Wow! , I tried a few tournaments.

The spam is ridiculous , why do tournaments allow spam , or why doesn't the game limit stuff ,8th seems like you can fit in whatever you want.?
Find the broken/too good for it's points stuff and take 10 of them , it's ridiculous.

Tournaments naturally attract optimised lists that use the points as efficiently as possible for the best outcome, will always lead to finding the "best" units in the codex and then just taking multiples of them.

Ok.....
Tournaments are about testing your best list against another opponents best list and finding out who is best/better
Everyone can bring cheese/spam
If you cant handle it, dont go.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ok.....
Tournaments are about testing your best list against another opponents best list and finding out who is best/better
.

Best/better at what ? Cheese and Spam ?

keithandor wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ok.....
Tournaments are about testing your best list against another opponents best list and finding out who is best/better
.

Best/better at what ? Cheese and Spam ?

Welcome to competitive play. Lists at a tournament will always include just spamming whatever is the "best" units to take in the codex.

If you want narrative driven lists and games then I'd suggest sticking to campaigns etc rather than a tournament.

If you limit one thing people will take the next best thing.
Since the point of a tournament is to win, this is what you have to do.
And if you keep limiting stuff it comes to a point where 1 guy decides what is fun for all the rest of the players because he believes he knows best.

Spam doesnt equal Ability to win. An inexperianced player can still lose with spam.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Spam doesnt equal Ability to win. An inexperianced player can still lose with spam.

Also very much this. Anyone can put together a net list they found online. You also need to know how the combos work with the synergy of the army and how to handle the other side of the table as well.

The golden rule of competitive play: if everything is cheesy, nothing is.

If you're not at least trying to bring the best stuff available you're just not playing the same game as everyone else at the tournament.

keithandor wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ok.....
Tournaments are about testing your best list against another opponents best list and finding out who is best/better
.

Best/better at what ? Cheese and Spam ?

You're welcome to put together a spam list and go win a GT if you think that's all it takes...

 Scott-S6 wrote:

keithandor wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ok.....
Tournaments are about testing your best list against another opponents best list and finding out who is best/better
.

Best/better at what ? Cheese and Spam ?

You're welcome to put together a spam list and go win a GT if you think that's all it takes...

Yeah that's something people forget.

"Guy with Guliman won tournament! GulimanSpammer!!" they cry, ignoring the fact the guy had to get through Mortarion, Magnus and a couple other Guliman armies to get to the top.

keithandor wrote:

Find the broken/too good for it's points stuff and take 10 of them , it's ridiculous.

that is how ALL turnys are for ALL mini games.
by doing it like that it comes down to the players ability to use the army and the dice roll/reroll.

like it has been said, if you dont like it dont play them. stick to campains that is fluff driven.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
players ability to use ...the dice roll/reroll.

mad skill

 koooaei wrote:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
players ability to use ...the dice roll/reroll.

mad skill

I mean, this is the real reason why Warhammer can't be that competitive. But if even Pokemon gets grand tournaments then there's clearly enough people who don't mind skill not 100% determining the outcome of a competition.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 koooaei wrote:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
players ability to use ...the dice roll/reroll.

mad skill

I mean, this is the real reason why Warhammer can't be that competitive. But if even Pokemon gets grand tournaments then there's clearly enough people who don't mind skill not 100% determining the outcome of a competition.

i think, that the random aspect of the dice roll/card shuffle is that tiny aspect that keeps players attatched to ouer games. you can reduce the randomness of the dice roll whit the rerolls but there is allways the chanse that you can roll 1 on the reroll aswell. while good players moust likely has a backup plan if that happends, it does mean that they have to (hopefully) think a bit.
just imagine the insane amount of perfect balance ouer games would need if the dice was removed.

same whit cards. you first hand can be good, but you have no guarantee that the next 5 cards in the deck will be nothing but mana...

cuz if it dident, games whit a random factor in it would not exist.

All forms of competitive gaming are like this.

In card games, people construct decks with multiples of good cards to ensure they draw them during setup. The deck doesn't "work" unless you get a combo going.

In online gaming character "builds" people max out one attribute or skill or whatever at the expense of others.

Basically having an army that is "quite good" at attacking AND "quite good" at defending AND "quite good" at taking objectives means you are going to be very bad at winning.

Mostly.

I am sure GW want people to bring "Take All Comers" lists to tournaments to break the spam meta, but they aren't doing it particularly well. Admittedly, it's hard to do as there are always more efficient units that can be played instead of the less efficient ones... and oh look, I've got "spam"

Do you expect people to drive VW Kombis at formula one races? It's basically the same.
The Kombi is fun for vacation with friends, but not so much for races. The same way some units are great to play for fun with friends, but not to bring to tournaments.

What is wrong with tournaments is that 40K is a terrible set of rules for a competitive game yet people want to pretend it can be one. Tournament list for 40K are absolutely disgusting probably more so than any other game on the market even though those games have their share of spam and min-maxing.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 koooaei wrote:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
players ability to use ...the dice roll/reroll.

mad skill

I mean, this is the real reason why Warhammer can't be that competitive. But if even Pokemon gets grand tournaments then there's clearly enough people who don't mind skill not 100% determining the outcome of a competition.

i think, that the random aspect of the dice roll/card shuffle is that tiny aspect that keeps players attatched to ouer games. you can reduce the randomness of the dice roll whit the rerolls but there is allways the chanse that you can roll 1 on the reroll aswell. while good players moust likely has a backup plan if that happends, it does mean that they have to (hopefully) think a bit.
just imagine the insane amount of perfect balance ouer games would need if the dice was removed.

same whit cards. you first hand can be good, but you have no guarantee that the next 5 cards in the deck will be nothing but mana...

cuz if it dident, games whit a random factor in it would not exist.

I agree that the randomness can be good for a game - it's part of what separates Warhammer from just overly complicated chess, after all - but I do think that any level of randomness makes a game less competitive. Even in games as random as 40k the better player will usually come out on top, but for true competitiveness I'm not sure if "usually" cuts it. In games with zero random factors (in a modern context this is most common among video games, I think) you know that the person who played better came out on top, beyond a shadow of a doubt. This certainty can be crucial at the pinnacle of play where the difference in skill can be incredibly narrow.

Of course, being more competitive doesn't necessarily make for a better game. League of Legends fits basically every criteria I would make for a game being competitive and League sucks!

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 koooaei wrote:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
players ability to use ...the dice roll/reroll.

mad skill

I mean, this is the real reason why Warhammer can't be that competitive. But if even Pokemon gets grand tournaments then there's clearly enough people who don't mind skill not 100% determining the outcome of a competition.

i think, that the random aspect of the dice roll/card shuffle is that tiny aspect that keeps players attatched to ouer games. you can reduce the randomness of the dice roll whit the rerolls but there is allways the chanse that you can roll 1 on the reroll aswell. while good players moust likely has a backup plan if that happends, it does mean that they have to (hopefully) think a bit.
just imagine the insane amount of perfect balance ouer games would need if the dice was removed.

same whit cards. you first hand can be good, but you have no guarantee that the next 5 cards in the deck will be nothing but mana...

cuz if it dident, games whit a random factor in it would not exist.

I agree that the randomness can be good for a game - it's part of what separates Warhammer from just overly complicated chess, after all - but I do think that any level of randomness makes a game less competitive. Even in games as random as 40k the better player will usually come out on top, but for true competitiveness I'm not sure if "usually" cuts it. In games with zero random factors (in a modern context this is most common among video games, I think) you know that the person who played better came out on top, beyond a shadow of a doubt. This certainty can be crucial at the pinnacle of play where the difference in skill can be incredibly narrow.

Of course, being more competitive doesn't necessarily make for a better game. League of Legends fits basically every criteria I would make for a game being competitive and League sucks!

A game can be very random and still considered a competitive discipline, main example being poker. The skill-cap is not determined by how random a game is, the main difference is that the winrates of the best players and worst players will approach 50% with more randomness. I agree that it is more satisfying to be better in a game where that means winning close to 100% of the time but 40k still has a high skill-cap nonetheless. If they removed too much of the randomness it would be very difficult to have fun at your FLGS since the distribution of skill level would be too diverse to find roughly equal games.

keithandor wrote:
Wow! , I tried a few tournaments.

The spam is ridiculous , why do tournaments allow spam , or why doesn't the game limit stuff ,8th seems like you can fit in whatever you want.?
Find the broken/too good for it's points stuff and take 10 of them , it's ridiculous.

I've played and done MTG and Yugioh tournaments. What's your point?

In my opinion the skill in competitive 40k comes in risk management and understanding how complicated units are likely to interact with each other. I think managing the risks of dice rolls are interesting, and I generally enjoy competitive 40k.

Spam is less interesting to play against, and the new detachments have basically allowed near-taxless spamming with formations like 'vanguard' and 'spearhead'. It's not an easy problem to fix tbh. If you limit players to say 'no more than 2 of each unit type' then you screw over the armies with fewer options. If you charge progressively more per unit - (e.g. one shadowsword costs 405pts, the next will cost you 430pts, the next 455pts) then this also helps armies with more unit choices. For example, guard can just run, say, a shadowsword, stormlord and baneblade for little change in damage output. Spam just seems to be a fact of life without a complicated rules system to push players to diversify. The CP-rich detachments help somewhat to be fair - at least anyone wanting a brigade will HAVE to bring units from each category.

What I'm a bit worried about in 8th though is that GW is turning a simple game into a much more complicated one, and this is going to create imbalances. Guard can now combine orders, stratagems, regiment traits and other buffs to create crazy synergies that aren't particularly easy to balance.

For example, the cadian stratagem that gives +1 to hit against a single unit is very tame in a small game with 4-5 units, but could be devastating if used on a key unit in a 2K point game. Or using stratagems/buffs/doctrines on baneblade-equivalents to get an enormous payout for the investment.

Another silly one is the poxwalker build in death guard where you can reanimate all your cultists within 7" and ALSO hide the unit of poxwalkers that is doing it from all shooting. Not saying that it's game breaking, but it clearly makes game balancing a lot harder. Again, both of those stratagems are reasonably tame alone, but taken together they're very strong.

In short, I think competitive 8th is going to get less balanced as opposed to more unless chapter approved is VERY well done, and all codexes in the future get similar utility from stratagems / doctrines.

People are there to win and you don't do that with fluff, if spam wins then you spam like a mofo simple as that.

hobojebus wrote:
People are there to win and you don't do that with fluff, if spam wins then you spam like a mofo simple as that.

Yes, but if the best lists all have like two or three units then you may have a problem with the design of the game. Variety is fun because adapting your play to every opponent is more stimulating than doing the same thing over and over. Optimal lists having a core of two units of the same type, the best two HQ choices for those units (depending on loadout etc) and then four other unit choices done to playstyle and meta would in my opinion not be as big of a problem as optimal lists having the cheapest HQ, six of the same unit and then the two cheapest other units to make for a legal list.


Maybe tournament organisers can alleviate spam problems to some degree by doing a lot of playtesting and deciding on additional limitations on unit numbers or detachments or whatever but they're a lot less centrally organised to the ecology of the game than the actual game designers so their ability to fix a wonky game is limited.

Gws devs are crap let's make no bones about that all the talented guys left long ago, their balance is abysmal and inconsistent.

Its not the players fault that the lists they are given only lend themselves to a few optimal builds.

Welcome to Warhammer 40K --- a game which was never designed for competitions or tournaments, even now when they have tournament/competition players play-test it apparently. GW sells models and miniatures with a loosely designed wargame around the fringes to boost sales. Since day one they've constantly said tournaments etc. were never the goal.

So you're using an item not intended for tournaments...and wondering why it's not very good when used for tournaments.

This again.

Spam isn't bad. Spam isn't the problem.

GW writing consistently terrible rulebooks with awful balance is the problem. Spam as you call it is a symptom, especially when its nothing but the same 3 powerful units copy pasted. For everyone else, spam is fluffy, symmetrical, redundant, and appealing. Lists restricted to 1 of everything will only slightly shift the power levels to picking one of the best from several books and allying them together. It doesn't fix anything.

People who hate spam actually hate poor balance. An IG list with a few chimeras supported by a squadron of Russes and flanked by a squadron of Hellhounds is spammy (only 3 unit types on the table, 4 if you count the embarked infantry) and each unit type has 3 of the same model, but its fluffy and not broken.

Don't blanket ban/artificially limit everything because of some balance issues with specific units. Fix the broken units and everything else falls into place.

Say it again with me. Spam isn't the issue. GW's poor rules writing and balance is the issue.

keithandor wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ok.....
Tournaments are about testing your best list against another opponents best list and finding out who is best/better
.

Best/better at what ? Cheese and Spam ?

It's been mentioned, but try taking any GT-winning list and win.

While there are lists and combinations that are CLEARLY better than others, that doesn't mean player skill isn't involved, from tactical to strategic decisions.

Oh boy you should see MTG tournaments. in one case among the 4 semifinalists there were 16 copies of Jace the Mind Sculptor between them.

For reference, a single player is only allowed a maximum of 4. And Jace, at the time, was one of the most expensive, non reserve list rares.

Literally the point of a tournament is to bring the "BEST" list and play with the best tactics you know/can do.

If the best lists are spam, then that means the game/units are not balanced, it has nothing to do with the tournaments.


If you dont like spam then you should do Highlander Tournaments

Spam is fun to eat. I fry spam up on trips and such. My grandfather and my god father loved it.

I mean, i actually personally like spam, makes it feel like a real unit/army lol.

Yeah, I find spam aesthetically and fluffily appealing for certain armies.

If you're not bringing your best to a tournament, then you shouldn't go.

I'd go to a tournament with an unoptimized list to play new opponents; but I'd have to accept the fact that I'm more likely to run up against lists that'll trounce me, then other unoptimized, fun seeking lists.

Also, read this: "Playing to Win" - http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

keithandor wrote:

Find the broken/too good for it's points stuff and take 10 of them , it's ridiculous.

that is how ALL turnys are for ALL mini games.
by doing it like that it comes down to the players ability to use the army and the dice roll/reroll.

like it has been said, if you dont like it dont play them. stick to campains that is fluff driven.

This is how it works for ALL games

its not exclusive to miniature games.

Cash money makes people really tune their gak till it gives them the absolute best chance of winning. then people copy those because all the work is done for them even if they dont know how to use it.

think Magic the gathering mana economy and card economy
CS GO strats and callouts and economy curves
all sorts of moba meta games

 Desubot wrote:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

keithandor wrote:

Find the broken/too good for it's points stuff and take 10 of them , it's ridiculous.

that is how ALL turnys are for ALL mini games.
by doing it like that it comes down to the players ability to use the army and the dice roll/reroll.

like it has been said, if you dont like it dont play them. stick to campains that is fluff driven.

This is how it works for ALL games

its not exclusive to miniature games.

Cash money makes people really tune their gak till it gives them the absolute best chance of winning. then people copy those because all the work is done for them even if they dont know how to use it.

think Magic the gathering mana economy and card economy
CS GO strats and callouts and economy curves
all sorts of moba meta games

There are many (but hard ot find if you loacl is small) places that will do things like Highlander, or 1 FoC tournaments, if you dont like using all the rules and want a toned down game, try one of those tournaments.

keithandor wrote:
Wow! , I tried a few tournaments.

The spam is ridiculous , why do tournaments allow spam , or why doesn't the game limit stuff ,8th seems like you can fit in whatever you want.?
Find the broken/too good for it's points stuff and take 10 of them , it's ridiculous.

Normal for any competitive game.

As for your suggestions, it doesn't work. Other games already limit things like this, as did Warhammer back in the day. Having Force Org charts or convoluted strategies that require a number of card types will simply result in even more cookie cutter builds. When you need 8 removal spells, 12 creatures, 24 land, 8 enchantments, and 4 artifacts in a 60 card deck, you're left with only 4 cards to actually customize your deck and make it unique from every other deck playing the same strategy. By allowing players to take anything they want, the game has actually opened up into a wide range of armies that differ greatly between them. Guilliman armies have no common formula other than they have Guilliman. Thousand Sons armies all have Magnus and Ahriman but that's where the similarities end. Some sport daemons, some spam Scarabs, some field thick blobs of Tzaangors, some ally in Obliterator detachments with Abaddon.

In the old days, when troop tax was mandatory, people fielded the cheapest squad of troops they possibly could to cover it. Two squads of cultists, done, 100 pts out of the list. Everything else spamming whatever's the biggest and baddest robot you have. Now we at least see some variety as everyone has their own idea of tactics and the meta is complex enough that counter armies aren't assured. Not like in 7th where you could rest assured that there would be super heavies on the battlefield and you absolutely needed some sort of D weapon or melta deep strikers.

This edition is the best yet!

The spam exploded in 6th for sure, double CADs to start, then formations thru 7th.

The only way this changes is to limit the tourney to a Brigade or battalion with one optional add on detachment. Some do this, but you have a hard time getting people to show up unless a large group like ITC or GW says it's the new normal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arkaine wrote:

keithandor wrote:
Wow! , I tried a few tournaments.

The spam is ridiculous , why do tournaments allow spam , or why doesn't the game limit stuff ,8th seems like you can fit in whatever you want.?
Find the broken/too good for it's points stuff and take 10 of them , it's ridiculous.

Normal for any competitive game.

As for your suggestions, it doesn't work. Other games already limit things like this, as did Warhammer back in the day. Having Force Org charts or convoluted strategies that require a number of card types will simply result in even more cookie cutter builds. When you need 8 removal spells, 12 creatures, 24 land, 8 enchantments, and 4 artifacts in a 60 card deck, you're left with only 4 cards to actually customize your deck and make it unique from every other deck playing the same strategy. By allowing players to take anything they want, the game has actually opened up into a wide range of armies that differ greatly between them. Guilliman armies have no common formula other than they have Guilliman. Thousand Sons armies all have Magnus and Ahriman but that's where the similarities end. Some sport daemons, some spam Scarabs, some field thick blobs of Tzaangors, some ally in Obliterator detachments with Abaddon.

In the old days, when troop tax was mandatory, people fielded the cheapest squad of troops they possibly could to cover it. Two squads of cultists, done, 100 pts out of the list. Everything else spamming whatever's the biggest and baddest robot you have. Now we at least see some variety as everyone has their own idea of tactics and the meta is complex enough that counter armies aren't assured. Not like in 7th where you could rest assured that there would be super heavies on the battlefield and you absolutely needed some sort of D weapon or melta deep strikers.

This edition is the best yet!

And those cookie cutter troop lists got stomped by good players. 5th was incredibly balanced until Matt Ward stuck acolytes and terminators into the troops slot and Phil stuck similar cheese into the troops slot.

keithandor wrote:
Wow! , I tried a few tournaments.

The spam is ridiculous , why do tournaments allow spam , or why doesn't the game limit stuff ,8th seems like you can fit in whatever you want.?
Find the broken/too good for it's points stuff and take 10 of them , it's ridiculous.

No matter what limits you place on a tournament, the players will find what they feel works best and flood the table. Game wide restrictions will hinder some armies more than others and is unfair.
Tournaments attract people who play to win, and they will go to great lengths to do so.

 gwarsh41 wrote:

keithandor wrote:
Wow! , I tried a few tournaments.

The spam is ridiculous , why do tournaments allow spam , or why doesn't the game limit stuff ,8th seems like you can fit in whatever you want.?
Find the broken/too good for it's points stuff and take 10 of them , it's ridiculous.

No matter what limits you place on a tournament, the players will find what they feel works best and flood the table. Game wide restrictions will hinder some armies more than others and is unfair.
Tournaments attract people who play to win, and they will go to great lengths to do so.

Not really unfair, just a different format. Magic the Gathering has cards that are great in standard, suck in draft, and are godlike in Commander. Depending on the format you will have some armies be better than others. It's not unfair too because GW already makes the base game lopsided in favor of Imperial Guard with Necrons crying about how much they suck. Shifting the rules around with limitations creates a new format and new meta for people to explore rather than the same tired old conscript spam.

The problem with tournaments isn't spam, nor is it broken lists, nor is it playing as hard as possible to win.

The problem with tournaments is when they infect casual games and narrative games and campaign games as well... so that the only mode you play has to be tournament-mode if you want a good game, because some players don't know when their tournament list isn't appropriate.

This is particularly telling in games workshop games where the balance is usually grotesquely bad.

 auticus wrote:

The problem with tournaments is when they infect casual games and narrative games and campaign games as well... so that the only mode you play has to be tournament-mode if you want a good game, because some players don't know when their tournament list isn't appropriate.

This is particularly telling in games workshop games where the balance is usually grotesquely bad.

Yeah and whenever I bring my casual magic decks to the store the standard players kill me in 3 turns and I can't do anything about it. Magic is so imbalanced man!

Or maybe that's just the case in every game that has enough variety and choice to create different lists/decks/etc... hell, WM/H was supposed to be the epitome of balance, and I have seen people getting stomped regularly without standing a chance, just because their list was not tournament grade. It's not a feature of GW specifically you know.

I know I can play a game of battletech casually and face an optimizer and not get destroyed. I did it last weekend. I've done it many times before that.

The whole concept of playing waac style in every venue and event and game despite it being a tournament or not is the problem. Its a culture problem.

Time and place for everything. Tournament lists should be consigned to the tournament hall. Campaigns and casual games should be free to run casual non-optimized lists and enjoy yourself.

Thats often not the case.

And GW games make it worse because their balance is pretty much the worst in most every tabletop game out there right now.

I never noticed it really with malifaux though. Usually its who best holds and plays their cards. I have seen some bizarre crews pull out wins that way.

keithandor wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ok.....
Tournaments are about testing your best list against another opponents best list and finding out who is best/better
.

Best/better at what ? Cheese and Spam ?

Yes.
Cheese and Spam.

Spam and cheese and spam.

Spam and cheese and bacon and eggs and spam.

ALL of the spam, as you have noted. It's something that hasn't changed in 15 years.

I still like unit requirements.

If you want that exarch you had to take a squad of aspect warriors.

Do more of that!

you want to take devestators you need to have a tac squad.

you want that tank you need to pair it with a transport

you want that character you need a command HQ squad, etc etc

Spam was always there but it wasn't noticable until 6th edition. This was because in 5th edition we were still restricted to a single FoC (and thus the only real spam you could do was troops) and the 0-1 limit was still somewhat being used. Before that you had to spam, since we didn't have the absolute buffet of units we have now. Most factions, especially newer ones, sometimes only had 1 or 2 choices in non-troop slots. Nids was the most lonely, with only 1 actual entry in the Elites section (The lack of entries there was helped by the fact that Warriors and Rippers switched roles depending on what they had).

Not to mention rank and file models were a lot more expensive back then. A bolter marine with both kinds of grenades ran at 18 points a pop, while Gaunts were 8-9 points and still considered "Swarms".

I remember back then a Terminator Lord, 2 squads of Chaos Marines, a terminator squad, a Raptor squad and a Chaos Dreadnought was considered a decently "Large" army. Nowaday it's just considered a "Good start".

40k Tournaments are try-hard fests..always have been and always will be.

They are for those that simply must prove they are the best at toy soldiers.

I don't really mind spam as most fluffy lists require some - except we just call it "theme".

One thing to remember, all games at a competitive level have some kind of spam. If you play modern MTG you basically have 4 of each card in your deck. Spam adds redundancy/consistency meaning that your outcomes are less random - which is exactly what you need when trying to win reliably.

As others have said, don't go to tournaments if you don't want to face optimized lists.

Minijack wrote:
40k Tournaments are try-hard fests..always have been and always will be.

They are for those that simply must prove they are the best at toy soldiers.

While the rest are doing what, playing kids games with toy soldiers? Proving that they are the best at painting toy soldiers? You are no better than tournament players just because you play with your toys in a different way.

Referring to the Magic the Gathering example, the balance there is the 4 named card per deck limit. This means that out of 60 cards you cannot have more than 4 of any one named card.

That type of restriction does not exist in 40k...

Ever heard the term, "Restriction breeds creativity"? Could be good for the competitive scene to apply a level of restriction to increase player enjoyment by having more variety in tournaments. Part of the skill test should be list building in my opinion anyway.

Examples of restrictions could be:

Max 3 of any one named unit type, i.e. Brimstone Horrors.
Max 1 of each Detachment type that does not include troops as core requirement.
Max 25% of army points spent of particular battlefield role (as per 2nd ed era) so no more than 25% HQ, Elites etc. Exception being Troops.

Just some thoughts and examples

fe40k wrote:
If you're not bringing your best to a tournament, then you shouldn't go.

I'd go to a tournament with an unoptimized list to play new opponents; but I'd have to accept the fact that I'm more likely to run up against lists that'll trounce me, then other unoptimized, fun seeking lists.

Also, read this: "Playing to Win" - http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/

Good call re Sirlin, to this day people thinking WAAC and playing to win are the same engrumples me worse than cooking shows instead of cartoons on Saturday morning TV


http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/introducingthe-scrub

Is a great explanation of the torny vs non-torny mindset, just sub all the SF terms with spam, optimal units and Gullyman etc

* note he uses the term WAAC but its not the same as our WAAC as cheating is kind of tricky in E-Sport

Minijack wrote:
40k Tournaments are try-hard fests..always have been and always will be.

They are for those that simply must prove they are the best at toy soldiers.

Yes, trying hard to win is exactly the point.

Are you suggesting that people don't try hard to win at tournaments for other games? Or are you suggesting that you shouldn't try hard to win at a competitive event?

For those bringing up Sirlin, I'm a fan of his writing but 40k (Warhammer of any flavor, actually) is 100% what he would consider a "degenerate game" because of how bad the imbalance is. It's not something that Sirlin's writing is really applicable to.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

keithandor wrote:

Find the broken/too good for it's points stuff and take 10 of them , it's ridiculous.

that is how ALL turnys are for ALL mini games.
by doing it like that it comes down to the players ability to use the army and the dice roll/reroll.

like it has been said, if you dont like it dont play them. stick to campains that is fluff driven.

This isn't 100% true. All tourneys are about taking the most optimized list. However, some games have rules in place that curb spamming to some extent. Malifaux for example has lots of unique models, other models that have a limit of say 3, and then some that have no limit at all, which tend to be on the less powerful end of things. In the end though either way you see the top lists rise to the top, they just aren't as spammy. So it comes down to how much it bothers you that the same unit gets repeated vs the same combination of units (i.e. every marine list becomes RG, 2 Preds, 2 Ravens, 2 Dev squads, 2 conscript squads etc.) I do think that "rare" limits on some units would be good for game balance (special characters have this now), but in the end it doesn't make the game a whole lot more fun unless all units are balanced. Which is really the key to killing spam, making all unit good.

Wayniac wrote:
For those bringing up Sirlin, I'm a fan of his writing but 40k (Warhammer of any flavor, actually) is 100% what he would consider a "degenerate game" because of how bad the imbalance is. It's not something that Sirlin's writing is really applicable to.

Agreed. Sharing the section from his site below for convenience.

Sirlin wrote:
When a game doesn't hold up to expert play, it's degenerate in some way. There's only one good move or one good character, or one good strategy, or something like that. The game offers what appears to be a lot of fun options, but you don't actually get to do those fun options against experts, even if you are an expert too. So for this type of game, playing to win really will make it less fun, but that's not a problem with the players who are doing their best; it's a problem with the game. I wouldn't fault players here or complain to them that they are playing in a boring way. I'd complain to the game developer or play a different game.

Wayniac wrote:
For those bringing up Sirlin, I'm a fan of his writing but 40k (Warhammer of any flavor, actually) is 100% what he would consider a "degenerate game" because of how bad the imbalance is. It's not something that Sirlin's writing is really applicable to.

That's a fair point, but even in a broken game picking the mosted busted options is the optimal choice for competitive formats, picking anything else is the "scrub"* choice

Are you claiming that there is only one good move or one good character or one good strategy in 40k? You should share it! I'm sure people would be fascinated to hear what that is.

Sarcasm and hyperbole aside, I think 40k can tend towards degeneracy due to the imbalance inherent in the huge number of units you can play and their - desirable and undesirable - interactions.

It's not "100% degenerate" though.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Minijack wrote:
40k Tournaments are try-hard fests..always have been and always will be.

They are for those that simply must prove they are the best at toy soldiers.

Yes, trying hard to win is exactly the point.

Are you suggesting that people don't try hard to win at tournaments for other games? Or are you suggesting that you shouldn't try hard to win at a competitive event?

All im saying is that its a hobby,not a sport .Many tournament players seem to think that its fine to throw the hobby aspect out the window,play with subpar "proxie models.terrible paint jobs and absolutely unfluffy army lists just in order to prove they are better at toy soldiers than their opponent when in reality,no one cares except the micro group of fellow try-hards around them.Sorry but its an attitude thats bad for the hobby as a whole.

Minijack wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Minijack wrote:
40k Tournaments are try-hard fests..always have been and always will be.

They are for those that simply must prove they are the best at toy soldiers.

Yes, trying hard to win is exactly the point.

Are you suggesting that people don't try hard to win at tournaments for other games? Or are you suggesting that you shouldn't try hard to win at a competitive event?

All im saying is that its a hobby,not a sport .Many tournament players seem to think that its fine to throw the hobby aspect out the window,play with subpar "proxie models.terrible paint jobs and absolutely unfluffy army lists just in order to prove they are better at toy soldiers than their opponent when in reality,no one cares except the micro group of fellow try-hards around them.Sorry but its an attitude thats bad for the hobby as a whole.

and your casual virtue signalling boswellox is somehow 'better' for 'the Hobby' because you say so, well that's me told, hallalubya I've seen the light

Minijack wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Minijack wrote:
40k Tournaments are try-hard fests..always have been and always will be.

They are for those that simply must prove they are the best at toy soldiers.

Yes, trying hard to win is exactly the point.

Are you suggesting that people don't try hard to win at tournaments for other games? Or are you suggesting that you shouldn't try hard to win at a competitive event?

All im saying is that its a hobby,not a sport .Many tournament players seem to think that its fine to throw the hobby aspect out the window,play with subpar "proxie models.terrible paint jobs and absolutely unfluffy army lists just in order to prove they are better at toy soldiers than their opponent when in reality,no one cares except the micro group of fellow try-hards around them.Sorry but its an attitude thats bad for the hobby as a whole.

And in the great vastness of space nothing is going to be disturbed by the fact that one group of 11 players manages to handle the ball slightly better than another group of 11 players, and yet people get in fights over who is better at kicking a ball.
You're not playing to impress the world at large. You're playing in whatever way you want to feed your own impulses first. Yet for some reason you have decided that if they don't enjoy the hobby like you do, it's bad for the hobby. I don't know what metrics you're using to say that, because I just don't see it.

Minijack wrote:

All im saying is that its a hobby,not a sport .Many tournament players seem to think that its fine to throw the hobby aspect out the window,play with subpar "proxie models.terrible paint jobs and absolutely unfluffy army lists just in order to prove they are better at toy soldiers than their opponent when in reality,no one cares except the micro group of fellow try-hards around them.Sorry but its an attitude thats bad for the hobby as a whole.

As far as I'm aware, most larger tournaments are filled with nothing but beautifully painted and converted armies.

Have you ever considered yours is the attitude that's bad for the hobby? You know, the attitude that gaks on other people's enjoyment? Sounds a lot more toxic than some like minded people getting together and playing the way they like to play.

You need to up your posting game.

Yeah, as someone who has attended larger tournaments (finally!) I am particularly offended by the idea that most tournament players throw the hobby out the window.

At worst, they put good money into making their armies look absolutely ace, and at best, they put their own blood, sweat, and tears into the models to make them look amazing.

I've put my own efforts into my models, and consider myself a hobby-focused individual, and I am put to shame by some of the best tournament players out there - not in gameplay, but in painting and modeling.

Competitive warhammer privileges spam because the people who are interested in competitive play are too simple minded to define the competition in terms besides spammy bs netlist ridiculousness.

The competition could easily be redefined in terms of army design and thematics, painting and modeling, sportsmanship and depth of awareness of the background along wit representing this awareness on the tabletop both in models and style of play and army composition.

Instead, competition is defined in then lowest common denominator as befits the mindset of the crowd that ruins the genre.

IMHO of course. Just an opinion.

 jeff white wrote:
Competitive warhammer privileges spam because the people who are interested in competitive play are too simple minded to define the competition in terms besides spammy bs netlist ridiculousness.

The competition could easily be redefined in terms of army design and thematics, painting and modeling, sportsmanship and depth of awareness of the background along wit representing this awareness on the tabletop both in models and style of play and army composition.

Instead, competition is defined in then lowest common denominator as befits the mindset of the crowd that ruins the genre.

IMHO of course. Just an opinion.

Uhm, what? I have been to tournaments that give out awards based on best painted, best sportsman, best theme, and even a quiz on background knowledge ("fluff") that earned prizes for those who got the questions right.

I am not a hyper-competitive player; just look at the "Now that the Imperial Guard Codex is out..." thread to watch me get yelled at for taking a suboptimal list because of fluff and theme.

And I still enjoy tournaments.

 jeff white wrote:
Competitive warhammer privileges spam because the people who are interested in competitive play are too simple minded to define the competition in terms besides spammy bs netlist ridiculousness.

Ah yes, because randomly selecting one of every unit type from your codex means you are of far superior intellect.

Tournaments and Competitive environments, by their nature, requires a WAAC mindset. That is just the nature of it since the entire point of a Tournament or a Competitive setting is to be the best. While I can understand being willing to lose in a casual environment and being a dick to bring something horribly powerful there, bringing your absolute best is sort of the price of entry for this sort of thing. If you dislike it, just don't participate in competitive scenarios (which is what I choose. I only attend "Friendly" tournaments where there is no prize on the line and is more or less an excuse for friends to gather once a week). It's like telling a Corporation that it's being a dick to defend it's IP....where it's literally required by law to do so.

That said, "spam" isn't just for competitive either. It's used in general listbuilding too. The more polite name would be "Target Saturation" and it literally means bringing extra copies of something specifically for them to eat cannon fire; if you only have one copy of a powerful unit, the enemy is going to focus everything on it from the word Go, but if you have three copies you'll at least stand a chance of one of them surviving to actually be used). Say I have 3 squads of 10 Berserkers; this is pretty damn expensive, but if I only took one squad and then took something else fancy, that one squad is liable to get shot to pieces before it reached combat. If I take 3, two of them might be shot to pieces, but the third one will make it into combat, and all I really need is one squad there to, as the vernacular goes, feth gak up.

The reason people hate spam is because of unit design; Often some unit is designed with either no weaknesses, a very small weakness, or is just flat out more cost effective at doing everything than the niche choices. This results in someone's army being essentially comprised of a single unit, with any "tax" units essentially being ignored even during the game. And when you have to fight something like 20 copies of the same thing, and everyone is bringing the same armies, it gets boring and repetitive extremely fast. This is why the Heldrake was hated in 6th edition; on top of being a frustrating thing to fight, almost every single chaos player had them in their armies with almost half of the points dedicated to them.

Take away the W/L record of the players in determining the "best player" and the whole dynamic of the tournament will change. Spammy net lists? Gone. Players who only care about winning? Mostly gone. Most will get it, but there are always some Alpha Level Hyper Competitive players that just can't understand the idea of playing in a tournament and W/L not meaning anything.

There was a time when tournaments ran by GW, the official ones, the GT's, where your W/L record only contributed about 35% to your overall score. Painting was judged, sportsmanship was judged, your army list was judged, and they would give a fluff quiz. Attending a GT was an amazing experience, and yeah, it had its issues, but compared to what we have now... I'd take a GT and all it's issues any day of the week compared to the that is out there now.

Unfortunately, those spammy lists and bad tournaments will only continue while the ITC and those power gamers that run it keep making decisions on how we should play our game.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Tournaments and Competitive environments, by their nature, requires a WAAC mindset. That is just the nature of it since the entire point of a Tournament or a Competitive setting is to be the best. While I can understand being willing to lose in a casual environment and being a dick to bring something horribly powerful there, bringing your absolute best is sort of the price of entry for this sort of thing. If you dislike it, just don't participate in competitive scenarios (which is what I choose. I only attend "Friendly" tournaments where there is no prize on the line and is more or less an excuse for friends to gather once a week). It's like telling a Corporation that it's being a dick to defend it's IP....where it's literally required by law to do so.

That said, "spam" isn't just for competitive either. It's used in general listbuilding too. The more polite name would be "Target Saturation" and it literally means bringing extra copies of something specifically for them to eat cannon fire; if you only have one copy of a powerful unit, the enemy is going to focus everything on it from the word Go, but if you have three copies you'll at least stand a chance of one of them surviving to actually be used). Say I have 3 squads of 10 Berserkers; this is pretty damn expensive, but if I only took one squad and then took something else fancy, that one squad is liable to get shot to pieces before it reached combat. If I take 3, two of them might be shot to pieces, but the third one will make it into combat, and all I really need is one squad there to, as the vernacular goes, feth gak up.

The reason people hate spam is because of unit design; Often some unit is designed with either no weaknesses, a very small weakness, or is just flat out more cost effective at doing everything than the niche choices. This results in someone's army being essentially comprised of a single unit, with any "tax" units essentially being ignored even during the game. And when you have to fight something like 20 copies of the same thing, and everyone is bringing the same armies, it gets boring and repetitive extremely fast. This is why the Heldrake was hated in 6th edition; on top of being a frustrating thing to fight, almost every single chaos player had them in their armies with almost half of the points dedicated to them.

Best at what? My sole point is that this is defined by the participants and organizers. There is a community of so called competitive players who determine what they want to be best at. Basically this is charging up a credit card to pay someone else to paint all the units necessary to break rules written by gw lackeys andn playtested by so called competitive industry people and ex MTG players. The result is WAAC as you demand it. Not the only way to do things however.

The reason I hate spam is because it is mindless abuse and exploitation. Misses the entire point of the hobby .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
Competitive warhammer privileges spam because the people who are interested in competitive play are too simple minded to define the competition in terms besides spammy bs netlist ridiculousness.

Ah yes, because randomly selecting one of every unit type from your codex means you are of far superior intellect.

Uh huh.
Except this is opposite what I intended so... Thanks for confirming my original point about simple minded WAAC idiocy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
Competitive warhammer privileges spam because the people who are interested in competitive play are too simple minded to define the competition in terms besides spammy bs netlist ridiculousness.

The competition could easily be redefined in terms of army design and thematics, painting and modeling, sportsmanship and depth of awareness of the background along wit representing this awareness on the tabletop both in models and style of play and army composition.

Instead, competition is defined in then lowest common denominator as befits the mindset of the crowd that ruins the genre.

IMHO of course. Just an opinion.

Uhm, what? I have been to tournaments that give out awards based on best painted, best sportsman, best theme, and even a quiz on background knowledge ("fluff") that earned prizes for those who got the questions right.

I am not a hyper-competitive player; just look at the "Now that the Imperial Guard Codex is out..." thread to watch me get yelled at for taking a suboptimal list because of fluff and theme.

And I still enjoy tournaments.

Yes there is that.
And it is welcome.
But not the point of the thread either...
So beside the point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Minijack wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Minijack wrote:
40k Tournaments are try-hard fests..always have been and always will be.

They are for those that simply must prove they are the best at toy soldiers.

Yes, trying hard to win is exactly the point.

Are you suggesting that people don't try hard to win at tournaments for other games? Or are you suggesting that you shouldn't try hard to win at a competitive event?

All im saying is that its a hobby,not a sport .Many tournament players seem to think that its fine to throw the hobby aspect out the window,play with subpar "proxie models.terrible paint jobs and absolutely unfluffy army lists just in order to prove they are better at toy soldiers than their opponent when in reality,no one cares except the micro group of fellow try-hards around them.Sorry but its an attitude thats bad for the hobby as a whole.

Absolutely this.
Exalted.

Oh Sirlin. Huge fan of his work, but there are definitely ways to take it too far and create a toxic community. The core mentality of reflecting on losses as a question of what you could have done differently first and foremost is a strong one though, while also recognizing that sometimes you just need to play a different game.

As for spam and 40k; tournaments have a lot of spam because 40k rewards spam, nothing more. It's a fault of the game's structure and how it simple it is from a decision making standpoint. There's not enough demand for a real variety of roles and it largely comes down to efficient DPS and target priority.

That's not to say the game can't be competitive, just that the competitive environment isn't likely to reward diversity. 8th edition is a huge step in the right direction though and I'll be curious if GW can recognize the opportunities it has to create release mechanisms for the core damage race of the game that will provide a more interesting competitive experience going forward.

Minijack wrote:
All im saying is that its a hobby,not a sport .

According to you. Since other people are happily defining it as a competitive discipline, this is clearly not a fact.

Be the best at whatever the goal of the tournament is. If it's just gameplay, there's absolutely nothing wrong with commissioning someone to build you your army. If it's a painting competition (even with strict guidelines) are you gonna penalize someone for buying expensive horsehair brushes when the other contestants are using cheap nylon ones? Or using the best paints he can afford in absolute wasteful ways if that's the only way to get results? Are you gonna denounce someone's conversion diorama because he bought 40 copies of the same expensive kit just for one tiny bit that appears nowhere else? WAAC stands for Win At All Cost, and that's a given in a tournament setting, especially if there's a prize on the line.

Taking it from another perspective. If you define your tournament with criteria that has fluff, painting, conversion as also contributing factors to win, then people will find ways to min-max those as well. If you don't restrict it, they will hire the most expensive painters to paint their armies, hire professional resin casters to produce custom, one-of-a-kind bitz for the models and probably hire a writer, analyist and literature professor to comb through the lore to write the best , fluffiest background for his army. Having a professional writer snob your self-written fanfic-esque lore for your own army is no different than losing a match because the other guy used the most broken unit choices in the game. You can pile on restrictions, and people will simply find ways around it. Again, Competitive Environments, by their very nature, encourages the WAAC Mindset.

If you don't like facing people who maximizes every tiny aspect of their army to "be the best" and make you feel inadequate (like me), then just choose not to participate in their tournaments. That kind of mindset is a legitimate way to approach the hobbies and Tournaments and competitive environments is the place to express that. My friend is colorblind, so she doesn't care about the visual aspects of the hobby (everything is more or less a "grey blob" as she describes it). But she's an accountant, and likes to min-max everything in her lists and likes to attend tournaments (not just 40k). I don't like any of that, so I just (politely) turn down her invitations to go to those events (or at the very least, just sit on the sidelines to cheer her on).

Again, no one is forcing people to attend these and they generally spell out the barrier of entry at the door. If you don't like it, just walk away. Don't stand outside shouting at them for being the devil's anus, that just makes everyone look bad.

EDIT: Also, if all the armies turns up being the same, the fault lies with the designers to make more diverse choices (like the Guard codex). When the MTG tournament ended up having 16 copies of Jace in it's semi-finals (like I mentioned before) WIzards ended up having to pull out an emergency ban right afterwards to stop that. it's something that the makers of the game has to do, not the players.

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 and RULE #2 - Alpharius]

Here was me thinking that there isn't actually anything wrong with tournaments. There are more tournaments being played than ever, more people involved in them and GW is actually talking about them on their various media platforms.

If anything, it's a great time for tournaments, especially considering 8th edition is the most tournament friendly edition of 40k ever (as well as being the most balanced edition so far)

Holy crap what is this!? Did someone just discover that people play competitively at a tournament? This who thread is not even needed it's just complain that power gaming lists are being used.

Back on Sirlin; one thing I find rather unfortunate is that the inflammatory nature of the scrub article tends to make it the one that really gets talked about. The problem with it is its nature makes it prone to being used by players of either side as an example of what's wrong with the other side rather than something that improves how people approach games.

I'm a much bigger fan of this series of articles:
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/balancing-multiplayer-games-part-1-definitions
In particular, being able to identify the absolute size of the pool of viable options in a game vs the percentage of options that are viable is really important to appreciating whether a game is competitively balanced or at the very least, how to best appreciate the game in a competitive environment.

The Scrub article issue is usually because people either see it as a personal attack rather than a rational argument advocating a competitive mindset IF you are in a competitive environment, or the other end of the spectrum read it as be a jerk to people who have no interest in competitive play, again wildly misreading the intention and once again muddling PTW with toysoldier WAAC

Minijack wrote:


All im saying is that its a hobby,not a sport .Many tournament players seem to think that its fine to throw the hobby aspect out the window,play with subpar "proxie models.terrible paint jobs and absolutely unfluffy army lists just in order to prove they are better at toy soldiers than their opponent when in reality,no one cares except the micro group of fellow try-hards around them.Sorry but its an attitude thats bad for the hobby as a whole.

The way they are playing is different to the way that you play, it doesn't make your way better. You aren't somehow more pure because you'll sacrifice army effectiveness for fluff.

People put different value on the various aspects of the hobby. Plenty put painting above everything else, tournament players put playing above everything else.

Personally, I like a careful balance of all of the aspects (yes you can have a list that is poweful and fluffy) but I can also adjust that balance to accommodate different opponents.

The key thing with any game is to play with people who have similar expectations. Playing with people who have clearly set out their expectations and then complaining that they don't meet yours make you the problem. (e.g. Complaining that people prioritise play over other aspects at a competitive event)

I think this sentiment is something purists who feel they own the hobby having come to it originally would think. Yet as anything progresses over time, it move away from the original vision. It evolves to suit the playerbase. The existing playerbase does treat the game as less of a hobby and more of a competitive sport. That may be unfortunate to those who only like collecting cool plastic toys but the competitive players are paying the bills and keeping the lights on for GW. These ugly Forge World monstrosities aren't selling for their looks, they sell because they're overpowered, and they can tell that by which ones are selling.

Eventually the game may stop being looked at as a hobby altogether and go full on competitive mode with rules written by actual lawyers. D&D used to be a beer and pretzel game too and then 3rd edition tried to make it hyper analytical and then they went back to beer and pretzels again.

I don't think that's true at all, I think there is a pretty good distribution of the community from full on competive right through to nothing but painting.

Certain portions of the community are much more visible though.

 Scott-S6 wrote:
I don't think that's true at all, I think there is a pretty good distribution of the community from full on competive right through to nothing but painting.

Certain portions of the community are much more visible though.

Competitive are always more visual on forums, they are the ones wanting and hunting out new info/combos and trying to learn "tricks".

Not saying painters and narrative players dont, just competitive clearly does.

People learning what a tourney is for the first time.

 Scott-S6 wrote:
I don't think that's true at all, I think there is a pretty good distribution of the community from full on competive right through to nothing but painting.

Certain portions of the community are much more visible though.

It's the vocal minority. Even just on this forum, generally the posts with the highest sodium levels tend to be all from the same group of people. The problem is anyone without an actual problem tend to not go to the forums to broadcast their mild agreeability. Like when was the last time someone started a thread just to say "this codex was decent and I had an ok game against it" rather than "OMGWTFBBQ I just got beat by this codex and GW is ruined FOREVER". So if your exposure to most of this is from the internet, it tends to paint a picture of people whining until their army is the strongest. Like screaming CoD players, for everyone one guy that is expelling a torrent of toxic waste into the internet, about a hundred more or so are just going about their day trying to enjoy the hobby.

Wait... why can't I enjoy painting and converting my models up really nicely and playing to win at the same time with my army that's actually pretty fluffy?

Why do people who get all butthurt when they lose badly in a tournament always end up assuming that painting and playing are mutually exclusive? I put more effort and care into my miniatures than anyone who's griped to me about their scrub mentality.

ITT: My idea of fun is different than other people's ideas of fun so they are wrong.

Fafnir wrote:Wait... why can't I enjoy painting and converting my models up really nicely and playing to win at the same time with my army that's actually pretty fluffy?

Why do people who get all butthurt when they lose badly in a tournament always end up assuming that painting and playing are mutually exclusive? I put more effort and care into my miniatures than anyone who's griped to me about their scrub mentality.

This is why -----v

Hoodwink wrote:ITT: My idea of fun is different than other people's ideas of fun so they are wrong.

You sir get an exalt.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
I don't think that's true at all, I think there is a pretty good distribution of the community from full on competive right through to nothing but painting.

Certain portions of the community are much more visible though.

It's the vocal minority. Even just on this forum, generally the posts with the highest sodium levels tend to be all from the same group of people. The problem is anyone without an actual problem tend to not go to the forums to broadcast their mild agreeability. Like when was the last time someone started a thread just to say "this codex was decent and I had an ok game against it" rather than "OMGWTFBBQ I just got beat by this codex and GW is ruined FOREVER". So if your exposure to most of this is from the internet, it tends to paint a picture of people whining until their army is the strongest. Like screaming CoD players, for everyone one guy that is expelling a torrent of toxic waste into the internet, about a hundred more or so are just going about their day trying to enjoy the hobby.

I think that's spot on. In my recent experience at a nearby GW store, the players are more or less stoked with the edition and don't play tournament-style lists. They're coming back to the hobby after a period of years, excited to use the minis of years past to take a crack at 8th. Maybe the scene is different in someone else's neck of the woods, but I've by and large seen happy players.

Not mine. The entire local area, multiple stores, plays rather competitive lists most of the time. There's a handful of players in the minority who play just for the fluff. We have at least 7 Magnus, 3 Mortarions, 6 Guilliman, and baneblades, conscripts, obliterators, etc. When 8th first came out we had four lists using Tzeentch daemons in the first tournament and it was won by a guy fielding 200 brimstones.

If you're in a densely populated state like Jersey you get more friction.

I frequent the hobby shop closest to me but the ones a bit further out where the rich people live sees regular use of multiple wraithknights, five knight formations, warlord titans in megabattles, all kinds of apocalypse nonsense, and Forge World up the wazoo. Death Krieg and Ad Mech players were top competitors recently due to the sheer numbers of Forge World dreadnoughts they brought with them.

At the the end of the day, this is a competitive game. 1 player vs 1 player, that's the nature of the game. If you include the game at all (you could just have a painting tournament, for eg), this is what it will boil down to. Then you get to the part where you make a competitive list - some armies fail automatically because they're not competitive compared to the others. Then you find the most competitive units, and spam them because they're clearly the best. This is a failing of the game, not the player. Most tournaments are cut-throat, in some instances (like certain e-sports) there are substantial cash prizes to be won. Why would you compete in a competitive environment if you weren't intending to compete?

 Torga_DW wrote:
At the the end of the day, this is a competitive game. 1 player vs 1 player, that's the nature of the game. If you include the game at all (you could just have a painting tournament, for eg), this is what it will boil down to. Then you get to the part where you make a competitive list - some armies fail automatically because they're not competitive compared to the others. Then you find the most competitive units, and spam them because they're clearly the best. This is a failing of the game, not the player. Most tournaments are cut-throat, in some instances (like certain e-sports) there are substantial cash prizes to be won. Why would you compete in a competitive environment if you weren't intending to compete?

The other problem with competitive environments is that a meta will always exist, no matter what you are evaluating.

For soft scores, for example, in the realm of painting, once you get past the level of "I can basecoat and wash my entire army", and into the level of people actually developing an aesthetic for their army, there are going to be certain stylistic inclinations that will resonate better with judges. I'm sure we all remember that nebulous period when everyone and their dog made everything non-metallic metal (especially things that really didn't need to be). Now we're on to a phase where everything is done with poorly done exaggerated object source lighting now that airbrushes are becoming more commonplace. Metas exist in any environment where competition can be derived. At least in a game with specifically defined (or, less specifically so, knowing GW) rules, those metas become more objectively defined.

It's for this same reason that I think that no tournament worth their salt should ever include their soft scores in a metric for determining the overall winner of a tournament, with the exception of potential tie breaking. When I aim to win best painted, and I aim to win the tournament, I'm gearing up for two different things, and two different aspects of enjoyment of the hobby. Everyone enjoys them in different measure, and no one should be expected to hold them to some arbitrary standard of balance.

Not everyone should go to tournaments. If somebody is both a bad loser and a bad player they should probably stay away. Trouble is, some folks are not self-aware of being either. They blame their losses on their opponents or "the system" instead of reflecting on their own mistakes in list-building and game play. At a tournament you must prepare in order to win and also be prepared to lose at the same time. Part of being a good player at a tournament is building a good list. Some folks are not good at that or don't even think about list construction. They can have a very hard time winning. If they are bad losers they will then vent their frustration against their opponent, probably with passive-aggressive remarks about "cheese" and "spam" and "waac." Don't worry - I've caught myself starting to do that from time to time. We can all have bad days. I find though, that we are all pretty good winners - we are usually gracious with each other. Perhaps part of being a good winner is letting the losing opponent vent his frustration without making a big deal of it.

I've played in a number of tournaments both local and national through the past twenty years. My first real FOW (Flames of War) games were actually in a tournament. My first 40K V6 games were also in a tournament (I'd taken a roughly two year 40K hiatus - took another one for 7th). Both of those tournaments were disasters in terms of won-loss, but I had fun and learned the meta. I recall that my first opponent in the 40K V6 tournament looked at my list and apologized before the game began. I laughed and said that what was about to happen was my fault - not his! It wasn't pretty, but I learned some good lessons.

Part of the fun of a tournament is building the list. If you find that you didn't build a good list, build a better one next time!

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Not everyone should go to tournaments. If somebody is both a bad loser and a bad player they should probably stay away. Trouble is, some folks are not self-aware of being either. They blame their losses on their opponents or "the system" instead of reflecting on their own mistakes in list-building and game play. At a tournament you must prepare in order to win and also be prepared to lose at the same time. Part of being a good player at a tournament is building a good list. Some folks are not good at that or don't even think about list construction. They can have a very hard time winning. If they are bad losers they will then vent their frustration against their opponent, probably with passive-aggressive remarks about "cheese" and "spam" and "waac." Don't worry - I've caught myself starting to do that from time to time. We can all have bad days. I find though, that we are all pretty good winners - we are usually gracious with each other. Perhaps part of being a good winner is letting the losing opponent vent his frustration without making a big deal of it.

I've played in a number of tournaments both local and national through the past twenty years. My first real FOW (Flames of War) games were actually in a tournament. My first 40K V6 games were also in a tournament (I'd taken a roughly two year 40K hiatus - took another one for 7th). Both of those tournaments were disasters in terms of won-loss, but I had fun and learned the meta. I recall that my first opponent in the 40K V6 tournament looked at my list and apologized before the game began. I laughed and said that what was about to happen was my fault - not his! It wasn't pretty, but I learned some good lessons.

Part of the fun of a tournament is building the list. If you find that you didn't build a good list, build a better one next time!

Amen to that.
Nothing wrong with tournaments, the fault lies with players who can't tell the difference between serious and casual - and I mean that for both sides, a casual at all costs player in a tournament is little better than a WAAC TFG bashing newbies.

Well, 40k is just a game for casual play not for tournament play.
The player base have asked for a tournament rule set several time, but GW have never made efforts in this direction. Dont take the tourneys too serious!
Compare this with PP's steamroller. Great ruleset.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, 40k is just a game for casual play not for tournament play.
The player base have asked for a tournament rule set several time, but GW have never made efforts in this direction. Dont take the tourneys too serious!
Compare this with PP's steamroller. Great ruleset.

And yet tournaments are regularly organised for 40k, if you don't like them don't go - is somebody guilt tripping you into making numbers?

As others have already stated. 40k is a casual game not a turnament game in the competitive meaning.
I would never play in a competitive 40k tournament again.

Contrary to that i would happily be a part of any Infinity tournament since it has a great ruleset, is far better balanced than 40k and that personal game skill matters allot more.

Bubbalicious wrote:
As others have already stated. 40k is a casual game not a turnament game in the competitive meaning.
I would never play in a competitive 40k tournament again.

Contrary to that i would happily be a part of any Infinity tournament since it has a great ruleset, is far better balanced than 40k and that personal game skill matters allot more.

The game is what the players make it....... For many its not casual. What about it makes it "Only" casual? thats a opinionated question and has no merit/bases to anything in the 40k BRB, the BRB literally says you play it how you want, if i want to be hyper competitive then i'm playing by the same rules as a super casual player.

40k is and will always be both, just b.c you dont like it one way doesnt mean others dont.

Edit: Spelling.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
The game is what the players make it....... For many its not casual. What about it makes it "Only" casual? thats a opinionated question and has no merit/bases to anything in the 40k BRB, the BRB literally says you play it how you want, if i want to be hyper competitive then i'm playing by the same rules as a super casual player.

40k is and will always be both, just b.c you dont like it one way doesnt mean others dont.

Edit: Spelling.

The ruleset is what makes it casual. It's not tight enough or balanced enough to be a suitable tournament game. The randomness factor is also quite high compared to more competitive games.

It's a game that relies on mutual understanding and gentlemen's agreements.

That doesn't mean you can't play it ultra competitively if you want to, but it's obviously not designed for that.

Note that this doesn't mean I wouldn't appreciate a 40k more conducive to conpetitive play, I would be all for that. It's just not what we have right now.

 Cream Tea wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
The game is what the players make it....... For many its not casual. What about it makes it "Only" casual? thats a opinionated question and has no merit/bases to anything in the 40k BRB, the BRB literally says you play it how you want, if i want to be hyper competitive then i'm playing by the same rules as a super casual player.

40k is and will always be both, just b.c you dont like it one way doesnt mean others dont.

Edit: Spelling.

The ruleset is what makes it casual. It's not tight enough or balanced enough to be a suitable tournament game. The randomness factor is also quite high compared to more competitive games.

It's a game that relies on mutual understanding and gentlemen's agreements.

That doesn't mean you can't play it ultra competitively if you want to, but it's obviously not designed for that.

Note that this doesn't mean I wouldn't appreciate a 40k more conducive to conpetitive play, I would be all for that. It's just not what we have right now.

Again the rules say it is comp and casual.... "It's a game that relies on mutual understanding and gentlemen's agreements." You literally just agreed with me right here.

Just b.c it isnt balanced doesnt mean it isnt Comp.... I mean look at Esports, they are highly competetive with hundreds of thousands as dollars for winners, and yet all those games also are not balanced and has "better characters, items etc.."

Being balanced isnt a merit of "Its competitive or not"

Edit: Spelling

 Amishprn86 wrote:


The game is what the players make it....... For many its not casual. What about it makes it "Only" casual? thats a opinionated question and has no merit/bases to anything in the 40k BRB, the BRB literally says you play it how you want, if i want to be hyper competitive then i'm playing by the same rules as a super casual player.

40k is and will always be both, just b.c you dont like it one way doesnt mean others dont.

Edit: Spelling.

A game is what the ruleset makes i to be not what a player wants it to be. And of course the rulebook from the company making it will say its both, it would be dumb saying its just one or the other as it would lower potential sales. Just because a company says one thing doesn't mean it is.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Again the rules say it is comp and casual.... "It's a game that relies on mutual understanding and gentlemen's agreements." You literally just agreed with me right here.

Just b.c it isnt balanced doesnt mean it isnt Comp.... I mean look at Esports, they are highly competetive with hundreds of thousands as dollars for winners, and yet all those games also are not balanced and has "better characters, items etc.."

Being balanced isnt a merit of "Its competitive or not"

Edit: Spelling

You can play 40k competitively, just like you can almost any game. That doesn't mean they're all suited for it, and I don't think 40k is.

Look at e-sports, why did Starcraft become such an e-sports phenomenon? Mostly because of the excellent game balance.

 Cream Tea wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Again the rules say it is comp and casual.... "It's a game that relies on mutual understanding and gentlemen's agreements." You literally just agreed with me right here.

Just b.c it isnt balanced doesnt mean it isnt Comp.... I mean look at Esports, they are highly competetive with hundreds of thousands as dollars for winners, and yet all those games also are not balanced and has "better characters, items etc.."

Being balanced isnt a merit of "Its competitive or not"

Edit: Spelling

You can play 40k competitively, just like you can almost any game. That doesn't mean they're all suited for it, and I don't think 40k is.

Look at e-sports, why did Starcraft become such an e-sports phenomenon? Mostly because of the excellent game balance.

Yes that 1 game, but look at many others.. they are not. But if you look at the community, many dont agree even starcraft is balanced. You might think it is, but many others dont (Depending when you asked, they added some maps and there was exploits that took a bit to fix and some units removed, they do TRY to be balance and it is clear they try to be, i will give you that).

Again, thats b,c its an opinion and has no merit on what is competitive and not.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, 40k is just a game for casual play not for tournament play.
The player base have asked for a tournament rule set several time, but GW have never made efforts in this direction. Dont take the tourneys too serious!
Compare this with PP's steamroller. Great ruleset.

And yet tournaments are regularly organised for 40k, if you don't like them don't go - is somebody guilt tripping you into making numbers?

Well, I have organized local tournaments here during the last years.
So I know what I'm talking about and before this I have won more local tournies than I have attended (almost - but impossible due to the pigeon hole principle).

IGOUGO makes it not competitive, can hardly believe they're still using this format

Surely not all tournaments have to be the same? There has to be plenty in the player base to warrant all manner of tournaments. A T.O. can offer as many restrictions as he wants to. Mono factions, single detachments, etc, etc. It doesn't have to be fully open every time.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:


And yet tournaments are regularly organised for 40k, if you don't like them don't go - is somebody guilt tripping you into making numbers?

There're tournaments for rock-paper-scissor, mobile phone throwing, air sex and toe wrestling too. Just because people make tournaments for something, doesn't mean whatever they make the tournament for is really suited for that "competitively" (as opposed to just having a laugh).



Organised 40K events work best in the spirit of a vintage cars / oldtimer rally. People go there to marvel at the nice cars (armies) people brought and the enjoy the vista along a nice scenic route. Crossing the finish line first is irrelevant.

Trying to win an oldtimer rally at all cost by using random spare parts from 20 different vintage cars to build some pseudo-racing car that's faster than the rest and perhaps qualifies thanks to non-watertight regulations not designed for Formula 1-type competitions kinda misses the point of the whole event.

Speaking of Rock, Paper, Scissor, there are even tournaments for that. LOL and yes there is strategies for it too.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Speaking of Rock, Paper, Scissor, there are even tournaments for that. LOL and yes there is strategies for it too.

Yes. But just because tournaments for it exist and some strategies can be used, doesn't make it particularly suited for dead-serious competitiveness or a skill challenge on par with winning, say, a major chess tournament.

It's still silly to be a "hard-core competitive rock-paper-scissor" guy as opposed to seeing it as a bit of a laugh.

Wonderwolf wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Speaking of Rock, Paper, Scissor, there are even tournaments for that. LOL and yes there is strategies for it too.

Yes. But just because tournaments for it exist and some strategies can be used, doesn't make it particularly suited for dead-serious competitiveness or a skill challenge on par with winning, say, a major chess tournament.

It's still silly to be a "hard-core competitive rock-paper-scissor" guy as opposed to seeing it as a bit of a laugh.

Silly yes, but same are serious about it. lol

If you go to a competitive tournament, what do you expect?
More so if there are high end prizes up for grabs.
Naturally you will see stacked lists spamming the most broken combinations possible.

However, not all tournaments are based around power lists.
You'll find alot of casual style tournaments that promote themed lists as opposed to OTT ones.
The second of which are also penalised to try and prevent it.


If you want some fun and good games, go to a more casual tournament.
If you want big prizes and to throw out everything you can with a solid list, go for the competitive tournaments.





Either way, I'm not biased with these.
Serious gaming can be good fun.
However, so can casual when you can chill out, have a drink and have some fun.

I agree that 40K was not designed to be a tournament system - 2nd Edition only worked at tournaments with some major surgery to the rules. I think that 40K was designed to be played by friends, maybe with some beer and some good laughs. Having said that, tournaments have certainly become a part of the game. I think that some editions have tried to cater to tournaments more than others - I am not sure which direction this set has gone. I feel that the 8th Edition core rules were written with friends in mind, while the FAQs are attempts to make it more tournament friendly. I think that 40K tournaments can certainly work. The fun that a player has will depend in a large part on his mindset. Going to a local tournament can be a great way to get some games in against new opponents and make some new friends, especially if you check your ego at the door and avoid snide comments when you lose.

I enjoy tournaments, but I think that team tournaments bring out the worst in gamers quicker/easier than other formats. In a one-on-one format you are totally responsible for your conduct. In a team context there is some group absolution and also peer pressure to win. They can be great fun, but you need to be ready for some shenanigans. I wouldn't recommend them to a first-time tourney player who is somewhat reluctant.

At our local tournaments the store owner and/or organizer will give a little public service announcement about conduct at the start. Seal-clubbing and boorish behaviour will earn a quiet warning, followed by sterner action if required. If I'm the TO (Flames of War) I won't play and I will walk around to check the barometer of sportsmanship. If I see something weird I will hang around that table and make sure that nothing really bad is going down (like a Vet rules-bending with a newbie) or tempers getting really heated. Prizes are a random draw. I think its a pretty good place to test the waters regarding tournaments, but not every community has the same conditions.

Cheers

T2B is basically completely right. Do any of you guys remember when the hyper competitive crowd basically ran a public push with internet personalities at the fore to eradicate soft scores from the community? A lot of us (especially those also playing Fantasy) warned you about this and why it was a terrible idea. Now you are seeing the long term results and its probably irreversible at this point.

You could try to do what the euros did and come up with an extra layer of rules and points (see ETC in fantasy), but really all you are doing is making another set of rules for the ethically flexible guys to distort. A small measure of soft scores (and separate awards for overall and best general so "those guys" play in their own corner for that award) solves this. But that door got slammed shut when a small but vocal group quite literally drove out all soft scores from general use in the community. The game is simply never going to be polished or balanced enough to be the Warmahordes/X-Wing kind of game that can exist without some anti-D-Bag mechanisms in place.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Spam doesnt equal Ability to win. An inexperianced player can still lose with spam.

See also: The winning list of a recent tournament held six of a unit that is considered by many players here to be some of the weakest units in the game, Tactical Marines. Even if they are weak (which, in spite of the very loud and fervent cries otherwise, is in dispute), the list made them win as the player is very skilled in using them as the primary infantry unit in the list.

 Melissia wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Spam doesnt equal Ability to win. An inexperianced player can still lose with spam.

See also: The winning list of a recent tournament held six of a unit that is considered by many players here to be some of the weakest units in the game, Tactical Marines. Even if they are weak (which, in spite of the very loud and fervent cries otherwise, is in dispute), the list made them win as the player is very skilled in using them as the primary infantry unit in the list.

He also took Gulliman, a unit considered by many players here to be the strongest unit in the game.

The list wouldn't have worked without Gulliman - plain and simple.

The Lascannons go from [6 shots, 4 hits, 2-3 wounds] to... [6 shots, 6 hits, 6 wounds]. Significant difference. Gulliman is just that powerful - rerolling ALL hits and ALL wounds is insane; Salamanders trait, all the time, on every model, every shot.

Yes, the 6! Razorbacks will do significant work, and were another reason the list worked, even without Gulliman's aura. They're rock solid dakka monsters that do a lot of work, at a super cheap points cost.

But don't fool yourself into thinking that 6 Tactical Squads+Lascannons are anywhere near the same level as 6 Tactical Squads+Lascannons+Gulliman.

Oh, and nevermind that Gulliman can CC any monster or model (superheavy or otherwise) that comes to threaten his circle of marines - throw the "lives until the close combat is over" strategem on top of that; there's no risk of him not doing his job, ever.

 Phazael wrote:
The game is simply never going to be polished or balanced enough to be the Warmahordes/X-Wing kind of game that can exist without some anti-D-Bag mechanisms in place.

True enough but then the chief method of being a D-bag is playing Space Marines since they traditionally get all the cool toys and strong dex. Or play Eldar if you want to as brokenly abusive as possible. Or play Orks if you want to suck.

It's not about who is or isn't being a D-bag. It's that the game started out without these superhuman primarchs or mega tanks and things still weren't balanced. So they add a new toy for the factions feeling weak and then those factions ACTUALLY BRING THEM! Chaos was a powerful codex in 3.5 and they were complained into being nerfed, even undoing the great victory they had earned in the Eye of Terror campaign. I think the fact of the matter is that even soft cores don't like to lose and the Space Marine players complained when it was their turn to have their backs against the wall. Oh sure, it's all beer and pretzels till someone loses a land raider.

After enough crowdpleasing, the game is where it is. You're welcome not to bring super competitive lists or only stick to Rhinos and Tacs. But then you're denying yourself Spartan Assault Tanks, Deredeo Dreadnoughts, Stormravens, Grav cannons, Centurions, Hellblasters, Fire Raptors, and all the other spam that hits the table. Guilliman, Magnus, and Knights aren't the only things we see that is broken. Conscripts proved that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and I forgot the most broken units in the game in my opinion... Officio Assassinorum. Culexus and Vindicare especially are fielded frequently and completely shutdown entire lists solo. Talk about game-changing broken balance, these singular units can upend the game by themselves at minuscule point costs and ONLY IMPERIUM CAN TAKE THEM! Now if I see my opponent has a Culexus and I'm playing Thousand Sons, I just pick up my models and find a new opponent. Oh you brought Grey Knights against an all Daemon list? Sweet, let me help you kill me faster.

fe40k wrote:
The list wouldn't have worked without Gulliman - plain and simple.

Actually, I'm pretty sure it would, as you'd still have additional points to spend on other things to make up for it. Guilliman is powerful, but he still needs things to buff, and those things to buff still are useful on their own.

Making excuses in order to make yourself feel like the underdog isn't very convincing.

 Melissia wrote:

fe40k wrote:
The list wouldn't have worked without Gulliman - plain and simple.

Actually, I'm pretty sure it would, as you'd still have additional points to spend on other things to make up for it. Guilliman is powerful, but he still needs things to buff, and those things to buff still are useful on their own.

Making excuses in order to make yourself feel like the underdog isn't very convincing.

Guilliman is OP, nobody is discusing that.
But people is still in the old mindset of units being powerfull on their own. Is obviously that we are in the age of Sinergyhammer.
"But without guilliman they suck!" yeah and without savage roar, Force of Nature was useless, but combined they where one of the most OP combos of Hearthstone before being nerfed.

I'll add that personally I prefer for units to be usefull on their own foot, and sinergies opening you more tactical and powerfull choices in-game. But we can't deny the importance of sinergies in the game right now.
So basically Melissia is right. You can't say "That list without Guilliman is useless" because thats not how this game works. Is based in sinergy.

Spamming is an issue because 40k gameplay is so incredibly shallow that you really have no reason to take anything other than the best power/toughness/cost ratio unit. Tactically complex games see less spam even when some units are less balanced on paper because you need different things to accomplish different objectives.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Spamming is an issue because 40k gameplay is so incredibly shallow that you really have no reason to take anything other than the best power/toughness/cost ratio unit. Tactically complex games see less spam even when some units are less balanced on paper because you need different things to accomplish different objectives.

But many times smap makes it more fun and even amazing looking. Would you call a Nid player spam list if he took, 6 units of Gants with 2 HT's, 3 units of Carnifex's and a Malanthrope? No you wouldnt its only when players do this with "good" units that it becomes spam.

The Warhammer world day 1 number 1 lists was 6 Tac Squads, 6 Transports, a Flyer and 3 different HQ's, that is spam, but its a "real" army and looks like a spam skirmish army.
That nid list is 4 different units, that SM one is 6, but i bet many players would be more happy to see the nids list even tho its more of a "spam" list.

Spam isnt the problem, some spam is good spam, some is bad. The problem is imbalances in points.

And as for this Match, it was poor knowledge of the players part as to what was about to happen. And sometimes there is still Rock, Paper, Scissor matches, sometimes you are just counter and other times you counter hard.

Infinity The Game is less spamm unit wise,, it allows reaction to every action at every step of the way and its vely limited in points so the army/squad sizes are small. BUT WITHIN ITS limits people still spam the best unit for the job because if you play a certain way you have to get the best bang for your buck so spam still occurs.

Back to 40K. im a returning player from 3 and 4th edition. (kids family etc got in the way) I picked up 8th ed and dusted off my old army and realised i had a spam of grenade launchers in every squad. Plasma was waay to expensive and killed you on a 1 role so all my regular TROOPS had grenade launchers. In the age of templates he bad BS of the guard made these GL extremely valuable because it bypassed the roll and you took your chances with the scatter roll.

I look at it now and GLs are useless. 5 points for a GL vs 7 points for a plasma. and plasma is SAFE unless you press that little red button on the side.
so i dont know how GL usefulness had decreased over the last few editions i did not play but i dont even know who woud use GL on guardsmen anymore. i have about 12-15 models i have to convert and find some plasma rifles to glue on instead of the grenade launchers.

so if I wanted to be fluffy i could leave them on but even as a fluff think about a defense directorate who are considering cost efficiency in their army why woyuld they issue GLs when they do less across the board of target profile they are compared against than any other special weapon option and the cheap plasma is better against ALL target profiles overall. so the army would have just issued plasma really.
the wording should really be changed that a Infantry Squad consists of 1 Sgt, 1 Plasma gunner and 8 soldiers and give the option to the plasma gunner to replace his plasma with a lasgun or flamer

In pursuit of BEST naturally it comes down to statistics and the rules in any game don't stand up to sheer weight of the optimal goal pursuit of the players looking to win. I don't blame them because its the nature of the beast.
If chess allowed you to pick any model to use in your army you would have 1 king and15 queens on the board and there will be mayhem. no tactical play and the one that goes first will almost always win because it will be a trade battle. each queen will trade like for like and the only variation you have is who goes first and where the initial trade happens because once majority queens are traded your endgame is not very interesting.
but even chess is balanced there are some openings that are BETTER than others both for WHITE and BLACK and some counters to an opening may throw the game. but this is at grand-master level. Not everyone knows all openings and counters. some time a fluffy opening you enjoy playing because its your playstyle may throw off an oponent who doesnt know what you are doing and you may win.
But equally matched opponents who know what they are doing will likely chose a play that has a lot more chances to lead to a win than a play that's "i like this because its fluffy to my army play style".

i have gotten off track. i appologise. but you cannot remove spam. even if you came down hard on limiting troops numbers and taxing troop choices with command squads again etc etc people will still find the wining combinations and use them.

I dont see a problem really. If I wanted to be a competitive bodybuilder I know i have to go down the steroid path if i wanted to win. If I wanted to un-fluff my 3rd ed army or re-fluff the plasma a plenty 8th ed im working on i would have to go down the plasma spam path. because i have no choice if i want to win. its human nature.

if i was playing for fun and just said forget about plasma being the bees knees my commander loves grenade launchers and that's all we have. no plasma spam. i could play this army for fun and would be just as much fun as rolling a Dungeons and Dragons character using only 3d6 for attributes and rolling them in order. sure it will be a unique character but chances are of him being SUPER AWESOME POWERHOUSE are slim to none..definitely unique though and fun to play if you don't want to be super competitive between the payers in the group of who has the highers DPS or kill count etc but if you wanted to b a specific class with high attribute in a specific stat then this wont be as fun and it may not even work.

so the decision is simple. Do you want to be a tournament player? if yes then do what the Romans do and spam and play the meta until it changes and change with it. If NO then enjoy your modeling, converting painting and playing and maybe those Grenade launchers will end up being awesome when you use them