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.

Whats up guys?

I've been doing a little bit of 'watching from the outside' and I would like to pose you a question.

What is it that makes a tournament a good experience for you?

Is it good prizes? Is it provision of food? Is it the size of the games? Or is it even your opponents?

Tell me about your experiences! I'd love to hear

~Ghost

What makes a good tournament for me, is mostly -

1) Good missions. Don't do anything stupid, but put SOME variety in them.

2) Good Terrain. Without good tables to play on, its no different from a normal game, just with a possible prize at the end.

3) Require fully painted armies. Its a point of contention, I'm sure, but EVERYONE who has spent a good deal of time on their army enjoys playing against others who have an equal respect for the hobby aspect of this game. There is nothing worse than pulling out your carefully painted army, and playing against a kid who slapped them together and spray primed them all, and called it finished. It just shows a lack of respect for the game, IMO.

4. Don't have a system for people to score each other. Too easily exploited by some. If painting must be in it, have a team of judges score then have that as a separate award to the tournament itself.

Horst wrote:What makes a good tournament for me, is mostly -


3) Require fully painted armies. Its a point of contention, I'm sure, but EVERYONE who has spent a good deal of time on their army enjoys playing against others who have an equal respect for the hobby aspect of this game. There is nothing worse than pulling out your carefully painted army, and playing against a kid who slapped them together and spray primed them all, and called it finished. It just shows a lack of respect for the game, IMO.

This is far from universal. If you want the biggest turnout, ignore this entirely. Trust me, the people advocating it will play whether it's a rule or not.

I'd like to add

5) Require 2 copies of clear, detailed army lists, preferably typed or using Army Builder or the like. One for the player's use, one for the tournament organizer to hold onto. We've had problems at the local tournament where people hand-write lists barely legibly, and conveniently "forget" to indicate certain binary options on their list until they are in the middle of a match and one choice is favorable over another.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

n0t_u wrote:4. Don't have a system for people to score each other. Too easily exploited by some. If painting must be in it, have a team of judges score then have that as a separate award to the tournament itself.

This, times a million. Gamers are kind of petty when anonymous.

Brother Gyoken wrote:

Horst wrote:What makes a good tournament for me, is mostly -


3) Require fully painted armies. Its a point of contention, I'm sure, but EVERYONE who has spent a good deal of time on their army enjoys playing against others who have an equal respect for the hobby aspect of this game. There is nothing worse than pulling out your carefully painted army, and playing against a kid who slapped them together and spray primed them all, and called it finished. It just shows a lack of respect for the game, IMO.

This is far from universal. If you want the biggest turnout, ignore this entirely. Trust me, the people advocating it will play whether it's a rule or not.

This is a bit of a shame to be honest. I guess its certainly foreseeable, but theres a part of me that is disappointed that a turnout will be greatly affected by a 'must be painted' rule.

Brother Gyoken wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

n0t_u wrote:4. Don't have a system for people to score each other. Too easily exploited by some. If painting must be in it, have a team of judges score then have that as a separate award to the tournament itself.

This, times a million. Gamers are kind of petty when anonymous.

Following this train of thought, does this generally increase the amount of effort people put into painting their lists?

Brother Gyoken wrote:
I'd like to add

5) Require 2 copies of clear, detailed army lists, preferably typed or using Army Builder or the like. One for the player's use, one for the tournament organizer to hold onto. We've had problems at the local tournament where people hand-write lists barely legibly, and conveniently "forget" to indicate certain binary options on their list until they are in the middle of a match and one choice is favorable over another.

I can absolutely see this. Thankyou for pointing this out


Thanks so much for the responses guys!

I've never actually played in a tournament, and not sure I'd like it, as I'm really not much of a competitive player. So, the things I'd be more interested in would be army themes, best painted, most characterful, etc etc. Stuff like that.

Have a schedule and keep to it. Have all materials prepared and know where they are.

Be absolutely sure the judging is unbiased. Rumors of favoritism towards a friend or relative is a sure fire way to never have a 2nd tournament.

Have a Ringer on hand to keep the field even.

Prizes are appreciated but not required. If there is an entry fee, its nice to see a similar amount in the prize pool.

Food is appreciated but not required unless there are no local restaurants.

On a personal note, I'd rather play in a small tournament with painted armies than a large tournament with unpainted armies.

Orginisation, fun factor (so yes a prize for best general but also prizes for 'best army list' best army (as in theme and painting), best sportsman, best painted. Maddest Squig prize for the rnadom mentlars that make braying noises when their beastmen charge or shout FOR THE EMPEROR when doing that last ditch assault wth 10 guardsmen against 12 beserkers!

Unbiased and consistent judging. It helps that when an issue arrises that it is announced in the next game eg 'the flangecannon is a plasma wepon for the purposes of plasma syphon' so that all people with flangecannons are treated equally. This 4+ BS is unfair.

have the judges shadow an MtG tourhament to see the level of professionalism. That's what I'd like at 40k tournaments (though with an underlying element of fun as well)

Spot prizes for people who roll 10 ones in a row.

Basically a fun games day where nerds can get together rather than 'zOMG gotta win big CRUSH' fest

Brother Gyoken wrote:

Horst wrote:What makes a good tournament for me, is mostly -


3) Require fully painted armies. Its a point of contention, I'm sure, but EVERYONE who has spent a good deal of time on their army enjoys playing against others who have an equal respect for the hobby aspect of this game. There is nothing worse than pulling out your carefully painted army, and playing against a kid who slapped them together and spray primed them all, and called it finished. It just shows a lack of respect for the game, IMO.

This is far from universal. If you want the biggest turnout, ignore this entirely. Trust me, the people advocating it will play whether it's a rule or not.

I will throw the official bs flag on this. I would need to see some evidence that this is the case because this is the exact OPPOSITE of what is seen. The largest events require people to travel and people don;t travel with unpainted armies to play against unpainted armies. This is simply not true. The only reason people attend 'ard boyz is because it is local and it is a crap shoot if your event will be well run or not.

Sorry. Requiring painting is a draw. Not requiring painting will cause many people to not attend your event. I have actually shown up to an event advertised as 'painting and WYSIWYG' and then left when I found out the TO was not enforcing it. I will not travel, pay lodging for a 2-day tourney or even make the effort of dragging my minis out of the case for an event with unpainted minis. Is there even a successful 2-day GT out there which people travel to with no painting requirement? I have not heard of it, if it does exist.

Apart from requiring painting... Good terrain and well organized and very clear event FAQs so people know the rules before they show up.

I prefer the "complete hobbyist" style tournaments to the "competitive" style. I like the scoring to be equal parts battle, painting, and sportsmanship. I like for there to be a surplus of time each round so games get finished and people have time to hang out and talk trash/drink heavily. So basically I like to have a good time, look at cool armies, and have the winner be someone you might not expect. I know I am in the minority and I do love battle point only tournaments but my best memories are off the RTT style events I have been to over the years. When there is no way to "game the system" everyone tends to relax and just play good 40k.

I started playing tournaments just to get in 3 games in one day and that is still a big draw for me regardless of format since I rarely get games these days.

I think a major deciding factor in some tournaments is painting. If I can win all the games and have 3 colors on all figures in my army, but get docked points because my painitng quality isnt on par with someone who paid a pro to paint up his army it seems unfair. This isnt always the case, as I have done an awesome paintjob on some of my own figures, but I am usually skeptical of top placing people who also have an insanely painted army that looks like an expert did it for you.

Defeatmyarmy wrote:I think a major deciding factor in some tournaments is painting. If I can win all the games and have 3 colors on all figures in my army, but get docked points because my painitng quality isnt on par with someone who paid a pro to paint up his army it seems unfair. This isnt always the case, as I have done an awesome paintjob on some of my own figures, but I am usually skeptical of top placing people who also have an insanely painted army that looks like an expert did it for you.

Almost every insanely painted army I have ever seen at tourneys the person playing painted the army. It is really easy to find out usually because these people are well-known painters. The internet makes it a small world.

I detect sour grapes if people are assuming those awesome armies are bought from painters off the internet. That does not reflect the reality of the GT circuit IMHO.

nkelsch wrote:

I will throw the official bs flag on this. I would need to see some evidence that this is the case because this is the exact OPPOSITE of what is seen. The largest events require people to travel and people don;t travel with unpainted armies to play against unpainted armies. This is simply not true. The only reason people attend 'ard boyz is because it is local and it is a crap shoot if your event will be well run or not.

Sorry. Requiring painting is a draw. Not requiring painting will cause many people to not attend your event. I have actually shown up to an event advertised as 'painting and WYSIWYG' and then left when I found out the TO was not enforcing it. I will not travel, pay lodging for a 2-day tourney or even make the effort of dragging my minis out of the case for an event with unpainted minis. Is there even a successful 2-day GT out there which people travel to with no painting requirement? I have not heard of it, if it does exist.

Apart from requiring painting... Good terrain and well organized and very clear event FAQs so people know the rules before they show up.

I like to play against fully painted armies. When you just set-up a cloud of grey plastic in front of me, it makes for a very forgettable game. It seems like every unpainted army I play against is the same, but I remember the cool Alaitoc Eldar army, or the well-executed Imperial Fists army. Even if those army lists are similar to any other tournament army, the appearance adds to my tournament experience.

Like non-slow play. I don't mind if a players not particularly quick but so long as they aren't to slow it's fine. The thing that I like most about tournament games in general is the fact that you don't have to wait to long between player turns, whereas in non-competitive games I find that the game is generally much slower.

Good terrain is also a factor too, and no ridiculous missions.

The things I look for in a good tournament:

1. Well Organized: clear communication, missions, directions etc.
2. Venue: Clean, well lit, easy to get to, close proximity to places of interest, food etc.
3. Clear tournament rules: Which FAQs are being used, who is the TO, what special missions are being used, how many points are being played?
4. Meta: Comp Heavy, Sports Heavy, purely competitive, amount terrain is placed? I want to know what to expect. I don't want to show up with a mean list and get dinged on sports/comp because the event was supposed to be soft.

You'll notice some overlap in my criteria because those are particularly important.

Brother Gyoken wrote:

Now if we're talking about big tournaments people travel to, it's a different story. Those are like the "super bowl" of the game, and it should bring a higher standard. But as far as I know, we were talking about generic local tournaments, and any bs flag you care to display does not change my anecdotal evidence.

10 person tourneys? If there is not at least 16 people it is barley even club night. Maybe if it required painting you would draw people farther from the local area and have better attendance. If that excludes some locals, so be it.

Even if it 'works' for your tourney, it is not a recommendation that would do well for everyone. Frankly, well-run events almost all require painting. Most poorly run events allow unpainted. a TO unwilling or unable to spread the word or enforce basic standards shows the event will be run poorly which is why people avoid them for more than just the painting aspect. Sounds like your local area and events are going to be 'poorly run' because they cater to a small group of locals and everyone who plays there will feel like an outsider or run afoul of local rulings and people will have home-field advantages all which ruin the event.

If the tourney was well run, well advertised and required painting, you could get people to travel from farther away to attend it.

I look for;
1. Clear consistent rules. (missions/FAQs)
2. Good tables with decent terrain.
3. Painted armies
4. Independently judged comp/painting.
5. Clear, printed army lists (preferably one for the TO, one for the player, and one for each opponent to take away with him)

Complete transparency in scoring. Regardless of what system you use, scores should be posted every round and broken out every round (battle/sports/comp/paint). TOs make far too many honest mistakes and people should have a chance to make sure everything is recorded correctly. I don't really see a good reason to hide the scores. Those mistakes might be "ok" if it's a free tournament, but when people are paying hundreds of dollars to travel to major events, scoring mistakes are completely unacceptable.

It also stops TOs from arbitrarily changing metrics. I lost best general at a major west coast GT, partially because sports was suddenly worth 70 points instead of the publicly posted 40 points. I would have been able to catch this if I saw my score being recorded at higher values than listed on the actual cards.



No opponent scored anything (comp/sports/whatever). Someone that is playing against you and is biased by the game should not be scoring anything. It is not a logical solution to the problem. I am in support of hard comp and having judges resolve "poor sports" situations, but there's no reason to have a biased party make decisions that directly affects your overall placing.

nkelsch wrote:10 person tourneys? If there is not at least 16 people it is barley even club night. Maybe if it required painting you would draw people farther from the local area and have better attendance. If that excludes some locals, so be it.

Not everyone sees tournaments as purely a test of skill. In some cases it's simply an excuse to have an all-day event so you can play 3-4 games. Scoring and judging gives an incentive to play well and take the games semi-seriously.

nkelsch wrote:If the tourney was well run, well advertised and required painting, you could get people to travel from farther away to attend it.

I've travelled to outside events simply to see another shop and check out what other armies people are playing. I could care less about painting requirements (although I do like the idea of including an independently judged painting score).

What do I look for in a tournament? Good attendance, well-done terrain, and a TO who makes it a point that the event is about fun, not about winning.

nkelsch wrote:

Brother Gyoken wrote:

Now if we're talking about big tournaments people travel to, it's a different story. Those are like the "super bowl" of the game, and it should bring a higher standard. But as far as I know, we were talking about generic local tournaments, and any bs flag you care to display does not change my anecdotal evidence.

10 person tourneys? If there is not at least 16 people it is barley even club night. Maybe if it required painting you would draw people farther from the local area and have better attendance. If that excludes some locals, so be it.

Even if it 'works' for your tourney, it is not a recommendation that would do well for everyone. Frankly, well-run events almost all require painting. Most poorly run events allow unpainted. a TO unwilling or unable to spread the word or enforce basic standards shows the event will be run poorly which is why people avoid them for more than just the painting aspect. Sounds like your local area and events are going to be 'poorly run' because they cater to a small group of locals and everyone who plays there will feel like an outsider or run afoul of local rulings and people will have home-field advantages all which ruin the event.

If the tourney was well run, well advertised and required painting, you could get people to travel from farther away to attend it.

Lots of assumptions in this post. I like how you're able to judge how well a tournament is run by whether or not some imaginary standard that isn't in any of the rules is enforced. I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

I'm gonna hit the store on the way home and ask the owner how many calls he has received in his year of operation asking if painted armies were a requirement at tournies.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:I could care less about painting requirements (although I do like the idea of including an independently judged painting score).

Uhhh maybe so but there are dozens of people who would show up if painted armies were a requirement you know

Congratulations for turning this into a painted vs. unpainted armies thread. We haven't had one for almost a week now and it was worth derailing this thread to hear the same tired opinions on the subject.

Back OT:

Good, consistent judging.

No silly, poorly thought out missions that further imbalance the game.

Keep things on schedule, no waiting for people running late.

Keep scoring for paint/comp/sportsmanship separate from determining who won the tournament. Separate prizes for each category is fair and gives something to people who enjoy different aspects of the hobby.

Breaking the hobby into aspects is silly... you embrace the hobby as a whole, painting and all.

Simple :having fun and prize potential.

Beer is a must! Nothing better than slamming a 12 over the span of a few hours and rocking a few games of warhammers where people actually put thought and care into their hobby.

Plus it's great meeting people in the hobby and sharing creative ideas. I love seeing some of the "top" painted and custom armies

I go to a tournament to play against other people, talk to other gamers, play lovely-looking armies that I've never played in my circle of regular gaming friends, and have a guys' weekend off.

I DON'T go for 'hard competition'
I DON'T go for the prizes
I DON'T go to prove I'm the best at toy soldiers

The rankings, prizes and competition are all secondary to having a fun weekend out meeting other gamers, looking at cool conversions and playing people I've never played before. For me, sportsmanship is the only prize that matters.

The vast, vast majority of people I've met at tournaments are like me. Which is great.


EDIT

I don't know if that's the same thing as 'what makes a good tournament?', which is a much more organisation-based question. You know, clear rules, painted armies, people bringing copies of rosters, good organisation, unambiguous rulesets if there are special missions, variety of armies, fair judges etc etc

I like having a fair system where I can independently get a generally good feel for where I'll wind up based on how I perform ... this applies to things like sportsmanship as well.

Doesn't have to be any one type of system, but it has to be simple and straightforward ... if I win all my games, I get just as much (or as little) praise as anyone else who wins all their games. If I'm a stellar sport, I get just as much (or as little) praise as any other stellar sport.

I don't even think there HAS to be praise for any of that, but please don't use arbitrary or extremely random/variably-impacted methods to determine among people who perform roughly identically and give just one of them a prize or reward or praise, etc.

Aside from that, do everything you can as a TO to encourage a fun, widely rewarding atmosphere. Individuals who believe that an event cannot be both competitive and fun and hobbyist all at the same time ... are extremely wrong, and should not be pandered to or managed.

Our hobby is relatively small ... your perfect event would bring ALL types of participants in it together; game-loving competitors, paint/conversion-loving hobbyists, and fun-loving socializers ... and most especially those who participate in all components of the hobby equally.

It shouldn't be surprising that we design the NOVA toward this goal.

Wow! Some fantastic responses here guys! Keep it up

As all the tournaments in my area have an opponent score the 'sportsmanship', and it seems to be accepted here that this can have issues, I wonder what alternatives there are to scoring sportsmanship?

I ask this mainly keeping in mind a very large playing group of around 40-60 players.

Is there really another practical way? Rather than sitting a judge on every table at every game?

~Ghost

Ahem. You might want to check this out.

Terrain.
Air Conditioning.
Lots of players.
Great Missions that are not strait out of the book.
Many Catagorizes of prize support.
TROPHY.
Plenty of Judges to watch over the games. You know why.