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.

MVBrandt wrote:When this is a homogenous, professionalized sport w/ no dice rolling, there will be names worth dropping

Until then, can we all take ourselves a little less seriously?

have you been to a large event? there are players that are just good. they limit their mistakes and bring tough lists. most of them happen to be fun to play. so yeah if you go to an event and you beat a Bill or a parker or a mike munchkin. it means you earned it.

did I mention that 1 on my two wins this year was against Sparks.

MVBrandt wrote:People can think of it however they want ... that doesn't make it competitive. I don't think it's a big negative, it's just ... you know, one of many tourneys with a basis that breeds random, instead of competitive evaluation.

You don't finish it knowing who the best player(s) are, other than ones you knew were good ahead of time, for far better and different reasons.

I think your two premises above are somewhat contradictory.

The fact of the matter is that most tournaments in the US have unique distinguishing features. Even if a given tournament lists its rules as “straight by the book” missions, and no soft scores, the physical layout of the terrain and tables the organizers have makes a significant impact on what armies do well, and you rarely get concrete info on the terrain, particularly at smaller events. So you really can’t know which events, even ones which claim to be perfectly Orthodox, most closely confirm to a Platonic Ideal of "proper Warhammer".

I don’t think your “far better and different reasons” premise is really valid. We believe that given people are good players because we play them, or see them play, or read their reports and subjectively perceive that this person seems skilled. But the best/most objective confirmation of their skill is their tournament & league performance- their win/loss results in competitive events, against a wide range of opponents. And EVERY tournament or league has, again, unique distinguishing features which don’t make it exactly the same as other events. It could be the tables, it could be the missions, it could be the exact mix of armies the participants happened to bring.

On a broader point, it seems that, at least over the last year or two, every single event out there gets nitpicked by self-appointed judges of what is or isn’t “competitive”.

Talk about an event with comp scoring, and naysayers complain that comp means it’s not a competition, as if it weren’t just an extra metagame dimension, which experienced tournament players can adapt to.

Talk about an event with original missions, and naysayers complain that the missions are screwy, or not playtested, as if GW ever put serious playtesting into its own missions (at least 2 of the 9 core book combinations regularly come in for complaints).

Talk about an event which allows unusual units, and naysayers complain that the unusual units break the balance, as if 40k were properly balanced in the first place.

Talk about an event with none of the above, and naysayers will still complain that the points size isn’t the “right” points size for a competitive event, criticize the event based on lists which win, and generally disparage the quality of the competition from their seat on the sidelines, based on their own internal theoretical guidelines and ideas about the metagame, and what “should” win.

The truth is that 40k events are not Starcraft, or Chess. We don’t all play with or against specific limited armies. We don’t play on the exact same maps/tables. We don’t all play the exact same missions all the time. We don’t all play one consistent point size. That is part of the charm and fun of the game. But I do NOT think that means it isn’t competitive. It’s a game when can and often is competitive, but is more variable and dynamic than any videogame or boardgame, with their more finite and limited play parameters. And part of the skill involved is adaptability and flexibility. All the “known” and “successful” tournament players out there are so because they consistently do well at big events, against a wide range of opponents, and in a variety of circumstances/play environments. And I think that variability is just another dimension of Warhammer and 40k’s competitive side, not evidence that it isn’t competitive.

I think you're missing my point. To wit, there are over 76,000 people on GW's US e-mail newsletter alone, and that doesn't address everyone.

Every local league and tournament represents a different crop of players participating in a materially different game for a variety of reasons. Do you really think that the 240 going to the champship at Adepticon are really representative of the country's best? Not even minutely close ... most of the best players I know don't even waste their time traveling around the country playing in whacky gaming tournaments, b/c they don't take it that seriously.

40k is a probabiliyt-based tabletop wargame as far from professionalized as it gets. It gets even further from professionalized when you introduce superheavies and other units.

There are an enormous number of young-ish people in their 20's, 30's and 40's who have been playing games of this sort and related for decades in many cases, and who are very good at games. They adapt well, understand them well, etc. This doesn't mean anything.

So pointing out that random people who participate in and win most tournaments they attend (this would include me, btw) are former winners of an event does not imply that it is competitive. The fact that I've never lost a tournament game, or a tournament that I've competed in, also means nothing ... every single event can be knocked for its impefections, or I haven't played in the "right" big tourneys, etc., directly to your own point. I'm not knocking on their talent, promoting my own, or promoting anything. I'm not even knocking on much. I'm just suggesting that anyone who takes the 40k environment as a serious, fairly evaluative and deeply competitive one ... is kidding themselves, or perhaps never participated in serious athletics.

It's not a knock, just a bit of a "tone it down" reality check. You're taking an already heavily random and localized game and making it even more random with the addition of over-the-top irregular units.

I appreciate everything you wrote, Mannahnin, and if you'll be at Adepticon I'll be happy to play you while there, or anyone else. It's not about 40k not being something you compete at. It's the reality that this is simply a popular tabletop wargame, utilizing dice, and vastly different scenarios and situations from one locale to the next. Take it less seriously, not more seriously. Trying to prove on the intarwebs that it's some sort of deeply competitive game is not really effective.

There's a difference between an event where everyone is competing, and an event that is highly competitive.

Remember, winning games implies you're a good gamer; it doesn't imply the game was deeply competitive. I'm aware of all the names dropped, and I think it's insulting to them to do so, unless they also take themselves insanely seriously over a toy soldier game. When you can line titans and d weapons up across a table, as one of the posters on the other page mentioned, it's much more of a "grab a beer" scenario, than a competitive one.

Don't bunch the panties any, I'm not knocking on anybody's personal idols here.

PS - In this case (you'll notice I don't go running willy nilly dissing on every tournament posted ... hell, I run one of the indy vegas qualifying gt's this year), my only knock is not on the whacky scenarios, or the local preferences, or any of that ... just the inclusion of ... titans and crap. Seriously.

No, guys I won a tournament, I demand the internets respect!

Besides, Gladiator is who can waste the most money on things you might only use once a year. Am I going to drop 4k so I can have a shot at winning an event that is once a year? Not a chance. And neither are a lot of people. The fact that disposable income actually plays into it means its not competitive.

Hey, lets race cars. You bring your old pickup and I'll bring my Lamborghini. Its a competitive race, I swear.

Wye spoil all the fun Timmah??

G

Timmah has hit upon a useful analogy.

If you go to a car race with 100 people competing, and you bring your Lamborghini, and there's only 1 or 2 or 10 other supercars there, but you don't have to face off against them for most of the event? Yeah, that ain't competitive.

These aren't professionalized events, where all of your name dropped people are the only ones who can compete, ensuring it's purely Lamborghinis vs. Ferraris, or Pickups vs. Pickups. You can't have a competitive event if the skill disparity is immense, and competition is inversely proportional to heterogeneity.

One could argue that the basic codices are akin to Lamborghini vs. Ferrari. When you go outside of the codices, however, it's almost impossible to really argue that's the case.

Black Blow Fly wrote:Wye spoil all the fun Timmah??

G

Cause I'm a jerk.

Hogwash. Timmah has trolled up a red herring.

The ammount of disposable income needed for an event has no bearing on if it is a competition or not. The Yankees still play the Royals, and its still a competition.

The NCAA March Madness is still a competition. Ask Northern Iowa. (grumbles)

That someone chooses to play in the gladiator without the ubber FW piece has nothing to do with the event not being a "competition" or being "competative". It is that one player making an active choice, weighing the cost of a model vs. need/want/desire to use that model in the event.

Timmah wrote:No, guys I won a tournament, I demand the internets respect!

Besides, Gladiator is who can waste the most money on things you might only use once a year. Am I going to drop 4k so I can have a shot at winning an event that is once a year? Not a chance. And neither are a lot of people. The fact that disposable income actually plays into it means its not competitive.

Hey, lets race cars. You bring your old pickup and I'll bring my Lamborghini. Its a competitive race, I swear.

I will take that race anyday of the week, but since you picked the cars I pick the track

last year the reavers were over the top. I don't think any other super heavy is overpowered. you know whats coming, prepare. I don't think a super heavy based army will win this year.

Shotgun wrote:Hogwash. Timmah has trolled up a red herring.

The ammount of disposable income needed for an event has no bearing on if it is a competition or not. The Yankees still play the Royals, and its still a competition.

The NCAA March Madness is still a competition. Ask Northern Iowa. (grumbles)

That someone chooses to play in the gladiator without the ubber FW piece has nothing to do with the event not being a "competition" or being "competative". It is that one player making an active choice, weighing the cost of a model vs. need/want/desire to use that model in the event.

Actually your argument is. Said places are paying for talent. The Yankees don't get 5 free runs every game because they have more money. Kansas doesn't get to buy bigger hoops to make it easier for them. See in wargaming as well as racing what you buy is static. Its quantifiable. A Ferrari has a higher top speed/more horse power ect than your car. Always.

Its not the fact that you have more disposable income, its the fact that you get an defined unfair advantage because you have more money.

If you were allowed to use aluminum bats but the Yankees were the only club that could afford them, would baseball still be a competition when you were playing against them?

Please don't take this as a challenge or a call to an argument. Really just trying to foster mutual understanding here, so please take it in that spirit.

MVBrandt wrote:Every local league and tournament represents a different crop of players participating in a materially different game for a variety of reasons. Do you really think that the 240 going to the champship at Adepticon are really representative of the country's best? Not even minutely close ... most of the best players I know don't even waste their time traveling around the country playing in whacky gaming tournaments, b/c they don't take it that seriously.

Here’s the problem with your premise. I don’t know how you’re coming to your conclusions. “Not even minutely close”? What data do you have to support that? How are you determining who are the best players in the country, if not by seeing how they stack up against other players outside their own local regional group? National GT-type events, by their nature, force people to get outside their own small pond, face some other good players, and play in unfamiliar surroundings. Often on tables, using scenarios, and against opponents with rules interpretations with which you are not intimately familiar, unlike your local play area. IMO players who manage to consistently perform well under those conditions are displaying some competitive skills.

MVBrandt wrote:So pointing out that random people who participate in and win most tournaments they attend (this would include me, btw) are former winners of an event does not imply that it is competitive. The fact that I've never lost a tournament game, or a tournament that I've competed in, also means nothing ... every single event can be knocked for its impefections, or I haven't played in the "right" big tourneys, etc., directly to your own point.

If you’ve competed in a large number of tournaments, against a wide variety of opponents (particularly ones outside your local area, the importance of which Dashofpepper has recently reinforced), and done so well, then I daresay that you actually have demonstrated some skill. If performance at the game means “nothing’, then why are tournaments a popular way to enjoy it? And why are you investing the work to run one?

MVBrandt wrote:Remember, winning games implies you're a good gamer; it doesn't imply the game was deeply competitive. I'm aware of all the names dropped, and I think it's insulting to them to do so, unless they also take themselves insanely seriously over a toy soldier game. When you can line titans and d weapons up across a table, as one of the posters on the other page mentioned, it's much more of a "grab a beer" scenario, than a competitive one.

Don't bunch the panties any, I'm not knocking on anybody's personal idols here.

No worries. I tend to concur that Gladiator is a bit of a wackier event than some others. But I just wanted to speak to the larger point, as your post seemed to be akin to a lot of other deprecatory comments I’ve seen recently about various events.

I note that “deeply competitive” would seem to be another really subjective term, and one presently going undefined. I appreciate that you’re not looking for a debate, but it can be tough to have an enlightening conversation if people are bringing undefined terms into it. Again, not pushing. I suspect we’re more on the same page than say, me and Danny, or me and Timmeh.

MVBrandt wrote:Timmah has hit upon a useful analogy.

If you go to a car race with 100 people competing, and you bring your Lamborghini, and there's only 1 or 2 or 10 other supercars there, but you don't have to face off against them for most of the event? Yeah, that ain't competitive.

These aren't professionalized events, where all of your name dropped people are the only ones who can compete, ensuring it's purely Lamborghinis vs. Ferraris, or Pickups vs. Pickups. You can't have a competitive event if the skill disparity is immense, and competition is inversely proportional to heterogeneity.

One could argue that the basic codices are akin to Lamborghini vs. Ferrari. When you go outside of the codices, however, it's almost impossible to really argue that's the case.

There’s certainly some validity to what you say, and I’ll agree that the randomness of pairings, lists, etc. does reduce the pure competition value of 40k events. Though I think a lot of that shakes out the longer a swiss-paired system goes (I seem to recall there’s an eight-round WH GT in Australia somewhere, which I’d love to play in). I think shorter events can mitigate the randomness a bit by using scenarios with multiple objectives, like Adepticon does. I played a practice game on Sunday using one of the Championship Primer scenarios, and there are a total of six different mission objectives to go for. IMO players who are capable of balancing multiple priorities and achieving several different goals at once are generally good players. Though there’s a luck factor too, of course.

As skkipper said, the strength of the forgeworld/apocalypse stuff is not generally so far ahead as a Lambo vs. a Hyundai. Timmeh’s other comments, about “wasting” money indicate that he’s not really thinking it through. It’s all a hobby, and it’s all disposable income. A local player in Chicago’s certainly spending less on a couple of FW kits than I am on my airfare and hotel. And he gets to keep and reuse his stuff. The advantage of buying a FW model, if it really is that big of one, is within the price range of anyone who can build a 40k army in the first place.

Mannahnin wrote:

As skkipper said, the strength of the forgeworld/apocalypse stuff is not generally so far ahead as a Lambo vs. a Hyundai. Timmeh’s other comments, about “wasting” money indicate that he’s not really thinking it through. It’s all a hobby, and it’s all disposable income. A local player in Chicago’s certainly spending less on a couple of FW kits than I am on my airfare and hotel. And he gets to keep and reuse his stuff. The advantage of buying a FW model, if it really is that big of one, is within the price range of anyone who can build a 40k army in the first place.

Well if we are talking about competitive players here, (I am pretty sure we were) well I cannot think of one other competitive event where you can use the IA FW stuff. So yes, to them it would be a waste.

(I believe the argument was that because competitive players played in it and won, it made the event competitive.)

Mannahnin wrote:As skkipper said, the strength of the forgeworld/apocalypse stuff is not generally so far ahead as a Lambo vs. a Hyundai. Timmeh’s other comments, about “wasting” money indicate that he’s not really thinking it through. It’s all a hobby, and it’s all disposable income. A local player in Chicago’s certainly spending less on a couple of FW kits than I am on my airfare and hotel. And he gets to keep and reuse his stuff. The advantage of buying a FW model, if it really is that big of one, is within the price range of anyone who can build a 40k army in the first place.

For most of the super-heavies, they're not much more expensive on a per-point basis than "normal" models. My Barbed Hierodule cost me $157 for 700 points (about $0.22/point); my Tyrannofexes run $0.19/point (plus tax); Zoanthropes cost a whopping $0.33/point (plus tax). Hell, even a Hierophant is only $0.25/point.

Contrast with my Steel Legion, which approach $1/point....

40k is a game for people with non-trivial disposable income. If you can afford to play at all, and you can afford to attend Adepticon, you can choose to afford FW stuff if you want it.

Timmah, I think that was the argument implied w/ the name drops, which is of course a fail argument.

It's so easy for people who think they are the cat's ass on the tourney circuit to get their panties in a bunch. Nobody is calling ya'll bad players. You're just not proving yourselves one iota at things like Gladiator. You're not degrading yourselves, either, so don't take it as a knock

It's just you're wearing plastic laurel wreaths.

that being said I am bringing an expensive super over powered forge world auto win model

1 blood slaughterer with dccw.
FEEEEEAAAAAARRRRRR MEEEEEEE.

I'll put this out there again, but I'm sure people will dislike it just like they did the last time.

The entire concept of how we run RTT's and GT's will NEVER produce a true winner determined by competitive performance on the table top.

When you have a 60 person tournament, and you play only five players, that's just an insufficient sample size to determine who is the best. Even if you play eight, it might not be enough, depending on how other players' match ups pan out.

I'm seriously in favor of a multiple day even that consists of round robin play in pools to determine who advances to a single or double elimination championship tournament. With this format, you have to beat everyone in your pool to advance, and then beat everyone else who won their pool in order to claim the title of "Champion" of that tournament.

With this type of format, it minimizes the likelihood of getting a couple of fortuitous match ups that can propel a player to top tables in traditional GT formats and it makes you have to play multiple top talents consecutively to win the tournament. Also, an elimination style championship takes away the need to get Massacre victories that can be difficult with some match ups; just win...nothing else matters. Save the "style points" for the BCS.

Back to the personal philosophies on the gladiator, and not nitpicking what it is...


The years I have done well (9th place in 2007, 6th place in 2008), I have brought an army that I understood and had a lot of experience playing. This can't be under-valued.

In 2007, it was my Kult of Speed, no FW models at all, and I was one of two old-codex ork players there. My first-round matchup was against Centurion99 too. But knowing your own stuff is more important than playing what's considered strong. I also had a nidzilla army that year, complete with the FW mieotic spores, but I opted to run the orks because I figured a lot of other people would be running nids and I'd have more fun with the greenies. Last round, I ended up playing a nidzilla player and won the game because I knew the strengths and weaknesses of both of our armies, while he had no idea what to focus on in my army.

In 2008, I ran the green tide of the new ork codex (under 4th ed rules) as a metagame choice. Figuring everyone would need to pack anti-titan guns, I opted to counter that with a list that would give up a six-point boy when you fired a lascannon at it. Played Blackmoor in round one that time. And, the metagame choice worked out pretty well. I'm not sure it would work so well in 5th edition, as combat resolution can cost you 10 boyz at a time now, but there you go.

Last year, I brought a big FW guy (Bloodthirster) with Fateweaver, and no plan at winning the event. Some FW guys are big and impressive, and may draw fire, but won't win games, especially against opponents who ignore them Playing daemons, I had no real answer for fliers either - something you need to consider.

If I were going this year, I'd want to play with the new big tzeentch daemon. With a 20" move and a turn-you-to-spawn template attack, he can be pretty insane (especially against a 30-man blob squad ) Also, his ability to make a new scoring unit each turn gives him versatility in those wacky gladiator missions. That's much harder for an opponent to ignore than a guy who can only assault one unit/turn and who can't cope with TH/SS termies...


Anyway, the last thing to remember is that, more so than other tournaments, the gladiator is all about match-ups. Sure, good players will make the most of what they're dealt, and bad players will lose games they should win, but really, it's more about what you have to face than anything else. Winning the prize is as much about the luck of the draw as anything else. Bring the tools to play the game, and accept that there is some other list out there that has your number. If you have to play it, that's just how it goes.

Uh, Redbeard, we were trying to have an argument in here, not some well thought out discussion.

@Timmah

Why does IA stuff render an event non competitive?

G

Timmah wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

As skkipper said, the strength of the forgeworld/apocalypse stuff is not generally so far ahead as a Lambo vs. a Hyundai. Timmeh’s other comments, about “wasting” money indicate that he’s not really thinking it through. It’s all a hobby, and it’s all disposable income. A local player in Chicago’s certainly spending less on a couple of FW kits than I am on my airfare and hotel. And he gets to keep and reuse his stuff. The advantage of buying a FW model, if it really is that big of one, is within the price range of anyone who can build a 40k army in the first place.

Well if we are talking about competitive players here, (I am pretty sure we were) well I cannot think of one other competitive event where you can use the IA FW stuff. So yes, to them it would be a waste.

(I believe the argument was that because competitive players played in it and won, it made the event competitive.)

Because it is not balanced by the same company...

2 different companies with completely different goals working towards creating 1 balanced game? Yea, that will work great I'm sure.

But GW's stuff isn't perfectly balanced within the company either.

BTW, nice post, Redbeard! Valid points, all.

Mannahnin wrote:But GW's stuff isn't perfectly balanced within the company either.

BTW, nice post, Redbeard! Valid points, all.

This is a discussion for a completely different thread. However my argument is that it is, if you are building competitively. There are no overpowered armies out there. (besides necrons, and maybe chaos, everything can compete at the same level)

The gladiator tournament is absolutely a competetive event. Bringing big expensive forge world models does not mean you win, last year was the only year in which where was a problem with unit balance, the reaver titan was too good, but even the reaver can be, and was, beaten by codex lists. Every other year, and this year included I'm sure, the game is very well balanced and including imperial armor does nothing to unbalance the game. Every codex has the tools you need to win, you just have to be sufficiently skilled in using them.

Furthermore, 40k is a beautiful game with a tactical complexity at least the equal of chess. I've played in many national tournaments in both games, and have to say I like 40k better as a competitive scene because it requires much more thinking on your feet. The always changing scenarios and differences between tournament details serves to make it more competitive, not less, because the best players will adapt accordingly while the rest of the field flounders. Warhammer 40k is not only an incredible outlet for creativity and storytelling, it is a medium worthy of serious competition.


Competitive 40k is really only beginning in my opinion. The number of independent events is exploding each year, and the invention of the north american tourny circuit is a big step forward. I think the person that wins in Las Vegas can really be crowned the best player on the continent.

Finally, @Hank, don't worry, some of us youngsters still respect our elders

Besides, Gladiator is who can waste the most money on things you might only use once a year. Am I going to drop 4k so I can have a shot at winning an event that is once a year? Not a chance. And neither are a lot of people. The fact that disposable income actually plays into it means its not competitive.

Hey, lets race cars. You bring your old pickup and I'll bring my Lamborghini. Its a competitive race, I swear.

Not really a valid arguement, I can build a car for $3000 that will embarass any Lamborghini on the track, Google Lambo vs CRX

And anyone can scratchbuild a titan for $30-$50 to compete if that is their goal.

so yeah if you go to an event and you beat a Bill or a parker or a mike munchkin. it means you earned it.

Oooo, me me! I beat that guy Parker in PA earlier this month.

Though I like to think beating me is just as impressive (what, why is no-one agreeing with me )

It is for sure Everliving. You are the man.

: )

Last year for the Gladiator I ran an army based on the short story Deathwing by Bill King. Deathwing terminators riding in a Thunderhawk lead by Two Heads Talking and Fierce Weasel. You can't run an army like that without Forgeworld. So yeah maybe the Gladiator is not the most competitive event in the world but it is definitely a fantasy come true.

G

Speaking of competitiveness, I thought I'd share (really reiterate and develop) my philosophy. I agree with MVBrandt that Warhammer 40k is not played competitively at tournaments, at least by comparison to sport competitions. And I agree with Saldiven that the current format is too random to really decide a contest of skill. Finally I agree with Spacecurves that Warhammer 40k is a beautiful game worthy of competitive treatment.

Having said all of that I have a tendency to draw a lot of fire for my ideas about how to run a competitive Warhammer 40k tournament. The notion is basically this: if everyone plays with the same equipment on the same board layout with the same mission, and (this is new) has their outcome adjusted for the dice results they experience.

Basically the notion would be that the tournament organizers would publish a set of available army lists that people could bring the models for, the missions that would be played, and the board layouts that would be used for each mission. Players would know beforehand what they would face, according to what mission, and in what terrain.

So rather than the games being like the games in a round-robin tournament, they're played more like the heats in a large race with a small track, the large being the number of competitors and the small track being the available time.

During the competition players would keep track of their dice results and the threshold they would have to meet for any particular action, so that the tournament organizers can adjust the scores of a game for the deviation from expected averages. After all, the notion is to isolate skill. But that's just weighting the deviation of any rolls from their expected value, as the amount of rolls would be a factor of player skill.

Even more radically, the tournament organizers would have a number of scenarios complete with terrain, missions, and armies ready for play so that players would have to show their skill with each army according to a particular match-up.

The idea is to compare apples to apples, and skill to skill, so that the vagaries of luck are accounted for.

I think it would be awesome to know that there's someone out there that is on record as the highest performer in such-and-such scenario, or that players could compete to see who would do best at the Seige of the Lion's Gate, and so on.

Of course it would kick up the nominal fee if players paid to have armies provided as well as other equipment like tables, terrain, missions, judges, and so on, but as has been pointed out: cost really isn't an issue.

Sadly, such a tournament would struggle to obtain attendees.

I'd give it a try.

I think the issue here is the application of a boolean variable to a value that is a continuum. Games are more or less competitive (in terms of measuring player skill). War (the card game, pure random draw) is not competitive, Go is competitive. Anything in between shouldn't be referred to as one or the other.

Gladiator is a hoot. I'll be playing this year.