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.

At this tourney, the Wolfstar lists scored a total of 8 points (7.5 would have been average). They played each other twice out of their 15 games, but they also got a free point due to a Bye/Ringer match.

Unfortunately I don't have any information on how many of the wins were straight up tabling, so without that it's not that important. But I still believe in the idea that these armies are much more effective in an environment where going 3-2 with three tabling and two minor losses will get you significantly more points than someone who went 5-0 with 5 minor wins, and that they are built to take advantage of that.

I too hope that the new Adepticon style missions help mitigate this. Really any system that doesn't grade wins as being Major or Minor helps mitigate this kind of list, at least in its ability to compete for the top prizes without a competent general and some luck.

DarthDiggler wrote:I have played against more SW players who only know the rules for their list - not the rules for the game and never the rules for anyone elses codex. These people strike me as a little simple when it comes to the game.

Space Wolf players tend to be dumb? Haha, tell us how you really feel, Darth!

The only reason people dislike Wolves right now is because they are top dog (pun-intended ) and popular.

Everyone hated on IG before this.

If Footdar were very powerful and not so challenging to play, you'd see them everywhere and people would be complaining about over-powered, C&P, net-list Footdar. Just like Tri-Falcon Eldar last edition.

A list that is good but common is not unintelligent. A list that is not spammy or popular isn't necessarily creative.

I know Christian (who is a super nice guy and a very good player, not at all unintelligent) and some of his friends worked on that list together, play testing it against a variety of opponents and tweaking it till they had it the way they wanted it. It was not at all a "net-list." We all gave feedback to each other about our lists so that we could all improve them.

Is it a no-holds barred list meant to have a good shot at winning a tournament? Yes it is. Some people dislike that on a fundamental, philosophical level but that in no way means the person using it is not a cool guy, or fun to play, or lacks appreciation for the game and the background. It is simply a different way to play. We play the game as a competitive exercise. We like the challenge, the competition and the sense of engagement that comes along with playing the game that way. Right now, Wolves are the army that provides the most tools to win the game, so a lot of players use that codex as their toolbox from which to make a winning army. When you look at it logically, it is a clearly intelligent choice. I agree that it diminishes variety, but hey, we need more books that can compete.

I know for me, I appreciate a tough list. That means more to me than a list with lots of variety or what have you. Once the models are on the table, it's all the same anyway. I think some people get mad at spam lists more for what they represent than for how they actually play. I find lists with lots of the same units easier to play against and with for most players as there are less rules to understand. Not everyone has such depth of knowledge of the game as we do.

Anyway, to each their own. I appreciate playing the game casually and competitively and recognize that they are two different ways to go about our favorite hobby. Both are equally valid but quite a bit different.

And besides, ChristianA's space wolves are actually the notorious Space Pigs riding Thunder Pigs with Piglet buddies instead of fenresian wolves. And all the guys have blue hair. How can you not like that?!?

@Fateweaver
Troops can be good, but as others have said, in book standard missions you only need 2-3 units of them to win. Since other units in most books are more efficient or powerful on a point by point comparison, the most powerful lists often take few troops. This is not true for all books or lists, but is often the case.

It takes smart play to win with so few troops, which is the opposite of what a lot of people think about those types of "net-lists." You can't make any mistakes with your troops or it's game over. That makes the list a lot more challenging to play than they may first appear to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Darth and Lambadomy

Oh, and I agree that the new missions look like they will really help to balance things. I have not gotten to play them yet, but on paper they look fantastic! Here's hoping they do open the game up so we can stay competitive with a wider variety of lists.

The last tournament at my store was based on the GT rules and scenarios. Sure you could get max points with a massacre but a massacre was not automatically max. battle points.

Tournament rules should NEVER reward massacres, not in an edition where objectives are important in 2 of the 3 scenarios. I guess I'm peeved that GW made scenarios that DON'T reward min-maxing the vast majority of the time and yet tournaments still embrace the mindset. Why even have objectives if the best way to get max points is to wipe your opponent off the table? Just use KP's or VP's and be done with it.

Min/maxing will always be a good tactic unless rules are made specifically to counter it (which I suspect was one goal of KPs).

Min/maxing is by definition the best way to make an army.

Minimize what is bad.

Maximize what is good.

It is clearly the logical way to make the best list from a pure efficiency stand point. It will always be that way in a game that is build upon math.

Tournament gamers just play differently. No need to get mad about it. Unless you play in tournaments or with tournament gamers a lot, it won't even affect you.

Why not all KP or VP missions? That would be boring for one, and for two, just because someone chooses to play with the minimum amount of troops doesn't mean those types of missions shouldn't be in the event. It just means those types of missions are the weakness of the low troop army.

Taking only 2 troops shows you have the skill to win by playing through that weakness either because you build a list good enough to pull it off, or you are that good of a player.

From a purely objective point of view, what difference does it make? Does it really matter that there are fewer troops and more of units x,y,z? It is still 40K. There are still toy soldiers on the table. It really doesn't change the game that much. The player with few troops has simply decided that he is willing to take the risk of a small amount of troops. He is saying he thinks he can still win playing through that weakness with the benefit he gains from putting those points into more killy units.

Looking at it any other way is bringing a subjective opinion into the equation that simply represents the way you FEEL the game should be played. That is an important distinction to make. Everyone is entitled to play the game the way they want to so long as they play within the confines of the rules.

Agreed.

And with the general caveat that everyone is entitled to play the way they want to... ...with the consent of whoever they're playing with. IME most hard feelings and disputes about the "right" way to play arise from people making too many assumptions that their way to play is the best or the default way, and not communicating sufficiently with their opponents to make sure they're coming to the table with compatible expectations.

Yeah, that is true.

I always ask a new opponent (in a casual game) what type of list they would like to play against: a fluff list or a tournament list.

That way you both get to play a game you will enjoy.

Intelligently built lists? Calm down.
Nash's list is as intelligently built as any other list. Minimum troop choice can be a gamble if the enemy finds a way to take down 2x 5 Grey Hunters, although its hardly likely.

People need to back off.

It takes lots of skill to plunk down 15 ML's and roll dice.

Bummer of a match up

wuestenfux wrote:Intelligently built lists? Calm down.
Nash's list is as intelligently built as any other list. Minimum troop choice can be a gamble if the enemy finds a way to take down 2x 5 Grey Hunters, although its hardly likely.

It's not my list btw. I was the TO that's why I posted it.

But yes I agree with you. Carry on.

Reecius wrote:If Footdar were very powerful and not so challenging to play, you'd see them everywhere

But as you say SW are very powerful and not so challenging to play. Does that make them an unintelligent list? In certain forms possibly. Yes there has always been unintelligent lists to play. Sometimes as a new codex come out that unintelligent list doesn't work anymore and you need to do some thinking to pull out a win. That's what has hapopened to IG around here. Yes they can still win, but they are not so automatic as they once were and the 'masses' have moved away from them to SW.

I am not saying people who play these lists are dumb. I am not saying people who know the bare minimum about 40k only play SW, however those types of people can have success with SW and they gravitate towards that. Does that make it a dumb list because it is the simplist list to play? I think it is unfortunate that the simplist list to play is also one of the most powerful.

I don't know how this turned into a Christian thing. I don't know the guy and never once had any intention of bringing him up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

wuestenfux wrote: Minimum troop choice can be a gamble if the enemy finds a way to take down 2x 5 Grey Hunters, although its hardly likely.

Then where is the gamble? Grots can certainly take down a Bloodthirster although it is hardly likely. I wouldn't call that a gamble.

Reecius wrote:
The only reason people dislike Wolves right now is because they are top dog (pun-intended ) and popular.

No, it's not that they're 'top dog', it's that they're too good, and too common as a result. I've been playing in tournaments for six years now, far less time than some here, more than others. But, from my perspective, the tournament scene is as boring as I've ever seen it, and it's largely due to Space Wolves.

The first tournament I went to, there were marines of multiple colours, nids, chaos armies (of many different varieties), tau, orks, guard, grey knights, sisters... I think every codex was represented by someone there, and this was only a 20-ish person tournament.

Now, you get 100 different podcasts and blogs extolling the virtues of playing "competitively" - as if winning was the only thing that mattered, and telling people that they're incompetent if they don't run spam-it lists. Last tournament I went to, 33% of the people were playing Space Wolves.

Maybe it's because they're MEQ - anyone with bolter marines can call their guys space wolves with a minimum of effort. And that sort of thing is also encouraged on the various blogs and podcasts out there. Play whatever army you have as 'counts as' Space Wolves, and win games!!

Maybe guard was/is tough. Maybe nidzilla was, or falcon-eldar - I'm sure there will always be a top dog. But the top dog being so easy to morph whatever you have into, with the blessing of the internet crews and being so blatantly overpowered compared even to other power armour armies.

Is it a no-holds barred list meant to have a good shot at winning a tournament? Yes it is. Some people dislike that on a fundamental, philosophical level but that in no way means the person using it is not a cool guy, or fun to play, or lacks appreciation for the game and the background. It is simply a different way to play. We play the game as a competitive exercise. We like the challenge, the competition and the sense of engagement that comes along with playing the game that way. Right now, Wolves are the army that provides the most tools to win the game, so a lot of players use that codex as their toolbox from which to make a winning army. When you look at it logically, it is a clearly intelligent choice. I agree that it diminishes variety, but hey, we need more books that can compete.

You can play a game as a competitive exercise without resorting to simplistic choices or exploiting overpowered books. I'm as competitive as the next guy, but I'd rather see if I can win with something different. Winning with Space Wolves is like winning at the Special Olympics. At the end of the day, you get a trophy, but did it mean anything? You get MORE challenge if you play something different. You're not playing Space Wolves because you're competitive or because you want a challenge, you're playing them because you want a win. That's an important distinction. Me, I'd rather have the extra challenge, even if it means losing, because it's the challenge that matters to me, not the prize.

@Darth
I wasn't saying you were picking on Christian directly (although you were a bit by implication) I was just defending my friend. Anyone who has played him knows he is a cool guy and both a good player and fun to game with.

Are Wolves the simplest army to play? I disagree. Yes, shooting missiles is fairly simple as long as you know how to prioritize targets, but a lot of armies shoot from a static position. Tau do it too, but no one's accusing them of being unintelligent.

Kevin Nash has data from their numerous tournaments showing that Space Wolf players actually perform under the average. They do not play themselves according to this (admittedly small) data set.

To me a "simple to play" army is an army that is very one-dimensional. Something like the BT horde. It just runs forward, largely of its own accord, and assaults. That army pretty much plays itself. Wolves don't. They are very flexible, they assault well and shoot well and provide a lot of options during play. They are really good at all of it, sure, but the army is by no means autopilot.

@Redbeard
You make some good points, and I agree, people play wolves not only because they are cool (and I think it is pretty safe to say that space vikings are pretty fething cool) but also because they are very powerful with a lot of different types of builds you can pull out of the book all of which can kick ass.

You paint a picture of competition that is pretty heavily colored with opinion, though. Exploiting an over-powered book and being solipsistic? That's a bit of hyperbole. Anyone making a good list out of a book is "exploiting" it if you want to look at it that way.

I do agree though, that it is fun (and a lot cooler) to win with an underpowered or less popular book. I play lots of different lists personally, I am taking Bugs to my next GT and play my Footdar all the time.

I love those armies but when I want to maximize my odds of winning, I go to Wolves because they are the best, as do a lot of people. What someone wants to think that says about me personally (or people who also make that choice) is up to them.

In a competitive environment, it just makes sense to bring what is best. As to whether or not that is what is best for everyone else and for variety in the game, that is obviously a matter of personal opinion. Everyone wants to see Crons at a tournament but who wants to bring them, you know?

As for using counts as, I am for it. I think it encourages creativity in creating unique armies. It also allows the player to get a lot more mileage out of an army by using multiple rules sets. Their opponents also get to play lots of different armies, which to me at least, is a win for everyone. Again though, everyone is entitled to their own opinion in that regard.

And I will say this: while wolves are very good, the game is nowhere near as out of balance as it was last edition. Nidzilla and Tri-Falcon Eldar were ultra dominant. The power has shifted but is less crazy than it was and Wolves are much easier to defeat than those armies were. I mean, look at this event, Chaos won and Wolves only took 1 of the top 3 spots while being over-represented.

Look, if you dislike the current wolf builds and hate running into them at tourneys build your list with the sole purpose of punishing that kind of army.

That is how the metagame evolves. The "next" list will be designed to just absolutely destroy the 3 longfang units builds or lots of termies with cyclones and then that space wolf build will go out of fashion.

I personally don't see the problem with it (both with Space Wolves, and IG before them, and Fatecrusher before that, or whatever flavor of the month is out there) they cause the metagame to evolve and that is only a good thing as every 6-12 months the game will evolve and I, as a general, will face new challenges.

TLDR;
If you know (and hate) that you will play the same space wolves list at every tourney, build your list to destroy it and people will stop bringing it and then you will have a new list to gripe about. Adapt, improvise, overcome.

Redbeard wrote:

Reecius wrote:
The only reason people dislike Wolves right now is because they are top dog (pun-intended ) and popular.

No, it's not that they're 'top dog', it's that they're too good, and too common as a result. I've been playing in tournaments for six years now, far less time than some here, more than others. But, from my perspective, the tournament scene is as boring as I've ever seen it, and it's largely due to Space Wolves.

The first tournament I went to, there were marines of multiple colours, nids, chaos armies (of many different varieties), tau, orks, guard, grey knights, sisters... I think every codex was represented by someone there, and this was only a 20-ish person tournament.

Now, you get 100 different podcasts and blogs extolling the virtues of playing "competitively" - as if winning was the only thing that mattered, and telling people that they're incompetent if they don't run spam-it lists. Last tournament I went to, 33% of the people were playing Space Wolves.

We're talking about in the context of a tournament not a games day or painting contest. Tournaments can have different goals but I suspect in the context of what you're referring to is tournaments where winning is the primary goal. That's how we run our tournaments. Space Wolves have a lot of powerful tools and as a result lots of people are playing them because they are interested in winning the tournament. I don't see how this is somehow inappropriate or unsporting or why you're villifying these people.

Maybe it's because they're MEQ - anyone with bolter marines can call their guys space wolves with a minimum of effort. And that sort of thing is also encouraged on the various blogs and podcasts out there. Play whatever army you have as 'counts as' Space Wolves, and win games!!

Again, in the context of a competitive tournament environment I don't see why this is an issue. As long as the models are legal and wysiwyg or in the parameters that the TO allows there is no issue.

Maybe guard was/is tough. Maybe nidzilla was, or falcon-eldar - I'm sure there will always be a top dog. But the top dog being so easy to morph whatever you have into, with the blessing of the internet crews and being so blatantly overpowered compared even to other power armour armies.

We really don't have enough data to support that yet because there isn't a consistent competitive tournament scene for warhammer 40k. There are pockets of it but it's not a widespread standard like in Magic: The Gathering where you can just point to data and determine that army X is overpowered or too good. Space Wolves are certainly popular and perhaps they are easier to play than say, Eldar, but that doesn't make the overpowered nor does it make the people who play them somehow inferior players. In this tournament Space Wolves were plentiful and they also didn't finish in the top two slots. That went to Chaos Space Marines and IG.

Is it a no-holds barred list meant to have a good shot at winning a tournament? Yes it is. Some people dislike that on a fundamental, philosophical level but that in no way means the person using it is not a cool guy, or fun to play, or lacks appreciation for the game and the background. It is simply a different way to play. We play the game as a competitive exercise. We like the challenge, the competition and the sense of engagement that comes along with playing the game that way. Right now, Wolves are the army that provides the most tools to win the game, so a lot of players use that codex as their toolbox from which to make a winning army. When you look at it logically, it is a clearly intelligent choice. I agree that it diminishes variety, but hey, we need more books that can compete.

You can play a game as a competitive exercise without resorting to simplistic choices or exploiting overpowered books. I'm as competitive as the next guy, but I'd rather see if I can win with something different. Winning with Space Wolves is like winning at the Special Olympics. At the end of the day, you get a trophy, but did it mean anything? You get MORE challenge if you play something different. You're not playing Space Wolves because you're competitive or because you want a challenge, you're playing them because you want a win. That's an important distinction. Me, I'd rather have the extra challenge, even if it means losing, because it's the challenge that matters to me, not the prize.

Deadshane1 wrote:People need to back off.

It takes lots of skill to plunk down 15 ML's and roll dice.

I only took 10 missiles does that mean that I am a expert at space marines? You sound sore that you lost to a missile list.

We need to get one thing stright, I also took wolfstar and placed really low, it is not as pint and click as you people think it is. I had two games with the list before the tourney, you need to know the list and what your opponent has to be good at it.

Reecius wrote:
As for using counts as, I am for it. I think it encourages creativity in creating unique armies. It also allows the player to get a lot more mileage out of an army by using multiple rules sets. Their opponents also get to play lots of different armies, which to me at least, is a win for everyone. Again though, everyone is entitled to their own opinion in that regard.

The original intent of 'Counts As' was to allow unique armies, and I'm all for that. However, I detest what it has become - a way for everyone to run the same codex. People choose armies for all sorts of reasons, look, feel, coolness, etc. And, if Space Vikings are your thing, more power to you. But if it's Chaos that really calls to you, play chaos, don't play space wolves dressed as chaos.

And I will say this: while wolves are very good, the game is nowhere near as out of balance as it was last edition. Nidzilla and Tri-Falcon Eldar were ultra dominant. The power has shifted but is less crazy than it was and Wolves are much easier to defeat than those armies were. I mean, look at this event, Chaos won and Wolves only took 1 of the top 3 spots while being over-represented.

I disagree. I played when nidzilla and tri-falcon were supposedly dominant, and would go entire large tournaments without facing either. As for Wolves only winning one slot, that's more likely due to how poor 40k is a competitive pursuit than anything else. To refer to the M:tG model, we're playing 3-5 single games on random terrain, while they're playing 8 best 2-of-3 games with a defined neutral initial game state just to make it to a three round elimination round - also 2-of-3. That means, while the 'winner' of a 40k tournament is likely to have played between 3-5 games, and may well never have faced any of the other top opponents, a M:tG player will have played a minimum of 22 games - and that's assuming they won every game.

Due to the vagaries of terrain, I'd say any one game of 40k is less indicative of relative player ability than a set of M:tG games. And yet, our tournaments, naturally limited by game length, play far fewer games, and don't even ensure each player has a turn to go first.

40k is not a good 'pure competitive' game. The development process is too slow, and changes of philosophy are rolled out one book at a time, rather than as a cohesive set. The time it takes to play each game is too long to play enough games to really determine a 'best player'. And I think those people who are striving to turn the tournament scene into a purely competitive system (as opposed to one that rewards the social side of wargaming, which includes soft scores, among other things) have lost the plot.

Somnicide wrote:Look, if you dislike the current wolf builds and hate running into them at tourneys build your list with the sole purpose of punishing that kind of army.

That is how the metagame evolves. The "next" list will be designed to just absolutely destroy the 3 longfang units builds or lots of termies with cyclones and then that space wolf build will go out of fashion.

No, the metagame evolves when GW pushes new books. Making a list just to destroy Space Wolves is a poor decision even ify 33% of the armies are Space Wolves. Sure, you're likely to play at least one, but you're more likely to play at least one non-SW army. Meanwhile, the SW who don't play you will still win their games.

I personally don't see the problem with it (both with Space Wolves, and IG before them, and Fatecrusher before that, or whatever flavor of the month is out there) they cause the metagame to evolve and that is only a good thing as every 6-12 months the game will evolve and I, as a general, will face new challenges.

One of the big differences is that dealing with Fatecrusher, or Nidzilla, or Nob Bikers, or whatnot, is that these things show up and have power because people haven't learned to face them yet. When your opponent's advantage is that their units cost 30 less points and can target twice as many units than your units, that's not a difference in tactics, that's just better for cheaper.

Kevin Nash wrote:
We're talking about in the context of a tournament not a games day or painting contest. Tournaments can have different goals but I suspect in the context of what you're referring to is tournaments where winning is the primary goal. That's how we run our tournaments. Space Wolves have a lot of powerful tools and as a result lots of people are playing them because they are interested in winning the tournament. I don't see how this is somehow inappropriate or unsporting or why you're villifying these people.

I'm "vilifying" these people for a few reasons. Look, no one goes to a tournament hoping to lose their games, regardless of what kind of tournament it is. But there's a difference between going to win and going to compete. Going to compete is what I'd hope everyone does. Going to win implies that your time there is wasted if you don't win. We all want to win, but it is how we compete that determines the success or failure of the tournament. If you set up your tournaments as 'winning is everything events', then you get WAAC players.

There is no "exploit" here. People are playing what they perceive as powerful armies. If you want to handicap yourself by playing with Necrons I think that's just fine and you're allowed to take a subpar army to a competitive tournament and lose with it but if you are going to do that I think it's in poor taste to throw stones at people who win with good armies.

It's probably not sporting to take a crummy army to a tournament and then be bitter about losing with it and be bitter about people winning with a good army. I don't see how that's appropriate. If you don't want to see good armies winning go to comp campaigns or painting competitions but don't go to competitive tournaments.

If Space Wolves truly are overpowered (again zero data to support this) then your vitriol should be aiming at Games Workshop, not the players who are playing the army in tournaments.

Space Wolves aren't the real issue, I agree, they're a symptom. But the problem isn't GW either. They've stated that their games aren't suitable for high-end competitive play. And, they're right. 40k can never be M;tG. The games are too long, there are too many variables that are not accounted for, and there's not enough data generated even at the biggest tournaments to honestly determine a winner.

The problem is the 'winning is everything' mentality that's cropped up over the last couple of years, and the number of tournament organizers who have bought into it. Tournaments have ceased to be about social competition between wargamers, they've become purely competitive events whose sole purpose is to name a winner. This mentality then goes to the players too. Those who want the social competition just fade away. And those who are left don't care about fluff or appearance or anything but winning. That's not wargaming.

You say not to blame the players, to blame the system - but that's a fallacy. The players are part of the system. If the players said, "I want to win, but I want to win with my army, not the one on BoLS this week", that'd be a start. If the players decided that it did matter that their Black Legion was a Chaos army, not a Space Wolf army, that'd be good too.

I'm not bitter about taking a crummy army to a tournament and having to face good armies. I'm bitter about the disappearance of fun from the tournament scene as a whole, and going to what's meant to be a social activity only to be met by a bunch of kids with their counts-as-space wolves who think that winning is everything.

Okay, so basically the complaint is that you will play Space Wolves in every tourney and that ruins the game, but writing a list to kill Space Wolves will do nothing because you aren't going to play Space Wolves in every game.

It is not like the things that kill Space Wolves do nothing else in any of the other games.

I think at this point, Space Wolves are just the fat new kid that it is fashionable to hate.

edit: oh yeah, I am not the commissar of what is fun for you - if you don't have fun at tourneys as they are, then don't play in them. Personally (and I have been doing GTs and tourneys since 2001) I have way more fun now than I used to. The armies look better, the generals are a higher quality, and the games are much closer than ever before. So as I will not be your fun commissar maybe consider doing the same by telling people that the armies they worked on and enjoy playing are lame (and I am not even a freaking SW player ;-) )

Space Wolves aren't the real issue, I agree, they're a symptom. But the problem isn't GW either. They've stated that their games aren't suitable for high-end competitive play. And, they're right. 40k can never be M;tG. The games are too long, there are too many variables that are not accounted for, and there's not enough data generated even at the biggest tournaments to honestly determine a winner.

The problem is the 'winning is everything' mentality that's cropped up over the last couple of years, and the number of tournament organizers who have bought into it. Tournaments have ceased to be about social competition between wargamers, they've become purely competitive events whose sole purpose is to name a winner. This mentality then goes to the players too. Those who want the social competition just fade away. And those who are left don't care about fluff or appearance or anything but winning. That's not wargaming.

You say not to blame the players, to blame the system - but that's a fallacy. The players are part of the system. If the players said, "I want to win, but I want to win with my army, not the one on BoLS this week", that'd be a start. If the players decided that it did matter that their Black Legion was a Chaos army, not a Space Wolf army, that'd be good too.

I'm not bitter about taking a crummy army to a tournament and having to face good armies. I'm bitter about the disappearance of fun from the tournament scene as a whole, and going to what's meant to be a social activity only to be met by a bunch of kids with their counts-as-space wolves who think that winning is everything.

+1

In this particular case, they played enough rounds (5) to make sure that the top players played each other in the end (21 players).

For example, the first place player beat the third, 4th, 7th, 10th and 11th place players. The third place player didn't play anyone who placed lower than 8th in 5 games! I played the first, fifth, eighth, ninth and 12th place players (finishing 4th). This is what you would expect from a tournament with a W/L/D format pairing the highest ranked people every round. If you have enough rounds for the amount of players, you're getting a pretty good idea of who "won".

In tournaments with 100 players, and 3 rounds (or 5 even) you don't really find a winner, you just find brackets of players (top, middle, bottom). Which is fine too...except when you have a bunch of prizes.

I don't really agree with the disappearance of fun in the tournament scene, but maybe I haven't been playing long enough and it's been a long slow decline. I saw heaps of Tri-Falcon and Nidzilla in 4th edition around here, and it was plenty un-fun. I saw plenty of random guys named Pedro Kantor or Vulkan in a rainbow of colors when the Space Marines codex came out. I saw enough chaos lords and lieutenants on bikes to last me a lifetime. And I saw a lot of crestfallen iron warriors players who had to box up their army when the boring chaos codex came out. But I still found and find every tournament fun - I meet new people, see a lot of well painted armies, and have some fun games. I just don't see what is fun about playing my bad army against your bad army in a tournament with prizes while the Tri-Falcon guy wins. Even though I've done that for most of 5th edition. A third of the tournament always shows up with super hard, optimized, overpowered, WAAC, whatever you want to call them armies. Is it really worse if now it's 2/3rds, or everyone?

I guess in writing all that the key difference is that a lot of those armies overlapped, and some weren't all that great just new. And most were not marines. There's a lot to be said for having the strongest armies be not marines, because then you don't have everyone dusting off their marine army to play it...since every random kid has a marine army. Most don't want to play weedy space elves or buy 6 carnifexes.

I have always gone to tournaments hoping to compete, not planning to win. I have fun no matter how I place, assuming I have good games against fun opponents and play reasonably well - let the dice gods decide, instead of doing something obviously dumb that costs me the game. I've been playing in more and more tournaments that have more and more hard lists, and what matters is the people who run them, not the lists themselves. I've had miserable experiences in the past against players with really strong lists who were also huge jerks/rules lawyers who hadn't read the rules/WAAC players. I haven't had a game like that in a couple years, even though now I end up playing against really strong lists much more often.

I think at this point, Space Wolves are just the fat new kid that smells up the place, thinks he's cool, but knows deep down inside those cheetos infused pores of his...that he sucks the fun out of the game like Angelina Jolie can suck the chrome off of a tail-hitch.

@Som: I fixed your post.

CaptKaruthors wrote:

I think at this point, Space Wolves are just the fat new kid that smells up the place, thinks he's cool, but knows deep down inside those cheetos infused pores of his...that he sucks the fun out of the game like Angelina Jolie can suck the chrome off of a tail-hitch.

@Som: I fixed your post.

Way to depants the new kid and run him up the flagpole ;-)

I can't wait for Allan's third batrep just to see what off topic discussion is borne of his next opponent. ;-)

For the love of Vect, can't the Dark Eldar win any games against anything other than nids?

Redbeard wrote:

Kevin Nash wrote:
We're talking about in the context of a tournament not a games day or painting contest. Tournaments can have different goals but I suspect in the context of what you're referring to is tournaments where winning is the primary goal. That's how we run our tournaments. Space Wolves have a lot of powerful tools and as a result lots of people are playing them because they are interested in winning the tournament. I don't see how this is somehow inappropriate or unsporting or why you're villifying these people.

I'm "vilifying" these people for a few reasons. Look, no one goes to a tournament hoping to lose their games, regardless of what kind of tournament it is. But there's a difference between going to win and going to compete. Going to compete is what I'd hope everyone does. Going to win implies that your time there is wasted if you don't win. We all want to win, but it is how we compete that determines the success or failure of the tournament. If you set up your tournaments as 'winning is everything events', then you get WAAC players.

I don't agree that "going to win" implies your time there is wasted if you don't win. You can't win every tournament. You can learn from the experience and have enjoyable games against good players and lists even if the outcome isn't what you wanted. I don't see a problem with setting up a competitive tournament where the goal is to win. That's exactly what this tournament was, these lists were entirely appropriate for that. That's what everyone signed up for.

Space Wolves aren't the real issue, I agree, they're a symptom. But the problem isn't GW either. They've stated that their games aren't suitable for high-end competitive play. And, they're right. 40k can never be M;tG. The games are too long, there are too many variables that are not accounted for, and there's not enough data generated even at the biggest tournaments to honestly determine a winner.

I'm not sure about that statement as I don't think it's necessarily current. I'm aiming to change the last part by providing enough rounds at our tournaments to determine exactly that. This tournament produced an undisputed winner.

The problem is the 'winning is everything' mentality that's cropped up over the last couple of years, and the number of tournament organizers who have bought into it. Tournaments have ceased to be about social competition between wargamers, they've become purely competitive events whose sole purpose is to name a winner. This mentality then goes to the players too. Those who want the social competition just fade away. And those who are left don't care about fluff or appearance or anything but winning. That's not wargaming.

That's not your version of wargaming clearly. You are clearly interested in playing in a different kind of tournament where there is comp and soft scores. That's fine. But not all tournaments need to be that way. This tournament was meant to be hardcore and competitive as opposed to a games day or throne of skulls type of tournament.

You say not to blame the players, to blame the system - but that's a fallacy. The players are part of the system. If the players said, "I want to win, but I want to win with my army, not the one on BoLS this week", that'd be a start. If the players decided that it did matter that their Black Legion was a Chaos army, not a Space Wolf army, that'd be good too.

I'm not bitter about taking a crummy army to a tournament and having to face good armies. I'm bitter about the disappearance of fun from the tournament scene as a whole, and going to what's meant to be a social activity only to be met by a bunch of kids with their counts-as-space wolves who think that winning is everything.

You don't like competitive tournaments. That's perfectly fine. There are plenty of comp and soft score tournaments that you can attend. Like the Broadside Bash for example. But just because you don't like something doesn't make it wrong or invalid or not a way to play 40k.

For the love of Vect, can't the Dark Eldar win any games against anything other than nids?

Yes they can. WWP lists work the best I've found.

Way to depants the new kid and run him up the flagpole ;-)

That's the Nelson Muntz in me...HAHA!

Post some batreps! I have a mech heavy shoot list and I have a CC oriented WWP that I want to try out eventually and would love to see what other people are succeeding with

Somnicide wrote:Post some batreps! I have a mech heavy shoot list and I have a CC oriented WWP that I want to try out eventually and would love to see what other people are succeeding with

Maybe I'll do some Batreps this weekend if I can find some people to play. I was going to wait until I had the whole army painted as I enjoy Batreps with fully painted models, but I just might do a few. Stay tuned.

So Redbeard, its okay to play traitor guard because you like chaos but you cannot play Space Wolves as chaos? I know traitor guard do not have a codex but is it that awful that I want to paint and model my minis the way I want to? And for the most part I play sw for competative games, when im playing for "fun" or teaching someone how to play I run chaos as chaos.

Competitive tournaments are still about the social experience. We all go to have fun and hang out with friends playing with our toy soldiers.

It just so happens that most of the guys at this particular tournament love the competition and came with hard lists.

We still had fun and fraternized. Everyone there that I spoke to said how much they enjoyed the event and how much fun they had.

Different strokes for different folks.

In my experience, the "hardcore" tournaments with standardized missions, no comp and simple rules have been the most successful. The tournaments with the most complaints and drama are soft score events and tournaments with weird missions (I'm looking at you, Ard Boyz!).

Kevin Nash wrote:

Space Wolves aren't the real issue, I agree, they're a symptom. But the problem isn't GW either. They've stated that their games aren't suitable for high-end competitive play. And, they're right. 40k can never be M;tG. The games are too long, there are too many variables that are not accounted for, and there's not enough data generated even at the biggest tournaments to honestly determine a winner.

I'm not sure about that statement as I don't think it's necessarily current. I'm aiming to change the last part by providing enough rounds at our tournaments to determine exactly that. This tournament produced an undisputed winner.

No, it produced a winner. Did a single player have an off-day for their dice? Did anyone end up on a table where the terrain screwed them? You're missing the fact that M:tG tournaments (the 'real' competitive game) play best 2-of-3. That each player is assured of getting one game where they go first, and one where they don't (or, perhaps more accurately, one that they get to choose, and one that their opponent does). One game of 40k between two people doesn't tell you anything more than who won that game. An undisputed winner would need to win a series of games. Chess tournaments have multiple games. Poker tournaments have multiple hands. Baseball has series, tennis has sets. Pro golf tournaments run over several days. Even football has two halves with each team getting the ball first each half. 40k has a single battle. That doesn't tell you whose a better player, it tells you who won that one game. There are so many games where something off-the-wall happens (a Ld10 model runs early, a vital unit never shows from reserve, a lynchpin model is sniped before you take a turn) and knocks a player out of tournament contention that claiming a single game is enough to really determine the better player is just silly. But it's all we have time for.

40k is not designed for ultra-competitive play. The designers say so, regularly - it's still a current statement. Talking to any of them at Games Days or GTs, they're simply not interested in making it more competitive, they're interested in making it more fun and selling more models. And that makes sense. There simply isn't enough time to run the number of games, including multiple matches between the same players, to change that.

That's not your version of wargaming clearly. You are clearly interested in playing in a different kind of tournament where there is comp and soft scores. That's fine. But not all tournaments need to be that way. This tournament was meant to be hardcore and competitive as opposed to a games day or throne of skulls type of tournament.

That'd be fine, if this were a real distinction that the supposed community voices were making. Instead, what I read is "if it has soft-scores it's not a tournament, it's a hobby event". That's not on you, but it's out there. And it too bleeds over into the player's approach. The local tournament series that we run in Chicago is supposed to be a more casual event, but a lot of the more casual players have stopped attending because the 'winning is everything' attitude has permeated. We don't do comp, so there's little recourse to stop someone from running their 15ml/TWC cav lists.

You don't like competitive tournaments. That's perfectly fine. There are plenty of comp and soft score tournaments that you can attend. Like the Broadside Bash for example. But just because you don't like something doesn't make it wrong or invalid or not a way to play 40k.

You misunderstand me. I don't mind competitive tournaments. I've done pretty well in them in the past. What I don't like is that the competitive tournament attitude has taken over and pushed out the casual tournaments, and the casual tournament players. Even at the casual tournaments, you find the uber-competitive players and lists.

40k is not designed for tournaments, period. There shouldn't be any tournaments for 40k. People should just show up, pay for the space, and play games, all of which mean nothing. No prizes except maybe for favorite opponent. Maybe a separate best painted competition. If you eliminate the prizes, you'll eliminate the WAAC players (though you may eliminate too many players).

Unfortunately that will never be the case. GW gives out prizes to the organizers so they can give them to the winners! And part of winning is battle points! So GW can say the game is not competitive until the cows come home, and make the game uncompetitive in their rules choices, but in the end it's played competitively and encouraged by prize support by GW.

You have always found the uber competitve players and lists at the casual tournaments, because even the most casual tournaments reward battle points. Over time, more and more people have actually tried to put themselves in a position to actually compete for these prizes, instead of just playing whatever fluffy army they come up with. At first the most annoying were the players who played the hardest army the internet could come up with, and paid someone else to paint their army to a high standard. This reduced winning to battle points, because comp is arbitrary and easily abused, painting is just straight up points, and sportsmanship is typically everyone gets 10s unless you punch your opponent. I really don't find that situation preferable to now - if anything, the trend towards harder armies has reduced the amount of WAAC jerks I see at tournaments because when all the armies are super strong, people can't just go 4-1 because of their list and hopefully take home a prize.

The negative is that you see a lot more poorly painted armies or even partially unpainted armies at these tournaments. I of course am one of the biggest offenders - I am a terrible, frustrated painter who doesn't really have the time to get better, and I'm unwilling to pay someone to paint my army. Eventually my army will be finished, and look decent, but in any tournament that counts painting towards all prizes, I'll be guaranteed to lose unless I table everyone. I'm not really sure how that is a better situation than just playing the game competitively at tournaments, regardless of its obvious flaws.