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 don’t post online often, but I thought that I would after such a great event.

I want to thank Chip for running a smooth tournament and putting together such an amazing field of competitors.

I want to thank a dapper Mike Brandt for judging a tight, fair, un-timed final.

I want to thank the rest of the Judges for taking time out of their weekends to judge our early round games.

Finally, I want to thank all of my opponents Geoff Robinson, Nick Nanavati, Matt Schuchman, John Parsons and Matt DeFranza for remarkable games. It was an honor to play against each of you.

-Tim

Congratulations, Tim! Great achievement in that field!

bogalubov wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:

bogalubov wrote:
The argument that we should not change things simply because we've always done them this way is not a compelling one for me.

I think the point he's trying to make is that it is compelling when things have been successful to continue along the thought processes that have led to them being successful.

The events Greg listed have been growing year in and year out. For us to believe that we've been growing as a result of doing it all wrong is a little silly. Further, "change" for the sake of it isn't exactly a good suggestion.

All that said, I think it would be better to take a wider view at what various events are doing (Because most are doing a variety of things to address the present meta) than to suggest only one or none have done anything ... b/c the latter suggestion is actually patently and provably false.

I'm not sure if I've heard the saying in the context of not altering your behavior in the face of success. Perhaps that's just human greed, a desire to alter things that work to make them better.

Also, without extensive polling it's hard to ascribe the reason for event growth. I would guess that the growth has more to do with the growth of the online community. Awareness of events and their advertising has certainly grown thanks to a greater online presence. I doubt that events have grown because of GWs stellar rules for 40k. However, I have no data to back that up either. So I will stick with my assumption that doing things the same way simply because that's the way they've always been done is not a helpful argument.

I also never implied that only one or two events are doing something about the rules. I pointed out one event that used a poll to drive their changes as an example that there is community wide desire to reshape the rules to eliminate some of the ridiculousness.

Throughtout the thread I've simply argued that I don't think deathstars are fun to play against. As most people will continue to use broken rules since they feel like they have no other choice to win, larger structural changes to the game are necessary. Waiting for GW to release more untested rules to shake up the meta is not helpful. As the company is clearly giving the reigns to the consumers about how to play the game, we should take them. Anyone who is willing to take on that challenge has my support.

Ultimately, that's your opinion. 200+ People travelled to Las Vegas to play with/against Deathstars, so please don't impose your idea of fun upon others like it's the gospel truth.

11th company talks about Tof invational !
http://www.tangtwo.com/11thcompany/episodes.cfm

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:

Ultimately, that's your opinion. 200+ People travelled to Las Vegas to play with/against Deathstars, so please don't impose your idea of fun upon others like it's the gospel truth.

The participants did travel to Las Vegas and there were death stars present at the event. Saying that people travelled to play against death stars is a pretty big assumption about the motivations of these individuals.

On the other hand, the fact that over half the participants voted to change 2++ re-roll to 2++/4++ is a glimpse at the attitude of the players. Heck, the LVO/BAO mission format already indicates that players don't agree with how GW wants us to play the game.

Why is every list broken? Every winner of a tourney a power gamer with an OP list? Put Alex's LVO winning list in the hands of all the crybabies whining about broken list and watch it fall apart. The fact is some people are just terrible players, or inferior to others, and some think they are good and when they can't win it must be because the game is broken...

Its really simply, tourneys are held. You know the rules, you know the players, you know the list that are out there and possibly going. IF you dont like it dont show up... If the game is to broken, dont play. Find a new hobby. If i buy a Lexus and it runs like crap, i dont buy another lexus... If you go to a restaurant and the food is terrible do you write endless complaints and articles crying about it? hoping it changes for the next time you go, only to know it will be same? No... you go to a different place to eat.

Every tourney thread turns into whine-fest. Its like buying a house near the airport and then complaining to the town hall of plane noises... Pathetic. You know what to expect people.

Adapt, overcome, achieve. Or play for fun or Dont play... That simple.

As for the winner, way to go mate. Grats on the win.

Tsilber wrote:
Why is every list broken? Every winner of a tourney a power gamer with an OP list? Put Alex's LVO winning list in the hands of all the crybabies whining about broken list and watch it fall apart. The fact is some people are just terrible players, or inferior to others, and some think they are good and when they can't win it must be because the game is broken...

Its really simply, tourneys are held. You know the rules, you know the players, you know the list that are out there and possibly going. IF you dont like it dont show up... If the game is to broken, dont play. Find a new hobby. If i buy a Lexus and it runs like crap, i dont buy another lexus... If you go to a restaurant and the food is terrible do you write endless complaints and articles crying about it? hoping it changes for the next time you go, only to know it will be same? No... you go to a different place to eat.

Every tourney thread turns into whine-fest. Its like buying a house near the airport and then complaining to the town hall of plane noises... Pathetic. You know what to expect people.

Adapt, overcome, achieve. Or play for fun or Dont play... That simple.

As for the winner, way to go mate. Grats on the win.

Woah woah woah. We've got a tough guy, full of non-sports analogies. Until all this straight talk I really had my head up my rear, so thanks for setting me straight.

All kidding aside, I know why I go to tournaments. It's to meet people in the hobby, see awesome armies and help maintain a gaming community. I think it's possible to maintain these events and make them more balanced. Deciding to stop attending tournaments because I don't like all the aspects is certainly throwing out the baby with the bath water.

To finish this off with an analogy. To me tournaments are like the local grocery store that pays it's employees well and acts as a meeting hub for the local community. However, they rarely stock everything I want. I've made the choice to continue going to the store as its existence is important to me. However, I will keep submitting suggestions that they stock the things that I like.

Lol @ calling someone a tough guy from behind the internet monitor, how tough of you! *Goldstar champ.

Look I apologize if my comment about crybabies hit you hard and for some reason you took it personally and felt the need to grab that internet shield and jump on to defend yourself. I didn't quote you or name names FYI. I guess in some cases you really don't have to...

And im happy for your reasons to go to tournies i truly am. As i said, "Go to have fun". But if you are going to "maintain a gaming community." Whining about the game itself after the tourney on the internet forums seems kinda counter productive.

That being said, I repeat why does every list that wins a tourney have to "broken". Or abusive to the rules? Does the play/player not have something to do with it? In the end we all know what the game is right now, the constant crying of how the game is broken is really getting comical. We all know what meta or style or list will be at tournies. If you still go to the tourny and play and have a good time, and meet cool people, awesome. If you lose, lose with dignity, give your opponent some credit and move on.

Tsilber wrote:
Lol @ calling someone a tough guy from behind the internet monitor, how tough of you! *Goldstar champ.

Look I apologize if my comment about crybabies hit you hard and for some reason you took it personally and felt the need to grab that internet shield and jump on to defend yourself. I didn't quote you or name names FYI. I guess in some cases you really don't have to...

And im happy for your reasons to go to tournies i truly am. As i said, "Go to have fun". But if you are going to "maintain a gaming community." Whining about the game itself after the tourney on the internet forums seems kinda counter productive.

I'm not sure if there is a better time to discuss the need for changing tournament rules and formats then between tournaments. That seems like the most productive time to whine. Change can't really be enacted if the tournament is already going on. Also, whining to my friends in my basement is counter productive as they already know my views on the subject. Espousing them to a wider internet audience will let my point reach a much wider audience.

bogalubov wrote:

Tsilber wrote:
Lol @ calling someone a tough guy from behind the internet monitor, how tough of you! *Goldstar champ.

Look I apologize if my comment about crybabies hit you hard and for some reason you took it personally and felt the need to grab that internet shield and jump on to defend yourself. I didn't quote you or name names FYI. I guess in some cases you really don't have to...

And im happy for your reasons to go to tournies i truly am. As i said, "Go to have fun". But if you are going to "maintain a gaming community." Whining about the game itself after the tourney on the internet forums seems kinda counter productive.

I'm not sure if there is a better time to discuss the need for changing tournament rules and formats then between tournaments. That seems like the most productive time to whine. Change can't really be enacted if the tournament is already going on. Also, whining to my friends in my basement is counter productive as they already know my views on the subject. Espousing them to a wider internet audience will let my point reach a much wider audience.

Well said, and I guess I understand your frustration with the game, clearly you are not alone. But as you are frustrated with the game, I am frustrated to see the hate towards the game itself. In my opinion It is what it is, nothing you or me or anyone else can really change what it is currently so accept it and play it or move on. Your opinion is to make the argument and discuss. Perhaps my phrasing of "whining" was harsh and uncalled for.

Lets agree to disagree on what should or should not be said/discussed or done. It is your right to discuss as you see fit, as it is mine to get frustrated with some comments people make.
Cheers.

I think the important thing, is to hate the game, not the players for playing the game. If people don't like "insert x power combo here" then discussing how to rebalance things is not bad. Getting pissy about player y running x power combo is bad. That player is within the rules of the game running that list, no cheating, or being a poor sport or anything of the like. I'm ok with people being mad a GW for writing such poor rules that things like 2++ re-roll/D -weapons etc exist. I'm less ok with people getting other players for using those things.

Breng77 wrote:
I think the important thing, is to hate the game, not the players for playing the game. If people don't like "insert x power combo here" then discussing how to rebalance things is not bad. Getting pissy about player y running x power combo is bad. That player is within the rules of the game running that list, no cheating, or being a poor sport or anything of the like. I'm ok with people being mad a GW for writing such poor rules that things like 2++ re-roll/D -weapons etc exist. I'm less ok with people getting other players for using those things.

I disagree with this slightly. What is the saying?

"Bad rules don't kill models. People wielding bad rules kill models." Or something like that.

I'm not saying people who run the council are el chupacabra and deserve to be tarred and feathered. However, if the USA and USSR had the same approach to wielding nukes as 40k players have to wielding broken combos we'd all be dead a long time ago. Our poor space marine sargents are the victims of mutually assured destruction at the hands of these death stars wielded by our fellow players.

Except they do have the same approach to nukes. "Oh you're building nukes...well now I'll do that too so that if we fight we are even". That is exactly what happens, players cannot trust that everyone will nerf themselves so,mother need to field a list that can compete with other broken rule lists.

What is a more fair expectation that players all individually reign themselves in or, TOs or preferably GW balance the rules in such a way to prevent such combos in the first place.

Don't bitch at people bringing perfectly legal armies that for the most part are not abusing rules loop holes, but just taking powerful units. There is nothing wrong with taking a strong legal army. There is a lot wrong with rules that create those armies.

Breng77 wrote:
Except they do have the same approach to nukes. "Oh you're building nukes...well now I'll do that too so that if we fight we are even". That is exactly what happens, players cannot trust that everyone will nerf themselves so,mother need to field a list that can compete with other broken rule lists.

What is a more fair expectation that players all individually reign themselves in or, TOs or preferably GW balance the rules in such a way to prevent such combos in the first place.

Don't bitch at people bringing perfectly legal armies that for the most part are not abusing rules loop holes, but just taking powerful units. There is nothing wrong with taking a strong legal army. There is a lot wrong with rules that create those armies.

That's not how mutually assured destruction works. In MAD we both have the capacity to unleash awful death on each other and the horrible prospect stops us both. In 40k everyone unleashes the most horrible thing they can dream up.

It is essentially the same thing though, just that since no one actually dies it does not matter. It is the same thought process as the US and USSR where I need to have nukes incase I face other nukes. That is what is happening at tournaments since I cannot rely that you are not bringing nukes I need my own.

What you are saying is more akin to if the us and USSR had sat their and said well you can make nukes, and I can make nukes so neither of us should do so.....but that is not what happened.

You example would actually work in such a way that we never play a competitive game....because the possibility exists that we both have deathstars so we look at the deathstars we both have and walk away.

MAD as you set it up works in a small group where we each own a deathstar , and use it to kick the crap out of each other once, and then agree to not use them.

If you want to make the analogy work better, you'd have everyone building nasty lists and then nobody actually playing because the consequences of facing another nasty list are just not worth it. So either you'd have no tournaments, or you'd have a system where people bring multiple lists but only pull out the nasty one if the other guy does.

Maybe a car analogy would work better?

I'm not digging the MAD analogy at all, as Joe points out it doesn't really fit.

Brendan's basically right that it's perfectly reasonable to "hate" on the game in its present state, especially with the almost ceaseless major changes and meta upheavals it experiences on a near-weekly basis at this point.

It's not really OK to hate on players for doing what they've already done - taking whatever list they think is best.

The MAD argument especially falls apart in light of that, because there is no destruction component. The consequences of taking a powerful list are you can compete if you wish to attend tournaments or random pick-up games at the local game store.

It is perhaps most important that we all assess the reality of what GW is doing - they are helping social gaming groups of friends, where establishing clear social contracts around what's OK to bring is totally reasonable. For pick-up gaming and meeting new people - whether at the LGS, club nights, or tournaments - is becoming increasingly more difficult due to the natural stratification and overly complex density of the present meta.

I almost hope GW reads this too - you are HURTING local pick-up gaming and gaming at your stores. Tournament players adjust and either go in expecting to do only OK, or bring powerful lists. Local friends groups are fine either way, b/c they communicate about what is kosher to bring. Random gaming, pick-up gaming, and entering the hobby are all becoming more and more absurd as far as being fair, fun activities.

Yeah, the analogy was a bit of a stretch.

I do agree about the implications of the recent release schedules and influx of rulebooks on pick up games. GW thinks that they gave us a world to craft any game that we want. However, crafting this world requires time.

Most of us are busy with jobs/spouses/chores. I don't want to spend my scant free time negotiating on what rules we will follow and what we will ignore. I just want to plop down my models and play.

bogalubov wrote:
Yeah, the analogy was a bit of a stretch.

I do agree about the implications of the recent release schedules and influx of rulebooks on pick up games. GW thinks that they gave us a world to craft any game that we want. However, crafting this world requires time.

Most of us are busy with jobs/spouses/chores. I don't want to spend my scant free time negotiating on what rules we will follow and what we will ignore. I just want to plop down my models and play.

Pretty much a casual player, in other words. Don't whine about tournaments then. You want the ruleset but don't want to expend the effort to re-balance it.

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:

bogalubov wrote:
Yeah, the analogy was a bit of a stretch.

I do agree about the implications of the recent release schedules and influx of rulebooks on pick up games. GW thinks that they gave us a world to craft any game that we want. However, crafting this world requires time.

Most of us are busy with jobs/spouses/chores. I don't want to spend my scant free time negotiating on what rules we will follow and what we will ignore. I just want to plop down my models and play.

Pretty much a casual player, in other words. Don't whine about tournaments then. You want the ruleset but don't want to expend the effort to re-balance it.

That was in regard to casual, pick up gaming.

I'm also offended by your intimation that I'm just whining good sir. There is a neighboring thread that aims to do just what you suggested I do. Please direct your belligerence against my whining there.

Whether it is 40K tournaments or Jeopardy, it's all the same.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/jeopardy-champ-arthur-chu---i-have-nothing-to-apolgoize-for--145855030.html

There will always be a subset of players or participants who do not like how the game is played even when played within the boundaries of the rules.

DarthDiggler wrote:
What were the results in round 3 ?

Chancetragedy wrote:
Tim gorham, John parsons, Paul Murphy, and Matt defranza all won to stay undefeated.

John is on our AdeptiCon team tourney team! Woot

 krootman. wrote:

Kemp wrote:
Tim's list is very interesting. He runs Irons with two CMs, two scout squads, a big cent squad, tigirius, with cotaez and some henchmen.

He has a decent chance of going first with Coteaz and cast Perfect Timing and Prescience from Tigurius onto this big centstar. With split-fire he can fire two bombardments that are twin-linked ignore cover at two different targets. And of course the other 4 centurions firing their grav. The CMs tank anything that fire back and them and if you charge the unit good luck! Rad grenades and Psychotroke Grenades

I lost to him in the semi finals, very solid player. Was a very very fun, and tight game! Lost due to first blood! 2bps to one. It's a nice take on the grav star!

No shame in losing to the winner, especially in such a close game... nicely done man! And congrats to Tim Gorham on winning the whole thing

 RiTides wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:
What were the results in round 3 ?

Chancetragedy wrote:
Tim gorham, John parsons, Paul Murphy, and Matt defranza all won to stay undefeated.

John is on our AdeptiCon team tourney team! Woot

 krootman. wrote:

Kemp wrote:
Tim's list is very interesting. He runs Irons with two CMs, two scout squads, a big cent squad, tigirius, with cotaez and some henchmen.

He has a decent chance of going first with Coteaz and cast Perfect Timing and Prescience from Tigurius onto this big centstar. With split-fire he can fire two bombardments that are twin-linked ignore cover at two different targets. And of course the other 4 centurions firing their grav. The CMs tank anything that fire back and them and if you charge the unit good luck! Rad grenades and Psychotroke Grenades

I lost to him in the semi finals, very solid player. Was a very very fun, and tight game! Lost due to first blood! 2bps to one. It's a nice take on the grav star!

No shame in losing to the winner, especially in such a close game... nicely done man! And congrats to Tim Gorham on winning the whole thing

I hear you, was real close, made a play mistake turn 1 that cost me the game, but I prefer to blame it on the cocked 6 that would have given me a free troop unit!