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.

Well, unfortunately, some lists can have such a strong advantage over balanced lists that yeah, pretty much no matter what the opponent does, he's going to be thrashed. These armies will usually pound on balanced forces, but always have a "rock" to their "scissors".

I think the best idea I've heard for a tourney was that you play 2 games against each opponent. The first time you play your list, the next game you swap lists. This sounds like a great way to encourage balanced army lists, and tactical thinking, as if you rely on a "spam" lists that is incredibly easy to use and very powerful without much thought, it's going to come right back at you in the second game, while a list that requires some actual generalship to use may pose a challenge to your opponent in both games.

I've heard of a Fantasy tournament in Australia that used this method, and it sounded like great fun. Would love to try it some time.

If your opponent has a hardcore powergaming list and you're playing a fluffy, "fun" list then it's going to seem like there are no tactics involved when you're playing them. The tactics come into play when your list is every bit as competitive as their's is. Now when a really good player with a decent, well thought out list plays an average player with a hardcore list the good player will usually win.

Fantasy is a whole different ball game. Some armies are almost unbeatable when they take a certain list. With other armies it doesn't matter what they take...they're going to be hard to take down. Then there are the armies that are so weak that they can't compete with the top lists. If all else fails and you really want to win then just take deamons.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

nathonicus wrote:Well, unfortunately, some lists can have such a strong advantage over balanced lists that yeah, pretty much no matter what the opponent does, he's going to be thrashed. These armies will usually pound on balanced forces, but always have a "rock" to their "scissors".

I think the best idea I've heard for a tourney was that you play 2 games against each opponent. The first time you play your list, the next game you swap lists. This sounds like a great way to encourage balanced army lists, and tactical thinking, as if you rely on a "spam" lists that is incredibly easy to use and very powerful without much thought, it's going to come right back at you in the second game, while a list that requires some actual generalship to use may pose a challenge to your opponent in both games.

I've heard of a Fantasy tournament in Australia that used this method, and it sounded like great fun. Would love to try it some time.

I see that as being a huge flop in most places. I'll be damned if I let some stranger command and handle my army at a tournament. Now it sounds like a lot of fun as long as everyone involved are trusted friends.

nathonicus wrote:Well, unfortunately, some lists can have such a strong advantage over balanced lists that yeah, pretty much no matter what the opponent does, he's going to be thrashed.

I think the best idea I've heard for a tourney was that you play 2 games against each opponent. The first time you play your list, the next game you swap lists.

Example, please? In my experience, strong balanced lists beat mono-focused lists. Mono-focus lists will beat weak unfocused lists, but that's inherent to any weak list.

I don't think I'm interested in playing only 2 guys, and letting them both handle my minis. Maybe in a club environment, but definitely not at a tournament.

Ditto. I'm thinking about introducing the 'swap armies' deal to my friends for a homebrew tourney, but it's not something I'd ever agree to at a LGS tourney. There's too high a risk of running into a potatochip-fingered neckbeard with no respect for models.

I often wondered what a tourney would be like if they (EDIT organizers) wrote the armies themselves, and published them, and the players had to bring one of the published armies?

I assume people wouldn't like it, but wouldn't that be a great way to level the army issue?

Wouldn't really help if you only ended up with three people attending with a legal army, though.

Indeed, 3 would be insuficient.

But a smaller tourney might be OK, where the armies are balanced. Where I am we regularly have 2 annual tourneys at CONs with attendance in the 50-70 range, say, even 8 people, for standardized list event, well that would be OK wouldn't it?

Imagine if the lists were fairly common variants? and possible rules for swapping things in/out based on models the players have or maybe even a few loaners...

I think that could work?

Augustus wrote:Indeed, 3 would be insuficient.

But a smaller tourney might be OK, where the armies are balanced. Where I am we regularly have 2 annual tourneys at CONs with attendance in the 50-70 range, say, even 8 people, for standardized list event, well that would be OK wouldn't it?

Imagine if the lists were fairly common variants? and possible rules for swapping things in/out based on models the players have or maybe even a few loaners...

I think that could work?

For standardized lists, you can relax WYSIWYG, too, as there is no question as to what weapons/wargear are involved.

Lordhat wrote:Ditto. I'm thinking about introducing the 'swap armies' deal to my friends for a homebrew tourney, but it's not something I'd ever agree to at a LGS tourney. There's too high a risk of running into a potatochip-fingered neckbeard with no respect for models.

We actually JUST had a tournament like that at our LGS run by my gaming club that operates out of said LGS. It was a 40K tourney called "The Switcheroo."

First, everyone was asked to post their favorite 1,500-point list from their favorite Codex. Next, everyone was told why they were asked - the list they posted would be the list they would use for the Switcheroo.

Then people were paired up, and when you got to the table for the match, you switched armies. Everyone had a month or so to study Codexes and prepare.

It was a tremendous success. I got to play as a Khornate Daemon army, and a Slaaneshi Daemon army, and a full Necron army for the first time. There was not a single report of models being dropped, broken, or otherwise mishandled, probably because you were standing right across the table from the person who, in turn, had YOUR models in their hands.


The only problem I had with it was that the lists were asked for entirely out of context, and "favorite" lists were not always "viable" lists in my mind...but I was the only one who said anything to that effect, and I was also the tourney ringer who had to step in last minute and just didn't like a Necron army at 1,500 with a Monolith because I thought that was ridiculous, especially for a noob who didn't really know how to play Necrons and could get Phased Out.

Other that perhaps a little list correction for viability, I'd say that we've already accomplished what you all have been talking about, and it works great. It's a tremendous eye opener. For me, it made me see just how good my 1,500 Ultramarines list could be. For someone with a cheesy army, getting their asses handed to them without ever having a chance from Turn 1 could really show them why people complain about their army.

That's the thing, though - people need to be sportsmen in such an event. If you see someone doing something absolutely slowed with your army as they play it that you KNOW they wouldn't do if they knew the army, you immediately correct them. If you're doing this sort of thing with a bunch of compensating, immature nob-gobblers, it potentially won't work...

Augustus wrote:Indeed, 3 would be insuficient.

But a smaller tourney might be OK, where the armies are balanced. Where I am we regularly have 2 annual tourneys at CONs with attendance in the 50-70 range, say, even 8 people, for standardized list event, well that would be OK wouldn't it?

Imagine if the lists were fairly common variants? and possible rules for swapping things in/out based on models the players have or maybe even a few loaners...

I think that could work?

Well, I guess if you did have a large pool of players to draw from it would help.

You would probably want to make the point limit somewhat lower (1500-1750) so that people with large armies will have more flexibility with what they can bring.

Then, of course, you'd probably need to have a couple of different lists for each army, or at least for the armies that have a lot of different builds.

It might work. If you don't mind writing up a lot of lists and checking them against each other for balance, it might be worth doing just to see how it turns out.

Yea I think so too.

Also the switcheroo sounds really cool, but that's not quite what I had in mind.

The switcheroo has the advantage of being easier for the organisers, and arguably more fun for the players.

Switcheroo sounds like it would be great for locals. Not so much for tournaments with strangers though.

HI all.
Just to point out 40k IS NOT DEVELOPED FOR COMPETATIVE PLAY.
Its for developed for narative co-operative play.
Limited playtesting and arbitarily appointed PV based PURLEY on oppinion, make it highly unsuitable for balanced competative gaming.

40K has a strong strategic bias to promote list building driven marketing.
40k is tacticaly rather shallow.(Comparitivley.)

So looking at the limited tactical options in a strategicly focused game to play the game totaly out of its intended use, seems to be a bit pointless.

Finding the most cost effective units/combinations, then spamming them to get an auto-win button vs more ballanced lists is not a great achivment.
Is it ....realy....be honest....think it through...just a bit silly realy isnt it?

By all means play how you want and have your type of 'fun'.

But dont think everyone thinks winning a game of 40k is of any great importance.
Winning a game of '40k' is the same as winning a game of 'Monopoly.'

You won a game using D6 and little minatures.Big deal....

Happy gaming '
Lanrak.

Lanrak wrote:Just to point out 40k IS NOT DEVELOPED FOR COMPETATIVE PLAY.

Just to point out, How would you know?

Happy blan everyone's a winner cooperative gaming.

Augustus wrote:I often wondered what a tourney would be like if they (EDIT organizers) wrote the armies themselves, and published them, and the players had to bring one of the published armies?

I assume people wouldn't like it, but wouldn't that be a great way to level the army issue?

This presupposes that "they" write balanced lists. How would you judge such? My guess is you'd have the exact same problem as currently exists with internally unbalanced codices, but magnified based on the inherent competitiveness of whatever the "theme" is.

@Lanrak

I believe what you say is a whole load of bs . . . but that is my decision and obviously not yours. The amount of tactics in 40K is not as high or complex as other games. But it's still there in an abundance. You have to pick the right choices for your army. You have to pick the right places to deploy. You have to pick the right places to move to. You have to pick the right targets to shoot and assault. You need to support your scoring units with more expendable units . . . I could list more, but I feel I've already wasted too much time.

Anywho, as a 40K and WFB player I know that WFB has more tactics in it than 40K, but that doesn;t stop me playing 40K, doesn;t stop me having fun. And it doesn't stop thousands of people like me thinking the same way. 40K is a game based around having fun, and creating a narrative. BUT most certainly not at the expense of tactics. Tactics are still one of the largest factors in a game of 40K.

*Rant over*

sourclams wrote:

Augustus wrote:...players had to bring one of the published armies?...a great way to level the army issue?

This presupposes that "they" write balanced lists. How would you judge such?

Well said, theres the rub isn't it?

If I had to write the lists I'd make them fairly vanilla, on all fronts maybe something like this for marines:

CPT
2x 10 TAC Missile, Flamer, Fist, Razorback
1x Pod Dread
1x Landraider
1x Terminators
2x Landspeeders
1x predator

with maybe 1 or more slots for swap outs. I would build at least 2 lists for every codex with 1 or more swap outs in each one to accomodate figs and relaxed rules for wysiwyg as the lists are posted in advance.

Hmm, seems like a lot of trouble and posting...

So we make lists as uncompetitive as possible, to be able to compete with each other at a very low level.... "whoo".

Maybe it's because I live in Kansas and work in the financial sector, but solving problems by increasing regulation makes things worse 9 times out of 10.

Hi .
Augustus.
I Know that 40k is not developed for competative play because the games developers said so.Publicaly an keep saying so, repeatedly.
Games that ARE developed for ballanced competative play ,say so.
EG 'For ballanced competative play we suggest the following...'OR have formal army composition and points calculation formula...etc.

By contrast 40k page 2 has the 'Most Important Rule ....' limited playtesting and PV derived by oppinion.

Oshova.
Anything to do with army composition and deployment is strategic concideration.
In game chioces are tactics.
I never said there were not any tactics in 40k.
Just it has a heavy strategic bias to support marketing requirments.
Therfore finding the most cost effective units/combinations to play the game out of its intended field of usage, will indeed overide the limited tactical options.('Spamming for auto win' ).

Having played games that ARE suitibly balanced for competative play, it is VERY obviuos 40k is far from suitable for this type of playstyle.

But keep on deluding yourselves if it makes you happy (and GW rich.)

TTFN
Lanrak.

Lanrak wrote:Hi .
Augustus.
I Know that 40k is not developed for competative play because the games developers said so.Publicaly an keep saying so, repeatedly. ...

...the same creators that then run Grand Tournaments for how many years....?

and Games Days
and RTTs
and have the Hall of Heroes
and have national Tournaments in the UK
and sell trophies

EDIT:

sourclams wrote:So we make lists as uncompetitive as possible, to be able to compete with each other at a very low level.... "whoo".

A very low level? Perhaps a simpler level, would it really be lower?

My Aikido instructor was more dangerous with his bare hands than I was with a sword after a few years of training. I actually think playing with a simpler preset army might even be appealing.

Do you think it wouldn't shift the emphasis away from army design tactics onto play tactics at least somewhat? Enough to be worth considering?

sourclams wrote:Maybe it's because I live in Kansas and work in the financial sector, but solving problems by increasing regulation makes things worse 9 times out of 10.

Ya I could see that, as an owner of many armies, it does sound simpler, but then, that might appeal to some folks more?

@Lanrak

Sorry I misunderstood what you said, just after reading so many posts full of rubbish I got to your's and hit just kinda made that final leap from everything else. But yeah I understand what you're saying that there are reduced tactics in 40K compared to other wargames, and that by 'deluding' ourselves we are making GW rich . . . but if making my employers rich makes me happy then it makes me happy. =p

But seriously I don't think that we are being deluded, it's just a preference of wargame, we prefer the open ability to get into GW games. GW is the only wargames company that has it's own shops, admittedly this increases overheads, and costs, but it also makes their games more accessible. It means more people play them, and this means that they have to cater for the wider audience.

Compare this to historical gaming, which is a niche within a niche really. The amount of small companies that make rules and minis for historical games is amazing, but how many of them have a large enough group of players to have worldwide painting competitions, tournaments, and the likes of Games Day. . . . but I digest . . .

Each person has their own ideal of the amount of tactics they want from a game, and mine changes day to day depending on my mood, but most of the time I much prefer a 'simple' game of 40K to a more complicated game such as Confrontation, Infinity, Hordes etc.

After a hard day at college is nice to just be able to play a couple of games of 40K with my mates, have a pint, and then go home . . . I have hobbies to help relax and pass the time, not to stress me out with millimeter perfect calculations, and uber-precise tactical decisions that to be honest are fun, but after a time get tedious and annoying.

And again the feeling of wasting people's time by chaffing on about nothing in particular comes again . . .

I would consider running a tournament where nothing is judged and there are no catagories to win. There would be prizes, but those prizes would be raffled off to the players. You would come to the tournament to play 3 games. We would pair winners up as they advance, but no Best General, no Best painted, no Best Sportsman and no Overall champ. After the last game we raffle off the prizes.

Wouldn't more people come to play for fun, however their fun would be. Some people would bring some very different lists if there were no prizes or awards tied into their performance or painting. I hear the cry that this is a hobby and to celebrate the hobby we bring players together to play.

Why would you come to play? Well you can play against different people and different armies than you are used to.

So basically an organised fun day with a raffle . . . sounds like fun to me. To be honest that's generally how I treat large tournaments . . . just without the raffle =p

They are a great way to play different armies, and every time I have played in them I have learned something new every game.

It's all about learning new things and meeting new people . . . isn't that why most people get into this hobby any way?

sourclams wrote:Maybe it's because I live in Kansas and work in the financial sector, but solving problems by increasing regulation makes things worse 9 times out of 10.

I know of at least one company that has gone private since SOX to save money. Bonus $2M in pure profit by not having to file statements.

Oshova, you would be surprised how many competitions there are in Ancients. They are run by clubs and players, not by companies, that's the difference.

You need to go to an open wargames like Salute to see how much there is going outside 'the GW hobby'.

I've been to many things like Salute, up until getting my job at GW I did demo games for Simple Miniature Games. So don't start saying that I know nothing about things outside of GW =D . . . actually really dissapointed I can't go to Colours this year =[

Ugh I cannot remember the name of it but its a Tournament in Baton ROuge Or New Orleans something like Jus Claire?

Its a Ancients or some game tournament that I am pretty sure has been held for 20+ years. Its not GW affiliated at all.

Ill have to contact my FLGS but I am almost positive of this.

Cairnius wrote:*snip huge amount of text*

I was going to try to add something to this thread but, yeah, Cairnius has covered everything already. Bravo. I agree 100%.

Oshova wrote:I've been to many things like Salute, up until getting my job at GW I did demo games for Simple Miniature Games. So don't start saying that I know nothing about things outside of GW =D . . . actually really dissapointed I can't go to Colours this year =[

No disapprobation was intended.

I can only infer your knowledge from what you post.

Your comment earlier that historicals is a minor niche, with no important competitions, was incorrect. One could only suppose that you were unaware of the long history of WRG, DBA and so on.

I recommended 'a little reading around the subject', as it were, because Dakka is a general wargames site (with a GW/40K focus of course) and we like to open users' eyes to all the possibilities.