Switch Theme:

Lets talk 40k Comp. Seriously.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in fi
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 oni wrote:
Stop using Narrative Play rules in Matched Play and Tournament Hammer would be a good first start.

Vigilus = Narrative play
Psychic Awakening = Narrative play
Forge World =Narrative play



Ah so your authority on what is narrative play and what is not is greater than GW's? Good to know. Care to show some evidence on your authority?

https://middleagedstrategybattlegamers.home.blog/2019/12/31/tneva82-december-moria/<- lotr painting blog

12 factions for Lord of The Rings
11772 pts(along with lots of unpainted unsorted stuff)
5265 pts
5150 pts
~3200 pts Knights

 
   
Made in us
Missionary On A Mission




Tacoma, WA, USA

 Perfect Organism wrote:
 archont wrote:
Here's the Argument: Most Armies should have Field% and TWiP% be correlated strongly.

Actually, I think they shouldn't. The more popular your army, the harder it should be to win a tournament with because everyone will have prepared to defeat the most popular armies.

Here's a hypothetical example to illustrate: there are 16 players in a tournament. 15 of them play marines, 1 of them plays chaos daemons or something. Most of the marine players optimise their lists (and hone their play-style) to kill marines. A few of them field balanced lists which can handle a few different opponents. Maybe one or two even optimise against daemons. The daemon player optimises to kill marines. If all armies are equally good and the skill levels are close, the daemon player has a much better chance of winning than any given marine player. He is always going to go against an army he is optimised against, while the marine players will rarely do so. The few marine players who are prepared to handle a daemon list will lose to other marine players and may not even be matched against daemons.

If people are willing to switch armies a lot and try their best to win, this will eventually mean that the most popular armies become less popular in tournaments until they are rare enough that it isn't a disadvantage to play them. Since people aren't actually willing to swap armies that much, it means that marines should always be bottom-tier if their army list isn't overpowered.

If the most popular army is also the army most likely to win tournaments, that is a sign that the game is strongly unbalanced in their favour.
This is only true of Marines means one list archetype. But in the situation where Marines has more than one list archetype, you can easily tool to beat one and find yourself unable to handle a second or third archetype. A list that smashes Iron Hands Vehicle Spam will have a very different result against Raven Hand Aggressors + Assault units.
   
Made in gb
Mekboy Hammerin' Somethin'






 alextroy wrote:
This is only true of Marines means one list archetype. But in the situation where Marines has more than one list archetype, you can easily tool to beat one and find yourself unable to handle a second or third archetype. A list that smashes Iron Hands Vehicle Spam will have a very different result against Raven Hand Aggressors + Assault units.

That's only really true if each strong marine build is outnumbered by an equally specific non-marine build and each marine build is genuinely different from the others in terms of weaknesses an opponent can exploit. In practise, I don't think either of those are true. There will be maybe two or three strong marine builds, each of which is well known and well prepared against by tournament players, and all of which are only really vulnerable to anti-tank weapons (kind of an inherent issue when your basic infantry are as well armoured as your tanks). Virtually all marine units are moderately mobile, tough, good at mid-range shooting, OK at close combat and basically ignore morale. No two competitive marine lists are likely to be as different as an ork vehicle list and an ork infantry list, or an astra militarum vehicle list and an astra militarum vehicle list. And even when you split marines into specific builds, each build is still going to be more popular than all competitive builds from most other factions, especially considering that multiple marine factions are likely to have similar competitive builds.

   
Made in it
Sneaky Sniper Drone





addnid wrote:
Richard siegler did it again with a very innovative Tau list. Riptides drones and commanders. I can’t understand why people complain about comp. that guy won using NO marine units :p

Isn't he the #1 player in ITC rankings right now? Anyway, one of the best 40K players in the world won a tournament with a faction that matches well vs Space Marines. Big news.
Not everyone is as good at 40K as Richard Siegler and that's why Tau have average win rates, worse than many different factions (all the eldar variants, space marines and so on).


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 Perfect Organism wrote:
 archont wrote:
Here's the Argument: Most Armies should have Field% and TWiP% be correlated strongly.

Actually, I think they shouldn't. The more popular your army, the harder it should be to win a tournament with because everyone will have prepared to defeat the most popular armies.

Here's a hypothetical example to illustrate: there are 16 players in a tournament. 15 of them play marines, 1 of them plays chaos daemons or something. Most of the marine players optimise their lists (and hone their play-style) to kill marines. A few of them field balanced lists which can handle a few different opponents. Maybe one or two even optimise against daemons. The daemon player optimises to kill marines. If all armies are equally good and the skill levels are close, the daemon player has a much better chance of winning than any given marine player. He is always going to go against an army he is optimised against, while the marine players will rarely do so. The few marine players who are prepared to handle a daemon list will lose to other marine players and may not even be matched against daemons.

If people are willing to switch armies a lot and try their best to win, this will eventually mean that the most popular armies become less popular in tournaments until they are rare enough that it isn't a disadvantage to play them. Since people aren't actually willing to swap armies that much, it means that marines should always be bottom-tier if their army list isn't overpowered.

If the most popular army is also the army most likely to win tournaments, that is a sign that the game is strongly unbalanced in their favour.


I mean, there’s a reason tau have had an uptick in tournament performance. They beat marines real well
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






 Aenar wrote:
addnid wrote:
Richard siegler did it again with a very innovative Tau list. Riptides drones and commanders. I can’t understand why people complain about comp. that guy won using NO marine units :p

Isn't he the #1 player in ITC rankings right now? Anyway, one of the best 40K players in the world won a tournament with a faction that matches well vs Space Marines. Big news.
Not everyone is as good at 40K as Richard Siegler and that's why Tau have average win rates, worse than many different factions (all the eldar variants, space marines and so on).

At the top levels of play, Tau is one of the strongest armies. Or rather, they are one of the armies best positioned to exploit the ITC house rules. In an ideal world, Tau would be a good army that does not have to rely on rules abuse and extremely non-interactive play to win games, but here we are. You can't really hide all this by comparing Richard Siegler or Brian Pullen to some random Joe Blueberry. Variability exists as statistical phenomena. Space Marines may be on average better, but it's the outliers that matter in the end.

EDIT: Honestly, if we just changed "if it fits, it sits" to include battlesuits or even monsters, we would not be having nearly as many problems. Also, if you changed Saviour Protocols to allocate to models instead of units; I still can't believe SP exists in its current form. It's ridiculously non-interactive and a crutch for the entire Tau codex.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/22 23:44:27


 
   
Made in gb
Freelance Soldier




Nottingham, England

TBH you only have to read most f this thread and the whining about the ITC painting requirements changing to see why most gamers don't play competitively and why it's a bit of a joke even taking it that serious.

It's like a tiny bubble in a tiny bubble in a tiny bubble......
   
Made in us
Missionary On A Mission




Tacoma, WA, USA

 Perfect Organism wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
This is only true of Marines means one list archetype. But in the situation where Marines has more than one list archetype, you can easily tool to beat one and find yourself unable to handle a second or third archetype. A list that smashes Iron Hands Vehicle Spam will have a very different result against Raven Hand Aggressors + Assault units.

That's only really true if each strong marine build is outnumbered by an equally specific non-marine build and each marine build is genuinely different from the others in terms of weaknesses an opponent can exploit. In practise, I don't think either of those are true. There will be maybe two or three strong marine builds, each of which is well known and well prepared against by tournament players, and all of which are only really vulnerable to anti-tank weapons (kind of an inherent issue when your basic infantry are as well armoured as your tanks). Virtually all marine units are moderately mobile, tough, good at mid-range shooting, OK at close combat and basically ignore morale. No two competitive marine lists are likely to be as different as an ork vehicle list and an ork infantry list, or an astra militarum vehicle list and an astra militarum vehicle list. And even when you split marines into specific builds, each build is still going to be more popular than all competitive builds from most other factions, especially considering that multiple marine factions are likely to have similar competitive builds.
I'm going to disagree with your assetment. Look at that top 2 List from Games of Westeros VIII, an 80-man Tournament (https://www.40kstats.com/games-of-westeros-viii). Both are Iron Hands Space Marines, but couldn't be more different.

1st Place is Iron Hands Infantry Brigade of 49 Infantry, a Bike Character, a Contemptor, 2 Thunderfire Cannons, and a Drop Pod.
2nd Place is Iron Hands Airforce (Spearhead, Air Wing, Vanguard) of 5 Flyers, 3 Thunderfire Cannons, 2 Dreadnoughts (one a Chaplain), 2 Invictors, and 2 Landspeeders lead by a Lieutenant.

I imagine it requires very different tools to beat those two list.
   
Made in gb
Dipping With Wood Stain




Sheep Loveland

On the comp discussion, how likely do you see GW's 2019 chapter approved maelstrom rules overtake established ruleset for competitive play?

Minatours 2,000pts 70% painted 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Dr. Mills wrote:
On the comp discussion, how likely do you see GW's 2019 chapter approved maelstrom rules overtake established ruleset for competitive play?


0%
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






Yeah. Few people would want that.

I think a better way forward:
1) Everyone takes Old School and two secondaries
2) Get rid of all of the killy secondaries because they just create structural advantages/disadvantages for some armies
3) Get rid of the scenarios in favor of new secondaries and a single, standardized way to place objectives regardless of how many games are in a tourney
4) Switch to the new "all at once" deployment method

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/30 21:43:16


 
   
Made in ch
Revered Rogue Psyker





That seems like a solid 4 step improvement plan, allbeit isn't removing killy and not removing other secondaries just shifting the balance torwards the non killy but other strength having armies?

Otoh, killing is just easier and a surefire way to neutralize an enemy.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
Trick Question, of course it's the loyalists!

(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost and 8th edition.) 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




One approach I'd like to see trialled is something similar to the Nova Killteam missions. In those there is an overall set of secondaries, similar to how ITC works, but each mission specifies a different subset of secondaries that are available to select from. It's better because it prevents the situation where certain builds always take the same secondaries all the time and means you need to be bit more balanced in your builds.
   
Made in gb
Fighter Ace





england

40k Comp play summed up
[Thumb - 81942959_2972615076091024_6117995671212523520_o.jpg]

   
Made in us
Savage Khorne Berserker Biker





Man I wish I could participate in play testing this. I love alternate rules that improve on this wonky ruleset.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




 ValentineGames wrote:
40k Comp play summed up
Spoiler:



Stop. I'm Crying.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/03 03:27:33


 
   
Made in us
Implaccable Grey Knight Paladin




San Diego, CA

MVBrandt wrote:
 Dr. Mills wrote:
On the comp discussion, how likely do you see GW's 2019 chapter approved maelstrom rules overtake established ruleset for competitive play?


0%

Unfortunately, yes. The ITC and other major rulesets are committed to their own versions even if simply because they don't want to admit they aren't perfect.

Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Los Angeles

 greyknight12 wrote:
MVBrandt wrote:
 Dr. Mills wrote:
On the comp discussion, how likely do you see GW's 2019 chapter approved maelstrom rules overtake established ruleset for competitive play?


0%

Unfortunately, yes. The ITC and other major rulesets are committed to their own versions even if simply because they don't want to admit they aren't perfect.

Oh, horse manure. No one thinks the ITC is perfect, including Mr. Raspy Voice. *I* don't. I defy you to find anyone, in any aspect of 40k, to declare any part of the game, is perfect.

ITC has a set of rules that make tourneys reasonably function. And if you don't like our rules, yes, I'm a long standing ITC member, then organize your local group to play how you want.




"You can bring any cheesy unit you want. If you lose. Casey taught me that." -Tim S.

"I'm gonna follow Casey; he knows where the beer's at!" -Blackmoor, BAO 2013

Quitting Daemon Princes, Bob and Fred - a 40k webcomic 
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






While I am a big fan of ITC, I have to say that the weakest point right now is the design of the secondaries and scenarios. CA2018 is strictly superior, and I was flabbergasted that we did not switch over last year, since GW gave us everything we wanted. Instead, all FLG did was tweak the custom rules a little bit and do this bizarre half-measure where every other game you did the CA2018 deployment.
   
Made in us
Horrific Hive Tyrant




Tampa, FL

 Brothererekose wrote:
 greyknight12 wrote:
MVBrandt wrote:
 Dr. Mills wrote:
On the comp discussion, how likely do you see GW's 2019 chapter approved maelstrom rules overtake established ruleset for competitive play?


0%

Unfortunately, yes. The ITC and other major rulesets are committed to their own versions even if simply because they don't want to admit they aren't perfect.

Oh, horse manure. No one thinks the ITC is perfect, including Mr. Raspy Voice. *I* don't. I defy you to find anyone, in any aspect of 40k, to declare any part of the game, is perfect.

ITC has a set of rules that make tourneys reasonably function. And if you don't like our rules, yes, I'm a long standing ITC member, then organize your local group to play how you want.



Nah, the secondaries just push more listbuilding and that's what tournament players want; as much to be decided beforehand as possible. There's no reason to keep those bland champions missions with choosing secondaries especially now, but it'll keep going on so ITC can feel better about themselves and appeal to people who want to e-sport 40k and have as little random as possible.

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





I don't really fault the ITC. They've done a great job with what they have.

I do think an effort needs to be made to run more tournaments with Chapter Approved missions. Right now there's a lack of community faith in them that's hard to fault given the game's history.

That said, I think supporting GWs scenarios is an important step in both giving them the feedback to improve them now that they're obviously paying attention to such things, and playing the game in the environment the models are designed to support.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




 LunarSol wrote:
I don't really fault the ITC. They've done a great job with what they have.


ITC wouldn't need to exist if GW had their together, it's a direct response to poor management. GW doesn't want anything to do with the tournament scene, it's been this way for decades.
   
Made in us
Horrific Hive Tyrant




Tampa, FL

MiguelFelstone wrote:
 LunarSol wrote:
I don't really fault the ITC. They've done a great job with what they have.


ITC wouldn't need to exist if GW had their together, it's a direct response to poor management. GW doesn't want anything to do with the tournament scene, it's been this way for decades.
maybe that's saying something then. Not everything needs to be turned into a competitive "sport" with world championships and cash prizes so average people can feel special for being "good" at a game.

And besides GW has cared more about it now, so itc has no reason to do more than track scores. Just like they do for Sigmar, no reason to continue to create their own missions

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/12 13:28:23


- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Right behind you.

MiguelFelstone wrote:
 LunarSol wrote:
I don't really fault the ITC. They've done a great job with what they have.


ITC wouldn't need to exist if GW had their together, it's a direct response to poor management. GW doesn't want anything to do with the tournament scene, it's been this way for decades.

Yeah, that's totally why GW doesn't go to big events in Europe, UK, and US. It's why they totally won't be at the Las Vegas Open(with a preview seminar to boot!).
Also why they totally haven't made games that are more oriented for tournaments like Warhammer Underworlds.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Might be worth noting that someone is running a quick poll over on reddit.

Poll - https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/SOK42/

Reddit thread - https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/eo8ejy/which_is_the_better_balanced_game_option_for_40k/

Might be worth adding more responses.
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord






Wayniac wrote:
MiguelFelstone wrote:
 LunarSol wrote:
I don't really fault the ITC. They've done a great job with what they have.


ITC wouldn't need to exist if GW had their together, it's a direct response to poor management. GW doesn't want anything to do with the tournament scene, it's been this way for decades.
maybe that's saying something then. Not everything needs to be turned into a competitive "sport" with world championships and cash prizes so average people can feel special for being "good" at a game.
Unfortunately, it will be. That is an unalterable reality.

Games Workshop rules are not so much games as toolboxes for players to craft an experience from. Open/narrative/matched play are just examples of how things can be put together. 
   
Made in us
Excellent Exalted Champion of Chaos





Yep. You can't stop it. Its already a train thats in motion barreling down the tracks.

I log on to twitter every morning and I can count on at least one poster tweeting or retweeting another AOS or 40k player with a #tsports hashtag or something similar.

GW points don't bring balance. They exist purely for structure. You can get more balance from no points than you do from GW points. You however can get no structure in your game without points. 
   
 
Forum Index » Tournament Discussions
Go to: