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.

Hulksmash wrote: I realize that people like Dash, me, Dave, and others would prefer no soft scores but we're not the majority of players that pay to attend these events.

Are you sure about that?

We're free to argue all day about whether people prefer soft scores or not in what majority....but the only data points I've seen (being polls) in these forums (linked earlier, and also in the SOCAL thread) clearly illustrate that the VAST majority...the lion's share of players prefer not to have to deal with soft scores.

I play in tournaments to fight, battle, and annihilate. Not to ooh and ahh at pretty armies, or pat my opponent on the head for not snarling at me when I instagib his superawesomeguyz. Why am I supposed to presume that the majority of people who pay large sums of money and travel distances to compete aren't like me? Because the polls say that they are.

Forums are the minority Dash. And in my experience for every player like you and I there is another 3-4 at the event that either a) don't care either way or b) like comp and sports. Even if it's a 1-1 ratio on love-hate soft scores if it's a major event then the guys that run it want to make their money back and will try to make it appeal to all styles of players so they can get their investment back.

I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference between a soft score victory and a battlepoints victory, and hopefully so can at least most (and ideally all) the people looking for a competitive list.

Most tournaments list both the 'best general' awards (and the runner ups) separate from the overall (aka soft score corrupted) winners.

Finally, I would even go so far to say that the effect of soft scores on placing in a tournament is about the same in magnitude as good old luck, you know, meeting the rock to your scissors a little too often, or the most obvious, simply not getting ideal dice rolls.

So many games can come down to 2-3 dice rolls being the difference between a huge victory and crushing defeat... but generally only between quite evenly matched armies. I've had games personally where even though I had terrible rolls (not the worst, but still terrible) my army list managed to come through for me... this is a good indication that my army list was far superior, and looking from a 'best means viable, less means unviable' standpoint the opponent had an unviable army list.

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that looking at the top 10ish ranked players for battlepoints (or overall as a last resort) should give a good idea of what armies can be considered viable. Sure you might have 1-2 armies that got by facing terrible opponents, but no data is pure


Automatically Appended Next Post:
P.S. On soft scores and tournaments:

The competitive players who would prefer no soft score tournaments are probably generally more likely to still attend a soft score tournament than the soft score lovers are to attend a no soft score tournament, thus even though the majority of players prefer no soft score tournaments, you will still get a larger attendance with soft scores.

Maths:

Of 100 potential attendees:

60 like no soft scores.
40 like soft scores.

No soft scores tournament: 60 LNSS attendees, 10 LSS attendee, 70 Total.

Soft scores tournament: 40 LSS attendees, 40 LNSS attendees, 80 total.

Just another reason why democracy fails

ihatehumans wrote:I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference between a soft score victory and a battlepoints victory, and hopefully so can at least most (and ideally all) the people looking for a competitive list.

Most tournaments list both the 'best general' awards (and the runner ups) separate from the overall (aka soft score corrupted) winners.

Obviously the problem with this is that softscores affect the armies that are brought to the tournament. This is why I asked if any dual lash/lash abaddon lists were present at the Philadelphia event. I wonder were there any diversified nobz?

is why I asked if any dual lash/lash abaddon lists were present at the Philadelphia event.

In short, yes.

It would have come 2nd overall if the opponent in the last game hadn't spawned the princes and the daemon over the course of two turns...

I ran diversified nobs; a squad of 7 of them.

Hulksmash wrote:SVDM is the exception to the rule. They are the only tournament so far this year that includes judge comp in the total scores. The other 3 this year so far don't. The next 2 don't. Your taking all in context of a single event not the events as a whole.

Conflict did

There are events that don't even have a best general category too...

It's a basic fallacy to assume there are 5 to 10 top army builds. The best armies are not net lists, which the OP is looking for. For example 40k daemons are considered by many to be quite weak but in fact they can be quite strong. Same thing with Nidz. If you are looking to win big consistently with a net list you copy & bring to a large tournament you coukd be in for a big surprise. That's a fact.

G

The OP should also consider practice time with a list. You can't just copy a list off the web on Friday, show up with it at a tourney on Saturday and roll everyone.

OTOH, if you copy a list from the internet (that's actually good) and practice with it for a couple months, you'll be a really challenging opponent. Good list plus practice wins games.

I'm not looking to just over night grab an army and stomp with it at a tourny...

Most of the people around here seem to have very little understanding of 40k full stop, they all buy the starter box sets and then what ever unit they personally feel would preform well in their army. I haven't seen a single mech army, the ruling lists seem to be things like Daemons and Orcs which are hard to go wrong with, and other than that the players skill and knowledge counts MUCH more than list.

What I'm looking for is to buy, convert and paint to a good standard a reasonably decent list that should be able to beat everything, as long as I don't fail incredibly or roll like pyramid (which is the furthest shape from a sphere I could think of).

I am interested in God Lists because I don't want to spend a bunch of time and money making and learning a list just to find that the guy who has Lash Prince Obliterators can, and will, beat me every time. I would rather have made an army that has a good chance of beating him, or simply collect Lash Princ Obliterators my self and learn to play it better (or just rely on luck ).

To me, any competitive 40k collector (not your fluffy collectors, you guys are fine ) should simply be aiming to do just that. The internet, with it's incredibly broad spectrum of sources, is the best place (IMO) for a relatively new player to learn the ropes and have a pretty good chance of making a relatively good decision on which army they can collect if they want to be competitive

PM sent.

PM sent

I dont understand Olympias fascination with dual lash/lash abaddon. Its a decent army but its nothing to cry about. I dont think I have ever lost a game to it.

Maybe its not competitive over here cause the players are better, and its not nearly as good as it was 2 years back.

Also, almost all the events ive played in over the last year, at least 10 of them. Only two had sportsmanship and painting scores included. The painting scores were always a completely separate score from battle points.

I went to adepticon 2 years back, ran harlequin/falcon rush eldar when that was the big cheese. Missed 1 out of 30 sportsmanship points and got 15/20 comp points I think.

Nobody I know is ever scared of bringing a brow beater list because they might lose comp.

Nobody I know is ever scared of bringing a brow beater list because they might lose comp.

I think the problem isn't that individuals are dumbing down their lists, but rather that people willing to bring such lists in the first place are turned off to the event because of the shift in focus away from the tournament portion. Personally, I wouldn't attend a "tournament" that featured only 39% of the scoring in battle points even if it was free and being held in my own house, and I know many others who feel similarly. So the lists brought to the event end up being softer not because any one player decided to take Striking Scorpions instead of a Seer Council, but because many of those who have hard armies decided not to bring them at all.

I dont quite know about that. I mean I do know some people who place well in events constantly who avoid the weaker ones. But most of us go to smash heads regardless. The area I play in is very lax on comp and sports scoring though. But the maintaining of those institutions doesnt make the events themselves less competitive. And like I said, most of the tournaments I have played in were ard boyz style, no comp no sports no painting. The ones that arent have a very lax system for paint and sports, you have to just not paint or be a real jerk to miss full points.

But the best players ive seen always place well, regardless of sports or comp or whatever. Its a small hurdle to overcome, and a skilled player can game the system.

I don't know the wide world of GT players, but I take the hardest list I can to an event regardless of comp. So do the folks I interact with.

I always take the hardest list I can. Just because it's a fun list for me to take. But I'm not a total jerk so even in a soft score heavy event I only plan to really get hurt a few points a game on comp. But that hard army I brought will normally make up for it. Oh and I don't paint half bad either so I'm normally pretty good there too

Hulksmash wrote:I always take the hardest list I can. Just because it's a fun list for me to take. But I'm not a total jerk so even in a soft score heavy event I only plan to really get hurt a few points a game on comp. But that hard army I brought will normally make up for it. Oh and I don't paint half bad either so I'm normally pretty good there too

I was one point from best sportsman at adepticon championship years back running holo falcon rush eldar when that was the big thing to do. Long as you are a friendly and nice person 99% of people will give you high points.

Exactly. It's why even though I don't like soft scores they don't keep me from playing in tournaments that have them. It really does normally come down to my battlepoints.

I want them to include a sports scoring category in "Chess Tournaments".

Yes/No

1 - Had your opponent showered, brushed their teeth and was wearing deodorant the morning of your game?

2 - Did your opponent tap the table, make silly noises or anything else distracting during your turns?

3 - Was your opponent taking too long for their turns?

If your opponent scored a 'No' for any categories then they suffer a -1 for every 'No' included.

The fact of the matter is that the winner is always going to win...these other soft scores can only ever be used to break ties in the competative tournament that you are playing.

1 -

What about if they did it the night before... or the day before and just didn't get the chance to sleep that night? What if they hadn't showered or brushed their teeth but at least used a lot of deodorant and some gum to try and cover it up?

2 -

Way to disadvantage people with mental disabilities or Alzheimers!

3 -

Define too long? Some chess tournaments are speed tournaments with clocks, the rest still restrict an arbitrary amount of time per turn. If they are so foolish to not do either, then obviously the tournament isn't about chess, it's about slow playing chess

Danny Internets wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:No, you ignored the part where they don't determine who wins. You ignored the part where the spread of points between the highest soft score and the lowest soft score is negligible compared to the spread with regards to Battle points.

Those are just some of the facts that you seem to be routinely ignoring. And they aren't "trite nonsense", they are important to the discussion. In fact the only part of this discussion that has been both trite and nonsense is anything you posted.

You've failed to notice that what Mannahnin has repeatedly ignored in these threads is that the winners of hobby events...

"Tournaments". You don't own the word. It's got an established definition, and you don't have the authority to change it. You're the latecomer to the hobby. You can try to change it, but that doesn't mean those of us in it already will go along.

Danny Internets wrote:... also have a very small spread of points. When the players are all within 5 or 6 points of each other in the overall scoring that 9 point spread for sportsmanship or comp scoring is pretty huge. And once you start considering paint scores that spread only gets bigger.

First, I pointed out that the actual range of scores awarded is smaller than the total available. But that’s over the whole event. If you look at the results of an actual event, the score range at the top is normally even tighter. For example, in the 2010 Adepticon Championship blue side, the top eight of us all had perfect Sports scores. On the Yellow side it’s more mixed, but the only guy who’s not within a 3pt spread is actually the overall winner, who more than made up for it in Battle points, proving my point.

As for tight results, anyone who’s actually placed high in one these things knows that it is the nature of the beast that a little luck in one place or another is what really separates the top ten. Virtually any of the top five or ten guys usually could have been the one to win it, with one slightly different table, or a slightly easier opponent in one round, or slightly luckier dice.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dashofpepper wrote:

Hulksmash wrote: I realize that people like Dash, me, Dave, and others would prefer no soft scores but we're not the majority of players that pay to attend these events.

Are you sure about that?

We're free to argue all day about whether people prefer soft scores or not in what majority....but the only data points I've seen (being polls) in these forums (linked earlier, and also in the SOCAL thread) clearly illustrate that the VAST majority...the lion's share of players prefer not to have to deal with soft scores.

I play in tournaments to fight, battle, and annihilate. Not to ooh and ahh at pretty armies, or pat my opponent on the head for not snarling at me when I instagib his superawesomeguyz. Why am I supposed to presume that the majority of people who pay large sums of money and travel distances to compete aren't like me? Because the polls say that they are.

Dash, you're smarter than that. It's an established fact that a comparatively small fraction of 40k players participate regularly in forums or polls like these. The attractiveness of the armies and the pleasant attitude of opponents are MAJOR factors for most tournament attendees, because not everyone gets to win their games. That's a mathematical fact. Most people are going to lose games, and only a few win all of them. But all of us get to play, and look at other people's armies. If those armies look nice, and those opponents are pleasant, everyone can have a good time even though most of the attendees don't win any prizes.

Mannahnin has it spot on over all points.

Mannahnin wrote:

Fearspect wrote:Mannahnin:

Those are not tournaments. Call them hobby fun days instead please.

They are tournaments. Your desire to redefine “tournament” and restrict its use only to events which meet your personal criteria, disregarding the existing usage standard within the context of 40k and Warhammer, is your own, and I am not an adherent.

I too call Shenanigans on the original post. The original Grand Tournament scored everything involved in the hobby including the rules quiz. All other tournaments that followed and attempted to crown the best player in a given geographical area or on a particular day copied, the first Grand Tournament. All official GW run GTs I've been to had soft scores but had a best General for the kill kill kill crowd, even then tie breaking was often needed for 50 people 5 game tournaments and sportsmanship was often the tie breaker. Take that douche bags or pricks as I prefer to call them and there win at all costs, including their opponents enjoyment, attitudes.

No offense to the Adepticon crowd as people like their event but the truest original GT-like event going is Astronmi-con even Jervis likes it best. Toronto is sold out perhaps but Winnipeg, Vancouver and Dallas still have room for people who think tournaments involve more than some list you got off the Internet and a few pieces of plastic and pewter.

Oh man, if jervis likes it best you know its good

I grappled the shoggoth wrote:Oh man, if jervis likes it best you know its good

I lol'd.

Dashofpepper wrote:I don't know the wide world of GT players, but I take the hardest list I can to an event regardless of comp. So do the folks I interact with.

I don't!

I take goofy lists that I find interesting. That is the major reason why I have such inconsistent placings in tournaments.

For an example this was my Gladiator list:

HQ
Abaddon the Despoiler

Chaos Sorcerer w/Mark of Tzeentch, Disc of Tzeentch, Warptime

Elite
5 Terminators w/Icon of Tzeentch, Chainfist, Powerfist, Reaper Autocannon
Terminator Aspiring Champion w/2 Lightning Claws

Troops
15 Thousand Sons Marines
Aspiring Sorcerer w/Warptime

10 Chaos Space Marines w/Lascannon, Plasma Gun, Icon of Chaos Glory

10 Chaos Space Marines w/Lascannon, Plasma Gun, Icon of Chaos Glory

Heavy Support
3 Obliterators

3 Obliterators

3 Obliterators


No plague marines, no lash!

I beat a Space Marine player, 2 Mech IG and then lost to a Dark Eldar army with a million Dark Lances.

Black Blow Fly wrote:It's a basic fallacy to assume there are 5 to 10 top army builds. The best armies are not net lists, which the OP is looking for. For example 40k daemons are considered by many to be quite weak but in fact they can be quite strong. Same thing with Nidz. If you are looking to win big consistently with a net list you copy & bring to a large tournament you coukd be in for a big surprise. That's a fact.

G

True story. A good list just has to include all the tools to get the job done.

Blackmoor wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:I don't know the wide world of GT players, but I take the hardest list I can to an event regardless of comp. So do the folks I interact with.

I don't!

I take goofy lists that I find interesting. That is the major reason why I have such inconsistent placings in tournaments.

For an example this was my Gladiator list:

"Typical Blackmoor Goofy Stuff"

I beat a Space Marine player, 2 Mech IG and then lost to a Dark Eldar army with a million Dark Lances.

Dude, Dark Lance Spam Dark Eldar is a huge wild card killer. That's just a poor draw.

Buttermuffin wrote:

Nobody I know is ever scared of bringing a brow beater list because they might lose comp.

I think the problem isn't that individuals are dumbing down their lists, but rather that people willing to bring such lists in the first place are turned off to the event because of the shift in focus away from the tournament portion. Personally, I wouldn't attend a "tournament" that featured only 39% of the scoring in battle points even if it was free and being held in my own house, and I know many others who feel similarly. So the lists brought to the event end up being softer not because any one player decided to take Striking Scorpions instead of a Seer Council, but because many of those who have hard armies decided not to bring them at all.

You keep saying this but I have yet to see a huge influx of people who have come out and say that they don't attend tournemtents because of soft scores. In fact according to this poll the highest percentage wants soft scores mixed in with the rest. So what evidence do you have that strong players are staying away other than "I wouldn't and neither would many other people I know"?