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.

torgoch wrote:

number9dream wrote:

No offense to any ETC organizers who might be reading this. Actually yes, offense - what the feth are you thinking? ;[

Any decision over special characters is voted in the Captains' Council and I understand that this year they will all be banned. Our team voted internally (we voted to ban them), not sure if other teams had an internal vote or not. Given ETC has some of the best players around making that vote, that's quite a lot of poeple you are tarring with that there brush stroke.

It just doesn't make sense to drastically reduce the variability in army builds to me :( Someone needs to explain the reasoning to me. Which special character is it that's ruining the balance? I just can't think of one.

olympia wrote:Why would the absence of comp or other soft-scores make a tournament less fun? Because a fluffy army will get beat down? Perhaps, but it's no fun to lose with your diversified nobz/triple vendetta/whatever either, and the match-ups will pair like with like by round two or three.

This hits on an important note. The current version of 40k at the tournament level is unprofessionalized, and "all comers." The 40k equivalent of a youth soccer team can show up at even the toughest tournaments in the country and play against the 40k equivalent of Beckham. Comp is effectively going "well, that's not fair, let's strap duct tape around Beckham's legs and make him hop around all day."

You might see competitiveness arise in the tournament as a result, with some 10 year old soccer playing equivalent 40k list winning the day ... but is that what you *really* want? For better or worse, this is as much a list building game as a skill game. If you acknowledge that someone willfully taking an underpowered list probably shouldn't be rolling through undefeated, then proper pairing and seeding takes care of the problem. People who bring a list at risk of losing 4 or 5 games will end up there, battling it out with their equivalents, and the range will carry through to your final matches.

Comp doesn't *actually* work ... the "best" list builders still spend enormous amounts of time "breaking" your comp system and figuring out the best way to abuse it, while the fluff builders typically just "hope" their list will be more competitive as a result of what you've done. They then are the ones the most upset when their fluffy list gets its teeth kicked in while simultaneously scoring poorly on comp b/c it by chance didn't fit in the key areas. You don't really fix anything, in actuality. If you want it to be 'purely' about skill and balance, hold a General's Touranment, where everyone has to use the exact same list.


If not, hold a tournament with enough rounds and a format proper enough to ensure that by the 2nd-4th rounds, the field has "balanced" itself and the rubber matches are as competitive and "skill" related as it gets. THAT is the best way to "comp" a system as heterogeneous and free form as 40k. *shrug*

Dashofpepper wrote:I think that people will shift eventually. The first GT level event in the United States to do away with Sportsmanship and Comp and focus solely on wins/losses to determine your tournament winner is the Nova Open. While they *do* have soft scores for painting, player judged comp, and sportsmanship - those scores are for a separate category that doesn't affect who wins the tournament -- the tournament winner will be the only person who goes 6-0 after two days of fighting.

Two months before the event, attendance is sold out at 64 entries with a waiting list approaching 30+ people; the TO is considering expanding the tournament to 94 people. The only event in the U.S. larger is Adepticon, and the Nova Open is in its first year. The TO is keeping track of attendance, I don't know the exact specs, but I think he has attendees coming from 30 states? SVDM got around 50, SoCal had mid 30s, Bolter Beach had low 20s, broadside bash had high 40s....

And the first "win/loss single elimination for tournament winner" event hit its event maximum and is looking to be the largest single GT event ever held. o.O Hopefully there's a lesson in there somewhere for other people hosting events in the future who want to drive attendance.

You are correct that is currently the case. However, remember GW used to run their own Grand Tournaments with 100 40k players and 100 fantasy players, and right there at the end some lord of the rigns folks. Vegas usually sold out and Baltimore usually sold out the others, not so much. So it isn't quite the largest single GT event ever held, at least not yet! Ghengis Con and Tacti-con in Colorado usually pull between 45-55 people so it's on par with SVDM and SoCal. I dont know what the numbers for BoLSCon were for last year. Before GW quit going to GenCon it also had an approximate 100 player tournament, while Origin's racked in the 40s-50s.

However the Nova Open looks to be doing a spectacular job their first time out so far! I don't want to detract from that just wanted to provide a little more history.

No-one needs to explain anything to you and given the number of people involved in the voting you shouldn't expect anyone to be able to.

I voted to remove them as it increases variability in builds. If the Doom of Malantai was available, almost every Tyranid army would have him. As they can't each Tyranid player will spend those points on something different and will probably come up with something different. The same logic applies to Ghaz, Vulkan, Eldrad..

That's rather the point, Torgoch. Someone drops the Doom against me, instead of another set of hive guard or zoanthropes even, I'll thank him for advancing me closer to a win. The game has more ways of being run and won than people think. Comp is run by people who a) don't really realize who it helps, and who it hurts, and b) are convinced there's only one best way to run each army, and so want to change that.

C'est la vie.

torgoch wrote:No-one needs to explain anything to you and given the number of people involved in the voting you shouldn't expect anyone to be able to.

I voted to remove them as it increases variability in builds. If the Doom of Malantai was available, almost every Tyranid army would have him. As they can't each Tyranid player will spend those points on something different and will probably come up with something different. The same logic applies to Ghaz, Vulkan, Eldrad..

At the same time you also make it so that a player can't play a Deathwing army or a Ravenwing army. A biker army via wazdakka is also out. You've now restricted necrons to exactly one hq choice since their other two hq's are special characters.

You also kill fluffy lists like a Saim Haim Wind Rider host or a valkryie "drop troop" imperial guard army, etc.

So while you are limiting/eliminating a lot of the most powerfull models, you also hamstring a lot of actually "themed" armies.

torgoch wrote:No-one needs to explain anything to you and given the number of people involved in the voting you shouldn't expect anyone to be able to.

I voted to remove them as it increases variability in builds. If the Doom of Malantai was available, almost every Tyranid army would have him. As they can't each Tyranid player will spend those points on something different and will probably come up with something different. The same logic applies to Ghaz, Vulkan, Eldrad..

Sigh, obviously nobody HAS to explain, I'm saying I don't get it and would love for someone to tell me why the decision was made.

Clearly you were offended by my initial comment, sorry about that but I still don't get why this decision was made. I've seen tonnes of Tyranid lists in competitive events that don't feature the Doom. ETC is 1500 points right (I'll freely admit that all I know about this event is that it's the premier 40k competition in europe, and that it's somehow team based - if it's a further departure from regular 40k than i thought it was, then there may be some obvious reasons for the SC ban).
EDIT: Looked it up, and it's 1750 points, each match consists of 8 games between the two teams, so just regular 40k - nothing like a doubles competition right?


Having said that, I pretty much 100% agree with Warmaster's post above me.

I also feel that there's a lot more alternatives to the character you listed than you are suggesting.

Competitive Ork lists without Ghaz:
- Nob bikers
- Kanwall
(this is assuming every mech ork list would bring Ghaz if they could, at 1500 pts I'm really not convinced this is the case)

Competitive SM lists without Vulkan:
- Biker marines
- Critical Mass and its like (http://www.yesthetruthhurts.com/2010/01/critical-mass-mech-space-marines-1500.html is what I'm thinking of specifically)
Can't say I know marine lists all that well.

Competitive Eldar lists without Eldrad:
- Bike-council lists
- ... Tonnes of mech lists? I might be wrong but I don't think Eldar is an auto-include at 1500 points in mech lists?
I.E http://www.yesthetruthhurts.com/2010/01/mafty-asked-in-this-thread-i-realize.html

For both Ghaz and Eldrad, isn't the only effect of banning them to make people take "lesser verisons" of the same character? If someone was gonna run Ghaz but now they can't, won't they just run a Warboss? If someone was going to run Eldar, won't he just be replaced with a tooled up Farseer?

My point is that as long as there is variety in the format of tournaments every type of player will be able to find an event they like.

I am using tournament to describe an event where a bunch of players who don't know each other visit from different areas and have some games. This lets them experience some different opponents, armies and playing styles.

There is often some kind of prize or maybe just kudos, however that isn't the point. The point is for people to experience some variety and have fun.

In my view, Hard Boys is a valid choice of format and it shouldn't be the only choice.

If you want to play wargame tournaments there is a much older circuit in Ancients (WRG, DBA, FoG and so on) which offers tighter rules and better balance in army lists, though not perfect.

40K is what it is.

I agree about variety.

My only "wish" (that I don't really see as realistic) would be for the creation of formalized tourney "styles" or types, or circuits, so that players could make easily informed decisions about which events to attend, instead of the crap shoot some can be ... where you *hope* it will be what you'd like it to be, but then are rather dashed in those hopes by the actuality.

DarthDiggler wrote:In the my experience the biggest arguments and complainers at a tournament has come from the painters. Hell hath no fury like a painter scorned in the paint scores.

That's because we're just that special ;p

Seriously, anyone who is competitive will complain about things that impact their competition. Generals will complain about missions that punish their army just as much as painters will complain about paint-judging systems that penalize their style. Generals will complain about incompetent rules judging just as much as painters will complain about incompetent paint judging.

Those of us in both categories never stop whining

torgoch wrote:No-one needs to explain anything to you and given the number of people involved in the voting you shouldn't expect anyone to be able to.

I voted to remove them as it increases variability in builds. If the Doom of Malantai was available, almost every Tyranid army would have him. As they can't each Tyranid player will spend those points on something different and will probably come up with something different. The same logic applies to Ghaz, Vulkan, Eldrad..

Or bring a different army entirely?

I know DarthDiggler is fond of saying that comp should be addressed in the missions. A mission that forces people to move penalizes gunlines far more effectively than comping gunlines out. I'm running the AWC event in Chicago this month, and was joking that one of the missions was going to start all unique characters at one wound - the "sorry, I was just in another 500 point game over there" effect.

Only half-joking too.

There are a number of ways to address the proliferation of named characters without outright banning them.

- All named characters are delayed in mission planning. They enter the game from your table-edge on turn 3.
- All named characters are wounded because they fight in every minor skirmish in the galaxy. They start the game down wounds.
- All named characters are tired from sleeping with their groupies the night before the fight, and suffer -1 WS, BS and I for the game.

Be creative, don't ban.

I know Europe and Australia also have more of an anti-special character tendancy than the US does. (Granted, this is from the FB side...) The podcasts I listen to don't even really talk about special characters when they do army book reviews because no one uses them.

Personally, I'm not a fan of seeing special characters on the field. There's an Empire player locally that always uses Kurt...I give him a ribbing about him playing a Vampire Counts army actually as Kurt comes back from the dead quite a bit

As for comp...I agree with (I believe) Mannheim (And I've said this before) that if done right (Based on power) it tends to narrow the gap between hardest and softest armies. This is better done with a 'hard' comp system rather than a scored comp system though.

Done the other way presented (Based on playing 'right') doesn't really accomplish much other than demonize people and act as an exclusionary system.

Why are we still talking about this? Every tournament thread you can you bring this up olympia.

What about a system where you allow special and named characters, but each character taken gives your opponent a certain number of "upgrade" points that he can spend to upgrade a non-special character in his army. So, for 40k:

Vulkan = 5pts
Eldrad = 4pts
Ghaz = 3pts
Sicarious = 2pts
Mephiston = 4pts
Corbulo = 3pts
Lemartest = 3pts
Etc

So, lets say I bring my army to play against a blood angels army with Mephiston, corbulo, and lemartes. I now get 10 upgrade pts to spend on the table.

Make one character +1 WS = 2pts
Mastercraft a single character weapon = 1pt
Character gets furious charge = 3pts
Character andhis unit gain furious charge = 10pts
etc.

This way, not all SCs are punished equally, and it allows people to pick and choose what they take to fight the enemy army and his SCs.

Polonius wrote:What about a system where you allow special and named characters, but each character taken gives your opponent a certain number of "upgrade" points that he can spend to upgrade a non-special character in his army. So, for 40k:

Vulkan = 5pts
Eldrad = 4pts
Ghaz = 3pts
Sicarious = 2pts
Mephiston = 4pts
Corbulo = 3pts
Lemartest = 3pts
Etc

So, lets say I bring my army to play against a blood angels army with Mephiston, corbulo, and lemartes. I now get 10 upgrade pts to spend on the table.

Make one character +1 WS = 2pts
Mastercraft a single character weapon = 1pt
Character gets furious charge = 3pts
Character andhis unit gain furious charge = 10pts
etc.

This way, not all SCs are punished equally, and it allows people to pick and choose what they take to fight the enemy army and his SCs.

The biggest problem with doing anything to unique models is that GW has made them essential to "unlock" certain types of armies. Want to play Deathwing/Ravenwing? Want Biker Orks? Want to run Flesh Tearers? They've crammed a lot of the flavor into unique models, even the not-overpowering ones.

(Sure, Tyranids don't need any of their unique models...but the Parasite fits much better in a flying swarm list than a Flyrant, and is hardly the most overpowering of models.)

Not really directed at your suggestion, Polonius. That seems interesting, but pretty complex to set up, as you have to weight ever unique model in the game.

Some unique characters are good and some are bad. Some units are good and some units are bad. I think they all balance out in the end and unique characters are not the be all end all of 40k army list abuse.

BTW just because a unique character loses their last wound doesn't mean they are dead. The fluff has many instances when losing the last wound can mean the model is incapacitated for the moment and not dead. If we are to interpret that losing your last wound means you are dead, then any single game of 40k will produce marine chapter loses approaching 40% of the entire chapter, instances when the whole chapter would be on the brink of elimination.

Well, in the case of Kurt, he was cut down in a challenge with my Exalted hero then the unit broke...That's dead

I run ZERO soft-scoring in my tournaments. Closest I come to any comp is the missions generally favor having more Scoring Units.

Aduro wrote:I run ZERO soft-scoring in my tournaments. Closest I come to any comp is the missions generally favor having more Scoring Units.

This is an outstanding policy. Can I ask, do players who emphasize background and the hobby aspect of the event avoid these events?

I grappled the shoggoth wrote:Why are we still talking about this? Every tournament thread you can you bring this up olympia.

I'm at a loss myself.

If you don't like the tourney scene in another country, then don't travel there. Or DO travel there and find out just how competitive it really is. *shrug*

gorgon and shoggoth, I would totally slam your soft-scores for trying to muzzle any criticism of soft scoring. I'm American anyways so can you grant me dispensation to criticize the tournament scene in the country I live in? We can ask mods to block all comments by foreigners except those who support soft scores.

olympia wrote:I'm American anyways so can you grant me dispensation to criticize the tournament scene in the country I live in?

olympia wrote:Over here they're called tournaments

olympia wrote:I hope the success of the 'Ard Boyz in the U.S. is a sign that competitive 40k has a chance to return to the tournament scene over there.

Perhaps you can understand the assumption that you aren't from around these parts.

olympia wrote:

Aduro wrote:I run ZERO soft-scoring in my tournaments. Closest I come to any comp is the missions generally favor having more Scoring Units.

This is an outstanding policy. Can I ask, do players who emphasize background and the hobby aspect of the event avoid these events?

Not really. I'm probably about the biggest proponent of background and hobby locally, and I'm Running them.

For most of the last 2 decades GW itself has encouraged hobby style scoring with comp, painting, sportsmanship, lore as well as battle part of the mix.

now only lately has the ard boyz model come out.

and the worst part of is not the douchebaggery, its the encouragement of unpainted( i could generally care less about perfect wyswygness general indications are good for me, my opponents list will let me know more than anything else) bare plastic armies that get popped down upon the table.

i was lucky to play against 3 painted armies in the ard boyz semis. but have played against plastic kits that were rapidly glued together with major bits missing in the past.

and that takes away from my fun. competitive ard game play is a major part of it but with painted armies and good terrain makes it so much better.

I have no problem playing unpainted armies really. Sure, I prefer playing against nice looking armies, and those will get the most attention from me, but I know not everyone has the time/patience/desire to paint full giant armies.

Janthkin wrote:

olympia wrote:I'm American anyways so can you grant me dispensation to criticize the tournament scene in the country I live in?

olympia wrote:Over here they're called tournaments

olympia wrote:I hope the success of the 'Ard Boyz in the U.S. is a sign that competitive 40k has a chance to return to the tournament scene over there.

Perhaps you can understand the assumption that you aren't from around these parts.

My particular niche in the adult film industry brings me to ireland alot (don't ask ). Anyhow are canadians atbleast allowed to comment on u.s. tournaments?

Canadians are allowed to do whatever they want. We just don't acknowledge them.

olympia wrote:

Janthkin wrote:

olympia wrote:I'm American anyways so can you grant me dispensation to criticize the tournament scene in the country I live in?

olympia wrote:Over here they're called tournaments

olympia wrote:I hope the success of the 'Ard Boyz in the U.S. is a sign that competitive 40k has a chance to return to the tournament scene over there.

Perhaps you can understand the assumption that you aren't from around these parts.

My particular niche in the adult film industry brings me to ireland alot (don't ask ). Anyhow are canadians atbleast allowed to comment on u.s. tournaments?

I have never played in a tournament here that features composition scoring. I have played in some that feature painting and sportsmanship scoring, but either very good systems (choose your favorite opponent, player with most favorites wins, battle points determine ties). Or they are entirely separate categories, so battle points and painting dont mix. I just played in a 42 person event that featured 4 prizes, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and best painted. Scoring was judged painting and battle points. Like I have said, I have yet to see these comp events.

What about a system where you allow special and named characters, but each character taken gives your opponent a certain number of "upgrade" points that he can spend to upgrade a non-special character in his army. So, for 40k:

Vulkan = 5pts
Eldrad = 4pts
Ghaz = 3pts
Sicarious = 2pts
Mephiston = 4pts
Corbulo = 3pts
Lemartest = 3pts
Etc

So, lets say I bring my army to play against a blood angels army with Mephiston, corbulo, and lemartes. I now get 10 upgrade pts to spend on the table.

Make one character +1 WS = 2pts
Mastercraft a single character weapon = 1pt
Character gets furious charge = 3pts
Character andhis unit gain furious charge = 10pts
etc.

This way, not all SCs are punished equally, and it allows people to pick and choose what they take to fight the enemy army and his SCs.

This is a very bad idea, here is why. What makes corbulo worth mentioning? Hes an upgrade character, and you pay fairly for him. Would you punish people for bringing arjac rockfist? Spending 200 points on one guy? What about eldrad, why is he better then gaz. Eldar in general suck in 5th, and with the proliferation of hoods he just isnt that good. Someone like gaz can steamroll anything in combat, while giving the whole army ridiculous move bonuses. I would consider him better then eldrad. Why is lemartes on this list? He is a 150 point 2 wound model. This will just degenerate into favoritism, and who feels so and so character is broken compared to this or that guy.

I grappled the shoggoth wrote:

I have never played in a tournament here that features composition scoring. I have played in some that feature painting and sportsmanship scoring, but either very good systems (choose your favorite opponent, player with most favorites wins, battle points determine ties). Or they are entirely separate categories, so battle points and painting dont mix. I just played in a 42 person event that featured 4 prizes, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and best painted. Scoring was judged painting and battle points. Like I have said, I have yet to see these comp events.

You are lucky indeed that the tournaments in your area are devoid of comp scoring. However, the overwhelming majority of qualifiers for the Las Vegas GT feature both composition and sports scoring.

While yes Shoggoth, that system seems like crap, eldar do not suck. I play competitively with them all the time, with success!

Eldrad can kill most special characters out there, with his whacky 3++ re-rollable, and divination. He more or less benefits the army as a whole.

Pretty easy to keep Big E out of the sweet 24" line...

Polonius wrote:What about a system where you allow special and named characters, but each character taken gives your opponent a certain number of "upgrade" points that he can spend to upgrade a non-special character in his army. So, for 40k:

Vulkan = 5pts
Eldrad = 4pts
Ghaz = 3pts
Sicarious = 2pts
Mephiston = 4pts
Corbulo = 3pts
Lemartest = 3pts
Etc

So, lets say I bring my army to play against a blood angels army with Mephiston, corbulo, and lemartes. I now get 10 upgrade pts to spend on the table.

Make one character +1 WS = 2pts
Mastercraft a single character weapon = 1pt
Character gets furious charge = 3pts
Character andhis unit gain furious charge = 10pts
etc.

This way, not all SCs are punished equally, and it allows people to pick and choose what they take to fight the enemy army and his SCs.

So you give your opponent free abilities because you took a character that you needed to pay extra points for?

I don't get it.

I don't think that there are any SCs that are really grossly unfairly costed. I rarely take Eldrad in my Eldar army, but not because of fluff or comp reasons, but because I realize that I need to maximize the amount of stuff I can bring to the game by utilizing cheaper hqs.