Switch Theme:

What should a GW Tournament support pack look like?  [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 gb
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






How do?

Topic came up following GW posting a significant increase in sales during lockdown. When discussing, it was mentioned that now is the time for them to plan ahead for when lockdowns are done (vaccines make that a when, rather than an if). I suggested promoting organised play would be one way to get things rolling again.

And then putting together a support pack of tournaments of any size (or indeed, different packs for different sizes) came to mind.

Not being experienced in organised play, figured it might make for an interesting topic.

Contents that spring to mind are a set mission pack (allowing for smaller venues to work together in a heats format), and even cardboard scenery to ensure some board consistency.

Wondered what you folk might suggest.

Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?

Tiny Red Chair Painting Sessions. A Discord dedicated to video painting sessions. PM me for an invite. 
   
Made in gb
Servoarm Flailing Magos




United Kingdom

For reference, GW's 2019 Grand Tournament pack. I can't find one updated for the current edition.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Halifax

Including two or three 'fixed' army lists for players to use in tournaments for a reasonable assumption of balance would be good.

   
Made in ca
Revving Ravenwing Biker



Canada

Nurglitch wrote:
Including two or three 'fixed' army lists for players to use in tournaments for a reasonable assumption of balance would be good.


Restrictions are fine, but telling players what list to play? Nope. List building is a big part of the game. Its one thing to see similar lists during a tourney, but to keep seeing exactly the same? No way.

All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand 
   
Made in ca
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Halifax

I love list-building so much I built it into my Titanomachina game, but where the armies themselves are badly balanced internally, with a few must-have units and so much dross, all the competitive lists end up looking the same anyways. More to the point, there's no reason why a fixed-list format can't co-exist with an open or freestyle format, just as events run Narrative Play campaigns alongside competitive tournaments.

   
Made in us
Brainy Zoanthrope






50/50 paint and battle points, death clock, no silly guide for terrain type/setup. Bizarre missions that you don't know about beforehand. Wysiwyg and no proxies. Allow everything and stop pretending the game is a good measure of skill. Also strict and clear requirements for what counts as painted and based. Break a rule then immediately lose the game no exceptions.
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






Hm, a very good question. TBH I found the one in the most recent General's Handbook to be pretty good, so I think 'that but for 40k' would make a good number of people satisfied. I think a major direction I would like to see moving forward (particularly for 40k where the player base is larger) is packs for different types of tournaments. It would be cool to see a 'rigid' sort that really clamps down with structure (as much as it can, at least); armies get one detachment (and by extension, one codex), terrain rules mandate a certain amount of coverage and LoS blocking, secondary objectives are fixed by scenario. The sort of thing that would be oppressive to include in casual matched gaming but acts to both curb excess and shake up established meta for an event.

Still trying to be more polite. If you catch me being toxic please call me on it.

Enjoying narrative before matched play, crusading on a path to glory! 
   
Made in gb
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






For terrain coverage in smaller “mates and invitees” types affair, I think they could do worth than include some basic, printed cardboard buildings.

They might not look like much, but it would be one day of helping ensure consistency, and generally desirable density of terrain, which strikes me as a hurdle that needs to be crossed.

They’re also relatively cheap to produce, certainly pennies compared to pounds.

After all, the more we play, the sooner we might grow bored of a given list or army and buy more...

Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?

Tiny Red Chair Painting Sessions. A Discord dedicated to video painting sessions. PM me for an invite. 
   
Made in ca
Revving Ravenwing Biker



Canada

I've played in three 9th Ed local tournaments (we are on pause right now). Our TO used the Chapter Approved 2020 Grand Tournament Mission Pack with the recommended table sizes. I thought it worked just fine. We did not use the 10 points for being painted.

As for terrain, the Main Rule Book has helpful suggestions on what a "balanced" table looks like.

We have roughly five tournaments a year, with each having a theme. There is a Club Champs that is meant to have "hard" but also well-painted lists. We have a Secret Santa that is meant to be more laid-back and beginner-friendly. That tourney restricts Lords of War and FW. We have a Great Crusade where you have to have a named character as your warlord. Our tourneys do not feed into ITC scoring. During 8th we used home-brew missions much of the time for the tourneys. Shook things up, but it also slowed things down during set-up and I can't say that balance always benefited. I find that soft-scoring can lead to some shenanigans. I was a TO for our FOW/TY games and I noted a trend that led me to remove soft-scores but have a separate "category" for best-painted and best-sportsman. Best-sportsman with a small tourney turns into who was matched against their friends and who wasn't. Your mileage may vary.

All that to say, I don't think a TO can go wrong using the CA 2020 GT Mission Pack and use the MRB as a guide for terrain. Five pieces of Obscuring Terrain per table is a good start.

All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand 
   
Made in gb
Bryan Ansell





Birmingham, UK

MIssion packs are fie to use.

Though the Imp in me suggests that a GW Tourney pack would look like this:

"WG Tournament rule:..."

'Only rules labelled "GW Tournament rule" may be used'.


Anyhow, I would really like separate divisions for painted and non painted armies. With a bias toward painted.

   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






Every tournament I've been to requires everything to be painted, I always assumed that was the norm (for bigger events, at least). Just now I realize I have nothing outside personal experience to base that on.

Still trying to be more polite. If you catch me being toxic please call me on it.

Enjoying narrative before matched play, crusading on a path to glory! 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Painting requirements are pretty standard in any tournament I've been to as well. What isn't standard is how TOs deal with people who don't comply with the standard. Usually they don't end up enforcing anything, probably to avoid any conflict. That's why, on balance, I prefer a system that rewards painting with tournament points similar to how the GT pack does it: a flat score for achieving a really easy standard.

Ideally, I'd have non-painted models/armies removed from the tournament but that doesn't seem to happen very often.
   
 
Forum Index » Tournament Discussions
Go to: