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.

 CT GAMER wrote:

chaosmarauder wrote:
I think the current Meta is the fault of anyone whos whined about this that or the other thing.

At this point honestly, lets have an open tournament format where anything in the BRB and forgeworld is a full go and see who comes out on top?

The lists would be so varied it would be friggen awesome!

This and this.

Game Empire Pasadena will be running a GT Aug 8-9 using exactly that format. Straight form the book with book missions and very few restrictions.

https://www.facebook.com/events/664067837061184/

The event I played in at LVO had no restrictions at all (fully unbound), and I had a blast.

Most of the larger tournaments cater to both the individuals who want restrictions, and those who do not. Just have to pick which one you want to play in. Really just up to the player.

All of these tournament issues with army lists stem from one perspective. The point of a tournament is to win the game. Celebrate the other aspects of the hobby and de-emphasis the tabletop winning and then it doesn't matter what the meta is or what GW releases or how fast they release it.

We are trying to make Tic-Tac-Toe into a test of strategical genius and the owners of Tic-Tac-Toe are saying stop.

If the purpose of going to a tournament is to win, then you will not be satisfied under the current rules/release schedule so stop. Don't even announce win/lose records or battle points. Pair up players and give out awards for painting or hobbiest or theme or something. Or even just raffle off random awards to the attendees if you cry for the subjectiveness of those types of awards.

DarthDiggler, I think that is a valid point of view.

It is also not the point of the discussion whatsoever.

I like competition and I also like painting little guys. Leave me and the literally thousands of other people alone that enjoy that.

It's like dancing, there are people that compete in dance and people that enjoy it for fun.

You don't go into a studio that teaches dancing for competition and say "You should really just dance it whatever feels right, that's more fun. If you want competition do gymnastics".

I see this response all the time to people talking tactics and what not and I just don't get it. If you don't want to talk about competition, why are you on the tournament forum?

 vercingatorix wrote:
I see this response all the time to people talking tactics and what not and I just don't get it. If you don't want to talk about competition, why are you on the tournament forum?

Because they think their version of 40k is the "right" version.

Personally, you pay an arm and a leg for the "rules" (which doesn't mean much these days), I think you should be able to play the game however you please.

I would love to play against someone who took this detachment at 1850 or less points.

add up the min cost, then consider you cannot upgrade most of your units including the free vehicles.

I would much rather kill 10 units of what are essentially 5 tac marines and a 10 av 11/11/10 vehicles with heavy bolters than fight pentyrant/eldar scat bikes/etc. You wanted hvy bolter razorbacks so bad you gave up upgrading your tac marines and assault marines? I'm good with that.

make a 1500 list with the formation, then an 1850 list, then look at what old top lists were and what eldar/necron/pentyrant stuff is likely in the top 8 of a tournament. this formation is weak below 2k.

 Accolade wrote:

 vercingatorix wrote:
I see this response all the time to people talking tactics and what not and I just don't get it. If you don't want to talk about competition, why are you on the tournament forum?

Because they think their version of 40k is the "right" version.

Personally, you pay and arm and a leg for the "rules" (which doesn't mean much these days), I think you should be able to play the game however you please.

And you can...if you want to play against yourself. In the event that you want an opponent, then you enter into basically a social contract where you outline conditions and stipulations to ensure (as much as possible,) BOTH players enjoyment. The current attempts at "it's in the rules so deal with it" is one of the things destroying the game. You either have to spend two hours picking your models up by the handful while the guy across from you grins from ear to ear like he honestlythinks he's some kind of tactical genius, or you refused to play something, and your labeled TFG....

 vercingatorix wrote:
DarthDiggler, I think that is a valid point of view.

It is also not the point of the discussion whatsoever.

I like competition and I also like painting little guys. Leave me and the literally thousands of other people alone that enjoy that.

It's like dancing, there are people that compete in dance and people that enjoy it for fun.

You don't go into a studio that teaches dancing for competition and say "You should really just dance it whatever feels right, that's more fun. If you want competition do gymnastics".

I see this response all the time to people talking tactics and what not and I just don't get it. If you don't want to talk about competition, why are you on the tournament forum?

My point is the to the heart of the op post. The op wanted to know of a formation allowing several hundred free points would be allowed in tourney play. Only someone caring about battle points or wins and loses would care about their opponent having an extra 400pts of transports.

What followed was a series of posts outlining each authors desire for what should and shouldn't be in a proper tourney, once again based on winning and losing on the tabletop. I noticed that neither you nor Accolade posted about that so quite possibly my response was not directed at your mentality but those that had actually posted on the previous page.

I merely pointed out that to the majority of people who posted on the previous page, their consternation over the perceived imbalance of competitive army lists in 40k can be solved by not making the competitive nature of the game a tangible reward. Someone could always go to a tourney to win and play that way, but there would be no recognition and no award for doing so beyond their own personal satisfaction. Celebrating the other aspects of the hobby could go a long way in solving the perceived problems that an imbalanced game system would have.

As a 5 time Gladiator champion, Adepticon Gladiator champion, Adepticon Team Tourney champion and 2 time Ard Boyz Seminfinal champion I know all about the competitive nature of 40k. As a former event organizer at Adepticon I also know first hand the hard work that is done to diversify these events in just the way I am explaining in order to cater to a larger audience and bring more attendees to events.

As the years go by and the nature of 40k changes, the attendance in 40k 'Friendly' events continue to expand while the attendance in pure 40k championship events declines. At least here in the Midwest. Showing that maybe your interpretation of how a 40k tournament should be run is outmoded and on the decline.

Diggler, I think a new thread should be started and I would be happy to have the discussion there. (I just started my career and I'm learning all about email etiquette and I think it applies here!)

I stand by my original assertion that discussing the idea of tournament play is a separate issue from how tournament organizers will deal with a new formation. The assumption of the thread is "40k competitive events are going to happen and the OP wants to participate and see how they will change." In order for his question to be answered, 40k competitive play has to be assumed to be a generally positive, or at least something OP wants.

You're speaking to the why and the assumption behind it, while the OP wants to know the what. Sometimes answering the why is not appropriate.

I would be rather cross with my mechanic if he asked me why I needed a car in the first place instead of just telling me what's wrong.

 quickfuze wrote:

 Accolade wrote:

 vercingatorix wrote:
I see this response all the time to people talking tactics and what not and I just don't get it. If you don't want to talk about competition, why are you on the tournament forum?

Because they think their version of 40k is the "right" version.

Personally, you pay and arm and a leg for the "rules" (which doesn't mean much these days), I think you should be able to play the game however you please.

And you can...if you want to play against yourself. In the event that you want an opponent, then you enter into basically a social contract where you outline conditions and stipulations to ensure (as much as possible,) BOTH players enjoyment. The current attempts at "it's in the rules so deal with it" is one of the things destroying the game. You either have to spend two hours picking your models up by the handful while the guy across from you grins from ear to ear like he honestlythinks he's some kind of tactical genius, or you refused to play something, and your labeled TFG....

You misunderstand me (or I did a poor job explaining myself), I was speaking more to the "40k shouldn't be a competitive game" concept that I keep seeing being made. It ignores the fact that 40k was a very much a competitive game up to two editions ago. And beyond that, people want a competitive game because by its own nature 40k IS a competitive game (two players pitting armies against each other). And with the cost of the rules, it shouldn't have to be argued anyway.

Ah, that makes more sense.....

This thread delved off topic since tournament organizers in the U.S. Don't usually allow double of the same formation and thus this specific detachment is already illegal. However it's not a bad list and seems fluffy and fun to play against. So maybe they make an exception but I doubt it. The new exclusive formation with turn 1 or turn 2 if you prefer deep striking assault troops and drop podding relentless devastators that remove overwatxh from their target whether they hit or not and still have access to chapter tactics is a lot worse and much easier to place into any imperium of man list.

Accolade wrote:]

I think you should be able to play the game however you please.

Sweet irony...

In a discussion about banning legal options and telling people how they have to play to come to your event...