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 have notice a lot of other hobby forums do this. They have a forum for tournament/power gaming lists. This way the community can work to better these lists and provide quality competition between top players.

It can lead to many good things, including a good meta game for the tournament scene. It will also help iron out strats for people for playing and beating opponents running certain lists. It also lets new players see good foundations for lists that they build.

I believe the best way to start something like this is to give people a week or 2 to hammer out all of the current best lists. Maybe 0-3 depending on the army. Then make it so only a mod can start a topic in said tournament forum. Regular users can post in the threads or request that a certain build be added.

I think something like this could really help the community here at Dakka as well as draw others in. There are very few sites at the moment that even acknowledge the tournament level player. Dakka could be one of the first since we already have a solid base of people and a lot of tournament quality players.

Thoughts?

Completely unnecessary, IMO.

Dakka is already the bastion of serious Tournament Players in an otherwise dubious sea of anti-"power gamer", anti-"Rules Lawyer" forums.

Don't believe me? Go to Warseer(or pretty much any other 40K forum) and ask what they think of Dakka.

Platuan4th wrote:Completely unnecessary, IMO.

Dakka is already the bastion of serious Tournament Players in an otherwise dubious sea of anti-"power gamer", anti-"Rules Lawyer" forums.

Don't believe me? Go to Warseer(or pretty much any other 40K forum) and ask what they think of Dakka.

What he said. What Dakka needs more is a "Non-competetive" Forum.

The current army list forum would turn into the "non-comepetive" forum so we both win.

Power gamers can be in one forum discussing actual tactics to taking down top end lists and meta gaming against top lists.

And casuals don't need to try and be heard in the same forum. As they will have their own, for starting players, players looking to increase the power of their fun list ect.

I understand dakka is the one of the most competitive of the 40k forums, however when compared to other forums for other games, (eg: magic the gathering) even the lesser forums in these games, it falls pretty short in terms of tournament/competitive gaming.

The current army list forums are already competitive / tournament list forums. There's no need to duplicate them.

This is flame bait written all over it.

Isn't "Timmie, Power Gamer" a magic card?

Its wierd, most other forums think dakka is the power players place. Maybe it was way back but nowdays its soaked with army starterbox people. Was quite a long time since there was some serious competative strategies/armybuilds here, sadly.

thehod wrote:This is flame bait written all over it.

Flame on. Maybe I should change my avatar to a "firebat" to counter Timmah's marine?

Ooh, we can make a tier list like in a fighting game and everyone can complain about the matchups!

I don't really understand the opposition to this. We would have a seperate thread to discuss tournament level play and lists.

And there would still be the casual forums for all the casual gamers.

Its almost like the people who oppose this don't want players to even have the option of becoming a tournament level player. A tournament forum would really help drive the competitive side of war gaming forward. No other site (that I'm aware of) does this yet. And it could be a major step in bringing back some of the competition that was lost when things like the GT's disappeared from the US.

Timmah wrote:I don't really understand the opposition to this. We would have a seperate thread to discuss tournament level play and lists.

The "opposition" is that it's not needed. If people want casual play forums, there's an uncounted multitude of other forums for that. If they want a serious, competitive forum, they come to Dakka.

I never understood what kind of feedback a person needs if they're not trying to build a competitive list. If you're not trying to win, then why do you care how good it is?

OTOH, the army list forum usually provides good advice to people that want to stay within a theme or want to restrict certain units. So, you can ask them how to tweak an all thousand sons/tzeentch CSM list without adding obliterators, and you can get the feedback. that's not a competitive list, it's a thematic list, but the goal is still to trim the fat and add muscle.

If you're suggesting a place where people can post their themed armies so others can comment on how spiffy the theme is, well, I think the articles system here is the best way to do that (if there are matching painted models), or simply find a more, shall we say, universally reaffirming forum.

As I stated early dakka is far from competitive when you compare it to competitive sites for other hobbies/games.

Again, I don't want to turn it into said other site. But something like this might help build the competitive aspect of the game without hurting the site.

Timmah wrote:As I stated early dakka is far from competitive when you compare it to competitive sites for other hobbies/games.

Perhaps, but you're comparing to "professional" level competitive games/hobbies. They are games/hobbies where most of the point is to be professional level players and to win the top prize(usually money) and make it to the next/top level. These games are written to BE competitive or to allow it.

Gw, in contrast, is relatively new to this concept(with the 'Ard Boys). Their rules aren't written to be played at the same level and don't have the same quality. The company doesn't believe in tournament play as an important party of "The Hobby" and doesn't really support the game being played competitively. In fact, the point of the Grand Tournaments according to GW is to meet other gamers and just have a weekend to have fun, NOT to come out on top.

Platuan4th wrote:

Timmah wrote:As I stated early dakka is far from competitive when you compare it to competitive sites for other hobbies/games.

Perhaps, but you're comparing to "professional" level competitive games/hobbies. They are games/hobbies where most of the point is to be professional level players and to win the top prize(usually money) and make it to the next/top level. These games are written to BE competitive or to allow it.

Gw, in contrast, is relatively new to this concept(with the 'Ard Boys). Their rules aren't written to be played at the same level and don't have the same quality. The company doesn't believe in tournament play as an important party of "The Hobby" and doesn't really support the game being played competitively. In fact, the point of the Grand Tournaments according to GW is to meet other gamers and just have a weekend to have fun, NOT to come out on top.

If this is true why does the company support tournaments and why are there so many RTT's? It doesn't matter what the company wants. The truth is this is/can be a competitive hobby and is for many people.

The thing is, just making a new forum won't change the community. Yes, other games are more competitive than Warhammer, (which doesn't mean that 40k isn't competitive) but just making a 'more competitive' forum for army lists won't make the players more competitive. Yes, there are tournaments aplenty, but the fact remains that Dakka is the most competitive website you'll find. It's not that yakface decided Dakka wasn't going to be as competitive as, say, MTG websites, it's the community that defines how the site goes. I think that this is as good as it's going to get, and making a forum would be just redundant.

Why wouldn't it make the competitive players better? The community can only go so far in determining so much when it comes to internet sites that they have no control over.

No where on the web is there really a place to discuss in length, tournament caliber lists as well as strategies for and against them. I don't know why a forum like this wouldn't make competitive players better...Discussion at a tournament level of knowledge should always lead to better play.

Sure there is the tactics forum but that only goes so far. And most of the posts in there are how do I beat "x" army with what I own in my collection.

Timmah wrote:If this is true why does the company support tournaments and why are there so many RTT's? It doesn't matter what the company wants. The truth is this is/can be a competitive hobby and is for many people.

By supporting tournaments, do you mean their pathetic "tracking" system of their Tournament Season, which are mostly tournaments(or all, like this year) run by independent groups? Or do you mean 'Ard Boys(their only "serious" competitive tournaments) and the 3-4 Grand Tournaments(of which there were NONE this year and are more of a hobby showoff than a serious tournament)? And Rogue Traders are(again) run by independent groups and not by GW. In fact, year after year, the prize support done by GW for RTTs has lessened and seems to be petering off all together.

It can be a competitive hobby, but it won't ever be at the level you think it can be until the company gets on board and, more importantly, the rules are written to be more clear, more concise, and with less grey areas that the people who wrote the rules won't even address because they feel there's nothing wrong with the game.

The problem is that GW is a miniatures company that happens to write rules to a game to drive sale, not a game company who make models to play the game with.

The company will never truly get on board with it being a competitive hobby until the community shows they want it though. The consumer drives the market.

Which tbh they already have started to show this. There has been a massive influx of RTT's in the last couple years and there is much more discussion on top end lists too. Heck when I started 2 years ago you couldn't even find a tournament list on the internet.

So I guess my question to you is, what is your opposition to such a forum?

Timmah wrote:The company will never truly get on board with it being a competitive hobby until the community shows they want it though.

Umm... we HAVE shown them this. How can we other than the sheer number of tournaments run world wide? The problem is people within the company like Jervis Johnson who believes tournament players are some minority within the system that are only interested in a fad and don't know how to play the game properly(read his little editorial in White Dwarf if you don't believe me, half of them are on this subject).

Timmah wrote:So I guess my question to you is, what is your opposition to such a forum?

Again(for the second or third time in this thread), because it's redundant. We already have the Army List and Tactics forums where there is plenty of competitive discussion.

Platuan4th wrote:

Timmah wrote:The company will never truly get on board with it being a competitive hobby until the community shows they want it though.

Umm... we HAVE shown them this. How can we other than the sheer number of tournaments run world wide? The problem is people within the company like Jervis Johnson who believes tournament players are some minority within the system that are only interested in a fad and don't know how to play the game properly(read his little editorial in White Dwarf if you don't believe me, half of them are on this subject).

No, I do believe this. I know a lot of them think it is just a fad. So we do need to do more than just hold tournaments. We need to create an environment to foster the growth and skill level of tournaments. Ofc we need a few more years to prove its not just a fad also.

Timmah wrote:So I guess my question to you is, what is your opposition to such a forum?

Again(for the second or third time in this thread), because it's redundant. We already have the Army List and Tactics forums where there is plenty of competitive discussion.

I guess I don't see how its redundant. Its more just seperating the two different types of posts. In the tactics forum you have every conceivable post about tactics, good and bad alike. And in army lists you a huge range of power level in lists.

One extra forum would just weed out the power gaming out of each forum and add it to its own forum. Where it could be more accurately discussed (imo) and given more discussion in a tournament setting. So instead of: how do I beat a seer council (which gives us a huge range of answers and doesn't really tell us much), it would be: how do I beat a seer council with a given tournament list (giving us more appropriate and refined tactics).

Timmah wrote:So instead of: how do I beat a seer council (which gives us a huge range of answers and doesn't really tell us much), it would be: how do I beat a seer council with a given tournament list (giving us more appropriate and refined tactics).

My point is why would we need another forum for that? If someone wanted to know how to beat a seer council with a certain list, there's nothing stopping them from asking said specific question.

Platuan4th wrote:

Timmah wrote:I don't really understand the opposition to this. We would have a seperate thread to discuss tournament level play and lists.

The "opposition" is that it's not needed. If people want casual play forums, there's an uncounted multitude of other forums for that. If they want a serious, competitive forum, they come to Dakka.

Respectfully, I thoguht that was the whole point of the army lists, tactics, and to an extent YMTC? How would it be different? People post their lists and get them critiqued based on the data provided. Now there may be many basic lists or tactics requested but then you're really talking about a basics vs. advanced set of forums.

I'm all for more advanced or subtle discussions of tactics or list building. But as noted that can defined within the thread parameters itself methinks. What other things would define it?

There's really no need for another forum. Splitting it would just move most conversations to one or the other. If a non-tournament player wanted to post in the 'tournament' forum, it's not like someone would stop him.

Timmah wrote:We would have a seperate thread to discuss tournament level play and lists.
And there would still be the casual forums for all the casual gamers.

If the Dakka Tactics & Army List forums work just fine, there's no need.

What next, a set of Apoc forums, PS forums, PE forums, and CoD forums to go with your "casual 40k" forums?

Timmah wrote: Its almost like the people who oppose this don't want players to even have the option of becoming a tournament level player.

Hahaha... Tournament level play doesn't come from reading on a forum. It comes from actually playing.

Timmah wrote:A tournament forum would really help drive the competitive side of war gaming forward. No other site (that I'm aware of) does this yet. And it could be a major step in bringing back some of the competition that was lost when things like the GT's disappeared from the US.

Dakka already serves this purpose by default.

At least to the extent that people are willing to share their killer lists and tactics with strangers that might end up on the other side of the board from them...

Also, there wasn't anything "lost" because the Indys picked up the slack. And then some. For example, the Adepticon FAQ is far more anal than anything ever assembled by GW.

Frazzled wrote:
Respectfully, I thought that was the whole point of the army lists, tactics, and to an extent YMTC? How would it be different? People post their lists and get them critiqued based on the data provided. Now there may be many basic lists or tactics requested but then you're really talking about a basics vs. advanced set of forums.

I'm all for more advanced or subtle discussions of tactics or list building. But as noted that can defined within the thread parameters itself methinks. What other things would define it?

Basically I was thinking of a more heavily guarded discussion on only top lists. I guess I am not sure of the exact logistics of how it would work. However it would be more restrictive of what could be posted there. Maybe a thread for each of the top lists (I would guess there are about 10-15 top tier lists) all stickied. And then maybe some in depth discussion on topics pertaining to said lists unstickied. This would be the place for metagame ideas (not lists) could be presented. Discussion of wargear choices, squad size, tactics for beating top tier lists, ect.

Of course this forum might bring up some heated discussions for on some things. I would think a nice set of forum rules *might* help that. Such as posting using complete sentences, correct punctuation ect. No personal attacks ect. This could lead to civil, productive discussion and hopefully keep trolls and the like out.

Timmah wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Respectfully, I thought that was the whole point of the army lists, tactics, and to an extent YMTC? How would it be different? People post their lists and get them critiqued based on the data provided. Now there may be many basic lists or tactics requested but then you're really talking about a basics vs. advanced set of forums.

I'm all for more advanced or subtle discussions of tactics or list building. But as noted that can defined within the thread parameters itself methinks. What other things would define it?

Basically I was thinking of a more heavily guarded discussion on only top lists. I guess I am not sure of the exact logistics of how it would work. However it would be more restrictive of what could be posted there. Maybe a thread for each of the top lists (I would guess there are about 10-15 top tier lists) all stickied. And then maybe some in depth discussion on topics pertaining to said lists unstickied. This would be the place for metagame ideas (not lists) could be presented. Discussion of wargear choices, squad size, tactics for beating top tier lists, ect.

Of course this forum might bring up some heated discussions for on some things. I would think a nice set of forum rules *might* help that. Such as posting using complete sentences, correct punctuation ect. No personal attacks ect. This could lead to civil, productive discussion and hopefully keep trolls and the like out.

And right there is the problem. To do the type of forum that you personally want, you need a moderator to keep an eye on it and enforce a restrictive set of rules on who can post, and what gets posted. There is room for this type of discussion in the forums that are already up, without setting up a new area, that is going to take the effort of the mods to oversee.

Timmah wrote:The current army list forum would turn into the "non-comepetive" forum so we both win.

Power gamers can be in one forum discussing actual tactics to taking down top end lists and meta gaming against top lists.

And casuals don't need to try and be heard in the same forum. As they will have their own, for starting players, players looking to increase the power of their fun list ect.

I understand dakka is the one of the most competitive of the 40k forums, however when compared to other forums for other games, (eg: magic the gathering) even the lesser forums in these games, it falls pretty short in terms of tournament/competitive gaming.

Well, I found that the number of competitive lists in the Army Lists section is rather low.

My point exactly wuestenfux.
Even if a lot of them are competitive, they are still very disjointed and the "best" list is never agreed upon.