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.

In a discussion about whether units were really worth taking in a 'competitive' environment, it got me thinking about competitive army lists. I've played in countless tourneys, both RTT/1 day events and GT/2 day events since 2nd edition (2nd edition only really had local events the players put together, which I classify as a one day event). The one thing that has been a constant in every event and every conceivable variation of a tournament, was the fact that there were/are folks who do not bring an overly optimized army. This is not a criticism of those players, as I am included in that same group. When GW introduced their RTTs and GTs, through Ard Boyz and all the Indy GTs, there are always folks who simply do not bring what most players would consider a 'competitive' list. The only events I really can't claim experience with are the ITC and ATC events, but I don't think those two types of events completely nullify the points and questions I will pose.

With that said, what could be considered a reasonable breakdown of the extremely min/max, most points efficient armies as opposed to those armies that are not? From my experience, I will put out that there has been a much higher percentage of the latter (IE: not min/max) armies that are brought to events. Granted, I am aware that this is a very subjective question, but I believe most players can make an assessment as to what a 'competitive' army is when they see it at an event. This may be a better measurement as it provides a bit more latitude for one to think about.

Personally, I think only 10-20% of the field at a given event actually shows up with the most points efficient army they can build for any given army/codex etc... 60-70% take a reasonably competitive army, but for various reasons, have a few to several non optimized unit choices and then the remaining folks take a purely non competitive list, but love to show up an roll dice for a day or two.

I believe I fall into the majority of players that I assess are the majority of tourney attendees. I've played Eldar since the RT era, and there has been a rare day that I showed up to a tourney with a list that would be considered hyper points efficient. Currently, I'm running a Craftworld Warhost and the Guardian Warhost is my Core Choice that I build around; definitely handicapping myself if I were building a min/max list. In my last two 1 day tourney events, I've gone 2-0-1 and 2-1 in which only one game was a true blowout (for my opponent). I suppose my point is that I don't attend these events to try and crush every player I face; the army I bring is already a huge indicator. I want to play a reasonably tight game. I do think folks like myself are likely the overwhelming majority of players who show up. Therefore, out of a field of 50 players, if only 10-20% actually bring the tools to really compete for the top spot, we are really only talking about 5-10 players who are really competing to win. I do believe this is a fairly accurate representation of the vast majority of 40K events that I've attended in that past 20 years. I think folks that run NOVA and LVO realize this very fact which is why they make all the tweaks to put on an event that the majority of folks would enjoy attending. Let the 10-20% wade through everyone else fairly quickly and start playing against each other and allow the vast majority of 40K weekend warriors to compete against themselves and everyone has a good time. If folks really take a look within themselves, they will realize which group they fall into; once realized, they may derive more enjoyment from the game.

Granted, I'm sure there are folks out there who are in denial/not as versed in 40K to actually realize they really didn't bring the right tools to begin with and still get upset when they lose. Thanks for reading the random thoughts of an early riser.

This is something I've commented on a bit before; judging gives you a really good feel for this sort of thing, as you get a much better idea of how the field as a whole looks, instead of just the handful of people you and your buddies played against that weekend.

In my experience, your numbers aren't far off--though I generally go one step more specific, and approach it as a combination of two factors: players who brought a competitive enough list to have a realistic chance and have the skill/experience in competitive games to win in a tournament setting. I always put that number at a max of around the 25% range for larger events, but is probably more realistically in the 10-20% range.

The fact is that there's plenty of people who bring a top-tier list and still have no real chance at winning a major tournament--that's why you see so many copies of the popular lists, but the same handful of people tend to win the GTs. There's plenty of people trying to play Daemons and getting through two turns because of 40-minute Psychic phases, or getting their Necron deathstar tarpitted on Turn 2, or bleeding Scatbike units far too early, etc etc.

People frequently have the misconception that the final rounds at a GT are the worst for the judges, because they expect all this cutthroat cheat-y nonsense to be going on at the top tables, but it's actually the opposite in most cases. Final tables are actually usually pretty subdued (the players tend to know each other and there's fifty people and eight judges watching) outside of extremely rare situations.

The early rounds are an absolute nightmare by comparison. You've got people with cutthroat top-end lists steamrolling people with their fluff list, or people who haven't played in a year and just like to show up for big events, or people who thought their list was way better than it actually was. These are the times when you've got to explain to some incredibly angry person that, yes, 2+ rerollable saves are a thing that exist right now. Or yes, that is how Stomp works. Or no, you can't do some weird combo you cooked up in your basement and didn't think to clear with the FAQ crew beforehand and is obviously against the rules.

By round three or so, people tend to settle into their "tier" and it's smooth sailing from then on--plus by that point ~80% of the field is statistically eliminated from an overall win and everyone chills out quite a bit.

Like you said though, the vast majority of people are self-aware enough to realize this; it's not some huge secret. They take a list they enjoy, maybe toughen it up a little for the tournament, and see what happens. There's plenty of "whew, glad that's out of the way"-type reactions from people who get stomped in the first round of a large event, because they know they'll be playing less serious lists the rest of the way. The people who get upset after losing (good list or not) are always a tiny minority, they just happen to usually be the loudest ones.

Yeah, I suppose some self reflection and expectation management would go a long way for some.

In essence, a tourney is really just a competitive event (IE: trying to win all your games/most battle points) for 10-20% of the attendees. The other 80-90% are there for a myriad of other reasons (painting, social drinking, socializes, general 40K enjoyment, etc...)

For Killadelphia and NOVA I purposely brought an non minmax list to ensure I had more fun, and it worked.

Those events are great because, like you said, it can be an event that super competitive players flourish at and enjoy, and regular players who like the atmosphere of said events can do the same.

I think your figures are pretty accurate - I'm certainly one of those people who bring the list they like (maybe with a little toughening up) and come to play, with no expectation of winning the whole thing. I also agree on the 60/70% of players are there for the same reason.

I tend to think that tournaments should be catering more specifically for the sort of gamers they're aimed at, though.

As mentioned above, many of these players are aware that, for one or two games, they're going to auto-lose against a hyper-competitive/OP list until they settle into their 'tier'. They view this as a necessary evil of tournaments and are relieved after those first few games. But those bad early matchups and un-fun auto-lose games can easily be 1/3 of all the games they're going to play that weekend, which isn't great.

I guess I think that my 'perfect' event would be one that strives to remove anything so OP as to cause an auto-lose for the wrong matchup, so that the majority of people have a weekend of fun, reasonably balanced games - where they have a chance (however slim) of winning with their mid-tier list.

This doesn't mean that the hyper-competitive lists shouldn't be allowed - just that tournaments with multiple events could cater those events for different crowds.

You have a 300-person 'Grand Tournament' where most of the people are bringing mid-tier lists? Great. Cater it for those people, with liberal nerfs, comp, etc so that everyone has a chance to enjoy all their games. You've also got a 50-person 'Invitational' or 'Ard Boyz' event where all the guys know each other, attend multiple tournaments and buy/build a new optimised list each year? Great, cater that event for those guys.

The 40k field at the moment has such MASSIVE differences in power levels between lists that it's easier to split the player base than try and find one solution that works for every army.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
You have a 300-person 'Grand Tournament' where most of the people are bringing mid-tier lists? Great. Cater it for those people, with liberal nerfs, comp, etc so that everyone has a chance to enjoy all their games. You've also got a 50-person 'Invitational' or 'Ard Boyz' event where all the guys know each other, attend multiple tournaments and buy/build a new optimised list each year? Great, cater that event for those guys.

The problem with this is that it drastically underestimates that small minority who will simply do anything to win. No matter how badly you comp/restrict/nerf a tournament, there will still be that "top thing," you're just lowering the bar each time. Some guy will bring that "top thing" and set out to stomp on everybody just for the sake of winning the "bigger" tournament.

For instance, to simplify, let's say you had a tournament completely split into two brackets--"fun" and "competitive," and you just entered yourself into one or the other when you showed up that day. Do you really think there aren't a handful of angry manchildren that would enter themselves into the "fun" bracket just to ensure they don't lose all day?

In practice, this essentially has to be done in reverse, and is actually what most of the larger tournaments are doing currently. The "competitive" tournament is the big, flashy event that draws everyone's attention. Then there are multiple "fun" events running in the background where people are having a blast without all the stress and shenanigans.

A good example--Adepticon didn't sell out its GT this year. People (here on dakka) started using this as an example of how 7E is clearly killing 40k, etc etc. Until the organizers showed up and reminded everyone that 40k attendance as a whole was actually up a ton, it's just that those people were playing other events (the Narrative/Friendly/etc), rather than cramming into the GT.

In a perfect world, we could do things your way, where the "fun" event is also the "big" event, we just definitely aren't in that world.

I will also take this time to insert a shameless advertisement for the 40k Friendly at Adepticon--I do not run this event, and I have never even played in this event, but I assure you those guys have more fun playing 40k than anyone in the entire world. Hell, I'm pretty sure everyone in the main hall is always aware of how much fun those guys are having (they are not a quiet bunch).

I will freely admit that I am one of those people who will show up to a tournament with a non-minmaxed list. Sure, I play Eldar and my list is rather tough, but my primary goal is to have fun. I play to win, and I try to give my opponents as good of a game as I can, but I know I'm probably not going to win the tournament outright. After all, somebody has to populate the middle of the rankings!

For a one day event, I typically will win 2 games. I've taken home many 'best painted', best army, etc... but it is an extremely rare day I am playing for the top spot. The strange thing that I can't quite put my finger on is when I will lose/tie the one game. It can happen the first game depending on matchup, but I generally will lose my second game as the matchup may be a bit more on the 'competitive' side. I've gone 2-0 on occasion, but the third game is usually against a decent player with a stronger list than I. IIRC, the closest I've come to running a really competitive list was Ard Boyz years back. Even then, I would typically make the first round top three, only to go back to middle of the road for the semi finals.

For 2 day events, I've been all over the place. I've gone from 3-1/2-1 day one putting myself in a higher bracket all the way to 1-3/1-2 into the lower brackets on day two. I've yet to go undefeated the first day of a two day event.

Overall, I'm ok with this. It would be cool that I somehow have this 'eureka' moment in each game and outplay each player with my completely original tactics, but it never works out that way. If there are equally skilled players, list design is extremely important in 40K.