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.

Dashofpepper wrote:So let me get this straight.

1. GW didn't intend for 40k to be a competitive hobby.

Correct. Never has GW fully supported the Tournament scene. The GTs were special 'Hobby Competitions' and everything else they have let the community handle. RTTs, Hall of Heroes events, Indy GT Circuit, - they do not care about standardization or creating a tournament scene. 'Ard Boyz is as close as they have come, but even those are left to be run/judged by the community. To assume they are doing these events solely for the sake of competition...

I also think the words 'competitive' and 'hobby' clash horribly...

Dashofpepper wrote:2. Lots of people all over the country decided they wanted to play competitively, and there are RTTs, 40k tournaments, Indy GTs across the country that thousands, tens of thousands of people play in.

I think 'tens of thousands of people' is being a bit generous and I don't think you can lump them all into your definition of 'competitive'. 90% of those events follow Games Workshop's historical model and would be considered 'Hobby Competitions' in this day and age by the hardcore 'competitive' minority. Not everyone plays this game or is involved with this hobby for the same reasons. Some like to paint, some enjoy the social aspects of it, some enjoy the story generated by a good battle, some enjoy head-to-head competition, some enjoy playing with every model they own, some like to run thematic/story-driven games...the list is endless really and when you play with any of these people it requires a bit of compromise to ensure you are both getting what you want out of the experience. This is the essence of gaming.

Dashofpepper wrote:3. Because GW didn't intend for this to be a competitive hobby, we should ignore that all these tournaments are being formed / run / competed in? Or perhaps we should boycott tournaments because they aren't meant to be competitive?

Actually, people do in fact boycott these tournament because they do not fall within their defined boundaries of 'competitive'. I am saying people need to keep their expectations in control and understand that gaming is first and foremost a social event. If you place 'competition' in front of everything else you will find yourself with limited options. Quit trying to force a square peg in a round hole.

Dashofpepper wrote:It doesn't matter what GW intended; GW isn't running the competitions - players and TOs are. When you label an event as a tournament and hope to bring in people from across the country to compete in it - its a competitive event. The hobby element is important, but its the competition that is bringing people to the....well, competition.

Sure it matters. People are using their rules to play this game and get ever-so bent out of shape when anyone deviates from them. This is why the idea of 'competitive' 40K is fundamentally flawed - because the system is flawed in and of itself. Poker and Chess work because there are a limited number of interactions and the rules governing said interactions are common and consistent. 40K does not have this luxury. The discussions on this forum are proof of that.

The main thing I'm getting from this thread is that 40k is not really meant to be played competitively.

Frankly, after trying very very hard to do things "competitively", I'm inclined to agree. Maybe your army is losing because you fail to understand 5th ed mechanized dynamics. or maybe it lost because you rolled a higher percent of 1's than the other guy. If the latter is even a possibility, how the hell is the game competitive? If you were a guy (such as myself) who finds "figuring out who's the best" to be a key part of competition... well, I'm not sure 40k is going to provide that simply because the game isn't geared for that. It's geared to be a beer and pretzels game.

I think I'm just going to stick do doing firewarrior conversions as far as 40k goes and leave my competitive gaming fix for starcraft - which has the added advantage of not taking 3 hours a game.

We actually have a pretty good solution going on up here in Canada (at least locally, can't speak on behalf of the whole country):

Here, tournaments have two streams you can enter. You can only pick one on the day of the event. Either the full on battle points only one, or the hobby one which is completely soft scores (I don't even think winning enters in, if it does it is very low).

Seems to make everyone happy.

I also think the words 'competitive' and 'hobby' clash horribly...

Virtually all competitive leisure activities can be considered hobbies as long as you're not being paid (and therefore a professional) to partake in them. For example, chess is a hobby for many--does that means it clashes with competition as well?

The main thing I'm getting from this thread is that 40k is not really meant to be played competitively.

Who is to say how we're meant to enjoy our own hobby?

Danny Internets wrote:

The main thing I'm getting from this thread is that 40k is not really meant to be played competitively.

Who is to say how we're meant to enjoy our own hobby?

Nobody. That's why nobody can seriously argue that Playing should be more important, or get a bigger reward, than theme or painting or winning a quiz.

Which is why we can't steal the name 'Tournament Champion' and choose to apply it to only the people who play.

ArbitorIan wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:

The main thing I'm getting from this thread is that 40k is not really meant to be played competitively.

Who is to say how we're meant to enjoy our own hobby?

Nobody. That's why nobody can seriously argue that Playing should be more important, or get a bigger reward, than theme or painting or winning a quiz.

Which is why we can't steal the name 'Tournament Champion' and choose to apply it to only the people who play.

Yes we can. See Fearspect's post two spots up.

You show up at the tournament and choose to enter the tournament or enter the Hobby event. If you enter the tournament, you're playing battlepoints and the winner is your tournament champion. If you enter the hobby event, you're being judged on fluff, backstory, painting and appearance. If you play with your armies, there are no battle points. Whoever has the best combination of these points is your hobby winner for the event.

The whole point of this thread is that I think that should be a more widespread model. And you CAN seriously argue that playing should be more important than the other aspects.

What do you think would happen if one of the big GTs decided that its next big event wouldn't include battlepoints? No playing, just all the soft scores. Do you think it would still have the same attendance? Or if the GT announced that it was still holding its event, but that there would be no battle points. There would be 3-4 games over the two days, but no pairings, no points....the games were just for fun, while the event itself was focused on painting and appearance and sportsmanship.

I don't think it would attract much interest, because I think that the entire point of 40k is painting, converting, sculpting and preparing your models so that you can put them in front of someone elses' way and have a war. All the back-end work is the mandatory stuff that has to be done to let you create a hellish war in your head, with visual aids down on the table. Or something like that. There are a few people who paint and sculpt and do model stuff without much interest in the gaming/playing part of it, but I think that's an absolute minority.
----------------------
At the end of the day, my point all along has been this: There's an easy way to stop all this bickering. It works where it is used. It should be more widely used.

I just think your original premise is flawed, because it ignores the existing culture of 40k gaming and tournament events. "Overall" is a word clearly denoting a status spanning multiple categories. Best General (or Warmaster, as BBF uses) are good and absolutely respectable titles for the person with the highest battle points.

What do you think would happen if one of the big GTs decided that its next big event wouldn't include battlepoints? No playing, just all the soft scores. Do you think it would still have the same attendance? Or if the GT announced that it was still holding its event, but that there would be no battle points. There would be 3-4 games over the two days, but no pairings, no points....the games were just for fun, while the event itself was focused on painting and appearance and sportsmanship.

If someone wanted to run something like this, they can. Same as if someone wants to run a GT with no painting required and do it 'ardboyz style. The people putting on a tournament are free to choose how they want to structure their event. The players are free to choose what events they want to attend.

And bickering will never end.

Danny Internets wrote:Virtually all competitive leisure activities can be considered hobbies as long as you're not being paid (and therefore a professional) to partake in them. For example, chess is a hobby for many--does that means it clashes with competition as well?

I don't think chess and 40K are any more comparable than a competition and a hobby.

A hobby is 'a pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation'. This is often done to garner the accolades of your peers without concern of who is dominant. By combining the words 'competitive' and 'hobby' you are creating a situation where the stated goals of the game are at odds with your desired end results. Games Workshop themselves states:

The Hobby

Investors and potential investors in Games Workshop need to understand what we mean by the Hobby.

A hobby is something people make time for. It is not a pass-time and therefore not usually analogous to watching TV or playing computer games. In our case, as with most hobbies, it involves commitment, collection, craft or manual skills and imagination. Someone who is involved in the Games Workshop Hobby collects large numbers of miniatures, paints them, modifies them, builds terrain and war games with them in our imaginary universe. This involves huge amounts of time.

Games Workshop Hobbyists play war games with large numbers of metal or plastic miniatures they have carefully chosen and, usually, painstakingly painted, on a table top face to face with their friends. It is a social and convivial activity loved by Hobbyists the world over.

Of course skill (which includes knowledge of the rules, knowing different armies, the ability to read your opponent and critical decision making) has it's place in the Hobby. It part of a larger whole, but if solely you cater to that mentality, or place it above the other aspects of the hobby, it will erode the intended goals of a true hobby. The hardcore 'competitive' player is the one that continually compares Warhammer or the Warhammer tournament scene to professional sports. This is also the same crowd that decries anything non-GW related in their games, yet chooses to ignore things like 'The Most Important Rule' and GW's vision of the Games Workshop Hobby.

I believe elsewhere I agreed to let you call AdeptiCon a 'Hobby Competition'. I rescind that concession. AdeptiCon is a 'Hobby Event'. While tournaments, friendly-competition and tests of skill have their overall place in this event, the convention is much, much more than that.

Dashopepper wrote:What do you think would happen if one of the big GTs decided that its next big event wouldn't include battlepoints?

They do. it is called 'games day'.

People set up dozens of 'games' that are fun and are not raw 40k competitive games. Some are mega battles which are fun but no competitive. Some are narrative missions using parts of 40k or fantasy rules. Some events are speed painting or modeling classes. Some games are completely new mini-games made with primary focus being a fantastic display board and fun models.

Hell, they even have a massive event where there is no game whatsoever and *ONLY* appearance scores... Called Golden Demon.

They have open play where people can play without structure and rules and they sometimes have a section for competitive gaming in the form of a tourney,which still includes appearance and overall.

So to pretend that somehow events that are not majority or primary 'game' oriented are a failure is an absurd concept. A majority of the supposed 'tens of thousands' of people who attend these events are still appearance = battle points and do not attach more importance to one over the other.

And for those who say people do not show up to Tourneys for 100% appearance and really do not expect or care about placing first, check the painting forums for the display boards that have taken almost a year to prepare and many of the unit choices are taken for appearance reasons and not meta optimization. These people spend thier time painting and enjoy the game as a way to push thier models around the table and socialize, the game to many of them is secondary and when they attend an event the game is a means to an end... Social interaction and sharing painted models.

What gives you the right to say your way of enjoying the tournament is more correct and deserves a greater sack of money with a $ on it than him? Nothing. You are a vocal minority trying to change the color of the sky so you can get more $$ and trying to tell everyone your wants and needs ate most important.

And you are flat out wrong, your opinion is not fact or even majority opinion.

nkelsch wrote:

Dash of Pepper wrote:What do you think would happen if one of the big GTs decided that its next big event wouldn't include battlepoints?

They do. it is called 'games day'.

People set up dozens of 'games' that are fun and are not raw 40k competitive games. Some are mega battles which are fun but no competitive. Some are narrative missions using parts of 40k or fantasy rules. Some events are speed painting or modeling classes. Some games are completely new mini-games made with primary focus being a fantastic display board and fun models.

Hell, they even have a massive event where there is no game whatsoever and *ONLY* appearance scores... Called Golden Demon.

They have open play where people can play without structure and rules and they sometimes have a section for competitive gaming in the form of a tourney,which still includes appearance and overall.

So to pretend that somehow events that are not majority or primary 'game' oriented are a failure is an absurd concept. A majority of the supposed 'tens of thousands' of people who attend these events are still appearance = battle points and do not attach more importance to one over the other.

And for those who say people do not show up to Tourneys for 100% appearance and really do not expect or care about placing first, check the painting forums for the display boards that have taken almost a year to prepare and many of the unit choices are taken for appearance reasons and not meta optimization. These people spend thier time painting and enjoy the game as a way to push thier models around the table and socialize, the game to many of them is secondary and when they attend an event the game is a means to an end... Social interaction and sharing painted models.

What gives you the right to say your way of enjoying the tournament is more correct and deserves a greater sack of money with a $ on it than him? Nothing. You are a vocal minority trying to change the color of the sky so you can get more $$ and trying to tell everyone your wants and needs ate most important.

And you are flat out wrong, your opinion is not fact or even majority opinion.

Sorry, not me.) Didn't feel like putting up all of Dash's post, but then forgot to put it in Italics.) I agree with you pretty much on everything

Whoops, I fixed it. Sorry about the misquote

Again, this is very simple. Don't whine about how you want tournaments to be run. Run one yourself.

Centurian99 wrote:Again, this is very simple. Don't whine about how you want tournaments to be run. Run one yourself.

But then what would people do all day?

Running a tourney doesnt net as much attention.

Centurian99 wrote:Again, this is very simple. Don't whine about how you want tournaments to be run. Run one yourself.

I don't think it's fair to act as if there are just two binary settings. People can legitimately and reasonably offer suggestions and criticism on or for existing and desired events. I do think that the experience of running events is a good one for a passionate hobbyist or player to have, and definitely helps one acquire a more informed opinion on what goes into them.

Centurian99 wrote:Again, this is very simple. Don't whine about how you want tournaments to be run. Run one yourself.

In a lot of ways, I agree with this. As posted by Yak in another thread, every tournament is run how the TO believes the tournament should be. While it is permissible to make suggestions to the TO, I believe that it is unreasonable to expect a TO, who is doing so much work in getting everything together, should capitulate to suggestions made by people who may or may not even attend the event.

Anyone who believes that the community as a whole is not providing the type of tournament they wish to attend is completely free to start creating that type of tournament themselves. By so doing, a person can find out exactly how viable that style of tournament is in practice. If that style of tournament ends up being successful and popular, then the community as a whole will start seeing an increase in that style of tournament.

Personally, I believe that this method, while requiring a lot more work, would be far more effective than simply bombarding the community with requests that a preferred type of tournament be run by some other people.

And, for the record, I will again state that if anyone wants to run a non-soft score event in the metro Atlanta area, I would be happy to help. While I do not prefer to play in pure battle point events, I understand the desire of others to participate in such and can see the lack of such in the community as a whole. I keep hoping someone will take me up on this, but I haven't gotten any response so far....

Ive played this game for 8 years, and have a few things to say. You guys are letting this hobby get the best of you, and thats never a good thing.

First off, I certainly consider myself a competitive player. I havent painted in over four months, and have no intention of doing it in another four. I bought an 88 key keyboard, and am learning to play piano on it (pianos are expensive and big). I get much more enjoyment out of this. If im not playing one competitive army list against another, I cant care less about 40k. Ive quit games just because they were getting easy/boring. For me, the ard boyz bring your toughest army and smash heads playstyle is what I play for. I could care less about fun or fluffy armies, and certainly will never build an army for that reason.

Second, I do feel that best general should be a decent prize. The people claiming that the game "basically boils down to dice rolls and match ups" are not correct. I have and have seen people pull quite a few games out from under their ass. I recently played a guy running plague marine spam chaos marines in a tournament. The mission was multi objectives. It was on the top tables. He brought a tri-lascannon pred to play against my mechdar. He hadnt used it at all before hand, and he was 170 points over for that game. I still got full points on him. Luck? Dice rolls? The guy didnt have half a clue what he was doing, and expected his gakky net list to win the game for him. One of the objectives was kill all the enemies transports, I had to do it by immobilizing and taking all the guns off his rhinos, not a single destroyed result. The dice were against me most of the time, and he just got out played. It was like stealing candy from a baby. So the idea of winning taking little skill is false, if you beat someone running a solid army, that has more points then you, and the mission is a great one for them, it wasnt dice rolls.

Third, this whole idea of best general getting the best prize is stupid. I think it should be up there, I dont know about best sportsmanship, id probably do away with it all together. I think its way to subjective, but different strokes for different folks. Id never complain if an event had a sportsmanship category. If I ran an event it would look like this prize wise. 50%-best overall, 25%-best painted, 25% best general. I used to think we should do away with painting prizes, for about 20 seconds, until I realized how much time and effort goes into a well painted army. I think painting requirements is silly, as there are a few people who simply hate to paint. But I go to events knowing full well what my lack of having a painted army means.

Fourth, If you are at the point where some of you claim to be mentally with tournaments, danny internets and dashofpepper, im looking at you. Either brow beating people with an ork army that plays itself, or just hateful of the system. Why dont you simply play another game? My city has a chess club, $60 a year for membership. Much more competitive then 40k. A solid rule set, the only bad match up in chess is one where your opponent is simply better then you. No bad army draws, or missions. They even hold things called "tournaments", no not silly "hobby competitions" under your rather stupid definition, but real tournaments. You can go, win, and wave your penis around. Nobody can claim loaded dice, broken armies, bad match ups etc. You can finally prove yourself to be the real man you always wanted to be, and through victory get over the fact that your daddy never hugged you when you were a child.

Ill tell a little story about myself recently. I bought most of a bug army on an impulse. I like the way bugs look, I like how they play. But the codex is seriously underwhelming. And I was thinking about selling them and starting up a new army, one that was uber competitive. Suddenly it hit me. I dont go to events to win prizes, or to have the biggest penis. I play just because I enjoy the competition. Recently a friend started up a space wolf army that I cannot beat for the life of me. Its the rock to my scissors. Do I care? Hell no, the games are tough, and very competitive. I get what I want. I decided to stick with bugs for this reason. Whether I win or lose doesnt matter as long as the games themselves are competitive. If I want to master something, ill master something productive. Ive quit spending so much time on these forums, and starting playing more piano. Am I very good at it? No, of course not, ive barely played for the month I have had the thing. But I would say that if I keep it up, ill be able to produce some pretty good music out of the thing. And that is better then having the biggest penis in the 40k tournament scene. If you want to master something, why not master something really worth mastering?

I tried to get into chess tournaments, but I couldn't get past all the unpainted armies.

Okay, I think some of the posts are getting unnecessarily personal and heated.

Locking thread.