Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Redbeard wrote:
Magic doesn't have these considerations [(playing to win/ for fun) (Terrain) (Mission Objectives)]. Skill is much more of a factor in Magic.

You cannot randomly lose one game - you play at least two against each opponent. You can't win after playing 3 matches, you're generally playing 8 just to get to the finals. This alone makes skill a far greater factor in a Magic tournament, as everyone suffers bad luck (whether dice or draws) from time to time. Playing 24 games in a tournament means that any one bit of bad luck gets lost in the mix. Playing three games of 40k??

This is why it is so much harder to analyze skill/builds in 40k. The best build may have had one bad turn, at the beginning of the tournament. His opponent's dice got randomly hot and he lost half his firepower before he took a turn. Now he's playing lower tables for the next three games, and whatever data his list was going to generate is completely lost by this one bad turn. His final result is middle-of-the-pack, and no one will post his results, or list, after the fact.

To Paraphrase, Perhaps a tournament is not the ideal location to attempt to determine the "best" list or "most skillful player".

After all, there are variables that you cannot control when planning to go to a tournament : [(Folks playing for fun) (Terrain) (Mission Objectives)].
The sample size and ranking system do not foster the reduction of random luck : (small sample size).
The Random Mechanic in 40K distributes results too much : ("Hot Dice")

Another difference with MTG is that in a 40K tournament you get to play 3 or 5 rounds, which is generally not enough to have a good functioning swiss match up. It is all too possible to never even have played against other high scoring armies.

Timmah wrote:What is ridiculous about this statement is that in EVERY other competitive game, the "pros" always use the best things. In MTG they play the best decks, in WC3 they use the best races (so very few pro UD players), In Halo they use the most effective weapons.

Redbeard has already summed up a lot of my thoughts on this rather eloquently, but I thought it was worth coming back to...

There is a very big difference between competitive 40K, and most other competitive games: Prize money.

MTG players tend to play hard, because even minor regional events are just seen as practice for the big money events. Although even there, as others have pointed out, you have your share of players just using the deck that happen to own, and playing for the fun if it. But the pros do indeed tend to play the most optimal deck they can, because they're in it to win.

40K doesn't have that. There is no $10000 national event. While a lot of tourney players are in it to win, playing to win a trophy and a few free miniatures just doesn't have the same drive. And I would very much doubt there are any 'pros' in the competitive 40K scene. It's largely just made up of gamers playing for the fun of it. I've heard any number of gamers say that they enter 40K tournies purely because it lets them get in a more-or-less regular game, when they wouldn't have time to get along to a regular gaming club. Winning is just a bonus.


So 'improving' the competitive 40K scene isn't as simple as telling everyone that their lists suck. You first have to convince them that the competitive 40K scene actually even needs improving. Then you need to make the event worth playing to win.

And even then, you're not going to get everyone to agree on which list is the best.

Some things about list-building are true though - it is an important part of your strategy.

Knowing what to expect and preparing appropriately for it is itself part of the strategy of 40k.

Its important in any strategy game to find the correct answer in your arsenal to your opponents threats, and present your threats in a way that is hard to answer. Good list building can provide the most reliable answers to the worst threats.

Simply put, if you don't come equipped with a good enough answer to a severe threat, you are going to lose.

But, its also important to know that list building is a smaller part of 40k than it is in say MTG. This is because there are a lot more decisions to make throughout the course of a game of 40k, and the army list has much less influence on the chance factor.

Blackmoor wrote:

Do you know what my theory is? That people who depend on the hardest lists to win are new players who are often a little deficient in the skill arena and they use those lists to make up for their short comings. So what happens is that they win by over powering their local opponents and they don't learn good fundamental tactics so when they get to large tournaments they end up getting out-played by people who are better players.

Wait, so because I take the best possible list I'm a bad player?

lolwut?

Yeah, no. This argument just doesn't fly at all.

Bunker wrote:Wait, so because I take the best possible list I'm a bad player?

That's not what he said.

He specifically referred to people who depend on having the best list in order to win.



I've come across a few like that over the years. They build what they think is an optimal list (often just downloaded from the net) and then can't understand why it doesn't always win.

The point that I think Blackmoor was trying to make was simply that having an optimal list doesn't make you a good player. Being a good player does.

But conversely, having an optimal list doesn't make you a bad player. Being unable to win without it might.

Well to me he reads that "optimized" lists are generally all about theory. In practice, you'll find that you may prefer something that isn't exactly in tune with theory and tweek the list gradually. Over time your list will evolve to suite your particular style of play - thus making it not a carbon copy of a net list.

New players looking to win are likely to grab a net list. Due to the inherent power in these lists which are made by someone with experience, the list will likely be easy to play against lists without the right answers. Playing against opponents without the right answers does not help evolve tactics to fight people who do bring the right answers.

Granted, Blackmoor generalized it to all net-listers, but he made a good point.

But shouldn't you depend on having the best list to win?

I don't understand how you think that bringing anything less than the best possible list to a tournament is a good idea.

I think there are pro players in 40k. Suppose you have a popular blog/forum/website and the money made from advertisements pays the costs for club members to travel across the country and play in big events.

G

Bunker wrote:But shouldn't you depend on having the best list to win?

I don't understand how you think that bringing anything less than the best possible list to a tournament is a good idea.

Here is how. Lets say that "the best" is 5% better than what you are using. But, your experience with what you are using increases the "output" you get in performance with the one you use by 10%. Strictly speaking, the better choice is better in a vacuum, but why switch to it when you use the slightly inferior option much better?

Then you come to the question of "best". There are so many factors such as terrain, opposition armies, dice rolls, scenarios etc that change the "Best" in a particular situation that its hard to agree on a universal best.

Bunker wrote:But shouldn't you depend on having the best list to win?

That really depends on your intent in entering the event in the first place.

I don't understand how you think that bringing anything less than the best possible list to a tournament is a good idea.

It's a good idea if that sub-optimal list is one that you find more enjayable to play with, and you're entering for the joy of playing rather than from a driving need to win.

It's also a good idea if your intent is to see if you can do any good with a sub-optimal list. There's a certain challenge in using what you have, rather than what would necessarily be the best for the given situation.


But the point wasn't that it's a good idea to bring a sub-optimal list. It's that a good player shouldn't need an optimal list to do well.

That's particularly true when the focus is more on playing a good game than it is on winning the event.

The best list is what you are best with though. Its not some godfather of army lists that beats any other list out there. Its what you feel you are the best at using.

insaniak wrote:

I don't understand how you think that bringing anything less than the best possible list to a tournament is a good idea.

It's a good idea if that sub-optimal list is one that you find more enjayable to play with, and you're entering for the joy of playing rather than from a driving need to win.

This is exactly it. I've entered plenty of tournaments with lists that I've known to be sub-optimal. Part of it is wanting to spend a day gaming. Part of it is often wanting to play with something I just finished painting. Personally, I take much more pride in how my army looks than how it performs on a given day. Once the game starts, I'll play my hardest to win with what I have, but I'd rather win best painted than best general, and I make list choices with that in mind. I'll bring a kick-ass conversion with a good paintjob and nice banner because I know that will score me painting points, rather than bringing another uber-unit.

Some of us have a different slant on what the 'best possible' list is - to me, it's a list that looks good.

We need more gamers like redbeard.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:We need more gamers like redbeard.

G

Don't think that Redbeard is soft.

He crushed me in the Adepticon Gladiator with his orks.

insaniak wrote:
So 'improving' the competitive 40K scene isn't as simple as telling everyone that their lists suck. You first have to convince them that the competitive 40K scene actually even needs improving. Then you need to make the event worth playing to win.

And even then, you're not going to get everyone to agree on which list is the best.

The Last bit is most likely due to (IMO) the inability of a typical one-day or two-day tournament to sufficiently separate the wheat from the chaff. An Inter/National Ranking system would help; but would require a good bit of administration.

Even with Game to game tracking, you would have a difficult time determining "good" lists without mass buy-in (Meaning I register one list, and play it and record all W-L-D against other ranked players from it, to get enough samples to make a meaningful determination).

Couple a system like that with prize money, and now you'd be talking.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
The thing that strikes me as most profound from this discussion is the overwhelming need to categorize, determine value and discard. Coupled with the group-think that List building is 60-80% of the game.

Granted; you can't win without a "good list". But I think the common determination for "fitness" of a list may be fundamentally flawed; (or at-least driven by strong personalities making sweeping generalizations).

Allan I know Redbeard quite well. I read his posts and we have had our share of discussions regarding 40k. What I said wasn't meant to come across that we need more baby seals, it was meant as a compliment to the attitude in general he brings to the game. I find Redbeard to be a very knowledgable gamer in general.

G

Blackmoor wrote:

Gren Eggz & Spam wrote:
We need more gamers like Redbeard.

G

Don't think that Redbeard is soft.

He crushed me in the Adepticon Gladiator with his orks.

that's what happens when you go meta. His orks were designed to foil the most prevalent meta lists.

G

For those folks who think one should bring the hardest list they can, no one is stopping you. Winning with these lists may help your position. Lack of knowledge with the army may be the problem, but these 'best of' armylist aren't anything new. The concept has been around for quite some time.

For those folks who don't bring the hardest list, again, no one is stopping you. Enjoy playing and don't let anyone dictate what is right or wrong to bring to the table.

At the end of the day, the larger tourneys (for the most part) are filled with a bunch of folks who have planned the trip well in advance and take the opportunity to get together with friends and roll some dice. It's a blast to see very cool armies and if you can place, great. If not, not a big deal. Discussions about tourney armies and what's the most ideal is simply a fun way to pass the time. There's not much more to it than that. Nobody is making any money in these events as cost of travel/hotels/food far outweighs any winnings.

At the end of the day, the 40K rules/codexes are simply not written well enough to have a real tourney circuit. If folks are really wanting a tourney circuit with full prize support, I don't believe you will be satisfied playing 40K.

If a tourney circuit were implemented today, I think this would be a huge mistake. Even without money on the table, folks simply can not agree on GW FAQs, indy FAQs, mission parameters, terrain usage, what seems 'broken' b/c GW can't seem to keep up with codex production, etc... At the end of the day, I think there would still be a lot of hurt feelings and less enjoyment of the hobby. This, IMO, would be what would drive folks away. Then, what sites would I visit on the internet

And after 20 years of playing 40K, I'm still not bored with the game b/c of not having a tourney circuit. I play the armies I like to build; some I win with, some I don't. At the end of the day, I still come back to play the game and I like to discuss all things 40K. I may not fit within GW's target customer, but I don't really get all that bothered with their business model. They have cool stuff for me to build and paint and I still enjoy playing the game.

skkipper wrote:

some top players and yes these guys consistently finish high in most events they attend.

Marc p.
Mike M.
Scott s.
Greg S.
Bill K.

there thats five, each one of these have multiple "big" event Wins.

Sorry, looks like I missed this one a few pages back, but I still think it's a point worth addressing.

I specifically asked for players who have won major tournaments this year. Which respective tournaments did players on this list win, and who won multiple events? That was the question.

Furthermore, it still does nothing to refute the point that winning hobbyist competitions affirms your position as a good hobbyist, not a good tournament player. While the tournament is part of the overall competition, it is ONLY a part. For instance, winning a triathlon doesn't mean you're the best swimmer in the world. It means you're the best triathlon athlete.

Edit: typos

There was no GW GT circuits this year. Marc won best general at the Necro. That was the only GT he entered this year. Seeing that he has 6-7 best overalls under his belt you can't say he is not a great player, he is.

G

Yes, he's a very good hobbyist and also a very good player, but to use hobby competitions as a metric for measuring best competitive players is obviously inappropriate for the reasons already stated.

Well, that's another problem. How do you separate out the good hobbyists and the good competitors? Remember how people get so upset about unpainetd armies at 'Ard Boyz?

Manchu wrote:Well, that's another problem. How do you separate out the good hobbyists and the good competitors? Remember how people get so upset about unpainetd armies at 'Ard Boyz?

That's what happens when people attend an event they're not interested in. 'Ard Boyz is not a hobbyist competition so it's only natural that hobbyists will be frustrated by the scoring which focuses only one aspect of the hobby to the exclusion of all others. Frankly, I've never understood these people. It's completely analogous to those 40k gamers who have no interest in competitive play, but insist on participating in tournaments anyway. Then they complain about how (over-)competitive everyone was. Well, no gak--it's a competitive event.

Yeah, very true. But I don't want to get us too far afield on 'Ard Boyz. What I meant was that 40k is not generally (big spenders aside) a game that you can just pick up and play. There are models to assemble and (sometimes) paint. Even the most successful competitors are also hobbyists, right? I think that factors in to 40k not really being a tourney game, at least not under Jervis. I don't want to jump right back into the fire, but I think that is why people have trouble with 'Ard Boyz. It runs counter to the rest of the scene by emphasizing competitiveness (apparently) over and against hobby. I guess it can be blamed in part on Jervis but it seems like there is a huge block of players (or at least internet pundits) who strongly oppose 40k becoming more competitive or even having set rule interpretations.

Danny Internets wrote:Yes, he's a very good hobbyist and also a very good player, but to use hobby competitions as a metric for measuring best competitive players is obviously inappropriate for the reasons already stated.

to me marc is a pure gamer. Do you know him personally? Have you played him?

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:Yes, he's a very good hobbyist and also a very good player, but to use hobby competitions as a metric for measuring best competitive players is obviously inappropriate for the reasons already stated.

to me marc is a pure gamer. Do you know him personally? Have you played him?

G

you forgot a Great Guy to GBF

'Ard Boyz isn't actually a competitive event, though. I would trust the Best General scores from almost any major non-comp 1750-2000 tournament over the 'Ard Boyz results.

Green Blow Fly wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:Yes, he's a very good hobbyist and also a very good player, but to use hobby competitions as a metric for measuring best competitive players is obviously inappropriate for the reasons already stated.

to me marc is a pure gamer. Do you know him personally? Have you played him?

G

I have not, however one who consistently performs well in hobby competitions is, by definition, a proficient hobbyist.

'Ard Boyz isn't actually a competitive event, though.

How would you define a competitive event? What in particular about the 'Ard Boyz tournament was not competitive?

'Ard Boyz is not a competitive 40k event because it doesn't represent the way competitive 40k is actually played-- the parameters for 'Ard Boyz are so different from those used in normal games of 40k and in almost all other tournaments that they make 'Ard Boyz essentially a category all its own in terms of lists, tactics, etc. In particular, 'Ard Boyz has horrible scenarios that skew what lists are chosen, rules that differ from how 40k is played elsewhere, and a silly points value that makes the viable armies very different from what's seen in standard play.

'Ard Boyz would be much more competitive if they brought the points down to 2000 and used only the basic scenarios from the rulebook.

I agree with your criticisms, though I still feel it was a competitive event (so some extent).

Major US tournaments feature points levels generally ranging from 1500 to 2000 so there is hardly a standard, though obviously whatever standard range might be agreed upon the 2500 limit in 'Ard Boyz is still clearly outside of that. However, I would argue that the jump from 1500 to 2000 is far more dramatic than the jump from 2000 to 2500. I think this minimizes the effect that the higher points limit had on the environmental validity of the competition, at least relative to other tournaments.

The scenarios were somewhat oddball, but not nearly as badly skewed as in previous years, or as in many other indie GTs (BoLScon, for example). Any argument that 'Ard Boyz was uncompetitive because of the scenarios would apply doubly to many of the other supposedly competitive US tournaments, unless you consider many of them uncompetitive as well (in which case we'd be in agreement).

I'm just trying to flesh out your points a bit, not really disagree with them. I don't think the US tournament scene is competitive at all because of some of the same problems that you take with the 'Ard Boyz tournament.