So with this year coming to a close there have been some great events I got to go to, tho after every event it became clear that a lot of players there weren't very competitive and would complain about the competive players which I think is very unfair since a tournement is a competitive thing. With that said I think there should be events for more non competitive players so that they play people more at there skill level, it would be a lot more fun for them. And as a competitive player I hate playing against "fluff lists" while sure I don't mind the win, I much rather play against a hard army I find that more enjoyable. Do you guys feel like there should be a split
I feel like a player's competitiveness is more based on his personality than "skill level". Saying it the way you did kinda insinuates that you believe people who aren't always primarily concerned with who wins or loses a game always have less skill than someone who only cares about winning or losing the game. This is not true, I think.
That being said, I'm sure there are plenty of people who would find a campaign event more exciting than a structured comp tournament. I would count myself among them, and styling them differently would mean you don't have to invite a certain kind of person and exclude the other, just call it a campaign or tourney and let people show up if they're interested.
AncientSkarbrand wrote: I feel like a player's competitiveness is more based on his personality than "skill level". Saying it the way you did kinda insinuates that you believe people who aren't always primarily concerned with who wins or loses a game always have less skill than someone who only cares about winning or losing the game. This is not true, I think.
That being said, I'm sure there are plenty of people who would find a campaign event more exciting than a structured comp tournament. I would count myself among them, and styling them differently would mean you don't have to invite a certain kind of person and exclude the other, just call it a campaign or tourney and let people show up if they're interested.
Doesn't this happen already?
campaigns don't get that much support and unless your going to a GW then it's pretty hard to find a group of dedicated people.
Don't get me wrong if people want to come to a competitive event because they feel that they have a competitive army then go for it, it's the only way to get better. But if you no that your bringing a weak army and are not a fan of competitive play then why even come if your not going to have fun, a large portion of competitive players like to play against strong army's, playing against weak armys isent fun for either side.
If you played against a lot of fluffy armies and people interested in soft scores and having fun rather than playing to win, doesn't that suggest that there are events that are aimed at those sorts of people, and for whatever reason a few waac players managed to attend and ruin everyone's fun?
SilverMK2 wrote: If you played against a lot of fluffy armies and people interested in soft scores and having fun rather than playing to win, doesn't that suggest that there are events that are aimed at those sorts of people, and for whatever reason a few waac players managed to attend and ruin everyone's fun?
no it just means that those people had those army's, any tournement is competitive that's why they have best genarl, painting, and overall. Best sports is probubly the weakest award.
If people want to run a fluff event then advertise it as such.
the only problem with hosting an event dedicated for non competitive players is that ithere is no guarantee from keeping the high competitive win at all cost cheese list gamer from joining in as well, which is a bad experience for everybody.
i just went to the recent harvester of souls in spokane washington. this event is supposed to be more of a noncompetitive event where having an army painted and on display was rewarded more then actual tournament results, but what i saw was about half the attendees barely had display boards (some had flipped over little ceasars boxes), and even some without even painted armies. while my army itself wasn't as painted as i wanted it to be i worked hard to make a display board that would show off the style and theme of my force.
it was a little upsetting that many players didn't so much care for the spirit of the competition as they did for the rankings they could get from exploiting their cheese list among non competitive players.
I have gone to 2 trunys abd doubt all ever go again I went to meet more players and get more info in to the game . that was the biggest mistake ever I play for and to have a good time not waac all cost our to bring dick list. Also I learned you need to know ever codex and all rules realy good for a trouny because I found out there's a lot of crazy rules. Played one them krone demon army's that can get more demon princes by killing there units.
Our that new mars army where walker are all av13 there units get to pick all types of ammo to fit who they fighting and the get preferred enemy against ever one. That army seemed more op then tau ever did
Automatically Appended Next Post: I could be comptive but I don't believe in being a duck to do it our abusing rules and other stuff find shady. Fight fair dang it don't drop your pods so I can't shot at the guys getting out our behind my army drop them in front of me like I do my pods and line your whole army up across the board don't castle up on side
geargutz wrote: the only problem with hosting an event dedicated for non competitive players is that ithere is no guarantee from keeping the high competitive win at all cost cheese list gamer from joining in as well, which is a bad experience for everybody.
i just went to the recent harvester of souls in spokane washington. this event is supposed to be more of a noncompetitive event where having an army painted and on display was rewarded more then actual tournament results, but what i saw was about half the attendees barely had display boards (some had flipped over little ceasars boxes), and even some without even painted armies. while my army itself wasn't as painted as i wanted it to be i worked hard to make a display board that would show off the style and theme of my force.
it was a little upsetting that many players didn't so much care for the spirit of the competition as they did for the rankings they could get from exploiting their cheese list among non competitive players.
If it's a non-competitive event then why are there win/loss rankings?
I'd suggesting looking to the model that GW used to use for Battlegrounds - Changing points limits from game to game, asymmetrical points and objectives, no prizes based on wins.
geargutz wrote: the only problem with hosting an event dedicated for non competitive players is that ithere is no guarantee from keeping the high competitive win at all cost cheese list gamer from joining in as well, which is a bad experience for everybody.
i just went to the recent harvester of souls in spokane washington. this event is supposed to be more of a noncompetitive event where having an army painted and on display was rewarded more then actual tournament results, but what i saw was about half the attendees barely had display boards (some had flipped over little ceasars boxes), and even some without even painted armies. while my army itself wasn't as painted as i wanted it to be i worked hard to make a display board that would show off the style and theme of my force.
it was a little upsetting that many players didn't so much care for the spirit of the competition as they did for the rankings they could get from exploiting their cheese list among non competitive players.
that's what I mean, it's not fun for anyone. The TOs at the event you went to should have been on top of that, they should have made it so that you needed to have your army fully painted and a display board or you get kicked out, if events want to push away Waac players or some events what them to come (competitive events) then the TOs are the ones that need to make a format the suits the type of event you want to run.
If you play merely for winning and no other reason, you must have a very boring game. I don't see the fun in a tournament where 80% are Eldar Scatbikes and the rest various deathstars. I don't see the fun in having to combine three codices to be able to win over one.
geargutz wrote: the only problem with hosting an event dedicated for non competitive players is that ithere is no guarantee from keeping the high competitive win at all cost cheese list gamer from joining in as well, which is a bad experience for everybody.
i just went to the recent harvester of souls in spokane washington. this event is supposed to be more of a noncompetitive event where having an army painted and on display was rewarded more then actual tournament results, but what i saw was about half the attendees barely had display boards (some had flipped over little ceasars boxes), and even some without even painted armies. while my army itself wasn't as painted as i wanted it to be i worked hard to make a display board that would show off the style and theme of my force.
it was a little upsetting that many players didn't so much care for the spirit of the competition as they did for the rankings they could get from exploiting their cheese list among non competitive players.
This is pretty much true.
The problem is not in non-competitive gamers going to competitive tournaments, it is competitive players attending every 40k event they can, even if it is intended for non-competitive players. The only solution is for a TO to outright ban some players from attending, and obviously most don't want to do that, because that would be mean.
And removing win/loss rankings is also not really a great solution. I mean, it is fun to pit different fluff lists against each other and see which one is the strongest, just as it is fun to pit different competitive lists against each other. The problem is that the two different ways of list building just don't work well with each other.
Let's be clear: there are two reasons people call for "less competitive" events.
The first is that people want a true beer and pretzels gaming event. It can be serious, with narrative scenarios, asymmetric win conditions, or even teams of players. They can also be goofy, with random events. These exist, although usually as side events at big events. They are a ton of fun, and when well designed cannot be easily gamed with standard cheese.
The second is a bit less noble, as its people that actually care quite a bit about whether they win or lose, but not enough to build and play a top tier army and play at the level required. Essentially, they don't want to include more casual players, they simply want to eliminate "good" players.
If anything, I would like the sportsmanship award to be worth much more, but only a fraction of the score to be based on the opponents score. Ideally, each match would have an impartial judge to decide rules debates and witness player interaction and that judge would award each player a score for sportsmanship.
Our events always include the special rules "Stem the gray tide" and "push back the shadows" (once per game you may gain army wide preferred enemy (bare plastic) and Hatred (primed models)) and we include best painter, most fun, best list theme.
Let's say you wanted to run a "non-competitive" event. How exactly would you enforce that?
Do you base it on power? Because that's a slippery slope right there, and certainly something a lot of people seem to disagree on - especially in terms of specifics and solutions.
Do you base it on fluff? Because I'm pretty sure a lot of very strong armies are also very fluffy (The Necron Decurion, War Convocation and massed Wave Serpents in 6th edition all spring instantly to mind).
I'm not against the idea, I'm just really curious as to how you'd go about enforcing it.
We just hosted the Beer & Pretzels in Sudbury and had a really great mechanic for helping people separate into "competitive" and "non-competitive" groups. When you arrived, if you wanted to compete for Best General, you would mark down a competitive score that would help set you up against a First Round Opponent of similar scoring. Otherwise, you didn't mark down anything, indicating you were playing casually (they were marked as a 0). This meant it was far less likely for a casual player to end up against competitive builds.
At the end of the day, your competitive score was added as a decimal to your total score, so if two people with the same record (3-0) were in line for first place, whomever scored themselves highest would win. There's more to it than that (kill points, and ITC points added as whole figures before the decimal, so a tie was unlikely), but the biggest deal is that no one could "smurf" the system by beating up casuals. Due to player attendance there were a couple casual vs competitive games, but far less than would occur in a normal tournament.
vipoid wrote: Let's say you wanted to run a "non-competitive" event. How exactly would you enforce that?
Do you base it on power? Because that's a slippery slope right there, and certainly something a lot of people seem to disagree on - especially in terms of specifics and solutions.
Do you base it on fluff? Because I'm pretty sure a lot of very strong armies are also very fluffy (The Necron Decurion, War Convocation and massed Wave Serpents in 6th edition all spring instantly to mind).
I'm not against the idea, I'm just really curious as to how you'd go about enforcing it.
It would have to be at the army composition stage: no allies, no formations, and limited lows and SHs. Basically, 30k rules with 40k models.
Honestly, I wish that people would stop trying to turn what is likely one of the most, (if not THE most), unbalanced game of man dollies into a kind of pro sport.
There's not much actual tactical depth to the game, and the balance is laughable at the best of times. And that's before you even add in the fact that it's a freaking dice game! (the absolute bane of my existence. )
"Hobby" tournaments that add much more focus towards painting, sportsmanship, terrain making, etc... are the best.
If I want to stroke my ego and prove I'm the best at something, there's plenty of actual competitive sports or other hobbies out there. I play 40k to have fun, not prove I'm suddenly the second coming of Napoleon.
Cant happen line three guys up and say oh 5$ and three jackarses take off. As long as there is someone trying to prove a point there will be competive people. There will be the one guy tryng to be the best none competive player, by competing to be the least competive.
SilverMK2 wrote: If you played against a lot of fluffy armies and people interested in soft scores and having fun rather than playing to win, doesn't that suggest that there are events that are aimed at those sorts of people, and for whatever reason a few waac players managed to attend and ruin everyone's fun?
no it just means that those people had those army's, any tournement is competitive that's why they have best genarl, painting, and overall. Best sports is probubly the weakest award.
If people want to run a fluff event then advertise it as such.
Experiment 626 wrote: Honestly, I wish that people would stop trying to turn what is likely one of the most, (if not THE most), unbalanced game of man dollies into a kind of pro sport.
There's not much actual tactical depth to the game, and the balance is laughable at the best of times. And that's before you even add in the fact that it's a freaking dice game! (the absolute bane of my existence. )
"Hobby" tournaments that add much more focus towards painting, sportsmanship, terrain making, etc... are the best.
If I want to stroke my ego and prove I'm the best at something, there's plenty of actual competitive sports or other hobbies out there. I play 40k to have fun, not prove I'm suddenly the second coming of Napoleon.
no offence but your only saying this because you don't actually win games and consider yourself a non-competitive person (you have said this in threads I've posted before) also are you saying that those people that play magic, counter strike, dota etc they aren't really in a pro sport, pro gaming has been a thing for many years and so people make a lot of money, now 40k doesn't have that kind of backing not because there aren't those who would like it but because there haven't been anyone willing to invest the time. But the ITC and ETC is probubly the most fun I've had playing 40k and a very long time, so for you to sit there and say competitive 40k is bad, if suggest playing in some real events and not just astro which btw is a bad event and I won't be surprised if next year it's canceled
Dman137...are you running out of material? Because this just seems like a rehash of this previous thread.
Believe it or not, I do think there should be events for less competitive players, i.e. friendly tournaments. I think the best way to do this would be in the tournament format. A Rogue Trader-style tournament, where hobby scores and sportsmanship count just as much as winning, would go a long way toward this goal of a more casual-friendly environment. There's also the argument to be made for mhaving to submit your army lists to a TO. Depending on the TO's judgement, you can be in the competitive tournament or the friendly tournament, but not both.
I mean, it is fun to pit different fluff lists against each other and see which one is the strongest, just as it is fun to pit different competitive lists against each other. The problem is that the two different ways of list building just don't work well with each other.
Tell me what is unfluffy in any eldar list run or a super friends marine army or a gladius army?
I am going to a tournament later this week and though I doubt I will do well enough to get into the top games from the first day on the 2nd day they are pairing people based on performance the first day so I still have a chance to have fun and possibly still win some prizes. I would make a more competitive list but I just can't afford to go buy the models it would take to make one of my armies competitive.
The tournament will consist of two days of gaming. The first day (Saturday) will be used to separate opponents into 8 Person “Pods” for Round 4 plus Sunday’s games.
The Top 8 players from Saturdays games (Based on Match Score with strength of schedule and battle points used as tie breakers) will fight in the championship “Pod” on Sunday. With each following “Pod” having it’s own Mini-Tournament, with prizes handed out to the winners in each “Pod”.
I don't think a split is a good idea. Mostly because tournaments need attendance to do well and to continue. If you just had the top players you'd find it to be pretty meh, you'll run into the same 5 people every time, even though that seems to happen currently anyway.
Most tournaments are 75% push overs, 15% are decent enough players trying to win, and 10% actually have a chance to win and its luck of the draw for rounds to determine who gets it after that.
Experiment 626 wrote: Honestly, I wish that people would stop trying to turn what is likely one of the most, (if not THE most), unbalanced game of man dollies into a kind of pro sport.
There's not much actual tactical depth to the game, and the balance is laughable at the best of times. And that's before you even add in the fact that it's a freaking dice game! (the absolute bane of my existence. )
"Hobby" tournaments that add much more focus towards painting, sportsmanship, terrain making, etc... are the best.
If I want to stroke my ego and prove I'm the best at something, there's plenty of actual competitive sports or other hobbies out there. I play 40k to have fun, not prove I'm suddenly the second coming of Napoleon.
no offence but your only saying this because you don't actually win games and consider yourself a non-competitive person (you have said this in threads I've posted before) also are you saying that those people that play magic, counter strike, dota etc they aren't really in a pro sport, pro gaming has been a thing for many years and so people make a lot of money, now 40k doesn't have that kind of backing not because there aren't those who would like it but because there haven't been anyone willing to invest the time. But the ITC and ETC is probubly the most fun I've had playing 40k and a very long time, so for you to sit there and say competitive 40k is bad, if suggest playing in some real events and not just astro which btw is a bad event and I won't be surprised if next year it's canceled
I am a decently competitive person actually, just not when it comes to 40k as there really isn't anything about that makes it worthwhile as a competitive game that relies on skill. (and I suck horribly with dice...)
Yes there's basic strategy and planning 2-3 turns ahead, but that's where it ends. The game is too inherently random, and the inter-army balance is a joke. (and always has been)
"Winning" at 40k has a lot more to do with simply picking the right army & list/rule exploitation and plain luck than it does any kind of actual skill. There's a helluva lot more skill involved in video/PC gaming than there is 40k/Tragic the Saddening.
Astronomi-con bills itself as "the tournament for people who hate 'Tournaments'".
Basically it's been designed to poo-poo all over the traditional power gaming mentality, and places more focus on the hobby in general than it does just curbstomping opponents. Hell, it even has awards for 'Best Terrain' (for the attendees who help provide all the tables & scenery), and 'Best Army List' (for those who literally turn their army list into a work of art, such as a Guard list that looks like an actual dataslate, or a fur bound tome for a SW's list!)
So obviously according to Dman, it's an event that's only for people who aren't 'gud enuff' to go to actual big boy Tournaments.
TuddFudders wrote: Just have everyone drink 4 beers before playing and you will truly only get the fluffy battles you desire.
I would be down for that kind of event, except that for the fact that being barely 100lbs, drinking 4 entire beers would likely kill me.
Question about the casual tournaments: How would one enforce being casual? Would there be a banned unit list? Would you just submit your list to the TOs for approval?
TheCustomLime wrote: Question about the casual tournaments: How would one enforce being casual? Would there be a banned unit list? Would you just submit your list to the TOs for approval?
See throne of skulls. The tournament where you got more points for your opponent liking you than winning games. Also each army got an award, so showing up with sisters of battle pretty much netted you an automatic trophy by default.
Is there a definitive power ranking for armies? Like, I know that Eldar are top tier and CSM are bottom, but is there an actual power ranking? If so, maybe add an army ranking score to the score card with a modifier. for example. If an army beats a better army than it is ranked by one. The score modifier is +1, if it beats an army one level weaker than itself. its -1. Same army is 0 of course. It would need A LOT of fine tuning, but it may be a way to bring more armies to competitive events. Also makes playing lower tier armies a risk/reward for super competitive players. Beat eldar with just a CSM list? Enjoy that sweet +7 army tier score.
A less extreme version of the rules above would just be a positive score bonus added for lower tier armies if they beat a high tier, but not a negative modifier if a high tier beats a low tier.. For example, Eldar beats Eldar means no modifier, Eldar beats CSM and no modifier, CSM beats eldar.and gets a +7 for tier difference. This version wont make it feel like your being punished for playing a high power level army and beating lower tier armies if that's all your matched with. It's kind of like a difficulty modifier for the lower tier armies, meaning if you play them and win 3 against harder armies, you'll rank higher than someone who won three games playing top tier vs other top tier. Once again, the whole system would require A LOT of fine tuning, but it's an idea that is better than alienating other players and dividing up an already fractured gamerbase even more than it is currently for this game.
OT: No, you can't divide up competitive events vs non competitive just because the whole idea of what is competitive is subjective. What i consider fluffy and fun can also be damn right killy while someone else's idea could be very laid back. So there is no way to control it and monitor it without someone going home upset.
Experiment 626 wrote: Honestly, I wish that people would stop trying to turn what is likely one of the most, (if not THE most), unbalanced game of man dollies into a kind of pro sport.
There's not much actual tactical depth to the game, and the balance is laughable at the best of times. And that's before you even add in the fact that it's a freaking dice game! (the absolute bane of my existence. )
"Hobby" tournaments that add much more focus towards painting, sportsmanship, terrain making, etc... are the best.
If I want to stroke my ego and prove I'm the best at something, there's plenty of actual competitive sports or other hobbies out there. I play 40k to have fun, not prove I'm suddenly the second coming of Napoleon.
no offence but your only saying this because you don't actually win games and consider yourself a non-competitive person (you have said this in threads I've posted before) also are you saying that those people that play magic, counter strike, dota etc they aren't really in a pro sport, pro gaming has been a thing for many years and so people make a lot of money, now 40k doesn't have that kind of backing not because there aren't those who would like it but because there haven't been anyone willing to invest the time. But the ITC and ETC is probubly the most fun I've had playing 40k and a very long time, so for you to sit there and say competitive 40k is bad, if suggest playing in some real events and not just astro which btw is a bad event and I won't be surprised if next year it's canceled
I am a decently competitive person actually, just not when it comes to 40k as there really isn't anything about that makes it worthwhile as a competitive game that relies on skill. (and I suck horribly with dice...)
Yes there's basic strategy and planning 2-3 turns ahead, but that's where it ends. The game is too inherently random, and the inter-army balance is a joke. (and always has been)
"Winning" at 40k has a lot more to do with simply picking the right army & list/rule exploitation and plain luck than it does any kind of actual skill. There's a helluva lot more skill involved in video/PC gaming than there is 40k/Tragic the Saddening.
Astronomi-con bills itself as "the tournament for people who hate 'Tournaments'".
Basically it's been designed to poo-poo all over the traditional power gaming mentality, and places more focus on the hobby in general than it does just curbstomping opponents. Hell, it even has awards for 'Best Terrain' (for the attendees who help provide all the tables & scenery), and 'Best Army List' (for those who literally turn their army list into a work of art, such as a Guard list that looks like an actual dataslate, or a fur bound tome for a SW's list!)
So obviously according to Dman, it's an event that's only for people who aren't 'gud enuff' to go to actual big boy Tournaments.
TuddFudders wrote: Just have everyone drink 4 beers before playing and you will truly only get the fluffy battles you desire.
I would be down for that kind of event, except that for the fact that being barely 100lbs, drinking 4 entire beers would likely kill me.
To be fair, Experiment 626, you sound like a delight to play, and Astronomicon sounds awesome.
Experiment 626 wrote: Honestly, I wish that people would stop trying to turn what is likely one of the most, (if not THE most), unbalanced game of man dollies into a kind of pro sport.
There's not much actual tactical depth to the game, and the balance is laughable at the best of times. And that's before you even add in the fact that it's a freaking dice game! (the absolute bane of my existence. )
"Hobby" tournaments that add much more focus towards painting, sportsmanship, terrain making, etc... are the best.
If I want to stroke my ego and prove I'm the best at something, there's plenty of actual competitive sports or other hobbies out there. I play 40k to have fun, not prove I'm suddenly the second coming of Napoleon.
no offence but your only saying this because you don't actually win games and consider yourself a non-competitive person (you have said this in threads I've posted before) also are you saying that those people that play magic, counter strike, dota etc they aren't really in a pro sport, pro gaming has been a thing for many years and so people make a lot of money, now 40k doesn't have that kind of backing not because there aren't those who would like it but because there haven't been anyone willing to invest the time. But the ITC and ETC is probubly the most fun I've had playing 40k and a very long time, so for you to sit there and say competitive 40k is bad, if suggest playing in some real events and not just astro which btw is a bad event and I won't be surprised if next year it's canceled
I am a decently competitive person actually, just not when it comes to 40k as there really isn't anything about that makes it worthwhile as a competitive game that relies on skill. (and I suck horribly with dice...)
Yes there's basic strategy and planning 2-3 turns ahead, but that's where it ends. The game is too inherently random, and the inter-army balance is a joke. (and always has been)
"Winning" at 40k has a lot more to do with simply picking the right army & list/rule exploitation and plain luck than it does any kind of actual skill. There's a helluva lot more skill involved in video/PC gaming than there is 40k/Tragic the Saddening.
Astronomi-con bills itself as "the tournament for people who hate 'Tournaments'".
Basically it's been designed to poo-poo all over the traditional power gaming mentality, and places more focus on the hobby in general than it does just curbstomping opponents. Hell, it even has awards for 'Best Terrain' (for the attendees who help provide all the tables & scenery), and 'Best Army List' (for those who literally turn their army list into a work of art, such as a Guard list that looks like an actual dataslate, or a fur bound tome for a SW's list!)
So obviously according to Dman, it's an event that's only for people who aren't 'gud enuff' to go to actual big boy Tournaments.
TuddFudders wrote: Just have everyone drink 4 beers before playing and you will truly only get the fluffy battles you desire.
I would be down for that kind of event, except that for the fact that being barely 100lbs, drinking 4 entire beers would likely kill me.
To be fair, Experiment 626, you sound like a delight to play, and Astronomicon sounds awesome.
Thank-you kindly!
Astro is a blast - best fun I've ever had at any type of 40k event. It's just too bad that my dice make my army into the Make-ya-Laughs of table top gaming...
I simply try & hope that my awful dice can provide my opponents with some amusing entertainment. (and one day I hope I might even pass Cypher's old 4++ save on 3D6!)
TheCustomLime wrote: Question about the casual tournaments: How would one enforce being casual? Would there be a banned unit list? Would you just submit your list to the TOs for approval?
Can you imagine a casual tournament with eldar lists? Almost every unit out of the codex is ranging from good to real good. The TO would have to ban all eldar players, or make them play some sort formation list with just banshees, avatar and those melee bikers.
Astro is a bad event, the missions are so dumb and it's been proven the the TOs change scores. Also @experiment626 for a event that you say is a tournement for people that don't like tournements. Even tho that last 5 years the overall winner has been someone playin with a very Competitive army. All the other stuff is basically prizes for people how can't play, you might as well just run a side event for those people like how back in the day you had the golden deamon and grand tournement. Good events would have just straight up battle points, sports is judged at the end and it's ranked by your fav person to play to least fav (or get rid of sports all together, such a pointless award) playing and painting actually require talent, sports is just a award for who kissed the most booty
Dman137 wrote: So with this year coming to a close there have been some great events I got to go to, tho after every event it became clear that a lot of players there weren't very competitive and would complain about the competive players which I think is very unfair since a tournement is a competitive thing. With that said I think there should be events for more non competitive players so that they play people more at there skill level, it would be a lot more fun for them. And as a competitive player I hate playing against "fluff lists" while sure I don't mind the win, I much rather play against a hard army I find that more enjoyable. Do you guys feel like there should be a split
"Skill level"? Dude. What. The. Feth. If anything, it's fluff bunnies that make 40k what it is. Keep tourns how they are. Anyway, in my area it's not too competitive.
I'd like to see you run a blob guard list against a screamerstar, Tau, or a Legion list. Then we'll see your "skills"
Dman137 wrote: So with this year coming to a close there have been some great events I got to go to, tho after every event it became clear that a lot of players there weren't very competitive and would complain about the competive players which I think is very unfair since a tournement is a competitive thing. With that said I think there should be events for more non competitive players so that they play people more at there skill level, it would be a lot more fun for them. And as a competitive player I hate playing against "fluff lists" while sure I don't mind the win, I much rather play against a hard army I find that more enjoyable. Do you guys feel like there should be a split
"Skill level"? Dude. What. The. Feth. If anything, it's fluff bunnies that make 40k what it is. Keep tourns how they are. Anyway, in my area it's not too competitive.
I'd like to see you run a blob guard list against a screamerstar, Tau, or a Legion list. Then we'll see your "skills"
your not very bright are you.? Fluff bunnies are great for narrative campaigns and AOS. Tournements are best left to those who play competitively
Dman137 wrote: So with this year coming to a close there have been some great events I got to go to, tho after every event it became clear that a lot of players there weren't very competitive and would complain about the competive players which I think is very unfair since a tournement is a competitive thing. With that said I think there should be events for more non competitive players so that they play people more at there skill level, it would be a lot more fun for them. And as a competitive player I hate playing against "fluff lists" while sure I don't mind the win, I much rather play against a hard army I find that more enjoyable. Do you guys feel like there should be a split
"Skill level"? Dude. What. The. Feth. If anything, it's fluff bunnies that make 40k what it is. Keep tourns how they are. Anyway, in my area it's not too competitive.
I'd like to see you run a blob guard list against a screamerstar, Tau, or a Legion list. Then we'll see your "skills"
your not very bright are you.? Fluff bunnies are great for narrative campaigns and AOS. Tournements are best left to those who play competitively
Dman137 wrote: So with this year coming to a close there have been some great events I got to go to, tho after every event it became clear that a lot of players there weren't very competitive and would complain about the competive players which I think is very unfair since a tournement is a competitive thing. With that said I think there should be events for more non competitive players so that they play people more at there skill level, it would be a lot more fun for them. And as a competitive player I hate playing against "fluff lists" while sure I don't mind the win, I much rather play against a hard army I find that more enjoyable. Do you guys feel like there should be a split
"Skill level"? Dude. What. The. Feth. If anything, it's fluff bunnies that make 40k what it is. Keep tourns how they are. Anyway, in my area it's not too competitive.
I'd like to see you run a blob guard list against a screamerstar, Tau, or a Legion list. Then we'll see your "skills"
your not very bright are you.? Fluff bunnies are great for narrative campaigns and AOS. Tournements are best left to those who play competitively
AoS is stupid, and explain to me how you would ban us? Anyway, you didn't answer the question, how would you beat a top tier list with a fluff list? Campaigns are great, I'll agree with that, but we have more skills, because we run mediocre lists on purpose, yet can still beat some of the much better lists.
EDIT: If this seems inflammatory, I apologize, I'm sorry, but it really needed to be said.
Well my IQ is over 200! And my dad can beat up your dad!
If you're comparing IQs or trying to assert that you're smarter than the other person in the discussion, it speaks volumes about you...and none of them good.
But thanks for the laugh.
On topic, anyone who wants to attend a tourney should be allowed to do so if they meet the requirements for said tourney. If you want an event that's more competitive, advertise as such and hope for the best, but there's no way to exclude, filter, or otherwise restrict people from entering events they want. Tourneys are a great way for even casual players to get in a large number of games guaranteed over a weekend.
Dman137 wrote: So with this year coming to a close there have been some great events I got to go to, tho after every event it became clear that a lot of players there weren't very competitive and would complain about the competive players which I think is very unfair since a tournement is a competitive thing. With that said I think there should be events for more non competitive players so that they play people more at there skill level, it would be a lot more fun for them. And as a competitive player I hate playing against "fluff lists" while sure I don't mind the win, I much rather play against a hard army I find that more enjoyable. Do you guys feel like there should be a split
"Skill level"? Dude. What. The. Feth. If anything, it's fluff bunnies that make 40k what it is. Keep tourns how they are. Anyway, in my area it's not too competitive.
I'd like to see you run a blob guard list against a screamerstar, Tau, or a Legion list. Then we'll see your "skills"
your not very bright are you.? Fluff bunnies are great for narrative campaigns and AOS. Tournements are best left to those who play competitively
My IQ is higher than 130, thank you very much, AoS is stupid, and explain to me how you would ban us? Anyway, you didn't answer the question, how would you beat a top tier list with a fluff list? Campaigns are great, I'll agree with that, but we have more skills, because we run mediocre lists on purpose, yet can still beat some of the much better lists.
so if fluff list are better and you guys apparently have more skill how come not one fluff list has won any GTlol and to answer your question you don't use a fluff list to beat a top list that's the whole point of the thread fluff people should have a event of their own and competitive list get their own. But hey if fluff army's like getting beat up by good list then that's their problem. First game at astro I tables my opponent in 2 turns, he sat down all sad and I went a got beer and enjoyed my free time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blacksails wrote: Well my IQ is over 200! And my dad can beat up your dad!
If you're comparing IQs or trying to assert that you're smarter than the other person in the discussion, it speaks volumes about you...and none of them good.
But thanks for the laugh.
On topic, anyone who wants to attend a tourney should be allowed to do so if they meet the requirements for said tourney. If you want an event that's more competitive, advertise as such and hope for the best, but there's no way to exclude, filter, or otherwise restrict people from entering events they want. Tourneys are a great way for even casual players to get in a large number of games guaranteed over a weekend.
I'm not disagreeing with you, everyone is allowed to attended whatever event they wish to, but it's really annoying when those people come to conpettive events and fully know that they are competitive and then after every game they lose you hear them complaining about how this is stupid and blah blah blah power gamers blah blah blah. You knew what was going to be there, if you didn't like it why did you come lol
Dman137 wrote: I'm not disagreeing with you, everyone is allowed to attended whatever event they wish to, but it's really annoying when those people come to conpettive events and fully know that they are competitive and then after every game they lose you hear them complaining about how this is stupid and blah blah blah power gamers blah blah blah. You knew what was going to be there, if you didn't like it why did you come lol
Sure, but there's no real way to stop that. Even if another event is specifically geared for them, assuming its not at the exact same date as a competitive oriented event, you're going to get people looking for a great way to get in a bunch of guaranteed games.
Its the unfortunate side effect of poorly written games.
Honestly, the best solution is just to advertise the nature of the event clearly, and try and talk reasonably with anyone who takes issue with a list. Maybe they'll learn a thing or two and become a decent competitive player at certain events, or at the very least, not be a stick in the mud if they lose to a AAA list.
Which also has the knock on effect of developing a larger, more diverse, and even-footed pool for you to play with. Try and help develop players that show even a hint of wanting to win more at competitive tourneys. You won't stop'em, might as well try and lend a helping hand.
I recently found a copy of Citadel Journal issue 6 from 1994, which had the details of the First International Warhammer Tournament (held in 1995, so 4th edition Warhammer) with 250 places available.
The scoring was as follows:
Playing games (60 points available, based on a fairly fiddly system. 3x 2000-point games across 2 days)
Painting (40 points, awarded by judges)
Army selection (20 points, awarded by judges)
Knowledge (30 points, multiple choice test)
Sportsmanship (30 points. Each player picks the opponent they think was the most sporting and friendly. 10 points are awarded each time someone's name is picked)
So, 33% is based on competitive gameplay, 28% on "soft" scores and 39% on hobby ability. It looks like it would allow a decent balance between "competitive" and "friendly" players.
It must have been reasonably popular, because similar events were advertised in White Dwarf over the next few years.
I'm confused as to the problem and I read this entire thread. Dman137 Are you upset that people seem to be bummed out and express their disappointments vocally when you beat them with a hyper competitive list when they have brought an army that they felt would be fun to play with against an number of new opponents, but you, have decided that for whatever reason their list is "noncompetitive" or "too fluffy"? The only solutions I can see are that either you start participating only in tournaments where everyone plays the exact same list so as to eliminate any cries of "power gamer". Or, just spit-balling here you try and remember that you are (presumably) a grown man, playing with tiny space toys in a game that was designed just so a company could move larger amounts of overpriced plastic across the Atlantic. I enjoy playing with my dolls just as much as you probably do as well, but I think you should take a step back and realize that even if you become the best, most undisputed 40k player in the world, GW can, and has officially changed the results of major tournaments to suit their own ends. Those ends being selling the above mentioned space dolls. At the end of the day you have no real power in this situation and people being upset with you over your play style is a reflection of your own behavior and attitude. This is a game, the rules are only there to help us pretend to be epic space heroes for a couple of hours at a time. Your ego should never be riding on the outcome of a game of 40k. This is a fight that you cannot, and for your own sanity and friendships should not win. I hope that you can find the enjoyment again that drew you into this game in the first place and give up your overriding need to win against only "worthy" opponents. Unless your original joy came from the ability to defeat your friends because you had more disposable income than they did playing 40k, then please just sell your models and walk away forever.
Renesco P. Blue wrote: I'm confused as to the problem and I read this entire thread. Dman137 Are you upset that people seem to be bummed out and express their disappointments vocally when you beat them with a hyper competitive list when they have brought an army that they felt would be fun to play with against an number of new opponents, but you, have decided that for whatever reason their list is "noncompetitive" or "too fluffy"? The only solutions I can see are that either you start participating only in tournaments where everyone plays the exact same list so as to eliminate any cries of "power gamer". Or, just spit-balling here you try and remember that you are (presumably) a grown man, playing with tiny space toys in a game that was designed just so a company could move larger amounts of overpriced plastic across the Atlantic. I enjoy playing with my dolls just as much as you probably do as well, but I think you should take a step back and realize that even if you become the best, most undisputed 40k player in the world, GW can, and has officially changed the results of major tournaments to suit their own ends. Those ends being selling the above mentioned space dolls. At the end of the day you have no real power in this situation and people being upset with you over your play style is a reflection of your own behavior and attitude. This is a game, the rules are only there to help us pretend to be epic space heroes for a couple of hours at a time. Your ego should never be riding on the outcome of a game of 40k. This is a fight that you cannot, and for your own sanity and friendships should not win. I hope that you can find the enjoyment again that drew you into this game in the first place and give up your overriding need to win against only "worthy" opponents. Unless your original joy came from the ability to defeat your friends because you had more disposable income than they did playing 40k, then please just sell your models and walk away forever.
my complaint is people coming to competitive events with list that are not combettitive and after their games they complain about power gaming, when they already new that the event was going to be a bunch of power gamers. I have friends that bring fluffy army's to competitive events but they no that going in and they come for the beer and to hang out play some games and whatever other reason they have but they don't complain about strong army's beating them.
I always find it funny that Dman always bases his trolling on some truth, casual tournaments should be the back bone of any game, and no I don't mean labeling a tournament casual and leaving it at that, I mean actually hosting consistent tournaments like FNM to provide a targeted home for casual players that can also facilitate competitive players who want a more relaxed setting.
Dman137 wrote: my complaint is people coming to competitive events with list that are not competitive and after their games they complain about power gaming, when they already new that the event was going to be a bunch of power gamers. I have friends that bring fluffy army's to competitive events but they no that going in and they come for the beer and to hang out play some games and whatever other reason they have but they don't complain about strong army's beating them.
So, just to clarify, You are upset that someone else is angry, lost, and complained? What do you want done about it? Make the tournament scene more approachable to everyone with additional scores? Prevent casual players from playing tournaments you attend till they "git gud"? I guess I don't understand what you actually want. Is this just venting?
Edit: I guess what I'm asking is. If you don't like how it is currently, How would you fix it?
Edit: I guess what I'm asking is. If you don't like how it is currently, How would you fix it?
If I were to fix it I'd take the same tournament style every game from MtG, to League of Legends, to Hearthstone uses, have the massive base of casual player events/tournaments that works up to a higher level of tournament brackets.
it became clear that a lot of players there weren't very competitive and would complain about the competive players which I think is very unfair since a tournement is a competitive thing
Ironically, the fun tournaments would enjoy it very much if players who feel this way would just stop showing up to their events and then complaining about it later on Dakkadakka.
I wonder why Hard mode players insist on going to tournaments they will only complain about later.
Mantorok wrote: What about if you play an OP army and lose to fluffy armies?
Are you a competitive or non-competitive player?
Apparently you're a scrub who just needs to 'L2P' and 'Git Gud.'
I once lost a 1500 point game against an opponent who could only bring about 900 points...
Come to think of it, I've lost every game I played against someone who wasn't a family member...
As for why I didn't match their points, it was during my first and only local tournament and I thought it would be an easy win. : (
Don't sweat it mate - I myself have never once passed Cypher's special 4++ save on 3D6... including when I was told to re-roll it. The manager of the local GW at the time banned me from ever using the store's Cypher model again, as everyone was in absolute agony from laughing so hard. (so then I bought Dark Eldar, as I'd at least earn a moral victory for inflicting actual pain on opponents in-game! )
Personally I'd rather see my opponent have a good time (and a really good laugh, even if it's typically at my expense) than win a game of plastic man dollies.
@Dman: Have you stopped to consider that perhaps every so-claimed fluff scrub who has no business playing against your superior skillz, isn't peeved so much by your list, but by the way you act during the game itself?
Sure there's a very few so called "fluff scrubs" who will whine about pretty much anything any opponent takes. Mostly though, 99% of it comes down to perceived attitude and body language during the game.
Astro is the single best event I've ever been to - and I'd recommend it to anyone who wants to enjoy a more laid back weekend of gaming & beer drinking!
It's also the event where I've enjoyed the single most hilarious game of my life, due to the fact that we had the two most heigth-challenged people in the entire event, playing on a table that both of us could barely see the top of! (case of bad planning was really bad...)
Really, the only thing that shouldn't be allowed in any kind of event, and treated with the contempt it deserves, are people who show up to a table, see a power list (duh, it's a tournament - no matter how laid back/non-competitive it's advertised as, there'll always be a few really nasty lists!), and then refuse to play the game.
It's one thing to refuse a game against a list you won't enjoy playing against on random gaming nights. It's definitely not okay to do so however when everyone is putting down $20-$50+ just to get in the door! (let alone the cost of driving/transport, food and likely hotel room that come with event weekends)
Well, reward for the behavior you want.
Rewards or points for "sportsmanship", fiction for your army... something for promoting the fluff.
I really like the rules test however: promoting knowledge of the game really makes it more enjoyable when it runs smoothly.
I enjoy more narrative scenarios as well as competitive games.
They are two very different styles of play and valid.
All it takes is the understanding of rules to the max or the most thematic.
Trying to "stop" a certain kind of gamer coming to events is some unadulterated snobbery.
Just give fair warning not to bring a knife to a gun fight unless you are scary skilled.
Mantorok wrote: What about if you play an OP army and lose to fluffy armies?
Are you a competitive or non-competitive player?
Apparently you're a scrub who just needs to 'L2P' and 'Git Gud.'
I once lost a 1500 point game against an opponent who could only bring about 900 points...
Come to think of it, I've lost every game I played against someone who wasn't a family member...
As for why I didn't match their points, it was during my first and only local tournament and I thought it would be an easy win. : (
Don't sweat it mate - I myself have never once passed Cypher's special 4++ save on 3D6... including when I was told to re-roll it. The manager of the local GW at the time banned me from ever using the store's Cypher model again, as everyone was in absolute agony from laughing so hard. (so then I bought Dark Eldar, as I'd at least earn a moral victory for inflicting actual pain on opponents in-game! )
Personally I'd rather see my opponent have a good time (and a really good laugh, even if it's typically at my expense) than win a game of plastic man dollies.
I took it a bit hard at the time. At least emotionally - I remember feeling sad about it, but I don't remember how I acted, other than we both realized he was winning at the same time.
Of course, now I feel really bad about not lowering my points to match his. At least I gave him the satisfaction of beating a army with 66% more points than his.
He was a young kid, too. Younger than I was.
And to Talizvar...
Would I get high or low points for my army's fiction if I show up with... simply put, furries, in my 40k army, combined with custom fluff that makes my Sisters of Battle not be aggressively xenocidal and religiously intolerant? I'm just curious - I'll likely not be attending any sort of event or random gaming night ever, or at least until they find a cure for some of my mental problems, the most prominent of which is one they don't even know the cause of and which may not be curable in my lifetime. The custom fluff is the only way I can stand thinking about my army's fluff, since I prefer to play good guys. I got into 40k years before knowing much about the lore at all.
it became clear that a lot of players there weren't very competitive and would complain about the competive players which I think is very unfair since a tournement is a competitive thing
Ironically, the fun tournaments would enjoy it very much if players who feel this way would just stop showing up to their events and then complaining about it later on Dakkadakka.
I wonder why Hard mode players insist on going to tournaments they will only complain about later.
Easier to win best general or what ever prize there is for being top 8.
it became clear that a lot of players there weren't very competitive and would complain about the competive players which I think is very unfair since a tournement is a competitive thing
Ironically, the fun tournaments would enjoy it very much if players who feel this way would just stop showing up to their events and then complaining about it later on Dakkadakka.
I wonder why Hard mode players insist on going to tournaments they will only complain about later.
Easier to win best general or what ever prize there is for being top 8.
there's no such thing as a non competitive tournement, if you go to a event and you can come in first and there's prizes and what not then it's a competitive event and if you don't like those people that show up with strong armies and win well then that's just to bad for you. It's a event and some people have fun wining. All the crying that comes during the event and after from all those "I refuse to change my style of play because reasons" well then that to bad for them. If you don't like competitive play then just stay home or play at your local store, there's no point in those people coming to events if there just going to complain about it the whole time
it became clear that a lot of players there weren't very competitive and would complain about the competive players which I think is very unfair since a tournement is a competitive thing
Ironically, the fun tournaments would enjoy it very much if players who feel this way would just stop showing up to their events and then complaining about it later on Dakkadakka.
I wonder why Hard mode players insist on going to tournaments they will only complain about later.
Easier to win best general or what ever prize there is for being top 8.
there's no such thing as a non competitive tournement, if you go to a event and you can come in first and there's prizes and what not then it's a competitive event and if you don't like those people that show up with strong armies and win well then that's just to bad for you. It's a event and some people have fun wining. All the crying that comes during the event and after from all those "I refuse to change my style of play because reasons" well then that to bad for them. If you don't like competitive play then just stay home or play at your local store, there's no point in those people coming to events if there just going to complain about it the whole time
Dman,a re you sure this is an actual problem? You seem to be the only one "crying" here. Also, I'm going to reiterate, I doubt these "scrubs" are having a problem with your list....
I don't know, I think Dman does have a slight point. I've been involved in a few esports and 40k tournaments back in earlier editions.
There have always been people that show up with subpar lists and complain that they can't compete, and that other players are ruining their fun.
I think a good example of this is SSB. Last time I went to a SSB4 tournament, I picked a good character but not top tier (metaknight and megaman). A lot of my friends picked worse characters, like DK or Bowser...one even picked Ganon.
I lost in the semi-finals to a shiek player, and most of the semi-finals was Rosalina, Diddy, and Shiek. There was me and one other person playing Mario that were different. A lot of my friends got knocked out by round 2 and were really upset that they lost to a Diddy or shiek, which I couldn't understand. Those are the best characters in the game after all.
I could have picked Rosalina and done better most likely, but I wanted to practice with metaknight against better players so intentionally picked a worse character. I was fine with the results, and if I had won would have been honestly shocked. The top tier characters do really well against metaknight (it's why he's not top tier even though he's amazing).
In 40k, I've seen similar things happen. People pick necrons but not take a good list and get upset when someone shows up with Space wolves spamming ML's and rhinos (5th). Or people being upset when 1/3rd of the entries are Rhino Rushing BA or SC spamming Eldar (3rd). I can't blame people who play those armies, they are the best, and in a game like 40k top tier lists tend to beat weaker lists pretty handily, but that doesn't stop people from getting upset and trying to create soft scores to bring them down a peg.
This would be better if 40k was more balanced. In WMH you get a more diverse list of factions, although caster and unit balance is starting to suffer, but in 40k certain factions just can't compete at top tables. If it bothers you...don't attend the top tables. I stopped going to tournaments since 6th dropped because I didn't like the allies table and knew it would be everywhere, and I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything, even though my local scene isn't very diverse as far as factions are concerned.
the adepticon friendly is a great, not to comp tournament, prolly the best tournament that I have ever been to, along with some of the funniest games I have ever played with a couple of wacky rules. Also lots of drinking.
Akiasura wrote: I don't know, I think Dman does have a slight point. I've been involved in a few esports and 40k tournaments back in earlier editions.
There have always been people that show up with subpar lists and complain that they can't compete, and that other players are ruining their fun.
I think a good example of this is SSB. Last time I went to a SSB4 tournament, I picked a good character but not top tier (metaknight and megaman). A lot of my friends picked worse characters, like DK or Bowser...one even picked Ganon.
I lost in the semi-finals to a shiek player, and most of the semi-finals was Rosalina, Diddy, and Shiek. There was me and one other person playing Mario that were different. A lot of my friends got knocked out by round 2 and were really upset that they lost to a Diddy or shiek, which I couldn't understand. Those are the best characters in the game after all.
I could have picked Rosalina and done better most likely, but I wanted to practice with metaknight against better players so intentionally picked a worse character. I was fine with the results, and if I had won would have been honestly shocked. The top tier characters do really well against metaknight (it's why he's not top tier even though he's amazing).
What's this? A Smash 4 tournament and no one moaning over Zero Skill Spamus?! Or is she no longer the top dog?
The only thing I personally hate about Smash 4 is how horrible it is trying to get one's hands on so many of the various Amiibo characters! And now we're getting Cloud Strife as dlc (and future amiibo?)
Truly these are the End Times...
Akiasura wrote: In 40k, I've seen similar things happen. People pick necrons but not take a good list and get upset when someone shows up with Space wolves spamming ML's and rhinos (5th). Or people being upset when 1/3rd of the entries are Rhino Rushing BA or SC spamming Eldar (3rd). I can't blame people who play those armies, they are the best, and in a game like 40k top tier lists tend to beat weaker lists pretty handily, but that doesn't stop people from getting upset and trying to create soft scores to bring them down a peg.
This would be better if 40k was more balanced. In WMH you get a more diverse list of factions, although caster and unit balance is starting to suffer, but in 40k certain factions just can't compete at top tables. If it bothers you...don't attend the top tables. I stopped going to tournaments since 6th dropped because I didn't like the allies table and knew it would be everywhere, and I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything, even though my local scene isn't very diverse as far as factions are concerned.
The bigger problem I think is the elitist hypocrisy coming from those like Dman...
In one breath he's going on and on that us lowly scrubs should have our own events so that the big boys like him can properly strut their stuff and prove their pro level skillz. Then he turns around and puts forth claims that any event in which there's any type of prize support is by definition automatically competitive and therefore anyone not showing up to play to win should stay home so their feelings don't hurt.
So which is it? You can't have it both ways.
Astronomi-con is a prime example of a decidedly non-competitive tournament. It offers awards that recognise every aspect of the hobby in general, with only 2 of 8 awards based off of, or in part, actual game results. (General & Overall)
The other 6 awards are all about those supposedly "soft" or "scrub" scores, including 3 painting/converting awards (Best Appearance, Army & Single Model), Terrain, Army List and the single most important award of all, Sportsmanship.
And yet, here we have Dman, claiming that us non-competitive plebs need our own events, and then throwing out gak about how such an event (Astro) is crap and how he hopes that it financially fails and won't be run in the new year.
Akiasura wrote: In 40k, I've seen similar things happen. People pick necrons but not take a good list and get upset when someone shows up with Space wolves spamming ML's and rhinos (5th). Or people being upset when 1/3rd of the entries are Rhino Rushing BA or SC spamming Eldar (3rd). I can't blame people who play those armies, they are the best, and in a game like 40k top tier lists tend to beat weaker lists pretty handily, but that doesn't stop people from getting upset and trying to create soft scores to bring them down a peg.
This would be better if 40k was more balanced. In WMH you get a more diverse list of factions, although caster and unit balance is starting to suffer, but in 40k certain factions just can't compete at top tables. If it bothers you...don't attend the top tables. I stopped going to tournaments since 6th dropped because I didn't like the allies table and knew it would be everywhere, and I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything, even though my local scene isn't very diverse as far as factions are concerned.
The bigger problem I think is the elitist hypocrisy coming from those like Dman...
In one breath he's going on and on that us lowly scrubs should have our own events so that the big boys like him can properly strut their stuff and prove their pro level skillz. Then he turns around and puts forth claims that any event in which there's any type of prize support is by definition automatically competitive and therefore anyone not showing up to play to win should stay home so their feelings don't hurt.
So which is it? You can't have it both ways.
Astronomi-con is a prime example of a decidedly non-competitive tournament. It offers awards that recognise every aspect of the hobby in general, with only 2 of 8 awards based off of, or in part, actual game results. (General & Overall)
The other 6 awards are all about those supposedly "soft" or "scrub" scores, including 3 painting/converting awards (Best Appearance, Army & Single Model), Terrain, Army List and the single most important award of all, Sportsmanship.
And yet, here we have Dman, claiming that us non-competitive plebs need our own events, and then throwing out gak about how such an event (Astro) is crap and how he hopes that it financially fails and won't be run in the new year.
Exalted you can't have it both ways. You can't say that scrubs need there own events and then say that any event where you can win is a competitive event and therefore scrubs need not go. Must be tough up on his Eldar pedestal
Akiasura wrote: I don't know, I think Dman does have a slight point. I've been involved in a few esports and 40k tournaments back in earlier editions.
There have always been people that show up with subpar lists and complain that they can't compete, and that other players are ruining their fun.
I think a good example of this is SSB. Last time I went to a SSB4 tournament, I picked a good character but not top tier (metaknight and megaman). A lot of my friends picked worse characters, like DK or Bowser...one even picked Ganon.
I lost in the semi-finals to a shiek player, and most of the semi-finals was Rosalina, Diddy, and Shiek. There was me and one other person playing Mario that were different. A lot of my friends got knocked out by round 2 and were really upset that they lost to a Diddy or shiek, which I couldn't understand. Those are the best characters in the game after all.
I could have picked Rosalina and done better most likely, but I wanted to practice with metaknight against better players so intentionally picked a worse character. I was fine with the results, and if I had won would have been honestly shocked. The top tier characters do really well against metaknight (it's why he's not top tier even though he's amazing).
What's this? A Smash 4 tournament and no one moaning over Zero Skill Spamus?! Or is she no longer the top dog?
Zero suit is a good character to start with, because she's hard to punish and combos well. She's effectively a noob stomper, while the other top tier characters require training to get something of value out of.
Against players that know how to punish on block, grab, or approach well, she lacks options since her grab is terrible and her kill moves aren't great.
She was never top tier. Shiek, Diddy, Rosa have been the top dogs since release, though their order has changed. For a while it was Rosa/Diddy, then Diddy, now Shiek.
Zero suit is high tier, about as good as metaknight or megaman. Metaknight actually destroys her, since he can kill her on block and has higher priority on his best moves, and is very difficult to kill for her.
The only thing I personally hate about Smash 4 is how horrible it is trying to get one's hands on so many of the various Amiibo characters! And now we're getting Cloud Strife as dlc (and future amiibo?)
Truly these are the End Times...
Yeah, I don't own any amiibos, so its not a big deal for me. For me the worst thing is the online play, which is extremely laggy for some reason. I can't play my favorite characters since they require good timing. For online play, Sonic might be the best character in the game.
And FF7 is one of my least favorite FF games (though not as bad as 13...) so I can't say I'm excited for it.
I am loving the DLC characters though. Mewtwo wasn't that great and neither is lucas, but Ryu and Roy are both very viable. Ryu is proving to be quite a challenge to play.
Akiasura wrote: In 40k, I've seen similar things happen. People pick necrons but not take a good list and get upset when someone shows up with Space wolves spamming ML's and rhinos (5th). Or people being upset when 1/3rd of the entries are Rhino Rushing BA or SC spamming Eldar (3rd). I can't blame people who play those armies, they are the best, and in a game like 40k top tier lists tend to beat weaker lists pretty handily, but that doesn't stop people from getting upset and trying to create soft scores to bring them down a peg.
This would be better if 40k was more balanced. In WMH you get a more diverse list of factions, although caster and unit balance is starting to suffer, but in 40k certain factions just can't compete at top tables. If it bothers you...don't attend the top tables. I stopped going to tournaments since 6th dropped because I didn't like the allies table and knew it would be everywhere, and I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything, even though my local scene isn't very diverse as far as factions are concerned.
The bigger problem I think is the elitist hypocrisy coming from those like Dman...
In one breath he's going on and on that us lowly scrubs should have our own events so that the big boys like him can properly strut their stuff and prove their pro level skillz. Then he turns around and puts forth claims that any event in which there's any type of prize support is by definition automatically competitive and therefore anyone not showing up to play to win should stay home so their feelings don't hurt.
So which is it? You can't have it both ways.
Astronomi-con is a prime example of a decidedly non-competitive tournament. It offers awards that recognise every aspect of the hobby in general, with only 2 of 8 awards based off of, or in part, actual game results. (General & Overall)
The other 6 awards are all about those supposedly "soft" or "scrub" scores, including 3 painting/converting awards (Best Appearance, Army & Single Model), Terrain, Army List and the single most important award of all, Sportsmanship.
And yet, here we have Dman, claiming that us non-competitive plebs need our own events, and then throwing out gak about how such an event (Astro) is crap and how he hopes that it financially fails and won't be run in the new year.
It is hard to separate the events without implementing soft scores that are very swingy depending on who you end up paired with. Imagine if you are a nice guy, but you go up against Dman and you refuse to buy him a beer. He marks you down with a zero across the board and suddenly you are out of winning any prizes through no fault of your own.
You could take a "last stand" guardian spam eldar army that isn't strong, but someone marks it down as cheap because hey, Eldar.
Non-competitive events are actually a lot more work to run than competitive events, imo. I'm not a TO though, so its just a guess. I know my narrative games are a lot more work than even a regular 40k game, despite being 15 models per side max.
Yet another thread of dboy stating there are worldwide 40k problems that are only his problems because he probably got stomped by a fluffy list with his scatter kids list he loves to bring and is super.. Super upset. Cause, ya know, fluffy beat him.
If Astro wanted it to not be a competitive event and not have Op armys show up then they would get rid of the best general prize, also the awards for best terrain and best single mini has nothing to do with your overall score. The only painting score that reflects onto your overall score is the score the judges give you and as we have seen in many years of Astro they don't no how to judge painting, example this year they game a army that was primed and half of it was still just plastic a higher painting score then a army that was fully painted. Also if it's a even for those who don't like tournements then why do they have the "would you play this army again" score, it's a pretty pointless score since its scored based on emotion same goes for sports, you could be the nicest person to play but your opponent can just give you a 1 or a zero if they feel like it
Pain4Pleasure wrote: Yet another thread of dboy stating there are worldwide 40k problems that are only his problems because he probably got stomped by a fluffy list with his scatter kids list he loves to bring and is super.. Super upset. Cause, ya know, fluffy beat him.
never lost to a fluff army, because I play against real list and not these are my special snowflake marines lol and hey if people want to bring poor army's to events I have no problem crushing your army of that's what you want
Automatically Appended Next Post: But like I've said before, next years Astro if my opponent doesn't get me a beer I'm giving them a zero for sports lol it's only fair
Take your own inventory as a hobbyist, gamer, and person in general. You might find that you are more socially problematic to these events than the people you're complaining about.
The world is a better place without snobbery and people looking down their nose at others, acting like they can tell them what they should or shouldn't do based on their own personal feelings.
We get it man. You think you're the best 40k player ever and everyone should aspire to only play cheesy net lists like you or GTFO. I just don't think anyone cares enough about your opinion to even consider changing their behaviour.
I wish I could go to the LVO but just can't afford to this year, maybe next year(maybe with my nids if their codex doesn't suck)
I am all for having events tailored to both player bases, It sucks when the two mix and both sides are miserable. when the store where I lived ran tournaments they had friendly tournaments with minimal prizes and more competitive events with better prizes.
Take your own inventory as a hobbyist, gamer, and person in general. You might find that you are more socially problematic to these events than the people you're complaining about.
The world is a better place without snobbery and people looking down their nose at others, acting like they can tell them what they should or shouldn't do based on their own personal feelings.
We get it man. You think you're the best 40k player ever and everyone should aspire to only play cheesy net lists like you or GTFO. I just don't think anyone cares enough about your opinion to even consider changing their behaviour.
no one cares because most of these people live under a rock with there special snowflake army and the moment anyone tells them that they should change there mentality they get all defensive because they refuse to better themselves and just keep going on with their defeatist attitude
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheAvengingKnee wrote: I wish I could go to the LVO but just can't afford to this year, maybe next year(maybe with my nids if their codex doesn't suck)
apparently nids and gaurd are the next update, so I'm sure good things will come there way
I like elves, so I have a soft spot for Eldar in particular. : D
But yes, the Reasonable Marines sound damned awesome to me, and if my custom armies ever find out about them, they'll probably try to find out where the Reasonable Marines' planets are in the hopes of becoming a protectorate or something. Hopefully the Reasonable Marines won't mind the plethora of local minor xenos species. They're friendly. The biggest internal problems have been from Sororitas who resisted the mind-altering technology that made most of their tiny force, and proceeded to sabotage some critical facilities in a very dramatic and lethal fashion. For example, a lot of the "good girl" Sororitas died when one they thought was their own walked into the armory with a fuel-air grenade while they were still getting their armor on to react to the vortex grenades going off nearby.
Uh, every dakka user's comments are worth something, with the possible exception of you, as you're demonstrating some immature and frankly not very useful comments for the community.
I've only been playing for two years. I believe my comments can still be useful to someone. Who are you helping? What are you contributing?
Nobody cares to change their behaviour not because of a problem they have. It's because of a problem you have with communication and getting along with others.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: I really doubt you crush anything. Honestly don't see you in first in any tourney that matters. Or top for that matter.
coming from the guy that dosent go to events at all lmao
You know this how? You going to lvo in February? Doubt it. Wouldn't make it very far dboy
Don't you know? It's not that he wouldn't win, it's that all of his opponents are cheaters!
oh look who it is mister has been playing for only 3 years but feels like his comments are worth anything lol
I've been playing WH40k since 2001. I'm still almost totally clueless about proper strategy.
that's very sad to hear
Thanks! : D
In part, it's because I value looks as much as I do power. So I end up using a bunch of models I really like for looks or sentimental reasons, even though their loadout is terrible. I pretty much always include Banshees in my Eldar armies, purely because they're female. I like playing female characters in pretty much any game I've played, for more than the past decade. So I will always use Banshees when I field Eldar, even though my brain keeps screaming at me that my mom only plays Orks and Striking Scorpions would be WAY better. Now if GW made female Striking Scorpions, that wouldn't be a problem, would it, brain? I used to field a ton of Space Marine HQs with power swords (not all at once, mind you) because the friend whose RP character I modeled the minis on, strongly prefers swords aesthetically, and pretty much any art of his character with a weapon, will have a sword. Often I find myself wishing power weapons were just power weapons, without all the different types. Especially since I face Orks a hell of a lot and power maul bitz are tough to come by on GW sprues.
I still have that powergaming part of my brain though, which is why I field things like Battle Conclaves with lots of Arco-Flagellants. Or rather, I would, if my Battle Conclaves weren't being shot to ribbons on turn 1 in every game because the first time I used one, it took apart a large unit of Honor Guard and a Chapter Master in one round of melee, before most of them got any chance to attack. It had lots of Death-Cult Assassins then, because Space Marines. Duh. Also it was 5th, so power weapons just ignored armor saves. :: more grumbling ::
Anyways, I also play an MMORPG where each class prefers a certain type of armor, and gets bonus stats if all the armor a character has equipped is from the type of armor the class prefers. I typically replace one or two of my armor pieces with stuff from less-sturdy types of armor (i.e. cloth instead of mail) to make my character look nicer. And it's not just those bonus stats I give up, not all armor comes with the right primary stats for every class in the game, so instead of not gaining 5%, I actually end up losing 10-20% of that primary stat.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: I really doubt you crush anything. Honestly don't see you in first in any tourney that matters. Or top for that matter.
coming from the guy that dosent go to events at all lmao
You know this how? You going to lvo in February? Doubt it. Wouldn't make it very far dboy
Don't you know? It's not that he wouldn't win, it's that all of his opponents are cheaters!
oh look who it is mister has been playing for only 3 years but feels like his comments are worth anything lol
I've been playing WH40k since 2001. I'm still almost totally clueless about proper strategy.
that's very sad to hear
Thanks! : D
In part, it's because I value looks as much as I do power. So I end up using a bunch of models I really like for looks or sentimental reasons, even though their loadout is terrible. I pretty much always include Banshees in my Eldar armies, purely because they're female. I like playing female characters in pretty much any game I've played, for more than the past decade. So I will always use Banshees when I field Eldar, even though my brain keeps screaming at me that my mom only plays Orks and Striking Scorpions would be WAY better. Now if GW made female Striking Scorpions, that wouldn't be a problem, would it, brain? I used to field a ton of Space Marine HQs with power swords (not all at once, mind you) because the friend whose RP character I modeled the minis on, strongly prefers swords aesthetically, and pretty much any art of his character with a weapon, will have a sword. Often I find myself wishing power weapons were just power weapons, without all the different types. Especially since I face Orks a hell of a lot and power maul bitz are tough to come by on GW sprues.
I still have that powergaming part of my brain though, which is why I field things like Battle Conclaves with lots of Arco-Flagellants. Or rather, I would, if my Battle Conclaves weren't being shot to ribbons on turn 1 in every game because the first time I used one, it took apart a large unit of Honor Guard and a Chapter Master in one round of melee, before most of them got any chance to attack. It had lots of Death-Cult Assassins then, because Space Marines. Duh. Also it was 5th, so power weapons just ignored armor saves. :: more grumbling ::
Anyways, I also play an MMORPG where each class prefers a certain type of armor, and gets bonus stats if all the armor a character has equipped is from the type of armor the class prefers. I typically replace one or two of my armor pieces with stuff from less-sturdy types of armor (i.e. cloth instead of mail) to make my character look nicer. And it's not just those bonus stats I give up, not all armor comes with the right primary stats for every class in the game, so instead of not gaining 5%, I actually end up losing 10-20% of that primary stat.
you could always convert the scorpions to have female heads, I'm sure you can get your hands on some female heads somewhere online then you could make your whole army females
Dlad, last time I checked, tactics weren't just taking the most broken units in the game and throwing them at enemis. That TWC list was a great tactic.
Matthew wrote: Dlad, last time I checked, tactics weren't just taking the most broken units in the game and throwing them at enemis. That TWC list was a great tactic.
list building is the most important thing, and if you see units that maximize your ability to win then yeah you should do that. But a lot of people think taking bad units is a good idea
Dman137 wrote: you could always convert the scorpions to have female heads, I'm sure you can get your hands on some female heads somewhere online then you could make your whole army females
I'd also have to greenstuff on boobs. I'm terrible at sculpting.
And I'd have to dremel off the head of my metal Scorpions. I don't have a dremel and power tools terrify me. Except power drills/screwdrivers. Those I'm okay with. Power saws? Nope. Just nope. I'll keep the thing as steady as I can if I can stay at least three feet away from where the cutting is happening, someone else has to man the power saw. I look at a circular saw blade, just sitting there, and I'm already imagining it cutting through my skin and bones.
And then I'd have to find a place to get nice female elf heads. My previous searches for 28mm female heads have never proven effective.
Besides, I can just play my Sisters of Battle. : D Their armor is so cool.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Matthew wrote: Dlad, last time I checked, tactics weren't just taking the most broken units in the game and throwing them at enemis. That TWC list was a great tactic.
It's weird, but in 40k, what you bring to the table is almost always more important than how you use it when determining who wins the match.
It's not surprising when you consider the fact that GW has basically stated outright that they consider the game to primarily be a tool for selling models.
In Denver there was a tournament called feast of blades, and I was told there was an open tournament that was judged not only on performance, but for fluffy armies, themed armies, paint job, sportsmanship, stuff like that. The sort of games that encouraged fun play instead of just cutting edge competitiveness.
I always thought that sounded like fun, and I heard it was a lot of fun from people who attended, but FoB died out this year and no idea if it's coming back.
it became clear that a lot of players there weren't very competitive and would complain about the competive players which I think is very unfair since a tournement is a competitive thing
Ironically, the fun tournaments would enjoy it very much if players who feel this way would just stop showing up to their events and then complaining about it later on Dakkadakka.
I wonder why Hard mode players insist on going to tournaments they will only complain about later.
Easier to win best general or what ever prize there is for being top 8.
Kap'n Krump wrote: In Denver there was a tournament called feast of blades, and I was told there was an open tournament that was judged not only on performance, but for fluffy armies, themed armies, paint job, sportsmanship, stuff like that. The sort of games that encouraged fun play instead of just cutting edge competitiveness.
I always thought that sounded like fun, and I heard it was a lot of fun from people who attended, but FoB died out this year and no idea if it's coming back.
its most likely because they lost money on the event and don't want to take the hit again, a lot of events lose money
Kap'n Krump wrote: In Denver there was a tournament called feast of blades, and I was told there was an open tournament that was judged not only on performance, but for fluffy armies, themed armies, paint job, sportsmanship, stuff like that. The sort of games that encouraged fun play instead of just cutting edge competitiveness.
I always thought that sounded like fun, and I heard it was a lot of fun from people who attended, but FoB died out this year and no idea if it's coming back.
I hope that's not like the time my friend got me interested about a cool "club" (club being the exact word he used) that would pay me 50 dollars to go to it for a couple hours a week.
I was skeptical, but I was also 13 and that sum was 20 times my weekly allowance.
So then I showed up, and found myself signing papers to join the Royal Canadian Air Cadets. Because that was what the so-called "club" actually was...
Later I found out that they only pay you if you attend the summer courses, and those last up to a month.
Of course, before I could earn my LAC propeller thingy, I started developing what turned out to be a moderate case of schizophrenia. So that complicated my attendance.
Fortunately the rules for being AWOL seemingly don't apply to cadets, as I have yet to be imprisoned or legally punished in any manner.
My short 7 1/2 months in the Cadets wasn't that bad though. I enjoyed it, learned some stuff. Got to ride in a glider, where I refused to touch the controls for fear of fething something up. It only got bad once the social anxiety kicked in and I started shaking like crazy without even knowing why it was happening, naturally beginning on the night we had some visiting Major inspecting us.
it became clear that a lot of players there weren't very competitive and would complain about the competive players which I think is very unfair since a tournement is a competitive thing
Ironically, the fun tournaments would enjoy it very much if players who feel this way would just stop showing up to their events and then complaining about it later on Dakkadakka.
I wonder why Hard mode players insist on going to tournaments they will only complain about later.
Easier to win best general or what ever prize there is for being top 8.
Bingo.
Not necessarily. Just had a friendly tourney at my LGS, the two Hard Mode players both got like 14th because their sportsmanship score was crap
If were going to only bring the BEST LIST EVA it's gonna be a very boring series of mostly mirror matches. I don't really understand people who play very competitive 40k because there are far better designed games out there. What has always drawn me in to the game is the background and models. I take semi competitive lists, that are made up of decent units but I try to respect the fluff, take things that look cool, and avoid trying to bend the rules for silly advantages.
That would make them like gankers in World of Warcraft. High level players who are actually bad at PvP, so they have their fun killing low level players who are totally helpless to fight back, and when high level players arrive to defend the lowbies, the ganker scampers off to find less threatening prey, or sometimes stealths to avoid detection and resumes killing low-level players in one hit, then immediately disappearing again and waiting for the next time their character's abilities are ready for that quick kill and re-stealth is available.
I can count the number of times that a ganker has even engaged my high level characters in combat when I arrive to help lowbies on one hand. Using no fingers. Because it's never happened.
Akiasura wrote: I don't know, I think Dman does have a slight point. I've been involved in a few esports and 40k tournaments back in earlier editions.
There have always been people that show up with subpar lists and complain that they can't compete, and that other players are ruining their fun.
I think a good example of this is SSB. Last time I went to a SSB4 tournament, I picked a good character but not top tier (metaknight and megaman). A lot of my friends picked worse characters, like DK or Bowser...one even picked Ganon.
I lost in the semi-finals to a shiek player, and most of the semi-finals was Rosalina, Diddy, and Shiek. There was me and one other person playing Mario that were different. A lot of my friends got knocked out by round 2 and were really upset that they lost to a Diddy or shiek, which I couldn't understand. Those are the best characters in the game after all.
I could have picked Rosalina and done better most likely, but I wanted to practice with metaknight against better players so intentionally picked a worse character. I was fine with the results, and if I had won would have been honestly shocked. The top tier characters do really well against metaknight (it's why he's not top tier even though he's amazing).
What's this? A Smash 4 tournament and no one moaning over Zero Skill Spamus?! Or is she no longer the top dog?
The only thing I personally hate about Smash 4 is how horrible it is trying to get one's hands on so many of the various Amiibo characters! And now we're getting Cloud Strife as dlc (and future amiibo?)
Truly these are the End Times...
Akiasura wrote: In 40k, I've seen similar things happen. People pick necrons but not take a good list and get upset when someone shows up with Space wolves spamming ML's and rhinos (5th). Or people being upset when 1/3rd of the entries are Rhino Rushing BA or SC spamming Eldar (3rd). I can't blame people who play those armies, they are the best, and in a game like 40k top tier lists tend to beat weaker lists pretty handily, but that doesn't stop people from getting upset and trying to create soft scores to bring them down a peg.
This would be better if 40k was more balanced. In WMH you get a more diverse list of factions, although caster and unit balance is starting to suffer, but in 40k certain factions just can't compete at top tables. If it bothers you...don't attend the top tables. I stopped going to tournaments since 6th dropped because I didn't like the allies table and knew it would be everywhere, and I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything, even though my local scene isn't very diverse as far as factions are concerned.
The bigger problem I think is the elitist hypocrisy coming from those like Dman...
In one breath he's going on and on that us lowly scrubs should have our own events so that the big boys like him can properly strut their stuff and prove their pro level skillz. Then he turns around and puts forth claims that any event in which there's any type of prize support is by definition automatically competitive and therefore anyone not showing up to play to win should stay home so their feelings don't hurt.
So which is it? You can't have it both ways.
Astronomi-con is a prime example of a decidedly non-competitive tournament. It offers awards that recognise every aspect of the hobby in general, with only 2 of 8 awards based off of, or in part, actual game results. (General & Overall)
The other 6 awards are all about those supposedly "soft" or "scrub" scores, including 3 painting/converting awards (Best Appearance, Army & Single Model), Terrain, Army List and the single most important award of all, Sportsmanship.
And yet, here we have Dman, claiming that us non-competitive plebs need our own events, and then throwing out gak about how such an event (Astro) is crap and how he hopes that it financially fails and won't be run in the new year.
I would add the Ordo Fanaticus Club Challenge to this list of friendlier events. Don't get me wrong: there will always be people who go to them with hard mode lists because their skill simply makes it necessary to do so and they just don't get the memo about it being a friendly event. But the vast majority at that event understand that all the prizes are raffled anyways so you can go 0-5, have a great time with any list you WANT to play and still come out winning some schwag. Some of it quite expensive schwag.
As a member of the "fluff bunny" crowd I personally have no problem attending competitive events. I'm the guy that brings fortifications and hordes of guardsmen, sometimes I run transport, sometimes sentinels, just whatever strikes me as interesting.
Do I want to win? You bet I do.
But will I? Probably not.
My thing is, I never get sore over a loss as I can usually put up a good fight or tie, or hell, if the dice love me and I'm really lucky with objectives, squeak out a win every once in awhile. Even the times I get just stomped, I just enjoy showing up with unexpected lists and people seeing how folks react. The looks I get when I start laying down bunkers, trenches, emplacements, barricades, razorwire, and tank traps is worth it almost by itself
Maybe I'm glutton for punishment, but I generally get comments of "I've never played against a list like that, it was fun" and that right there is what I come for, to enjoy the game and help others enjoy it. It doesn't matter if it scat bikes, decurions, sky hammers, of hunter cadres, you better bring your space shovel cause you're gonna have to dig this guardsman out.
list building is the most important thing, and if you see units that maximize your ability to win then yeah you should do that. But a lot of people think taking bad units is a good idea
...or they are just more adept at the game.
I am reminded of a fairly mundane Space wolf list Tony Kopach won with. It was very literally nothing special. Looking at that list then and now I am still quite impressed with how well he played. I assure you all his tricked out opponents were equally impressed. Their lists were surely superior in several cases.
If you advocate separate tournaments for those who identify themselves as "lesser" what will you do about the people who lie to themselves about it? Lol.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ir0njack wrote: As a member of the "fluff bunny" crowd I personally have no problem attending competitive events. I'm the guy that brings fortifications and hordes of guardsmen, sometimes I run transport, sometimes sentinels, just whatever strikes me as interesting.
Do I want to win? You bet I do.
But will I? Probably not.
My thing is, I never get sore over a loss as I can usually put up a good fight or tie, or hell, if the dice love me and I'm really lucky with objectives, squeak out a win every once in awhile. Even the times I get just stomped, I just enjoy showing up with unexpected lists and people seeing how folks react. The looks I get when I start laying down bunkers, trenches, emplacements, barricades, razorwire, and tank traps is worth it almost by itself
Maybe I'm glutton for punishment, but I generally get comments of "I've never played against a list like that, it was fun" and that right there is what I come for, to enjoy the game and help others enjoy it. It doesn't matter if it scat bikes, decurions, sky hammers, of hunter cadres, you better bring your space shovel cause you're gonna have to dig this guardsman out.
Ir0njack wrote: As a member of the "fluff bunny" crowd I personally have no problem attending competitive events. I'm the guy that brings fortifications and hordes of guardsmen, sometimes I run transport, sometimes sentinels, just whatever strikes me as interesting.
Do I want to win? You bet I do.
But will I? Probably not.
My thing is, I never get sore over a loss as I can usually put up a good fight or tie, or hell, if the dice love me and I'm really lucky with objectives, squeak out a win every once in awhile. Even the times I get just stomped, I just enjoy showing up with unexpected lists and people seeing how folks react. The looks I get when I start laying down bunkers, trenches, emplacements, barricades, razorwire, and tank traps is worth it almost by itself
Maybe I'm glutton for punishment, but I generally get comments of "I've never played against a list like that, it was fun" and that right there is what I come for, to enjoy the game and help others enjoy it. It doesn't matter if it scat bikes, decurions, sky hammers, of hunter cadres, you better bring your space shovel cause you're gonna have to dig this guardsman out.
As I've been getting a bit bored with my Tzeentchian legions as of late, I'm thinking that the new year might be good time to give Khorne a bit of a look...
Reason the first being that while it's missing out on Mutilators, Chosen and Dark Apostles, the Khornekin book does look like a quite interesting blend of mortals and the daemonic.
I have a decent cache of BA Death Co kits + Tac squad to mix in with Chaos Marines, and thus, I could build the army as a warband featuring the Knights of Blood successor Chapter that's fully fallen into blood rituals and the madness of endless bloodshed.
A brutal jugger-riding former Chaplain, leading the charge amongst his honour guard of mighty Bloodcrushers...
Bikers goading their hunting (Flesh) hounds into battle before them, in a sick mockery of a knightly hunting party...
Lowly peasants being sent to their deaths for the glory of the Gods...
More flamers than is healthy for any army to put on the table!
Reason the second, and most importantly, I've been watching far too much Kingdom of Heaven as of late, and Khornekin based off of a Chapter of evil space knights means that every single tactical decision can simply be boiled down to "Khorne Wills It!'
Ir0njack wrote: As a member of the "fluff bunny" crowd I personally have no problem attending competitive events. I'm the guy that brings fortifications and hordes of guardsmen, sometimes I run transport, sometimes sentinels, just whatever strikes me as interesting.
Do I want to win? You bet I do.
But will I? Probably not.
My thing is, I never get sore over a loss as I can usually put up a good fight or tie, or hell, if the dice love me and I'm really lucky with objectives, squeak out a win every once in awhile. Even the times I get just stomped, I just enjoy showing up with unexpected lists and people seeing how folks react. The looks I get when I start laying down bunkers, trenches, emplacements, barricades, razorwire, and tank traps is worth it almost by itself
Maybe I'm glutton for punishment, but I generally get comments of "I've never played against a list like that, it was fun" and that right there is what I come for, to enjoy the game and help others enjoy it. It doesn't matter if it scat bikes, decurions, sky hammers, of hunter cadres, you better bring your space shovel cause you're gonna have to dig this guardsman out.
See, this is the kinda attitude the game should be about. Just enjoying what you have and making a good game for everybody. From what I see in most of this thread, that's how most people actually feel. It's only a few people with a "holier than thou" attitude that really disagree.
At some point, we all have to come to terms with the fact that this is a game of little plastic space men. It's not something worth getting so worked up over.
Make a big campaign where the Tournament Organizer posts the list you can take. If they get to make you choose mediocre fluffy lists then you can play bored hammer 40k.
Hey one time I literally posted up on the local forum and let everyone choose what force I would play, then I had them all send me 1500 point lists and I had to choose one of them, completely unchanged, to play.
I won that tournament. That was pretty darn cool.
A couple of my friends who don't like the competitive scene found a willing person in me for a new brand of silliness: instead of bringing lists, we rolled randomly using our Dungeons and Dragons dice to determine which units from each force org slot we would be allowed to use. Had to roll twice for every slot. whatever we got, we got.
Quite fun.
So while I play in tournaments quite a lot, I think its important to remember why you really play, yes?
Filch wrote: Make a big campaign where the Tournament Organizer posts the list you can take. If they get to make you choose mediocre fluffy lists then you can play bored hammer 40k.
That would be great for the store: "here's the lists you have to take, which conveniently include all of the models we're having trouble selling".
Dman137 wrote: So with this year coming to a close there have been some great events I got to go to, tho after every event it became clear that a lot of players there weren't very competitive and would complain about the competive players which I think is very unfair since a tournement is a competitive thing. With that said I think there should be events for more non competitive players so that they play people more at there skill level, it would be a lot more fun for them. And as a competitive player I hate playing against "fluff lists" while sure I don't mind the win, I much rather play against a hard army I find that more enjoyable. Do you guys feel like there should be a split
Finally someone who gets it. I mean, I am tired of all these unskilled players coming to events with "flully" lists, i.e. they are too poor to skillfully purchase 5 imperial knights. On top of that, they do not realize my genius when I move my knights 12" directly towards their line, firing my double-shot battle cannons, hellstorm flamers, and large blast melta shots with incredible - nay, beyond credulity - strategic brilliance. Then, they actually become visibly disturbed when I cackle maniacally as any rational person would when their pitiful twin-linked lascannons mounted on a fail-raider utterly fails to penetrate my Knights' 4++ shield that I tactically nominated with impeccable foresight on the facing closes to their joke-raider. I mean, they should be kissing my feet when I show them the error of their ways and the obvious - well, at least to a player of my caliber - limitations in their noob list building. Duh, of course they can't win against my (insert flavor of the month internet list) that I totally, skillfully, divinely read about on an online forum, then rushed out to purchase. Then they actually cried when they lost to me? I mean, they should be grateful that they had the opportunity - nay, privilege - to roll dice on a table shared by me, the greatest strategic mind of the current - and, indeed, any - generation.
If you insist on attending open events, then you'll have the "problem" of having to play people who aren't doing things the way you like. Perhaps you should see about organising some sort of invitational event. Be proactive instead of simply complaining here where nothing can be done about it.
Grumblewartz wrote: I am tired of all these unskilled players coming to events with "flully" lists, i.e. they are too poor to skillfully purchase 5 imperial knights. Duh, of course they can't win against my (insert flavor of the month internet list) that I totally, skillfully, divinely read about on an online forum, then rushed out to purchase.
Sarcasm aside I guess this is a very big reason people play "competitive" WH40K when there are better game systems out there. If you are comfortable dropping 500€+ on the latest cheese there's no need to improve your generalship, just set up the big guns and crush the noobs that still try to use starter armies. And if your opponent is also foolish enough to use an older army that doesn't get OP Formation bonuses he totally deserves what's about to happen.
I went to a more casual event run by the good folks at Warhammer World about a month ago, a "participation" game where players joined their armies together to fight against waves of Tyranids controlled by a member of staff.
I was the only person to turn up. Warhammer World is in the centre of Nottingham, a fairly busy city, and it was half-term so the kids were off from school. Conditions were good for atleast a FEW people to turn up, but it didn't get enough attention for whatever reason. Take from that what you will.
CaoCaoTipper wrote: I went to a more casual event run by the good folks at Warhammer World about a month ago, a "participation" game where players joined their armies together to fight against waves of Tyranids controlled by a member of staff.
Kinda wish I lived nearer Nottingham, because that sounds like a lot of fun.#
CaoCaoTipper wrote: I went to a more casual event run by the good folks at Warhammer World about a month ago, a "participation" game where players joined their armies together to fight against waves of Tyranids controlled by a member of staff.
Kinda wish I lived nearer Nottingham, because that sounds like a lot of fun.#
Out of interest though, what did happen? Did they play the game with just you there?
I won, I'll have you know! I don't think he was expecting my Khorne Demonkin to leap the barricades I was deployed behind and charge the Tyranids before they could come near. Best form of defence, heh.
The staff guy was super awesome, I was (and still am) quite a scrub so he turned it into somthing of a tutorial game to teach me a few things. The time in his work schedule was taken to do the game I guess, so he just played with me.
Dman137 wrote: So with this year coming to a close there have been some great events I got to go to, tho after every event it became clear that a lot of players there weren't very competitive and would complain about the competive players which I think is very unfair since a tournement is a competitive thing. With that said I think there should be events for more non competitive players so that they play people more at there skill level, it would be a lot more fun for them. And as a competitive player I hate playing against "fluff lists" while sure I don't mind the win, I much rather play against a hard army I find that more enjoyable. Do you guys feel like there should be a split
Finally someone who gets it. I mean, I am tired of all these unskilled players coming to events with "flully" lists, i.e. they are too poor to skillfully purchase 5 imperial knights. On top of that, they do not realize my genius when I move my knights 12" directly towards their line, firing my double-shot battle cannons, hellstorm flamers, and large blast melta shots with incredible - nay, beyond credulity - strategic brilliance. Then, they actually become visibly disturbed when I cackle maniacally as any rational person would when their pitiful twin-linked lascannons mounted on a fail-raider utterly fails to penetrate my Knights' 4++ shield that I tactically nominated with impeccable foresight on the facing closes to their joke-raider. I mean, they should be kissing my feet when I show them the error of their ways and the obvious - well, at least to a player of my caliber - limitations in their noob list building. Duh, of course they can't win against my (insert flavor of the month internet list) that I totally, skillfully, divinely read about on an online forum, then rushed out to purchase. Then they actually cried when they lost to me? I mean, they should be grateful that they had the opportunity - nay, privilege - to roll dice on a table shared by me, the greatest strategic mind of the current - and, indeed, any - generation.
CaoCaoTipper wrote: I won, I'll have you know! I don't think he was expecting my Khorne Demonkin to leap the barricades I was deployed behind and charge the Tyranids before they could come near. Best form of defence, heh.
The staff guy was super awesome, I was (and still am) quite a scrub so he turned it into somthing of a tutorial game to teach me a few things. The time in his work schedule was taken to do the game I guess, so he just played with me.
Nice.
Out of interest, how many points was it? And, were there any restrictions on armies/units?
CaoCaoTipper wrote: I went to a more casual event run by the good folks at Warhammer World about a month ago, a "participation" game where players joined their armies together to fight against waves of Tyranids controlled by a member of staff.
Kinda wish I lived nearer Nottingham, because that sounds like a lot of fun.#
Out of interest though, what did happen? Did they play the game with just you there?
I won, I'll have you know! I don't think he was expecting my Khorne Demonkin to leap the barricades I was deployed behind and charge the Tyranids before they could come near. Best form of defence, heh.
The staff guy was super awesome, I was (and still am) quite a scrub so he turned it into somthing of a tutorial game to teach me a few things. The time in his work schedule was taken to do the game I guess, so he just played with me.
That's actually disappointing. I would love to play something like this. I still love 1v1 games, but sometimes it's just fun getting 4 or so players together and just having a scramble
CaoCaoTipper wrote: I went to a more casual event run by the good folks at Warhammer World about a month ago, a "participation" game where players joined their armies together to fight against waves of Tyranids controlled by a member of staff.
Kinda wish I lived nearer Nottingham, because that sounds like a lot of fun.#
Out of interest though, what did happen? Did they play the game with just you there?
I won, I'll have you know! I don't think he was expecting my Khorne Demonkin to leap the barricades I was deployed behind and charge the Tyranids before they could come near. Best form of defence, heh.
The staff guy was super awesome, I was (and still am) quite a scrub so he turned it into somthing of a tutorial game to teach me a few things. The time in his work schedule was taken to do the game I guess, so he just played with me.
That's actually disappointing. I would love to play something like this. I still love 1v1 games, but sometimes it's just fun getting 4 or so players together and just having a scramble
My absolute favourite multi-player games of all time were the old 'Carnage!' scenario from 3rd edition.
4-6 Players depending on the table size going at it in a giant free-for-all, with all the scheming, 'alliances', backstabbing and treachery that makes my little Tzeentchian heart glow with inner pride!
CaoCaoTipper wrote: I went to a more casual event run by the good folks at Warhammer World about a month ago, a "participation" game where players joined their armies together to fight against waves of Tyranids controlled by a member of staff.
Kinda wish I lived nearer Nottingham, because that sounds like a lot of fun.#
Out of interest though, what did happen? Did they play the game with just you there?
I won, I'll have you know! I don't think he was expecting my Khorne Demonkin to leap the barricades I was deployed behind and charge the Tyranids before they could come near. Best form of defence, heh.
The staff guy was super awesome, I was (and still am) quite a scrub so he turned it into somthing of a tutorial game to teach me a few things. The time in his work schedule was taken to do the game I guess, so he just played with me.
That's actually disappointing. I would love to play something like this. I still love 1v1 games, but sometimes it's just fun getting 4 or so players together and just having a scramble
My absolute favourite multi-player games of all time were the old 'Carnage!' scenario from 3rd edition.
4-6 Players depending on the table size going at it in a giant free-for-all, with all the scheming, 'alliances', backstabbing and treachery that makes my little Tzeentchian heart glow with inner pride!
Those were good times!
We used to play games like that all the time. People really miss out on an incredibly fun and interesting version of the game.
CaoCaoTipper wrote: I won, I'll have you know! I don't think he was expecting my Khorne Demonkin to leap the barricades I was deployed behind and charge the Tyranids before they could come near. Best form of defence, heh.
The staff guy was super awesome, I was (and still am) quite a scrub so he turned it into somthing of a tutorial game to teach me a few things. The time in his work schedule was taken to do the game I guess, so he just played with me.
Nice.
Out of interest, how many points was it? And, were there any restrictions on armies/units?
The event asked for players to come with 500 points, but I added 140 (Two Oblitorators) since I was the only one and he matched accordingly. Wasn't any restrictions on who we played, and I have no idea what his math was when he was deploying the waves of Tyranids. I just know that the second wave had Old One Eye and he killed my Demon Prince...
Edit: Also, the objective was to survive a number of turns (6, if I remember correctly) and it could well be the case he was handicapping himself for newer players. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to take the idea and make it balanced though.
The event asked for players to come with 500 points, but I added 140 (Two Oblitorators) since I was the only one and he matched accordingly. Wasn't any restrictions on who we played, and I have no idea what his math was when he was deploying the waves of Tyranids. I just know that the second wave had Old One Eye and he killed my Demon Prince...
Edit: Also, the objective was to survive a number of turns (6, if I remember correctly) and it could well be the case he was handicapping himself for newer players. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to take the idea and make it balanced though.
Thanks.
I'll have to see if my friends are interested in trying something like this.
We have a great casual tournament here in Canberra, Australia where you have to submit your list by email before the event. There is a panel who judge the lists and they can be rejected if they are too cheesy. Also sports and painting are worth more than battle. It's always fun and those who manage to sneak in some smelly cheese never place highly. There is even a guy who runs a grot rebels army.
Kavish wrote: We have a great casual tournament here in Canberra, Australia where you have to submit your list by email before the event. There is a panel who judge the lists and they can be rejected if they are too cheesy. Also sports and painting are worth more than battle. It's always fun and those who manage to sneak in some smelly cheese never place highly. There is even a guy who runs a grot rebels army.
Sounds like the Ordo Fanaticus Club Challenge kind of, or should I say, it sounds like what it used to be. It's pretty competitive now (though it aspires to be about fair fun matchups) but what you're describing is kind of like what OFCC used to mean. Maybe if i go on vacation to Australia, Ill do it when you're having your event.
Immortaldman wrote: The op brings up a good point, have different events for different types of players
The problem I see is how does one determine what's a "casual" list? Competitive lists are easy enough to determine, but how does one determine what is casual enough for a casual event?
Experiment 626 wrote: Except that there's no way to keep the over competitive try-hards from ruining the so-called "non-competitive" events.
Sure there is, it will just take a few years to collect a database. Anyone in the serious tournament who is being too casual (not getting a win or even a draw) can only go to the casual events after that. Those that get even a single win (or draw) at the serious event are blacklisted for casual play.
Immortaldman wrote: The op brings up a good point, have different events for different types of players
Except that there's no way to keep the over competitive try-hards from ruining the so-called "non-competitive" events.
You just set the rules to reward the behavior you want.
You can always add a questionnaire for the players of who was "the most fun".
Points for fiction or records kept of the army played.
As long as you set a game win in importance to some 30% or less you can reward the more fluffy aspects of the game.
A "competitive try-hard" could surprise you and actually do the work to put something awesome onto the field rather than "only" have the goal to win games.
Heck, you add cosplay elements into the mix if that is what an organizer wants to really get into the game (I would suggest holding around Halloween for the timid).
Dman137 wrote: So with this year coming to a close there have been some great events I got to go to, tho after every event it became clear that a lot of players there weren't very competitive and would complain about the competive players which I think is very unfair since a tournement is a competitive thing. With that said I think there should be events for more non competitive players so that they play people more at there skill level, it would be a lot more fun for them. And as a competitive player I hate playing against "fluff lists" while sure I don't mind the win, I much rather play against a hard army I find that more enjoyable. Do you guys feel like there should be a split
There's lots in our area, I think the issue you're seeing is that there aren't any, or many, strictly competitive tournaments with no soft scoring, painting scores etc.
Dman137 wrote: So with this year coming to a close there have been some great events I got to go to, tho after every event it became clear that a lot of players there weren't very competitive and would complain about the competive players which I think is very unfair since a tournement is a competitive thing. With that said I think there should be events for more non competitive players so that they play people more at there skill level, it would be a lot more fun for them. And as a competitive player I hate playing against "fluff lists" while sure I don't mind the win, I much rather play against a hard army I find that more enjoyable. Do you guys feel like there should be a split
There's lots in our area, I think the issue you're seeing is that there aren't any, or many, strictly competitive tournaments with no soft scoring, painting scores etc.
There used to be a tournament in US that was strictly competitive... no painting requirements, no other scores besides 'winning'. It was a 2500 point tournament but I can't remember the name. I think what DMan wants is a tournament like that again. Then there's no illusion of the purpose of the tournament.
There is a certain irony in people who are literally playing the game wrong (at least by the game design's POV) asking to segregate and exclude the people playing it right, and I say that from the POV of one of the people who prefers competitive play.
As for fixing the issue of ringers infiltrating casual play events, scarp all vestiges of a 'Ard Boyz mentality and look back to the older official GW tournament rules (circa early-mid '90's) that gave more points to creativity and authenticity than battle performance. Things like having to submit an actual fluff description to justify the composition of your force.
There used to be a tournament in US that was strictly competitive... no painting requirements, no other scores besides 'winning'. It was a 2500 point tournament but I can't remember the name. I think what DMan wants is a tournament like that again. Then there's no illusion of the purpose of the tournament.
I just remembered the name. It was 'Ard Boyz
Yep that was it, and it was ultimately killed by GWHQ because it was in their eyes a business-eroding perversion of the game's intent. As an MBA, I get that since we Yanks tend to favor competitive gaming way more than other cultures and you don't make long-term relationships with new customers in any culture by having them getting utterly curb stomped by an existing player-base of hard core competitors (anybody who doubts this ought to look at the annual influx of new Warmahordes players and then look at how many are still around two years later). At the same time, as a player who prefers competitive play, I really miss the lessons I learned while getting beat down in 'Ard Boyz.
maxgravity wrote: There is a certain irony in people who are literally playing the game wrong (at least by the game design's POV) asking to segregate and exclude the people playing it right, and I say that from the POV of one of the people who prefers competitive play.
As for fixing the issue of ringers infiltrating casual play events, scarp all vestiges of a 'Ard Boyz mentality and look back to the older official GW tournament rules (circa early-mid '90's) that gave more points to creativity and authenticity than battle performance. Things like having to submit an actual fluff description to justify the composition of your force.
While you can always loudly promote the event as casual, and set up the overall scoring system in a way that *should* utterly crush the possibility of a hard core competitive player from running the tables and cleaning up, it still doesn't stop those types of individuals from physically showing up.
Even if the event organiser decides to outright boot them from the event after the first game or two proves that the individual has shown up only to make everyone else miserable and take the top prize, you still end up with people who've had their event ruined by simply having to put up with playing against the donkeycave(s).
And that's the problem: we have a number of hyper competitive players who are saying, "give the gooby scrubs their own event so they stop wrecking our pro level Tournaments!"
Then these same individuals claim out the other side of their pie hole that any time there's a prize, or any kind of final ranking, the event is automatically "Competitive" and thus, all the gooby scrubs should stay home or else "L2P"/"Git Gud.lolz!".
There used to be a tournament in US that was strictly competitive... no painting requirements, no other scores besides 'winning'. It was a 2500 point tournament but I can't remember the name. I think what DMan wants is a tournament like that again. Then there's no illusion of the purpose of the tournament.
I just remembered the name. It was 'Ard Boyz
Yep that was it, and it was ultimately killed by GWHQ because it was in their eyes a business-eroding perversion of the game's intent. As an MBA, I get that since we Yanks tend to favor competitive gaming way more than other cultures and you don't make long-term relationships with new customers in any culture by having them getting utterly curb stomped by an existing player-base of hard core competitors (anybody who doubts this ought to look at the annual influx of new Warmahordes players and then look at how many are still around two years later). At the same time, as a player who prefers competitive play, I really miss the lessons I learned while getting beat down in 'Ard Boyz.
'Ard Boyz was canned more because;
1) It was proven that there was rampant cheating & match-fixing throughout the prelims and regionals.
2) The 2500pts/3000pts army prize for the Semi round winners turned into a giant clusterfeth that cost GW massive inventory losses, and left stores with piles of unwanted product they'd never be able to shift.
The way it poisoned the community as whole was just the final nail in the coffin.
Well, it is so hard to exercise your split personality.
To fluff or not to fluff?
To competitive play or say fraggit and go full WAAC?
Multiple accounts would allow me to pose a coherent attitude all segregated to avoid confusion.
But anyway:
It would be nice to have each style of player to play like-minded players BUT if getting a game in where "it's all good" I would be hard pressed to try to dissuade them from coming.
They like to play the game right?
Hard to tell them to get lost when they are willing to chance being tabled.
<edit> If any MODs are listening my kids are very close to that age to want on this board so no BANE-ing without leaving channels open if I do not figure out how to set family / same IP settings. There I go, getting all paranoid...
Immortaldman wrote: The op brings up a good point, have different events for different types of players
Except that there's no way to keep the over competitive try-hards from ruining the so-called "non-competitive" events.
A list committee is how OFCC dealt with it. they'd simply send your list back and say "yeah, really sorry, but gotta tone it down".
they also made it so that they rate lists 1-4 and cap the TEAMS TOTAL. So for example, 10 points amongst all team members. So the Captains submit the lists and self police how they think they will be rated, keeping in mind the 10. Then the rating committee decides if they agree. In this way you have two entities policing the lists.
the end result? A generally more agreeable experience because no one goes thinking their "list of doom" will annihilate everyone. Further, the prizes ARE raffled. So winning and losing, while personally important, isn't necessary so you're not feeling the need to stomp on peoples necks once you have them down.
Last benefit: though its less competitive from a list standpoint, the actual SKILL of generals shines through more. So the games tend to be more engaging mentally (not always but they tend to be). three years ago I went with a team that intentionally took 3 1's and a 2 just to see how well we could do with terribad lists. My result? 5-0. One judge told me he'd give my list a zero if he were able but was compelled by rule to give it a 1. I faced four 4's and a 2 during that tournament (sometimes you just get lucky that way). I personally loved winning against tougher lists using a weaker one. It made the whole weekend pretty awesome and every victory felt rewarding in the extreme.
Pretty fun format. The REAL threat here isn't the "try hards' as you call them. Its when the rating committee loses sight of what the event was originally there to accomplish. Thats the real problematic possibility. if their definition of 1-4 isnt consistent, well... You'll see an inevitable escalation in what they allow. So there's that.
Experiment 626 wrote: Except that there's no way to keep the over competitive try-hards from ruining the so-called "non-competitive" events.
Sure there is, it will just take a few years to collect a database. Anyone in the serious tournament who is being too casual (not getting a win or even a draw) can only go to the casual events after that. Those that get even a single win (or draw) at the serious event are blacklisted for casual play.
That brings up problems of it's own. I'm sure there's players out there who go to these "try hard" tournaments and still like to enjoy casual games with more fun lists from time to time. Kinda seems overkill to ban people outright, and that could lead to a pretty segmented community.
)
)
