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.

I'm proposing this idea as a compromise rather than banning special characters. I personally have no problem with them.

It's also something I literally wrote up in 2 minutes.

I don't like the idea of tournaments with list restrictions. Certainly, none of the ones I run ever have them. Not that the idea of list variety is bad, it's just that at the local level, where most tournaments happen, these massive restrictions are unneeded since the hypothetical problem lists never appear at the tourny. However, I can see the attraction of having them at national tournaments, where tournament regulars with standardized, more popular lists are more likely to appear with greater frequency.

Usually, I find the idea that 'x unit is always the best choice' is a false one, so you're not really knocking down the most powerful lists, because there is no such thing. What you're actually doing is punishing people who engage in, or fall victim to, groupthink. People get it in their heads that x unit is awesome and must be included in every list/banned from every tournament, which is false on its face. Any army has dozens of effective builds that need not include the super unit du jour, so by restricting the use of particular units you're trying to encourage diversity, but you're not actually leveling the playing field.

Maybe that's what you want; to encourage diversity. And that's fine, I love diversity. But comp scores won't change the underlying fact that most people are lemmings who pick armies similar to other lemmings' armies, not because said armies are actually all that great, but because the internet (or the guys in their gamestore, or whatever) tells them that army is great. It's a perception problem, not a reality problem, and as a result it's all but impossible to fix. Maybe you can force a superficial change, but you're not going to solve the underlying issue.

in my experience, at least where I play, the gamers who like fluffy lists will play in both comp and no-comp tournaments. However, the gamers who do NOT like comp will not play in comp tournaments.

Take that as you will, but us comp-lovers are willing to throw down on any field, not just ones of our own choosing

Comp or comp free, players who are predisposed to cry and blame will find something to complain about. My experience with composition and sportsmanship scores is like efforts to outlaw gun ownership. The players that intend to break the rules and have no regard for others have more tools to do bad things, while the players trying to work within tighter restrictions are easier to knock off.

The rules, army books, and faq/erratas that GW produce may not be balanced, but everyone has access to them, so the playing field is equal for all. Adding additional scores and guidelines at an event doesn't necessarily make things any more balanced, and definitely makes things more complicated, and easier to manipulate for clever players.

Unfortunately there are usually one or two players who leave a tournament happy, the winner and runner-up, or appearance winner. Everybody else is disappointed at least, griping and moaning at worst. They go on about cheesy this or beardy that, this guy cheating or that mission unfair, then throw out all kinds of ideas to redress the problem. Problem is, most folks who lose consistently are not the best players wherever they play, and no matter what the new rules are, keep getting beaten. The way to avoid getting massacred is to study the rulebook and army books, get on forums and read, go to more tournaments and practice, focus and pay attention.

While I'm against soft-scoring in general, I'm particularly horrified at tournaments where the scoring system is not transparent. Judge scored comp. without open measures is the worst example of this. However, even transparency in soft-scoring for comp does not obviate problems with sports scoring. Sports scoring is irredeemable.

Honersstodnt wrote:in my experience, at least where I play, the gamers who like fluffy lists will play in both comp and no-comp tournaments. However, the gamers who do NOT like comp will not play in comp tournaments.

Take that as you will, but us comp-lovers are willing to throw down on any field, not just ones of our own choosing

If you are building a compy-list, you can play in any tournament setting. If you are buying a competitive list, you can't use it in a comped tournament - that's probably the most likely explanation ;p

That, and people who like comp likely aren't as competitively minded as someone who doesn't.

Plus, when they lose...They can just blame the other person's list rather than look at mistakes that they made. Helps them feel morally superior...

Modquisition on. Statements like the above are borderline flaming. This thread needs maintain politieness for other persons positions or the thread wil be closed and discplinary action invoked.

The rules, army books, and faq/erratas that GW produce may not be balanced, but everyone has access to them, so the playing field is equal for all. Adding additional scores and guidelines at an event doesn't necessarily make things any more balanced, and definitely makes things more complicated, and easier to manipulate for clever players.

This is entirely true. Lets assume you have an event where the judges ruled that mech is broken, mech is unfair. Therefore only one out of 5 units in the army can be a vehicle. Bugs and demons would slaughter at an event like that, as their armies are designed to work without vehicles. Ok, so you rule that monstrous creatures should be taken out. Now footslogger spacewolves slaughter everyone at the event. You cant fix the balance by banning certain armies, which is what comp scoring generally attempts to do. I think your army is cheesy, therefore you get less points and are less likely to win.

As far as wonky missions or rule sets, the smarter and more experienced players will generally win those. There is a 1500 pt planetstrike tournament coming up soon at a local store. Im pondering whether I want to bring triple trygon bugs or dante+sanguard spam ba. A friend of mine has no army but orks, he gets no choice in what to play. Designing events with a "screw the veterans and powergamers" idea generally just means more baby seal clubbing.

The third issue is, while 40k isnt very well balanced, its not horribly unbalanced. And gw still remains a faceless corporation. So they unbalance the game by introducing army x, which is completely and utterly broken. Like iron warriors, or the old mechdar, or guard are now. There isnt much you can do about it. So and so at the LGS ran an event where he decided that he hates close combat armies. He cant win against them, so he feels they must be broken. Therefore in his new mission all units move as if in difficult terrain the first 2 turns of the game. Guess how many people are coming back to that guys events?

And gw still remains a faceless corporation. So they unbalance the game by introducing army x, which is completely and utterly broken. Like iron warriors, or the old mechdar, or guard are now.

Looking at the 'ard boyz results, as far as I've been able to compile them anyway, I'm actually fairly impressed with the balance amongst 5E codecii.

IG: 12 (11, due to 1 winner not going to the finals)
SM: 11
BA: 10 (11, due to 1 IG winner not going to the finals)
Orks: 9
Nids: 9
SW: 7
CSM: 5
Eldar: 5
Daemons: 3
WH: 2
Tau: 1 (probably not attending finals)
Necrons: 1
BT: 1
DH: 0
DA: 0
DE: 0


By first places:
IG (9)
SM (4)
Nids (3)
SW (3)

So, the only modern codex that's not doing very well is Daemons - even Orks have a fairly respectable showing despite not being considered as strong as was initially thought.

Guard seem like they could be slightly too strong, just looking at how many first places they've got, but overall I'm impressed - if the new books continue to be as good as the last few have been, 'Ard Boyz 2011 will be even better.

Guard are by no means unbeatable. But they just auto win certain match ups. If you have bugs, going second against guard is suicide. Unless you run crazy deep strike/outflankers, and even then they can screw you up hard with a 30 point officer.

I grappled the shoggoth wrote:Guard are by no means unbeatable. But they just auto win certain match ups. If you have bugs, going second against guard is suicide. Unless you run crazy deep strike/outflankers, and even then they can screw you up hard with a 30 point officer.

Eh, our local bug players do quite well against IG. In fact, I think that bugs/IG are pretty much top-dogs in our store.

I dont understand why everyone has gotta hate on how tournaments are run.

I personally liked ard boyz a lot because there were no soft-scores. The entirety of ard boyz was to strategize and play to win. As far as gameplay goes, this is how i love to play. You make the best list you possibly can and ill make mine, then lets battle. Would soft-scores make ard bozy any better? maybe, maybe not. Personally i say no, leave soft-scores to other tournaments, ard boyz is just about playing to kill the other guy. Pretty fun.

I think soft-scores have their place and should be equal to non-soft score tournaments. I like playing to win, but fluffy games are just as fun. However, fluffy games are only fun when both sides are playing fluffy. Its not fun when i bring a mega-killly list and you bring your fluff list and i table you turn 4. And why do Special Characters kill fluffy lists? If there is an abusing of fluffy lists penalize them in the soft-scores. IMO bringing the sanguinor is fine. Bringing the Sanguinor and Mephiston is not fluffy and the other player just wants to win, and down the soft-scores go.

There really are no set rules to this, just have fun and dont worry about it. You dont have to play at all the tournaments, and if you dont happen to like the ruleset of specific tournaments then dont go. Seems pretty simple.

If a person wants to sink 1/3-1/4 of his points in two models, then I'm looking at an easy win.

mrwittwer wrote: Bringing the Sanguinor and Mephiston is not fluffy and the other player just wants to win, and down the soft-scores go.

Explain this to me. They are both characters from the exact same marine codex. Why cant they work together? Thats like saying bringing calgar and sicarius, or calgar and telion, or chronos and sicarius are WAAC but just one of the above is ok. I am assuming you are claiming putting forth the proposition that using both is unfluffy.

Looks like we arent the only site discussing this http://www.yesthetruthhurts.com/2010/06/community-list-for-astronomicon.html

For me if you can find fluff or make fluff with he two special characters i think its fine. but in most fluff i have read, super powerfull characters dont always come together to win every battle like in space marines, vulkan and lysander, both very good hqs but rarely would fight together if ever. Not very fluffy.

I would be fine with 'ard boy formats... if they required people paint thier models and enforced WYSIWYG.

If I wanted nothing but a raw gaming experience I will go play a video game that is way more balanced and takes a lot less of my time. I play a miniatures game to paint miniatures and have an excuse to socialize with other people who share the hobby and push the models around a board for a day.

If I am going to paint my models and then play against some unpainted lumps of half-done models and they are not even WYSIWYG what is the point of the event? It is a giant fat waste of time. I would rather lose to a WAAC list with a painted army than win against a comped list or fluff list that is unpainted.

Things like NOVA are popular because I know if I attended that tourney, I would play fully painted and WYSIWYG models. I hope the new GW format brings back the GT standards of before which is 100% WYSIWYG and painted models to participate.

mrwittwer wrote:For me if you can find fluff or make fluff with he two special characters i think its fine. but in most fluff i have read, super powerfull characters dont always come together to win every battle like in space marines, vulkan and lysander, both very good hqs but rarely would fight together if ever. Not very fluffy.

Well, isn't it a good thing that taking Vulkan + Lysander isn't very competitive then

number9dream wrote:

mrwittwer wrote:For me if you can find fluff or make fluff with he two special characters i think its fine. but in most fluff i have read, super powerfull characters dont always come together to win every battle like in space marines, vulkan and lysander, both very good hqs but rarely would fight together if ever. Not very fluffy.

Well, isn't it a good thing that taking Vulkan + Lysander isn't very competitive then

No its not but really you can pick any two special characters and more likely than not they dont fit together.

And with a few exceptions they won't be competitive either !

nkelsch wrote:I would be fine with 'ard boy formats... if they required people paint thier models and enforced WYSIWYG.

If I wanted nothing but a raw gaming experience I will go play a video game that is way more balanced and takes a lot less of my time. I play a miniatures game to paint miniatures and have an excuse to socialize with other people who share the hobby and push the models around a board for a day.

If I am going to paint my models and then play against some unpainted lumps of half-done models and they are not even WYSIWYG what is the point of the event? It is a giant fat waste of time. I would rather lose to a WAAC list with a painted army than win against a comped list or fluff list that is unpainted.

Things like NOVA are popular because I know if I attended that tourney, I would play fully painted and WYSIWYG models. I hope the new GW format brings back the GT standards of before which is 100% WYSIWYG and painted models to participate.

Ard boys does require wysiwyg, if some stores chose not to enfore it that is not the tournaments fault. Its ran all across the country, so you get a mixed bag.

Aduro wrote:Canadians are allowed to do whatever they want. We just don't acknowledge them.

hahaha


I have no problem with soft scores for painting or separate sportmanship, and I think there should be awards for those parts of the hobby too, but I loathe comp and sportsmanship that is included in scoring (because sore losers always ding you when you massacre them)

I really hope ETC drops the stupid restrictions next year, they have no place in a tournament like that. @torgoch: Do you know how many countries voted for and against?

From the comments here:
http://www.yesthetruthhurts.com/2010/04/etc-response.html

Number of voting countries: 17 (Belgium, Poland, USA, Austria, Germany, Hungary, Sweden, England, Scotland, Wales, Russia, Belarus, Slovakia, Northern Ireland, Spain, France, Finland) out of 25 attending teams.

- 11 voted to ban all
- 3 voted to ban none
- 3 voted to ban only some SCs out of a black list

Number of voting countries: 17 (Belgium, Poland, USA, Austria, Germany, Hungary, Sweden, England, Scotland, Wales, Russia, Belarus, Slovakia, Northern Ireland, Spain, France, Finland) out of 25 attending teams.

- 11 voted to ban all
- 3 voted to ban none
- 3 voted to ban only some SCs out of a black list

I'd be curious to learn more about the selection process for these voters. Were votes cast by players, by TO's, or by GW staffers?

This seems to be the forum through which it is organised.

http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewforum.php?f=33&sid=235aae4d4143ae2efad32ba7049e22d7

I should contact them for more details.

As I understand it, the teams decide amongst themselves what to vote, and then the team captains carry that vote to the ruling council or whatever they call it.

Polonius wrote:I'm proposing this idea as a compromise rather than banning special characters. I personally have no problem with them.

It's also something I literally wrote up in 2 minutes.

When you post something up for scrutiny, it doesn't matter how long you spent on it. ;-)

In any case, Blackmoor touches on an interesting point that GW has made the special characters available and necessary now to play certain army builds, so banning them outright hurts the choices of those armies.

Really, what needs to be done (which may be too much to hope for) is to ensure that all the codicies are actually balanced against each other no matter what units/characters you take (something that other games do) and then you don't have to worry about comp at all.

@Redbeard
I'm against weird missions, and doubly against missions that introduce actual "penalties" against your models. What's even worse, is that usually these types of things are not posted in advance, so you're really just walking blind into what could potentially be a disaster. I would think this could be a bone of contention for most, although most locals probably are used to the stuff that happens in their own local scene.

I'm really not a fan of the 'take special character to unlock army option' thing...

skyth wrote:I'm really not a fan of the 'take special character to unlock army option' thing...

yeah it kinda sucks that i'm not "really" playing Crimson Fists unless i'm fielding a Kantor or Lysander. Overall it was done better in 4th(?) Edition with the chapter traits system

Joetaco wrote:

skyth wrote:I'm really not a fan of the 'take special character to unlock army option' thing...

yeah it kinda sucks that i'm not "really" playing Crimson Fists unless i'm fielding a Kantor or Lysander. Overall it was done better in 4th(?) Edition with the chapter traits system

No, no it was not. Traits and doctrines were horribly balanced.