|
Maybe if I don't mention 'his' name, this thread won't get closed prematurely.
I think that 'he' identified some serious issues with 40k tournaments. The rules, and missions as printed in the RAW are problematic for running a tournament. Some of the missions are very prone to drawn games. The terrain set up rules are vague as to the nature and type of terrain. Mission scoring can be quite variable.
This has led to many tournaments, most?, coming up with their own missions and scoring systems which may favor certain armies and strategies. Players or groups having access to missions ahead of time may have an advantage in preparing for those missions.
Recently YTTH has had influence with some tournament organizers to develop a more uniform scoring system for games including objectives, kill points and losses. It seemed to work well at NOVA and another recent tournament.
YTTH has spoken strongly against 'soft scores' at tournaments for some time. Soft scores include sportsmanship and painting. YTTH prefers that 'the winner'='best general'.
Another tournament problem is determining best general. Again, Battle for Salvation and NOVA had a playoff format for the top players at the end of the preliminary round. Under conventional formats good players could be penalized for fighting close games against good players, as opposed to clubbing baby seals, noobs, or whatever your metaphor-getting a ton of points in one game. He who must not be named actually had a pretty good conventional tournament record won-lost wise, but didn't 'win' any best generals because his wins weren' 'big' enough.'
YTTH and 'he' was one of the first people to discover that one key to the new RAW was not that troops were now scoring, but that vehicles were now much harder to kill. This really changed which army lists were effective. Las Plas razorbacks even made a return. So many armies have so much anti infantry firepower now, or hand to hand combat skills, that it becomes very efficient to put yourself into vehicles risking the explosion, rather than sitting out in the open and taking templates and fire.
YTTH wants gamers to be 'competitive'. They don't want new players to buy a boxed army set, and then go out and lose 20 games in a row because boxed army set armies are pathetically unoptimized. They have published many good lists from many codexes. Some may be stronger than others, but I'd rather buy the figures for one of their suggseted armies than just buy a bunch of cool figures and get blasted every time. Its not fun.
I tend to be polite in my internet dealings. But I have friends with whom I can be very sarcastic face to face, and they know its all fun and good. Trash talk as an art form. I read some of YTTH that way.
I think that Dark Eldar will have the lance answer to most Rhino/razorback armies. I think they'll replace Space Wolves and Blood Angels so quickly it will make your head spin. Maybe Eldar and Chaos Space Marines will have the answers to Dark Eldar. As YTTH points out, its an expensive hobby....
|
