styles.

There is often some kind of prize or maybe just kudos, however that isn't the point. The point is for people to experience some variety and have fun.

In my view, Hard Boys is a valid choice of format and it shouldn't be the only choice.

If you want to play wargame tournaments there is a much older circuit in Ancients (WRG, DBA, FoG and so on) which offers tighter rules and better balance in army lists, though not perfect.

40K is what it is.

I agree about variety.

My only "wish" (that I don't really see as realistic) would be for the creation of formalized tourney "styles" or types, or circuits, so that players could make easily informed decisions about which events to attend, instead of the crap shoot some can be ... where you *hope* it will be what you'd like it to be, but then are rather dashed in those hopes by the actuality.

DarthDiggler wrote:In the my experience the biggest arguments and complainers at a tournament has come from the painters. Hell hath no fury like a painter scorned in the paint scores.

That's because we're just that special ;p

Seriously, anyone who is competitive will complain about things that impact their competition. Generals will complain about missions that punish their army just as much as painters will complain about paint-judging systems that penalize their style. Generals will complain about incompetent rules judging just as much as painters will complain about incompetent paint judging.

Those of us in both categories never stop whining

torgoch wrote:No-one needs to explain anything to you and given the number of people involved in the voting you shouldn't expect anyone to be able to.

I voted to remove them as it increases variability in builds. If the Doom of Malantai was available, almost every Tyranid army would have him. As they can't each Tyranid player will spend those points on something different and will probably come up with something different. The same logic applies to Ghaz, Vulkan, Eldrad..

Or bring a different army entirely?

I know DarthDiggler is fond of saying that comp should be addressed in the missions. A mission that forces people to move penalizes gunlines far more effectively than comping gunlines out. I'm running the AWC event in Chicago this month, and was joking that one of the missions was going to start all unique characters at one wound - the "sorry, I was just in another 500 point game over there" effect.

Only half-joking too.

There are a number of ways to address the proliferation of named characters without outright banning them.

- All named characters are delayed in mission planning. They enter the game from your table-edge on turn 3.
- All named characters are wounded because they fight in every minor skirmish in the galaxy. They start the game down wounds.
- All named characters are tired from sleeping with their groupies the night before the fight, and suffer -1 WS, BS and I for the game.

Be creative, don't ban.

I know Europe and Australia also have more of an anti-special character tendancy than the US does. (Granted, this is from the FB side...) The podcasts I listen to don't even really talk about special characters when they do army book reviews because no one uses them.

Personally, I'm not a fan of seeing special characters on the field. There's an Empire player locally that always uses Kurt...I give him a ribbing about him playing a Vampire Counts army actually as Kurt comes back from the dead quite a bit

As for comp...I agree with (I believe) Mannheim (And I've said this before) that if done right (Based on power) it tends to narrow the gap between hardest and softest armies. This is better done with a 'hard' comp system rather than a scored comp system though.

Done the other way presented (Based on playing 'right') doesn't really accomplish much other than demonize people and act as an exclusionary system.

Why are we still talking about this? Every tournament thread you can you bring this up olympia.

What about a system where you allow special and named characters, but each character taken gives your opponent a certain number of "upgrade" points that he can spend to upgrade a non-special character in his army. So, for 40k:

Vulkan = 5pts
Eldrad = 4pts
Ghaz = 3pts
Sicarious = 2pts
Mephiston = 4pts
Corbulo = 3pts
Lemartest = 3pts
Etc

So, lets say I bring my army to play against a blood angels army with Mephiston, corbulo, and lemartes. I now get 10 upgrade pts to spend on the table.

Make one character +1 WS = 2pts
Mastercraft a single character weapon = 1pt
Character gets furious charge = 3pts
Character andhis unit gain furious charge = 10pts
etc.

This way, not all SCs are punished equally, and it allows people to pick and choose what they take to fight the enemy army and his SCs.

Polonius wrote:What about a system where you allow special and named characters, but each character taken gives your opponent a certain number of "upgrade" points that he can spend to upgrade a non-special character in his army. So, for 40k:

Vulkan = 5pts
Eldrad = 4pts
Ghaz = 3pts
Sicarious = 2pts
Mephiston = 4pts
Corbulo = 3pts
Lemartest = 3pts
Etc

So, lets say I bring my army to play against a blood angels army with Mephiston, corbulo, and lemartes. I now get 10 upgrade pts to spend on the table.

Make one character +1 WS = 2pts
Mastercraft a single character weapon = 1pt
Character gets furious charge = 3pts
Character andhis unit gain furious charge = 10pts
etc.

This way, not all SCs are punished equally, and it allows people to pick and choose what they take to fight the enemy army and his SCs.

The biggest problem with doing anything to unique models is that GW has made them essential to "unlock" certain types of armies. Want to play Deathwing/Ravenwing? Want Biker Orks? Want to run Flesh Tearers? They've crammed a lot of the flavor into unique models, even the not-overpowering ones.

(Sure, Tyranids don't need any of their unique models...but the Parasite fits much better in a flying swarm list than a Flyrant, and is hardly the most overpowering of models.)

Not really directed at your suggestion, Polonius. That seems interesting, but pretty complex to set up, as you have to weight ever unique model in the game.

Some unique characters are good and some are bad. Some units are good and some units are bad. I think they all balance out in the end and unique characters are not the be all end all of 40k army list abuse.

BTW just because a unique character loses their last wound doesn't mean they are dead. The fluff has many instances when losing the last wound can mean the model is incapacitated for the moment and not dead. If we are to interpret that losing your last wound means you are dead, then any single game of 40k will produce marine chapter loses approaching 40% of the entire chapter, instances when the whole chapter would be on the brink of elimination.

Well, in the case of Kurt, he was cut down in a challenge with my Exalted hero then the unit broke...That's dead

I run ZERO soft-scoring in my tournaments. Closest I come to any comp is the missions generally favor having more Scoring Units.

Aduro wrote:I run ZERO soft-scoring in my tournaments. Closest I come to any comp is the missions generally favor having more Scoring Units.

This is an outstanding policy. Can I ask, do players who emphasize background and the hobby aspect of the event avoid these events?

I grappled the shoggoth wrote:Why are we still talking about this? Every tournament thread you can you bring this up olympia.

I'm at a loss myself.

If you don't like the tourney scene in another country, then don't travel there. Or DO travel there and find out just how competitive it really is. *shrug*

gorgon and shoggoth, I would totally slam your soft-scores for trying to muzzle any criticism of soft scoring. I'm American anyways so can you grant me dispensation to criticize the tournament scene in the country I live in? We can ask mods to block all comments by foreigners except those who support soft scores.

olympia wrote:I'm American anyways so can you grant me dispensation to criticize the tournament scene in the country I live in?

olympia wrote:Over here they're called tournaments

olympia wrote:I hope the success of the 'Ard Boyz in the U.S. is a sign that competitive 40k has a chance to return to the tournament scene over there.

Perhaps you can understand the assumption that you aren't from around these parts.

olympia wrote:

Aduro wrote:I run ZERO soft-scoring in my tournaments. Closest I come to any comp is the missions generally favor having more Scoring Units.

This is an outstanding policy. Can I ask, do players who emphasize background and the hobby aspect of the event avoid these events?

Not really. I'm probably about the biggest proponent of background and hobby locally, and I'm Running them.

For most of the last 2 decades GW itself has encouraged hobby style scoring with comp, painting, sportsmanship, lore as well as battle part of the mix.

now only lately has the ard boyz model come out.

and the worst part of is not the douchebaggery, its the encouragement of unpainted( i could generally care less about perfect wyswygness general indications are good for me, my opponents list will let me know more than anything else) bare plastic armies that get popped down upon the table.

i was lucky to play against 3 painted armies in the ard boyz semis. but have played against plastic kits that were rapidly glued together with major bits missing in the past.

and that takes away from my fun. competitive ard game play is a major part of it but with painted armies and good terrain makes it so much better.

I have no problem playing unpainted armies really. Sure, I prefer playing against nice looking armies, and those will get the most attention from me, but I know not everyone has the time/patience/desire to paint full giant armies.

Janthkin wrote:

olympia wrote:I'm American anyways so can you grant me dispensation to criticize the tournament scene in the country I live in?

olympia wrote:Over here they're called tournaments

olympia wrote:I hope the success of the 'Ard Boyz in the U.S. is a sign that competitive 40k has a chance to return to the tournament scene over there.

Perhaps you can understand the assumption that you aren't from around these parts.

My particular niche in the adult film industry brings me to ireland alot (don't ask ). Anyhow are canadians atbleast allowed to comment on u.s. tournaments?

Canadians are allowed to do whatever they want. We just don't acknowledge them.

olympia wrote:

Janthkin wrote:

olympia wrote:I'm American anyways so can you grant me dispensation to criticize the tournament scene in the country I live in?

olympia wrote:Over here they're called tournaments

olympia wrote:I hope the success of the 'Ard Boyz in the U.S. is a sign that competitive 40k has a chance to return to the tournament scene over there.

Perhaps you can understand the assumption that you aren't from around these parts.

My particular niche in the adult film industry brings me to ireland alot (don't ask ). Anyhow are canadians atbleast allowed to comment on u.s. tournaments?

I have never played in a tournament here that features composition scoring. I have played in some that feature painting and sportsmanship scoring, but either very good systems (choose your favorite opponent, player with most favorites wins, battle points determine ties). Or they are entirely separate categories, so battle points and painting dont mix. I just played in a 42 person event that featured 4 prizes, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and best painted. Scoring was judged painting and battle points. Like I have said, I have yet to see these comp events.

What about a system where you allow special and named characters, but each character taken gives your opponent a certain number of "upgrade" points that he can spend to upgrade a non-special character in his army. So, for 40k:

Vulkan = 5pts
Eldrad = 4pts
Ghaz = 3pts
Sicarious = 2pts
Mephiston = 4pts
Corbulo = 3pts
Lemartest = 3pts
Etc

So, lets say I bring my army to play against a blood angels army with Mephiston, corbulo, and lemartes. I now get 10 upgrade pts to spend on the table.

Make one character +1 WS = 2pts
Mastercraft a single character weapon = 1pt
Character gets furious charge = 3pts
Character andhis unit gain furious charge = 10pts
etc.

This way, not all SCs are punished equally, and it allows people to pick and choose what they take to fight the enemy army and his SCs.

This is a very bad idea, here is why. What makes corbulo worth mentioning? Hes an upgrade character, and you pay fairly for him. Would you punish people for bringing arjac rockfist? Spending 200 points on one guy? What about eldrad, why is he better then gaz. Eldar in general suck in 5th, and with the proliferation of hoods he just isnt that good. Someone like gaz can steamroll anything in combat, while giving the whole army ridiculous move bonuses. I would consider him better then eldrad. Why is lemartes on this list? He is a 150 point 2 wound model. This will just degenerate into favoritism, and who feels so and so character is broken compared to this or that guy.

I grappled the shoggoth wrote:

I have never played in a tournament here that features composition scoring. I have played in some that feature painting and sportsmanship scoring, but either very good systems (choose your favorite opponent, player with most favorites wins, battle points determine ties). Or they are entirely separate categories, so battle points and painting dont mix. I just played in a 42 person event that featured 4 prizes, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and best painted. Scoring was judged painting and battle points. Like I have said, I have yet to see these comp events.

You are lucky indeed that the tournaments in your area are devoid of comp scoring. However, the overwhelming majority of qualifiers for the Las Vegas GT feature both composition and sports scoring.

While yes Shoggoth, that system seems like crap, eldar do not suck. I play competitively with them all the time, with success!

Eldrad can kill most special characters out there, with his whacky 3++ re-rollable, and divination. He more or less benefits the army as a whole.

Pretty easy to keep Big E out of the sweet 24" line...

Polonius wrote:What about a system where you allow special and named characters, but each character taken gives your opponent a certain number of "upgrade" points that he can spend to upgrade a non-special character in his army. So, for 40k:

Vulkan = 5pts
Eldrad = 4pts
Ghaz = 3pts
Sicarious = 2pts
Mephiston = 4pts
Corbulo = 3pts
Lemartest = 3pts
Etc

So, lets say I bring my army to play against a blood angels army with Mephiston, corbulo, and lemartes. I now get 10 upgrade pts to spend on the table.

Make one character +1 WS = 2pts
Mastercraft a single character weapon = 1pt
Character gets furious charge = 3pts
Character andhis unit gain furious charge = 10pts
etc.

This way, not all SCs are punished equally, and it allows people to pick and choose what they take to fight the enemy army and his SCs.

So you give your opponent free abilities because you took a character that you needed to pay extra points for?

I don't get it.

I don't think that there are any SCs that are really grossly unfairly costed. I rarely take Eldrad in my Eldar army, but not because of fluff or comp reasons, but because I realize that I need to maximize the amount of stuff I can bring to the game by utilizing cheaper hqs.

I'm proposing this idea as a compromise rather than banning special characters. I personally have no problem with them.

It's also something I literally wrote up in 2 minutes.

I don't like the idea of tournaments with list restrictions. Certainly, none of the ones I run ever have them. Not that the idea of list variety is bad, it's just that at the local level, where most tournaments happen, these massive restrictions are unneeded since the hypothetical problem lists never appear at the tourny. However, I can see the attraction of having them at national tournaments, where tournament regulars with standardized, more popular lists are more likely to appear with greater frequency.

Usually, I find the idea that 'x unit is always the best choice' is a false one, so you're not really knocking down the most powerful lists, because there is no such thing. What you're actually doing is punishing people who engage in, or fall victim to, groupthink. People get it in their heads that x unit is awesome and must be included in every list/banned from every tournament, which is false on its face. Any army has dozens of effective builds that need not include the super unit du jour, so by restricting the use of particular units you're trying to encourage diversity, but you're not actually leveling the playing field.

Maybe that's what you want; to encourage diversity. And that's fine, I love diversity. But comp scores won't change the underlying fact that most people are lemmings who pick armies similar to other lemmings' armies, not because said armies are actually all that great, but because the internet (or the guys in their gamestore, or whatever) tells them that army is great. It's a perception problem, not a reality problem, and as a result it's all but impossible to fix. Maybe you can force a superficial change, but you're not going to solve the underlying issue.

in my experience, at least where I play, the gamers who like fluffy lists will play in both comp and no-comp tournaments. However, the gamers who do NOT like comp will not play in comp tournaments.

Take that as you will, but us comp-lovers are willing to throw down on any field, not just ones of our own choosing

Comp or comp free, players who are predisposed to cry and blame will find something to complain about. My experience with composition and sportsmanship scores is like efforts to outlaw gun ownership. The players that intend to break the rules and have no regard for others have more tools to do bad things, while the players trying to work within tighter restrictions are easier to knock off.

The rules, army books, and faq/erratas that GW produce may not be balanced, but everyone has access to them, so the playing field is equal for all. Adding additional scores and guidelines at an event doesn't necessarily make things any more balanced, and definitely makes things more complicated, and easier to manipulate for clever players.

Unfortunately there are usually one or two players who leave a tournament happy, the winner and runner-up, or appearance winner. Everybody else is disappointed at least, griping and moaning at worst. They go on about cheesy this or beardy that, this guy cheating or that mission unfair, then throw out all kinds of ideas to redress the problem. Problem is, most folks who lose consistently are not the best players wherever they play, and no matter what the new rules are, keep getting beaten. The way to avoid getting massacred is to study the rulebook and army books, get on forums and read, go to more tournaments and practice, focus and pay attention.

While I'm against soft-scoring in general, I'm particularly horrified at tournaments where the scoring system is not transparent. Judge scored comp. without open measures is the worst example of this. However, even transparency in soft-scoring for comp does not obviate problems with sports scoring. Sports scoring is irredeemable.

Honersstodnt wrote:in my experience, at least where I play, the gamers who like fluffy lists will play in both comp and no-comp tournaments. However, the gamers who do NOT like comp will not play in comp tournaments.

Take that as you will, but us comp-lovers are willing to throw down on any field, not just ones of our own choosing

If you are building a compy-list, you can play in any tournament setting. If you are buying a competitive list, you can't use it in a comped tournament - that's probably the most likely explanation ;p

That, and people who like comp likely aren't as competitively minded as someone who doesn't.

Plus, when they lose...They can just blame the other person's list rather than look at mistakes that they made. Helps them feel morally superior...

Modquisition on. Statements like the above are borderline flaming. This thread needs maintain politieness for other persons positions or the thread wil be closed and discplinary action invoked.

The rules, army books, and faq/erratas that GW produce may not be balanced, but everyone has access to them, so the playing field is equal for all. Adding additional scores and guidelines at an event doesn't necessarily make things any more balanced, and definitely makes things more complicated, and easier to manipulate for clever players.

This is entirely true. Lets assume you have an event where the judges ruled that mech is broken, mech is unfair. Therefore only one out of 5 units in the army can be a vehicle. Bugs and demons would slaughter at an event like that, as their armies are designed to work without vehicles. Ok, so you rule that monstrous creatures should be taken out. Now footslogger spacewolves slaughter everyone at the event. You cant fix the balance by banning certain armies, which is what comp scoring generally attempts to do. I think your army is cheesy, therefore you get less points and are less likely to win.

As far as wonky missions or rule sets, the smarter and more experienced players will generally win those. There is a 1500 pt planetstrike tournament coming up soon at a local store. Im pondering whether I want to bring triple trygon bugs or dante+sanguard spam ba. A friend of mine has no army but orks, he gets no choice in what to play. Designing events with a "screw the veterans and powergamers" idea generally just means more baby seal clubbing.

The third issue is, while 40k isnt very well balanced, its not horribly unbalanced. And gw still remains a faceless corporation. So they unbalance the game by introducing army x, which is completely and utterly broken. Like iron warriors, or the old mechdar, or guard are now. There isnt much you can do about it. So and so at the LGS ran an event where he decided that he hates close combat armies. He cant win against them, so he feels they must be broken. Therefore in his new mission all units move as if in difficult terrain the first 2 turns of the game. Guess how many people are coming back to that guys events?

And gw still remains a faceless corporation. So they unbalance the game by introducing army x, which is completely and utterly broken. Like iron warriors, or the old mechdar, or guard are now.

Looking at the 'ard boyz results, as far as I've been able to compile them anyway, I'm actually fairly impressed with the balance amongst 5E codecii.

IG: 12 (11, due to 1 winner not going to the finals)
SM: 11
BA: 10 (11, due to 1 IG winner not going to the finals)
Orks: 9
Nids: 9
SW: 7
CSM: 5
Eldar: 5
Daemons: 3
WH: 2
Tau: 1 (probably not attending finals)
Necrons: 1
BT: 1
DH: 0
DA: 0
DE: 0


By first places:
IG (9)
SM (4)
Nids (3)
SW (3)

So, the only modern codex that's not doing very well is Daemons - even Orks have a fairly respectable showing despite not being considered as strong as was initially thought.

Guard seem like they could be slightly too strong, just looking at how many first places they've got, but overall I'm impressed - if the new books continue to be as good as the last few have been, 'Ard Boyz 2011 will be even better.

Guard are by no means unbeatable. But they just auto win certain match ups. If you have bugs, going second against guard is suicide. Unless you run crazy deep strike/outflankers, and even then they can screw you up hard with a 30 point officer.

I grappled the shoggoth wrote:Guard are by no means unbeatable. But they just auto win certain match ups. If you have bugs, going second against guard is suicide. Unless you run crazy deep strike/outflankers, and even then they can screw you up hard with a 30 point officer.

Eh, our local bug players do quite well against IG. In fact, I think that bugs/IG are pretty much top-dogs in our store.

I dont understand why everyone has gotta hate on how tournaments are run.

I personally liked ard boyz a lot because there were no soft-scores. The entirety of ard boyz was to strategize and play to win. As far as gameplay goes, this is how i love to play. You make the best list you possibly can and ill make mine, then lets battle. Would soft-scores make ard bozy any better? maybe, maybe not. Personally i say no, leave soft-scores to other tournaments, ard boyz is just about playing to kill the other guy. Pretty fun.

I think soft-scores have their place and should be equal to non-soft score tournaments. I like playing to win, but fluffy games are just as fun. However, fluffy games are only fun when both sides are playing fluffy. Its not fun when i bring a mega-killly list and you bring your fluff list and i table you turn 4. And why do Special Characters kill fluffy lists? If there is an abusing of fluffy lists penalize them in the soft-scores. IMO bringing the sanguinor is fine. Bringing the Sanguinor and Mephiston is not fluffy and the other player just wants to win, and down the soft-scores go.

There really are no set rules to this, just have fun and dont worry about it. You dont have to play at all the tournaments, and if you dont happen to like the ruleset of specific tournaments then dont go. Seems pretty simple.

If a person wants to sink 1/3-1/4 of his points in two models, then I'm looking at an easy win.

mrwittwer wrote: Bringing the Sanguinor and Mephiston is not fluffy and the other player just wants to win, and down the soft-scores go.

Explain this to me. They are both characters from the exact same marine codex. Why cant they work together? Thats like saying bringing calgar and sicarius, or calgar and telion, or chronos and sicarius are WAAC but just one of the above is ok. I am assuming you are claiming putting forth the proposition that using both is unfluffy.

Looks like we arent the only site discussing this http://www.yesthetruthhurts.com/2010/06/community-list-for-astronomicon.html

For me if you can find fluff or make fluff with he two special characters i think its fine. but in most fluff i have read, super powerfull characters dont always come together to win every battle like in space marines, vulkan and lysander, both very good hqs but rarely would fight together if ever. Not very fluffy.

I would be fine with 'ard boy formats... if they required people paint thier models and enforced WYSIWYG.

If I wanted nothing but a raw gaming experience I will go play a video game that is way more balanced and takes a lot less of my time. I play a miniatures game to paint miniatures and have an excuse to socialize with other people who share the hobby and push the models around a board for a day.

If I am going to paint my models and then play against some unpainted lumps of half-done models and they are not even WYSIWYG what is the point of the event? It is a giant fat waste of time. I would rather lose to a WAAC list with a painted army than win against a comped list or fluff list that is unpainted.

Things like NOVA are popular because I know if I attended that tourney, I would play fully painted and WYSIWYG models. I hope the new GW format brings back the GT standards of before which is 100% WYSIWYG and painted models to participate.

mrwittwer wrote:For me if you can find fluff or make fluff with he two special characters i think its fine. but in most fluff i have read, super powerfull characters dont always come together to win every battle like in space marines, vulkan and lysander, both very good hqs but rarely would fight together if ever. Not very fluffy.

Well, isn't it a good thing that taking Vulkan + Lysander isn't very competitive then

number9dream wrote:

mrwittwer wrote:For me if you can find fluff or make fluff with he two special characters i think its fine. but in most fluff i have read, super powerfull characters dont always come together to win every battle like in space marines, vulkan and lysander, both very good hqs but rarely would fight together if ever. Not very fluffy.

Well, isn't it a good thing that taking Vulkan + Lysander isn't very competitive then

No its not but really you can pick any two special characters and more likely than not they dont fit together.

And with a few exceptions they won't be competitive either !

nkelsch wrote:I would be fine with 'ard boy formats... if they required people paint thier models and enforced WYSIWYG.

If I wanted nothing but a raw gaming experience I will go play a video game that is way more balanced and takes a lot less of my time. I play a miniatures game to paint miniatures and have an excuse to socialize with other people who share the hobby and push the models around a board for a day.

If I am going to paint my models and then play against some unpainted lumps of half-done models and they are not even WYSIWYG what is the point of the event? It is a giant fat waste of time. I would rather lose to a WAAC list with a painted army than win against a comped list or fluff list that is unpainted.

Things like NOVA are popular because I know if I attended that tourney, I would play fully painted and WYSIWYG models. I hope the new GW format brings back the GT standards of before which is 100% WYSIWYG and painted models to participate.

Ard boys does require wysiwyg, if some stores chose not to enfore it that is not the tournaments fault. Its ran all across the country, so you get a mixed bag.

Aduro wrote:Canadians are allowed to do whatever they want. We just don't acknowledge them.

hahaha


I have no problem with soft scores for painting or separate sportmanship, and I think there should be awards for those parts of the hobby too, but I loathe comp and sportsmanship that is included in scoring (because sore losers always ding you when you massacre them)

I really hope ETC drops the stupid restrictions next year, they have no place in a tournament like that. @torgoch: Do you know how many countries voted for and against?

From the comments here:
http://www.yesthetruthhurts.com/2010/04/etc-response.html

Number of voting countries: 17 (Belgium, Poland, USA, Austria, Germany, Hungary, Sweden, England, Scotland, Wales, Russia, Belarus, Slovakia, Northern Ireland, Spain, France, Finland) out of 25 attending teams.

- 11 voted to ban all
- 3 voted to ban none
- 3 voted to ban only some SCs out of a black list

Number of voting countries: 17 (Belgium, Poland, USA, Austria, Germany, Hungary, Sweden, England, Scotland, Wales, Russia, Belarus, Slovakia, Northern Ireland, Spain, France, Finland) out of 25 attending teams.

- 11 voted to ban all
- 3 voted to ban none
- 3 voted to ban only some SCs out of a black list

I'd be curious to learn more about the selection process for these voters. Were votes cast by players, by TO's, or by GW staffers?

This seems to be the forum through which it is organised.

http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewforum.php?f=33&sid=235aae4d4143ae2efad32ba7049e22d7

I should contact them for more details.

As I understand it, the teams decide amongst themselves what to vote, and then the team captains carry that vote to the ruling council or whatever they call it.

Polonius wrote:I'm proposing this idea as a compromise rather than banning special characters. I personally have no problem with them.

It's also something I literally wrote up in 2 minutes.

When you post something up for scrutiny, it doesn't matter how long you spent on it. ;-)

In any case, Blackmoor touches on an interesting point that GW has made the special characters available and necessary now to play certain army builds, so banning them outright hurts the choices of those armies.

Really, what needs to be done (which may be too much to hope for) is to ensure that all the codicies are actually balanced against each other no matter what units/characters you take (something that other games do) and then you don't have to worry about comp at all.

@Redbeard
I'm against weird missions, and doubly against missions that introduce actual "penalties" against your models. What's even worse, is that usually these types of things are not posted in advance, so you're really just walking blind into what could potentially be a disaster. I would think this could be a bone of contention for most, although most locals probably are used to the stuff that happens in their own local scene.

I'm really not a fan of the 'take special character to unlock army option' thing...

skyth wrote:I'm really not a fan of the 'take special character to unlock army option' thing...

yeah it kinda sucks that i'm not "really" playing Crimson Fists unless i'm fielding a Kantor or Lysander. Overall it was done better in 4th(?) Edition with the chapter traits system

Joetaco wrote:

skyth wrote:I'm really not a fan of the 'take special character to unlock army option' thing...

yeah it kinda sucks that i'm not "really" playing Crimson Fists unless i'm fielding a Kantor or Lysander. Overall it was done better in 4th(?) Edition with the chapter traits system

No, no it was not. Traits and doctrines were horribly balanced.

the problem was it was easily exploited by taking something like eye to eye, building aroud it and getting some good advantages. I really only "believe" in using "real" chapters (ie:GW ones) so i never really contemplated the system, but can see how it can be taken advantage of.

whitedragon wrote:
@Redbeard
I'm against weird missions, and doubly against missions that introduce actual "penalties" against your models. What's even worse, is that usually these types of things are not posted in advance, so you're really just walking blind into what could potentially be a disaster. I would think this could be a bone of contention for most, although most locals probably are used to the stuff that happens in their own local scene.

I'm not a big fan of such missions in general either, but they're out there. I remember playing one game where the mission required your troop choice to be completely within a terrain piece to control it. Great for those 5-man combat squads. Awful for those 30-man ork boy units. I've seen missions that go out of their way to screw with mech armies (out of gas - roll when moving, on a 1, you're immobilized for the rest of the game), I've seen missions that go out of their way to screw with gun-line armies (you must move to the center of the table to hold the game), and missions that screw with assault armies (deploy on the short table edges). I've seen missions that screw with deathstar units (opponent may pick one unit to be put inreserve until turn 4). These sorts of conditions theoretically reward the "balanced" army (an interesting concept at least, as not all codexes can field armies that would be considered balanced by some of these criteria, but even then they really seem more like a way to screw over a build that the TO specifically doesn't like.

But, hey, if horde armies are game for screw-you missions and mech armies are and assault armies and gunline armies, why not special-characters too...

Joetaco wrote:the problem was it was easily exploited by taking something like eye to eye, building aroud it and getting some good advantages.

The thing is, you paid extra in points for any advantage that you got (except for the extend game length one, and that one allowed your opponent to use it also.

skyth wrote:

Joetaco wrote:the problem was it was easily exploited by taking something like eye to eye, building aroud it and getting some good advantages.

The thing is, you paid extra in points for any advantage that you got (except for the extend game length one, and that one allowed your opponent to use it also.

And those points were completely random and only helped making a few traits/doctrines good and the rest garbage. There were also many good ones that were free, like close order drill/drop troops for IG. The special characters OTOH are much better balanced. The traits/doctrines opened up too many different combinations, were probably not play-tested (and they could hardly play test all the different combinations) and were therefore not balanced

I was only talking about the Marine ones...And I have yet to see a combination that was OTT. Normally the strongest builds were just straight codex builds rather than trait builds.