Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I still think I would support a harsher penalty system than you would (predicated by tight rules and competent judges; tournament play is a farce without those two things), but we're on the same page.

I certainly agree with you, though, that high level organized tournaments would be good. The M:tG Pro Tour is good for pros, of course, but it is also very good for casual/kitchen table players as well. I think largely because of the Pro Tour, there isn't really the competitive vs. casual divide in Magic. Obviously, different people play different ways, but the animosity that you see in wargaming is minimized.

I agree I just feel there are several aspects of wargaming that while not exactly cheating can be kind of a dick move to do for example quick dice hands etc.. basically it would needa lesser infraction system. Just because you can't suspend someone or ban them for taking their time but they'll be encouraged to move a little quicker ifthey get called for being to slow.

Well another benefit it would have is not only clearer rules ,but a definitive time table for redoing codex and fixing rules. Right now things are a little broken, but if there was an actual Professional tournament structure. It straight up allow for way better analysis and a census of what people are playing and why which would allow for possible better rules later on.

I actually think a game like 40k would be undo-able as a serious competitive pursuit, just as it is now. The long round times make it unsuitable to run as many rounds as you'd want to, and GW have no interest in doing what would be required to tighten up the rules. X-Wing, or any other game that can be played in ~1 hour would be good though, and X-Wing has the benefit of already have a pretty strong rule set, as well as the obvious benefit of Star Wars name recognition.

The capital to start something like this must be really high (I have no idea of real numbers, but I do know WotC lost their shirts when they tried to do exactly what we're talking about here with Dreamblade). But, as X-Wing solidifies itself as a long-term success, it would be amazing and exciting if FFG could make a real, high level, tournament circuit viable.

As to trying to do something like this in 40k, I know Frontline Gaming (Las Vegas Open, Bay Area Open) have been talking about trying to get a unified tournament circuit together for a while. Obviously, they haven't succeeded (yet!). To start an independent circuit would take a huge buy-in from TOs around the country/world, and from the interviews I hear with these guys on podcasts, there just isn't the will present to make it work. Until that changes, 40k is AT BEST a bad tournament game.

It's why I never concern myself with Tournaments really, I know people like to say "competitive" I prefer " efficient". I just enjoy having fun. If there was a actual supported tourney scene maybe I'd take it more seriously as I did MTG, but with the rules being what they are there isn't so much a "competitive " field and strategy used ,but "take this list get lucky, win".

It's why I feel a organized structured enviroment is better because after a while if you don't fix the problems then everyone just loses interest simply because of saturation. MTG works as it has constant new sets coming in but GW or others could match that in certain ways. Also, I kind of feel that while "scenario" based games are great and fun you don't want that to be the only outlet for competition to be able to paly in which was the Ard Boyz mistake.

I think if you added more gambling, booze, violence, and hot chicks to wargaming and then made it all into a WWE style reality TV show/Online show it would become more popular.

 Easy E wrote:
I think if you added more gambling, booze, violence, and hot chicks to wargaming and then made it all into a WWE style reality TV show/Online show it would become more popular.

With frat boys, yeah. If that's what you're going for...

Look at the "Rise of Poker" as a good example to follow.

No one is going to watch 30 minutes of guys sitting on one side of the room arguing about who would win in a fight Bloodthirsty or Marneus Calgar, while a group of women on one side desperately try to smash through the doors in order to escape.

You first need a set of rules that everyone understands/ agrees upon. In that regard it could be beneficial for some tabletop games, but only the ones that lend themselves to a 'classical' 2 man competition. ie: a consistent level playing field and consistant balance is required

Could you image what would happen at the poker world championships if someone said that they could technically use a king of diamonds in their flush of hearts because the king has a heart? I see a lot of those types of silly internal inconsistencies happening to a GW league under the current rules, whereas other rule sets could easily be modified to a 'universal game condition'.

Honestly though: i cant see minigames ever surpassing computer games for widespread simulated games. It takes the biggest factor of "how do we handle minor rules disputes" out of biased players hands, and gives them to an impartial, omnipotent, omnipresent computer judge"

That's absolutely true, one of the huge things I've always wondered is why there has not ever been a free to play / pay ladder Gamesworkshop Warhammer 40k and Fantasy simulator.

Yes.. I know people say it will kill the "hobby" but in fact I don't believe this to be true because well straight up you cannot replace the experience of wargaming live. It's why people who like wargaming like playing it because its "real". All I see it doing is increasing visibility for the scene especially if you tied the pay ladder into buying miniatures where with a real world purchase of a book or model you would have access to special miniatures etc..

Of course that will never ever ever happen, well until GW goes bankrupt.


As for your actual comment. Yes, I agree 100% but feel that can actually be achieved with better rules, more balance etc.. Also the statistical data provided by a league would be TREMENDOUS. You'd know instantly how people construct armies , how they play them, what the most common unit taken is. This would inevitably lead to the company being able to adjust prices and better reach players with what players want.

Just the marketing data is worth paying 500k a year for.

I think the thing people think is that this is a zero sum project but instead of looking at a league look at is "Advertising for our product and statistical data on our customers" which is well worth that money spent.

If there was a governing body that kept a ruleset tight it would be definately be beneficial. Settling all the rules disputes would be benefit enough.

I don't think it's help that is needed.

Table top gaming is about fun. I couldn't care less about how can build the most invincible army or what player has the best stategery.

I was just at a major event that sold out all of their tournament slots in 1 day (Adepticon). Why would it need a pro tour?

 kronk wrote:
I don't think it's help that is needed.

Table top gaming is about fun. I couldn't care less about how can build the most invincible army or what player has the best stategery.

I was just at a major event that sold out all of their tournament slots in 1 day (Adepticon). Why would it need a pro tour?

A pro tour would be marketing for the game and a major incentive for the company to be involved with the players, and require a tighter rule set.

How could that possibly hurt? Playing Magic is about fun. I couldn't care less about who can build the fastest kill deck or what player wins more with which cards. Does the Magic Pro Tour mean bad things?

 kronk wrote:
I don't think it's help that is needed.

Table top gaming is about fun. I couldn't care less about how can build the most invincible army or what player has the best stategery.

I was just at a major event that sold out all of their tournament slots in 1 day (Adepticon). Why would it need a pro tour?

A single event isn't anywhere close to the scope of an actual tour.

If they did something like the old CPL World Tour, but for wargaming, it could possibly work.

Kiwidru wrote:

Could you image what would happen at the poker world championships if someone said that they could technically use a king of diamonds in their flush of hearts because the king has a heart?

I think this sums up perfectly many RIW arguments

 Sinful Hero wrote:
If there was a governing body that kept a ruleset tight it would be definately be beneficial. Settling all the rules disputes would be benefit enough.

Unfortunately I don't think that would be the outcome. If anything with money involved rules disputes would become worse, not better. Look at F1. It is the richest sport in the world, with only 11 "players" yet they have rules issues all the time, and they are not quick to sort out either.

 kronk wrote:
Table top gaming is about fun. I couldn't care less about how can build the most invincible army or what player has the best stategery.

Careful there, that almost sounds like you're implying people who play competitively aren't having fun.
The invincible army thing is stupid yeah, and probably a symptom of bad game design rather than anything else, but I think seeing new and interesting strategies played out could be great.

I personally hate the idea as it goes against what I personally stand for.

That being said, I have no doubt that it would benefit the hobby provided there was the right structures and set-up in place. Again, I look to the sudden rise of the popularity of poker going from a game you play with buddies around a table once a month to get away from your family; to a ESPN covered sport with thousands of dollars on the line, celebrity players, and a huge fanbase of wanna-be professional players.

I'm surprised at the hate a pro tour is receiving.

Casual tabletop Magic is still a thing. There's no banlist and no rotating sets. You make up rules all the time for your play group.

Then there's PTQs and the PT. Rules are set, judges are trained and certified, real money at stake.

Why would 40k be so different?

Miniature games don't tend to have constantly new things coming in to shake up the meta on a regular basis like TCGs. I'm not saying there aren't some with pretty vigorous release schedules, but they don't tend to dramatically change the game that much. The format seems like it might work for a while, but then would get old after a while.

Tabletop games take a little bit too much time (IMO) for them to truly catch on competitively to the extent that, say, Magic the Gathering has.

A professional league requires cash prizes to create a class of professionals...that is, those who can make a living playing the game. There isn't a big enough pool of money in miniature gaming for a professional league to support a group of players who can "go pro." Given that the these companies are generally so small compared to the other industries (e.g., golf club makers, shoe companies, etc.) with pro tours there can't be a professional league until the industry grows to a size that can support it. Games Workshop has no interest in this and they could get the ball rolling if they wanted to, however, they clearly do not.

I don't think a "pro league" would be a very good thing. First of all, what would it really accomplish? Other than stroking the egos of the people who already think they're "pro" at 40K.
And without a well-written and balanced set of rules, it will never really prove who the best players arel. Most of the big tournaments these days really only prove who has the list that breaks the game the most.

 Coldhatred wrote:
Miniature games don't tend to have constantly new things coming in to shake up the meta on a regular basis like TCGs. I'm not saying there aren't some with pretty vigorous release schedules, but they don't tend to dramatically change the game that much. The format seems like it might work for a while, but then would get old after a while.

Tabletop games take a little bit too much time (IMO) for them to truly catch on competitively to the extent that, say, Magic the Gathering has.

40k has gotten a new edition every what - 3-4 years? That's often enough to shake up the meta even without splat releases in between.

The OP is talking about miniature wargaming, why is this discussion being centered around 40k?

While 40k would be a pretty terrible choice for something like this because the game rules are so bad at this point that it would be like playing competitive yahtzee only with allot more rules disputes, most non-GW rules set would be a viable option for a pro-tour type thing. Heck, PP already does something similar with their Invitational tournament (but comprehensively with a much lower prize pool than the Pro-Tour has).

PhantomViper wrote:
The OP is talking about miniature wargaming, why is this discussion being centered around 40k?

Because of all the miniature wargames out there, 40k/Fantasy are the most likely (IMO) to be able to pull this off. It would take a completely different management at GW, but that's neither here nor there.

While 40k would be a pretty terrible choice for something like this because the game rules are so bad at this point that it would be like playing competitive yahtzee only with allot more rules disputes, most non-GW rules set would be a viable option for a pro-tour type thing. Heck, PP already does something similar with their Invitational tournament (but comprehensively with a much lower prize pool than the Pro-Tour has).

Setting up a ProTour would force the studio to actually fix the rules - so no, the rules being bad wouldn't be an issue.

rigeld2 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
The OP is talking about miniature wargaming, why is this discussion being centered around 40k?

Because of all the miniature wargames out there, 40k/Fantasy are the most likely (IMO) to be able to pull this off.

Why?

Like I said, PP already has something like this implemented with both its Invitational (where hundreds if not thousands of players compete through a series of Invitational Qualifiers to compete in the final 32 player Invitational tournament held at WMW) and more recently with the parallel Iron Gauntlet line of tournaments. The organizational structure is already there, the main difference between it and the MtG Pro-Tour is the size and associated prize pool (and that is a HUGE difference ).

Mostly because I wasn't aware of the Invitational.
Also, because (again, IMO) I dislike how Warmahordes plays. The rules are great - but the style of play isn't. And I know a lot of people that share that opinion.

I could be wrong. But that's essentially what I'm talking about - PP has a ProTour (same thing, just not as big as they haven't been around as long/are as popular). I guarantee they're benefiting from it.

Yeah, I think any miniature company that runs a "protour" is a great thing and I'm sure it helps their company, but it still is a small field.

I'm not sure on the numbers of MTG players currently maybe 50,000??

I mean how many 40k players are in the US right now?

100k?

Also, that poll is interesting in that it's pretty much split down the middle on whether it's good or not. Kind of surpised I figured it'd swing majorly to one side.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Coldhatred wrote:
Miniature games don't tend to have constantly new things coming in to shake up the meta on a regular basis like TCGs. I'm not saying there aren't some with pretty vigorous release schedules, but they don't tend to dramatically change the game that much. The format seems like it might work for a while, but then would get old after a while.

Tabletop games take a little bit too much time (IMO) for them to truly catch on competitively to the extent that, say, Magic the Gathering has.

40k has gotten a new edition every what - 3-4 years? That's often enough to shake up the meta even without splat releases in between.

I agree to an extent, however on of the big draws to Magic, for instance, is that there is a meta shake up pretty much every two months or so. 3-4 years whilst respectable is forever in terms of competitive play for things like Pro-Tours.

 Coldhatred wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Coldhatred wrote:
Miniature games don't tend to have constantly new things coming in to shake up the meta on a regular basis like TCGs. I'm not saying there aren't some with pretty vigorous release schedules, but they don't tend to dramatically change the game that much. The format seems like it might work for a while, but then would get old after a while.

Tabletop games take a little bit too much time (IMO) for them to truly catch on competitively to the extent that, say, Magic the Gathering has.

40k has gotten a new edition every what - 3-4 years? That's often enough to shake up the meta even without splat releases in between.

I agree to an extent, however on of the big draws to Magic, for instance, is that there is a meta shake up pretty much every two months or so. 3-4 years whilst respectable is forever in terms of competitive play for things like Pro-Tours.

There are other ways to do meta-shakes other than changing unit profiles.

Changing the missions that are used in tournament play like PP and CB do every year, for example, is one of those ways and it is allot easier to do then straight up re-working all the armies for a game. It also has the bonus that it doesn't annoy nearly as many non-competitive costumers since they don't have to buy whole new army books.

I would also argue that the release model that most miniature companies use (again: PP, CB, Wyrd), also provides a bit of a meta shake since almost every faction gets new units practically every month.