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.

I agree that most US tournaments are uncompetitive. I actually posted a thread about this a while back, but it's mostly for pretty much the same sorts of reasons outlined above: bad scenarios, inconsistent points, inconsistent rules, etc. If people want to have truly competitive 40k in the United States, they should look at establishing some kind of consistent format for their events. At the very least, they should settle on points costs and rules and drop the wacky scenarios.

Fetterkey wrote:'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.

I have to agree. Me and my opponents played tiddly winks and listened to some of my old Beatles albums instead of playing. It was quite grand to say the least. I love Abbey Road dearly.

G

I do not agree that missions should be standardized. If every tournament rant he same missions from the rulebook, the tournament lists would quickly de-evolve into a low number of lists that win those missions. Take the last edition where everything was victory points. Those missions limited the number of viable winning tournament lists.

I am not interested in having a tournament scene which constricts list building to 3-4 possible builds. That does not appeal to me. I want a tournament scene where players must prepare for the unexpected and be able to adapt midgame to a change. The best 40k players can adapt on the fly to the mission, the table and the player standing across from them.

I do not want to play in a system that rewards list building over game playing and mission variety leads to better game playing.

Darth

He is trying to make the game into something it was never intended to be.

G

I also take exception to the notion that a community of learners who deconstruct army lists and build a consensus of top choices in armies will enhance competitive play. Maybe in MTG, but not in the REAL professional sports.

In football no one was going to try the Wildcat until Miami beat New England with it and even then teams were skeptical and didn't include it in thier play package. Even now teams know that the Wildcat will only work with certain teams who have certain players.

I don't want to share everything I know about 40k just to enhance someone elses game. If the goal is to make the tournaments more competitive then I'm not telling you anything. Competitive means I win and I win when I know something you don't.

Now if the goal is to make tournaments non-competitive, then you take away the goal of winning the tournament and I don't care what you know about my army. But as long as it is a competition I will try to win and winning involves not telling you everything. Maybe the MTG players missed the boat on that one.

I don't see Bill Belichek going over Livie Smiths offensive playbook before the Bears play the Patriots and pointing out to Lovie some plays that won't work as well. Hell no you find that out on your own.

After being in the finals of the 'ard boyz for 3 years the reasons it is NOT competitive is mainly due to the fact that a lot of people dont get to finish their games

Ive said it before, if all players do not get to play a full game at a competitive event then the event cannot be used to determine *anything*

40K isn't designed for this 'competitive' tourney scene. The game system simply will not handle it. If that is what folks are looking for, they will be sorely disappointed. Folks need to accept this.

I agree w/ Sarigar and Kirasu.

Same, as I keep saying.

I am not saying this to be hostile but if you are not good at something it is easy to rationalize this by saying that it is not competitive.

G

No offense taken for my part (I'm no competitive player, not even close). So would you argue that 40k as it is could be or already is as competitive as a MTG tournament?

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.

For the record, Marc isnt a hobbyist....he's a gamer. He does interesting conversions with a completely average tournament paintjob...but only in order to get what he wants to feild.

Enforcing most of Timmah's posts...Marc constructs a list based on the best units he can bring. His theory differs from Stelek in that a unit doesnt have to be good at anti-armour AND anti-infantry if its horrendously effective and points efficient at one or the other. (preferably anti-infantry)

Since he's probably the winningest known tournament goer we have to draw example from (even over Stelek) I beleive this is significant.

However, its also significant that someone mentioned that occasionally the best competetive build may not suit particular players.

Marc has a sisters list right now that he totally cleans house with. ULTRA-competetive according to him. I own the exact same list since we've worked on it together.

Now I'm a competent gamer, I can typically place within the top 1-10 players in a major tournament if I'm bringing a list I'm practiced with...and this ULTRA-competetive sisters list is simply eluding me considering the trouble I've had with it at local RTT's (not nearly as competetive as a national tourney).

Fact is...its really not my playstyle, so I'm going to require lots of practice to totally shift my playstyle inorder to utilise the list to its utmost. I like elite shooty lists. A archetype that really doesnt lend itself well to BIG wins at tournament typically.

I'm probably almost as good a 40k player as Marc (we've played together and been in the hobby for some 14 years or so) but he enjoys army lists that are much more condusive to winning than I do. He's always been "quantity over quality" where I've been all about elite lists.

What I'm saying, is that the most effective army choices may make a great list....for the right player. If you can bring a marine list using the "best-of" theory, if it matches your playstyle, and if you're practiced with it...you may do well. (thats assuming "best-of" lists really are, which hasnt been proven on any level) Then again, if including some "crappy" units in your army really match your demeanor and playstyle, you can prolly do well with those as well if you're practiced with the army. Problem is, you may eventually run into an equal calibur player in tournament and his army build may be more efficent than yours. If this happens your only chance would probably be in who's more experienced with their army. Experience trumps EVERYTHING pretty much in all aspects of life, 40k is no exception.

Blackmoor is obviously excellent with his Eldar. He includes units which others may not feel are good choices. Thing is, the army matches his playstyle. If he goes up against Marc at a tournament, and Marc is using one of his armies designed to win at Tournament, Marc will probably demolish Blackmoor. Why? Because Marc favors armies that are designed with cost effective units first and he isnt distracted EVER by cool models or interesting fluff. He also chooses codexes based on this, not "I like eldar and want to play them". On the other hand, Blackmoor's been playing his eldar for a long time now, if this encounter has Marc bringing a new list that he's experimenting with trying to get the hang of... Blackmoor's experience may pay off and bring home a win.

I think a lot of people in this thread are right in their points to a certain extent. The truth is probably a little bit of what everyone here is saying.

Manchu wrote:No offense taken for my part (I'm no competitive player, not even close). So would you argue that 40k as it is could be or already is as competitive as a MTG tournament?

You need to stop comparing 40k with MtG. They are nothing alike at all.

G

I agree with both of you.

GBF has it right, that a lot of people who leave competitive play do so because they are no good.
On the other hand the 40k system is too varied to produce a true competitive system. So while you can play competitively, I dont think the rules are as tightened up as they need to be for that kind of playing in a circuit type system. And lets be honest. When most of us regular tourney types go to a tournament its for the competition, not the prizes.

What i love about 40k competitive playing is this. As Diggler said you have to adapt on the fly. The mission and match up can absolutely screw that nasty army you spent hours building. So build something that can take anyone and play it as best as possible.

My belief is that it will never be as competitive as M;TG. For every one player with DarthDiggler's approach, there are five more who go to tournaments for reasons besides winning.

Until you have a tournament scene that's solely dedicated to people playing just to win, it's not going to be a hugely competitive scene. And if you do get a situation where everyone is playing just to win, I'm not sure many people would really enjoy that environment.

Green Blow Fly wrote:

Manchu wrote:No offense taken for my part (I'm no competitive player, not even close). So would you argue that 40k as it is could be or already is as competitive as a MTG tournament?

You need to stop comparing 40k with MtG. They are nothing alike at all.

G

Uh, I think you'll find that I said that pages ago. In this case, MTG is a useful comparison because I'm not talking about the games themselves but the kinds of tournaments they get. You see, that's called a contrast and it means that I'm emphasizing the differences between them. I tried to take your insulting one-liner as seriously as possible but it seems you just like dropping "pearls of wisdom."

To wit:

Manchu wrote:

Timmah wrote:MTG has a lot of similar things to 40k in its competitiveness.

I've been called on this comparison myself (not by Eidolon) and have to admit it's a shaky one, especially about competitiveness. Isn't one of the biggest complaints, especially from Stelek, that GW has intentionally undermined competitiveness in 40k? That's quite the reverse of Wizard's policy toward Magic, at least at its heart of hearts.

Green Blow Fly wrote:

Manchu wrote:No offense taken for my part (I'm no competitive player, not even close). So would you argue that 40k as it is could be or already is as competitive as a MTG tournament?

You need to stop comparing 40k with MtG. They are nothing alike at all.

G

Correct. MtG is largely competitive (despite its barriers to entry), while 40k isn't.

Redbeard wrote:Until you have a tournament scene that's solely dedicated to people playing just to win, it's not going to be a hugely competitive scene. And if you do get a situation where everyone is playing just to win, I'm not sure many people would really enjoy that environment.

And this is what I've been saying. No coincidence that I started thinking about this from reading RedBeard's comments on Jervis.

@Fetterkey: See above.

Redbeard wrote:
I'm not sure many people would really enjoy that environment.

Why not? They seem to in most other tournament environments. Now I agree a lot of the casual gamers might be turned of, but I would bet it would bring in a huge influx of players if GW did actually make it into a competitive environment like MTG.

darthdiggler wrote:
I also take exception to the notion that a community of learners who deconstruct army lists and build a consensus of top choices in armies will enhance competitive play. Maybe in MTG, but not in the REAL professional sports.

In football no one was going to try the Wildcat until Miami beat New England with it and even then teams were skeptical and didn't include it in thier play package. Even now teams know that the Wildcat will only work with certain teams who have certain players.

This is what we in most pro sports and pro e-sports ect would call a meta game call or innovation. Sure its not as obvious in football. But it happens in everything. Sure there might be agreed upon top lists/ playbooks but its not like these guys have always thought of everything. In Starcraft there is basically an agreed upon set of builds that are the most competitive for each race and same with a lot of different competitive games.

It does't ruin the sport or stop innovation, if anything it encourages it. Because people are always trying to get a leg up on the top builds.

Fetterkey wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:

Manchu wrote:No offense taken for my part (I'm no competitive player, not even close). So would you argue that 40k as it is could be or already is as competitive as a MTG tournament?

You need to stop comparing 40k with MtG. They are nothing alike at all.

G

Correct. MtG is largely competitive (despite its barriers to entry), while 40k isn't.

MTG is competitive in a linear/binary way. 40K is competitive in a more creative free flowing way like sports.

I think a big step to making 40k more competitive would be to work on a more circuit level style. Maybe even implement a global ranking system similar to the USCF or DCI.

What I'm trying to say is that in a 100+ player 3 game tournament, such as Adepticon's Sunday tournament, it benefits a player to bring a Rock-Paper-Scissor army and just hope they get three decent matchups. Bringing an all comers list doesn't work as well here. Situations like that are a much bigger gamble.

To make the game more competitive there would need to be more rounds so that players are forced to bring more well rounded lists and to see who ends up coming out on top.

If GTs were 8 games with a 5 game qualifier and a 3 game final between the top 8 players I think we could get a better field of competition.

I'd also like to disagree strongly with some sentiments I've read here that stated that M:tG is somehow more skill oriented than 40k. I like Magic and would never turn down a booster draft of a core set but when I played competitively it was more about knowing how to play your deck than any actual skill in playing. 40k has many more options and requires a lot more thought and long term planning instead of counting on a combo going off and working. It's also why I'm not a fan of WarMachine anymore, even though I played for almost 4 years, because the game is less skill dependent than it is about knowing how your army plays.

I'd rather play the game instead of the deck or army playing it for me.

As far as i know starcraft has 3 races and has had the exact same units for the last 10 years. Yeah if you had codex marines, codex eldar, and codex orks. The game had a tightly written ruleset, and nothing was ever really changed it would be a lot like starcraft. But its not.
You have around 10 armies.
You have the ability to mix units from different armies
You have way more unit diversity and army diversity
You have a larger rule set.
You have new dexs coming out every 5 months or so, changing the game up by a fair margin. So its much more fluid then starcraft.

In the end of the day its you vs the opponent. Mission, army etc make a difference. But there are too many variables for meta to be a solid rock paper scissors in 40k.

Deadshane1 wrote:
What I'm saying, is that the most effective army choices may make a great list....for the right player.

Experience trumps EVERYTHING pretty much in all aspects of life, 40k is no exception.

I think that the notion that Marc is using a different methodology to determine unit value than the "common internet wisdom" that is prevalent, and that his particular method takes into account either his play-style, or his ability to be flexible in play-style is decidedly interesting.

To couple with the concept of "experience" playing the game is additionally intriguing. There are a great many tactical depths to 40K that I've found more familiar players are experienced with than are apparent at first blush. Blackmoor's "reactive" (no YOU go first) methods that are apparent in his battle reports reflect one of these lessons that entail "gaming" within the rules.

I find this kind of discussion interesting and valuable. However, I am frustrated by opinions that by talking about the game, and educating players One reduces one's chance to win. This ultimately turns the hobby into a very closed-rank mentality of gamesmanship. This may be an outgrowth of the kinds of folks that play with little plastic men. But it is a culture that I feel needs to change.

skipmcne wrote:

I find this kind of discussion interesting and valuable. However, I am frustrated by opinions that by talking about the game, and educating players One reduces one's chance to win. This ultimately turns the hobby into a very closed-rank mentality of gamesmanship. This may be an outgrowth of the kinds of folks that play with little plastic men. But it is a culture that I feel needs to change.

This was kinda one of my initial points. The community as a whole doesn't really work together that much. They then blame things like, the game being too diverse, to really come to a decision on best lists or strategies and such. MTG in type1 is 10x as diverse as 40k and yet it has a very defined meta game. (it also has a lot of outliers and meta game decks and rogue decks)

Again this fits in with being bull headed. Once people believe they have "arrived" they seem to become closed off and think only their opinion is valid and everyone else is just and internet scrub who knows nothing.


I think a set of 50 ish scenarios that all the big tournaments draw from would go a long way in promoting a more competitive environment. Much like maps in starcraft. It would make it so people wouldn't go into a major tournament and get completely screwed because of some weird rules that wouldn't ever happen anywhere else. (like no terrain).

DarthDiggler wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:

Manchu wrote:No offense taken for my part (I'm no competitive player, not even close). So would you argue that 40k as it is could be or already is as competitive as a MTG tournament?

You need to stop comparing 40k with MtG. They are nothing alike at all.

G

Correct. MtG is largely competitive (despite its barriers to entry), while 40k isn't.

MTG is competitive in a linear/binary way. 40K is competitive in a more creative free flowing way like sports.

Your both half right. MTG is written with highly competetive rules, because Wizzards can make lots of money on a tournament, so the rules are written to foster a competetive game. GW has never made too much money running tournaments, so they never wrote highly competetive rules. It's always been about selling models for them.

However, despite the rules people PLAY each game both competetively and for fun.

I disagree with the sports analogy though, in football noone ever argues about what's a goal and what isn't a goal, it's clearly defined and spelled out. Field conditions might make it confusing, but the actual rules are clear. (Gwar! would argue that the BGB is very clear....but I don't )

If no one argues about football rules why do they have instant replay? Why do they have ref's then? Both sides could tell who was holding on the play and both sides could give the player a penalty flag. Both sides are competitive and want to win and thus think their side can do no wrong. The more compeititve you want ti then the more we will need refs to watch every move and every game. Right now tourney judges just handle organization and a few rules questions, but they are not expected to police every move of every game. that happens in pro sports.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I think when I mentioned competive play in the quote above I was thinking from a tactical standpoint and not the competition level. I misspoke on that one.

Deadshane1 wrote:

Blackmoor is obviously excellent with his Eldar. He includes units which others may not feel are good choices. Thing is, the army matches his playstyle. If he goes up against Marc at a tournament, and Marc is using one of his armies designed to win at Tournament, Marc will probably demolish Blackmoor. Why? Because Marc favors armies that are designed with cost effective units first and he isnt distracted EVER by cool models or interesting fluff. He also chooses codexes based on this, not "I like eldar and want to play them". On the other hand, Blackmoor's been playing his eldar for a long time now, if this encounter has Marc bringing a new list that he's experimenting with trying to get the hang of... Blackmoor's experience may pay off and bring home a win.

Actually what happened was that we tied. (His orks vs. my Eldar)

Fetterkey wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:

Manchu wrote:No offense taken for my part (I'm no competitive player, not even close). So would you argue that 40k as it is could be or already is as competitive as a MTG tournament?

You need to stop comparing 40k with MtG. They are nothing alike at all.

G

Correct. MtG is largely competitive (despite its barriers to entry), while 40k isn't.

"I like peanut butter."

"I hate those purple shorts of yours!"

Opinions, no more valid than yours above. It's great you feel that way but it doesn't really change anything. But if it makes you feel jazzed then good for ya mate!

G


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadshane1 wrote:

I'm probably almost as good a 40k player as Marc...

Timmah wrote:
This was kinda one of my initial points. The community as a whole doesn't really work together that much. They then blame things like, the game being too diverse, to really come to a decision on best lists or strategies and such. MTG in type1 is 10x as diverse as 40k and yet it has a very defined meta game. (it also has a lot of outliers and meta game decks and rogue decks)

MtG Type 1? Format where pretty much all top decks have same 9 cards? Are you kidding?

And I am constantly amazed that YOU of all people accuse others being bullheaded, when you standard list critique seems to be "This list blows. You must have played weak opponents". Have you ever considered that there just MIGHT be more than one approach of making strong lists?

Backfire wrote:

MtG Type 1? Format where pretty much all top decks have same 9 cards? Are you kidding?

And I am constantly amazed that YOU of all people accuse others being bullheaded, when you standard list critique seems to be "This list blows. You must have played weak opponents". Have you ever considered that there just MIGHT be more than one approach of making strong lists?

First off, please don't pretend you understand type 1 unless you have played it. Because they have 9 cards in common does not make them even close to the same deck. That is like saying; "Your list runs troops? so does mine! We must be running the same list!"

Secondly, I already said I am very bull headed when it comes to what I think is good. However I am always for critiquing lists and talking about what I think is good or bad (usually this one). People get very offended on here though if your opinion differs from theirs.


As continued evidence to the closed off ness of the community. When was the last time the top 8 lists from a euro GT or big US tournament were published? This constantly happens in MTG and it makes the community better. Because it opens up new ideas and new ways of thinking.