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 voted not at all important, but I should qualify that response by saying that I will happily attend them when time and money permits.

I'm a very casual player, but I love the idea of tournaments.


- First off, playing against brand new people and brand new armies is exciting (as opposed to the same ol' same ol' with my friends, which is fun too).

- I like that the rules are very strict, because I think the game is more fun when you know both players start on basically equal footing.

- I like painting requirements, because it really makes the game more immersive and you just don't see many fully painted armies at social games. Also, it's good motivation to finish up my own armies.

- I like sportsmanship scoring for obvious reasons.


I never expect to win (I form my army based on what looks the coolest, within reason), so I'm not disappointed or surprised if I lose, and it's more of a treat when I actually do win.
Talking as if playing in tournaments designates you as an 'Ard Boy and that you no longer have fun with the game is just incorrect (I'm sure there are plenty of people who are in it just to win though, which is fine. Different strokes...).
Tournaments are generally there for people to have fun and share new experiences, and they generally try to encourage that attitude, IMHO.

I find the idea of tournaments to be boring. I'd rather play story-driven campaigns with persistent forces that get better/more experienced over time, with concerns for logistics and supply, territory and command, and so on.

Plus, the concept of playing a tournament using 40K - a game so unbalanced and ill-written that it boggles the mind - to be rather silly.

And the verb 'table' needs to be removed from gamer vernacular as soon as humanly possible. It's awful.

It used to be... but now-a-days "competitive" means "license to be a total d-bag".

Never played in a tourney, but I barely play, at all. I can see getting into single day, local events but I doubt I'd ever go super-competitive. Like some others have already stated, I'd see it as a chance to play more games with a bigger group than the usual (hypothetically regularly attended, in the hopefully near future) open gaming.

Not in the least...serious competition brings out the worst in the people who play this game i think...

I may go to one someday...but I need to fully master my armies before i tackle it...

Though I enjoy the tournement atmosphere, I personally have no intrest in competing in one!

Good luck to those who do!

Most of the "looking down" that goes on is online with "for fun" players hawking their ridiculous moral high ground against "WAAC" tournement gamers.

Id have thought it was the other way round.

Im a 'Somewhat Important'. I like playing seriously from time to time but I like casual games aswell.

Playing a 40k league at the moment and its been pretty fun but I find if theyres a prize involved the whole things ruined.

I like to attend tourneys to meet and interact with new people and clubs, to see great painted/converted armies and to have fun. I run "fluffy killer bunny chaos armies" with a theme. Always looking for cool conversion and painting ideas.

Not a great general or power player, although I would like to improve.

Also enjoy casual gaming. I am more interested in the "hobby" of 40K and the stories and fluff (have to finish recent HH books!)

I personally tend to go to alot of tournament, So yes, it is important to me, Not so much with winning, but getting the chance to see new and interesting armies.

Competitive armies make me sick...

Not that important. I'd rather have played a few friendly games than be matched up with some unsporting player that power games and is a d-bag.

I say somewhat cause I just started the Tourny scene

I don't go to any.

They are too much hassle.

Its not important to me at all. Thats not to say that i would never try out a tourney but i am way to casual of a player. Plus the new game store that opened up around here is full of "A" holes who feel it is there business to correct someone having a conversation on the other side of the store with their friend who ACCIDENTALLY confused a lasCANON with a lasGUN. yeah i know they are very different but i mean cmon stfu and mind your own business, it wasnt even during a game i was just saying how i would like to buy a new razor back but was bummed because i dont think they come with the plas las combo turret. ><

I have never played in a tournament, but that is because, A: I am not very good. and B: None of my stuff is fully assembled or fully painted.

Would I like to play in a tournament, sure. Someday.

H.B.M.C. wrote:I find the idea of tournaments to be boring. I'd rather play story-driven campaigns with persistent forces that get better/more experienced over time, with concerns for logistics and supply, territory and command, and so on.

Plus, the concept of playing a tournament using 40K - a game so unbalanced and ill-written that it boggles the mind - to be rather silly.

And the verb 'table' needs to be removed from gamer vernacular as soon as humanly possible. It's awful.

What he said

I don't like tournament, nor ultra-competitive spirit...

I live in a place where it not really feasable for me to play competitive games so I put not at all.

I voted yes very important as it's only when I prepare for a tournament that I find I need to paint something. In this mannerr my armies are mostly painted.

So long as I get to play, it doesn't really matter to me.

I play to hang out with my friends. Tournaments don't interest me at all

To be honest i've only ever entered one or two, didnt do to bad in either, won prizes ra ra ra but more interested in gaming for fun

Somewhat , I only go to Games Day!

I voted "Very important," but that is a recent development. When i started 40k, it was just me and 3 other friends. I split the AOBR box with one, him marines, me orks. Anouther bought the eldar battleforce and a few other kits, and the last one got some old tau models from a friend. But as we were playing, and i was expanding my ork collection, it soon became apparent that i was the only one who was really interested in expanding my army. I was sitting around with a large ork collection, 1000pts of which was painted, and everyone else only had 300-750 points worth. All the games we were playing were either small killteam Esq games, or me vs. everyone else. I got fed up with everyone not being willing to further their collections, and started on a GK force, which would be my competitive army. I'm still working on it, but when it's finished, i'll be spending a lot more time at the flgs tournys. I'll still play games with my friends, but it looks like tournys are going to occupy most of my gaming time.

Deadshane1 wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:Tournament players are obsessive about their rules and tend to look down on casual players, as if we aren't doing it right. At least that's the impression I get.

Most of the "looking down" that goes on is online with "for fun" players hawking their ridiculous moral high ground against "WAAC" tournement gamers.

Winning at all cost is fine, provided it's within the confines of the rules, which is why tournament players are rules obsessive. I play plenty of casual games, but the only difference between them and tournament games is that we aren't confined by time limit. We still follow all of the game rules and FOC. But most importantly we both still want to win. I've gone ahead and played games I knew I was going to lose, but that's not the same as not caring about winning.

I don't consider myself a tournament player, by title. I do like to play in tournaments, however. It let's me see armies I don't get to see all of the time, and play against people who don't know my weaknesses as a general.

Casual players, to me, have mostly or entirely unpainted minis, show up with no dice/codex/measuring device and hide behind their obviously skewed interpretation of the rules, or just lie and cheat outright. I definitely don't consider myself one of those.

I'll always prefer playing the tournament player. I'd rather lose trying to win against a tournament level IG army, than steamroll a tau army that is Power Ranger themed and horribly constructed playwise (I've done both of these in the same day).

I only play in a tournament if my friends are playing. Otherwise, I only care about painting.

No, not important in the least.

I'm only playing 2nd edition 40k atm, and there aren't any tourneys for it.

I have zero interest. havent played in one in 10+ years, and only did it in the past to support stores I liked.

darkkt wrote:Not interested in tournaments, I like playing with my mates.

Well I play tourneys with my mates over gummy bears... It's not too obsessive and it's good fun
<---me and my mates