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.

Edit-
Specific Scenario commentary-
Magic Vacuum-
This is just handing an autowin to any gunline or Slaan army. Becalming plus this= never cast a single spell. I know you guys hate magic, but this scenario didn't work in 7th and its not any better now, especially since you dropped the roll affecting dispel dice as well....

Fight For Glory-
So, you took the base rulebook banner scenario and made it more Woodelf and Ogre friendly (fine, I agree they need the help), but you made the victory based on remaining points at the end of the game. Problem here is that armies with lots of banners (Goblins, Bretts, Empire, Dwarves, some Chaos) are going to be undefeatable in this scenario unless you completely table them. Also, if armies have a minimum of 4 fort points, but only have one banner and a general, which they then lose, they go to one fort point and cannot autolose? Good start, needs work.

Book of Grudges-
This one is fine, but two of the bonuses mutually exclude each other.

Show your true Colors-
This is our Pride in the Colors scenario from several of our events, with minor BP alterations. It good as it stands.

Breakthrough-
This one sucked in 6th and 7th. I played it at Tides this year and it sucked there too. Its just two damn hard for some armies to have any chance in it. A foot unit has to have 5 turns of unimpeded marching to get across, in most cases. Its basically also an autowin for any army with mobile characters that cost a lot. Change it so units have to end in the opposing deployment zone. This makes it plausable for normal infantry to make it and gives the other player a chance to stop the advance if he is drastically outnumbered/tarpitted early.

Fog is Lifting-
This will cripple any gunline army, except for ones that use stone throwers, mortars, or hell cannons. The most punishing magic spells in the game also generally do not need any sort of LoS. In other words, it will have zero effect on what you are trying to punish. Meanwhile, choppy armies will have a field day and you have people bunched up in their deployment zones, making the template war machiens that much more effective. If you want this sort of effect, I suggest just giving a 4+ ward to ranged and magic on turn one instead.

Hearken Back-
Meh, its 7th edition VP rules. I am not sure this justifies an entire scenario unto itself, but its not unbalanced.

Of the lot, only two are really what I would consider bad, but there needs to be some more work put into the middle three. If I had to venture a guess, it looks a lot like these were playtested mainly with WE, LM, and O&G. You need to broaden the test bed of armies a bit before you finalize these.

Phazael wrote:Second, I know why you picked 2200 points for Fantasy. Everyone in southern cali knows how much you guys hate daemons/dragons and 2200 is the point level where no GD or monster riding lord other than a BT is possible (yet coincidentally enough, the tooled Slaan and Anvil guy fit in just dandy). Its your tournament, and all, but every other major GT on the continent is running at 2500 (and the prior standard was 2250) so people can play with their big toys if they want. Frankly, you are just mandating Slaan and Gunlines as the dominant armies with that point level, which is indicative of 7th edition thinking. The Hearken scenario is a pretty big clue that you guys are unhappy with it. If you want more people, let them play with the toys they want. For every GD/Dragon out there, theres a dude with two cannons waiting to make him his prison bitch.

Not to derail your commentary, but the Adepticon Fantasy Championships are running at 2200 in 2011, for timing reasons, more than anything else.

How are the various WHFB GTs handling 8e terrain? Lots of interesting terrain types; it'd be a shame if none were making it to the table.

Would love to get in touch with the Pacific Marauders club but I can't get approved to get on the forums :( Same happened with the SoCal warhamer league. Oh well. I'll come and ninja some video footage

Phazael, I'm glad you posted and listed your gripes because it provides an opportunity to clear up some misunderstandings.

I'm Bob, Vampire player, Plague Court player, I work with Cliff at Game Empire. I've never ever been a member of the Pacific Marauders, though they have kindly allowed me to post to their forums, and I consider myself on friendly terms with them.

Your group had five attendees come to the first Slaughter

Untrue, I think they had three. True, five San Diego players attended, but not everyone in San Diego is a PacMad. And your vague reference to 'bitching' might include me, but who knows since we only know it wasn't Kurt.

When Mike and I took the reigns, there were some rumblings left over from the bitching about year one and your (then) involvement with Game Empire tourney guy (Clifford) that single handedly killed all of the events at Strategicon with his manipulation of scores and favoritism. Everything you guys seemed to be doing at that time emulated his style and he was involved in some of your initial tournament creation.

You really need to let this lie die. Cliff had nothing to do with the first BSB (or any BSB) except to attend as a player. Which means what Cliff did or did not do is irrelevant.

Henry Herz

I'm fairly certain he's never been a member of the PacMads, and the guy has been banned from all San Diego events. The guy is a Warhammer pariah, representing no one. Other than him, what problem players are you referring to?

Year three also featured a bunch of bagging on Ian's Tides of War event, with you guys flaming the crap out of him in the thread on your board he started to thank you for attending, so apparently its not just us who gets that kind of treatment.

Very easy misunderstanding to clear up, the 'guys' flaming the crap out of Ian were me, again, not a member of Pacific Marauders, only allowed to use their forums, and I wouldn't consider it flaming, since I never called him names, I gave very detailed feedback on things that I felt needed improvement. It never got personal, and it was the same stuff I expressed to him in private e-mail discussions. I give feedback on events, I never attack the people who run them. Was there a lot of feedback? Yeah, but you were there, so you know there were a lot of things that could have been improved.

It seems to me that a lot of the misgivings you have towards the Pacific Marauders are because of people who are not Pacific Marauders. So, with some of the misunderstandings cleared up, do you feel more positively inclined towards the PacMads?

Hey Bob!

When is your next RTT? I've enjoyed them since you took them over especially since it's the only one I've gotten a best painted at

Glad to see some air being cleared. The more inter-club communication the better we can make events in SoCal.

First, thanks for the feedback on the WFB scenarios. I'm staying out of the other drama and leaving it alone. I wrote the WFB scenarios, or stole them from elsewhere and made a few modifications. Feedback from non-PM, local players and tourney organizers has also been taken into account in the current versions. If there are glaring holes, please let me know and I'll consider the comments and possibly make some revisions if necessary.

Phazael wrote:Edit-
Specific Scenario commentary-
Magic Vacuum-
This is just handing an autowin to any gunline or Slaan army. Becalming plus this= never cast a single spell. I know you guys hate magic, but this scenario didn't work in 7th and its not any better now, especially since you dropped the roll affecting dispel dice as well....

Not sure where you get the idea that we hate magic. I wrote the missions and I don't hate magic. But this one does gimp magic, that is the point. If playing against a Slann, he's gimped as well, but not as bad, because he is the WFB king of magic. Seen this played at local RTT, got no complaints.

Fight For Glory-
So, you took the base rulebook banner scenario and made it more Woodelf and Ogre friendly (fine, I agree they need the help), but you made the victory based on remaining points at the end of the game. Problem here is that armies with lots of banners (Goblins, Bretts, Empire, Dwarves, some Chaos) are going to be undefeatable in this scenario unless you completely table them. Also, if armies have a minimum of 4 fort points, but only have one banner and a general, which they then lose, they go to one fort point and cannot autolose? Good start, needs work.

I need to clarify this apparently. The point is that every needs to bring an army that has 4 fort points, not that you get 4 regardless of how few your army actual has. I'll clarify that in the rules section right next to the army size. The point is that people should bring more banners...

Book of Grudges-
This one is fine, but two of the bonuses mutually exclude each other.

I'll check that one out (I don't have them in front of me right now) and if there are some bonus points that cancel each other out, I'll adjust them.

Show your true Colors-
This is our Pride in the Colors scenario from several of our events, with minor BP alterations. It good as it stands.

Yep, I played it at the last Con event you guys ran, (that unfortunately there were not enough people there to actually get in 3 games due to 2 events that same weekend). It was fun, even though I lost my wizard lord before he even moved, I had a chance to win by taking standards. It was a good game, still, armies with lots of standards will be a bit better off, which is really a similar situation as the fight for glory scenario, that you didn't like. That is OK and the intent. Encourages people to take smaller units, more standards, IMO, rather than the 1 big 50 man unit with 1 standard in the army.

Breakthrough-
This one sucked in 6th and 7th. I played it at Tides this year and it sucked there too. Its just two damn hard for some armies to have any chance in it. A foot unit has to have 5 turns of unimpeded marching to get across, in most cases. Its basically also an autowin for any army with mobile characters that cost a lot. Change it so units have to end in the opposing deployment zone. This makes it plausable for normal infantry to make it and gives the other player a chance to stop the advance if he is drastically outnumbered/tarpitted early.

Remember, it is just bonus VPs, it isn't that you have to get something off the table to win. If you do, good on ya. If not deny the enemy getting his units off and get more overall VPs. These bonus points do benefit a certain army type and is hard to get from another army type. See a theme?

Fog is Lifting-
This will cripple any gunline army, except for ones that use stone throwers, mortars, or hell cannons. The most punishing magic spells in the game also generally do not need any sort of LoS. In other words, it will have zero effect on what you are trying to punish. Meanwhile, choppy armies will have a field day and you have people bunched up in their deployment zones, making the template war machiens that much more effective. If you want this sort of effect, I suggest just giving a 4+ ward to ranged and magic on turn one instead.

The goal was to gimp the gunlines, not necessarily the war machines. It's the 80-100+ shots on turn 1 that cause a 3rd of your army to break before they get to move that was the purpose of this mission. Again, it isn't perfect, and only affects turn 1, so should not be that big of a deal.

Hearken Back-
Meh, its 7th edition VP rules. I am not sure this justifies an entire scenario unto itself, but its not unbalanced.

This one honestly has nothing to do with my like or dislike of 8th edition VP rules. It is because there are so many local players (local in SD) that have voiced their opinion to me that they hate the no 1/2 points and fleeing does not count that I thought I'd throw them a bone for 1 possible mission.

Of the lot, only two are really what I would consider bad, but there needs to be some more work put into the middle three. If I had to venture a guess, it looks a lot like these were playtested mainly with WE, LM, and O&G. You need to broaden the test bed of armies a bit before you finalize these.

They were playtested with many armies and one of them will be run this weekend at an RTT at Game Empire (Saturday, come on down) and will get some more feedback from that. The general theme will remain the same, there might be some minor tweeking of special rules or bonus points and some clarifications. The hope is to have some effect on people not overwhelming 1 phase of the game, bring a balanced army, because you might get hit with a mission that gimps the phase that you overpowered your army in...That was the intent at least. Not saying that it was achieved...

One last thing I'd like to say is that 8th edition is still new, and this is my first attempt at doing missions for this edition. We'll accept criticism and feedback and make changes where reasonable, while still trying to keep to the theme of our tournament. It may not be for everyone, and we can't please everyone. It is certainly a different game from the last BSB. I will be chalking it all up to a learning experience on how to do scenarios for the new edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, one thing I forgot...2200 pts. Has absolutely nothing to do with hating dragons and greater deamons. I LOVE dragons, and I picked the point limit. I have an entire army themed around them (my Githyanki High Elves). It is for a few reasons...

1. To be different than all the local 2500 pt GTs. I've heard of GTs all over the board from 2200-2500, all over the world. (OK, mostly AU,UK and US...where all the podcasts are that I listen to).
2. To make for slightly faster games than 2500. More points means more setup time and play time. My experience so far is that the game takes longer to play than 7th. We ahve time limit games, lets not push that limit if we do not have to.
3. Make harder choices...many people playtest only 1 size army. There is a local league that plays at 2400 pts. It is harder to build a 2200 pt list than a 2400 pt list because of the choices you have to make. Think outside the box.
4. It is easily divisible by 4.
5. In the past we did 2250, this is close to that.

That is seriously all the thought that went into it. There was no metagame on what certain armies could field at 2200 pts.

Janthkin wrote:
How are the various WHFB GTs handling 8e terrain? Lots of interesting terrain types; it'd be a shame if none were making it to the table.

For Border Raids I'm trying to set things up table by table, theming them to a Warhammer race or area. Then going through the rulebook and seeing what fits.

Dwarf Table: Brewhouse, Hills (with mine entrances), Sinister stature (of a dwarf), Conifer forests,
Khorne Table: River of Blood (done in red resin), forests with burning foliage, temple of khorne, barren hiss with skulls on the edge.

etc, etc

Too difficult to roll up terrain for a tournament, but this lets us use 8th edition terrain, while having it fixed and themed. Working on the barren woods, graveyard, and haunted mansion tonite for the Sylvania table.

I have to agree with Q. Especially considering the Magic Vacuum and Breakthrough. My Lizardmen would more than likely get an autowin unless I fought dwarves, and even then who knows. Breakthrough, while there are more R&F units and less extremely mobile units that in 7th, gives gunline armies a hefty disadvantage.

I feel overall, my LM (which is a fairly generic list) would have a huge advantage out the gate, both due to army power and many of these scenarios.

~Greg

I really believe you guys are nit-picking. I hardly consider it an "auto win" for LM. Yes, they get an advantage in 1/7 scenarios, one that might not even get picked for the tourney. Having a scenario effect a magic phase has been a pretty common theme in tourneys for as long as I can remember, the only other style I've seen, is something like, any doubles causes a miscast (spell still goes off) in which case LM still get an advantage due to cupped hands. IMHO, LM SHOULD have an advantage when it comes to something dealing with magic.

I still don't get how breakthrough works, is it basically you want to run your own units off the other table edge? I don't see how gun lines have a disadvantage...it's bonus VPs, not the *only* way to get VPs. Gun line armies will just have to play it to keep their opponent from getting across the table.

And I don't get your second statement. LM have an advantage in many of the scenarios? How so? Most LM lists don't have too many banners. I only see 1 scenario that gives an advantage to LM, which dwarfs also receive, as well as mono khorne, or any other list not centered around magic.

As far as the 2200 points goes, the first thing I thought when I saw the total, was that daemons will have a hard time, I'm not too sure on their points totals, but I think they could get in a lord of change around those points, granted with few upgrades.

I think I'll organize a 2200 fantasy tourney and try out 3 of the scenarios people are worried about.

Would the three be:
Magic Vacuum
Breakthrough
Fog Is Lifting


I can get people to bring a nice variety of armies to try them out. Dwarfs, Dark Elves, Empire, Lizardmen, Daemons, Skaven, Warriors of Chaos. We'll see how it goes.

That's an excellent idea. I'd also provide a feedback form for the scenarios for people. That way you can see how people felt about them. Make sure they write the army they were playing on the sheet. It's a small information pool but every little bit helps.

That's a good idea Hulk. I'm only looking to get around 12 people or so for it, contacted the store already about picking a date.

Sounds good. It's the smartest way to set up the scenarios really. Run them at multiple locations and at multiple events and take the feedback to tweak them. That way you get a bunch of people outside your relative group and can better judge what you've made since your looking to bring in people from all over the west coast (or at least you should be aiming for that).

I've been to....

Well, a bunch of GTs this year. Was looking at the calendar for next year, trying to plan ahead holidays, travel, etc - my wife and I are going to come to California to visit Hulksmash and his wife again (and play in a GT of course), but I have to say....looking at the scoring and the scenarios, this stuff is as bad as a local RTT run by someone who doesn't even play 40k - and I've written batreps on some tournaments like that.


Organizer people, I've got to say - I'm probably the most or one of the most well-traveled gamers in the country for events, and I'm not sure that I'd dedicate the time to attend if I lived in town. Which is the nicest possible way I can think of giving my thoughts.

My two biggest suggestions: Keep your paint checklist, and entirely scrap your missions. There have been a HOST of well-tested, play-tested, GT run, feedback given, critiqued, examined, battle-reported missions at GTs this year, and I have no doubt that you could poach some of them instead of the current shambles.

So, now that I’m not the 40k coordinator, I can speak my mind with a lot more freedom than my position allowed.

You know, after a decade of playing 40k I’ve long ago realized that claims of ‘expertise’, ‘experience’, and ‘legitimacy’ as a means to dismiss another is usually the first sign of a myopic view of 40k at best. This is often followed up by self-serving hypotheticals that oddly dismiss the game’s reliance upon dice; terminators do roll ‘1s’. I have seen eleven ‘1s’ out of twelve dice rolled. Anyone who’s played the game knows this law of chance is truth.

Afraid of changes and with incessant circular reasoning that you ‘know’ 40k better than others, though you don’t work for GW, you believe your advice helps others.

The sad truth is that we lost more players last year when they knew Hulksmash was coming.

Blackmoor told me to ban all Tyranid players from BSB 2010.

Reece was voted out of our campaign by a group of players who each had more than 8 years of 40k in their experience, including tournaments and RTTs. His one defender, a player who had less than 6 months of experience and yet beat Reece on the table. Reece blamed me for this, than hoped to start his own campaign. After 4 turns of play his players voted to end the campaign because it wasn’t fun. Reece’s adroit scenario skills gave an Imperial Guard and Tyranid player “without number”. The two begged to stop playing as the game store approached closing.

The unfortunate reality is that most gamers don’t like you guys. It takes a tournament to find you opponents because you're 'hobby killers' (not my words). We politely abstain from getting involved in your very small discussions because we’ve seen that you simply never stop, never listen.

Right now, as you read this you’re designing some brilliant ‘comeback’. Perhaps you’ll feign reason in the same breath that you insanely hold to a singular vision.

We ‘newbs’, people who ‘don’t play 40k’, ‘fluffy gamers’, ‘elitists’, ‘hobbyists’, ‘soft scorers’, ‘fun gamers’, simply wish to have a tournament for us. Why that upsets you so much is beyond us, since we wish you all the best at ‘Ard Boyz.

Don’t you understand? We don’t want you to come. Please don’t. Stop threatening not to come, just don’t come. Go enjoy another event in the circuit.

This one is ours. Please, go away and let it go.

With Utmost Sincerity,

Jason Nichols

So who's first to not have read this and wishes to demonstrate his superior 'expertise in 40k'?

That is an awesome reply. I may not be on Jasons side of this issue, but I am very impressed with his reply.

So much poison there.

Calling it a tournament is false, as you can win despite never having won the competitive side.

Call it a campaign weekend, set expectations correctly, and you would have less people intruding. Calling it a competitive gaming event by using the "tournament" moniker is less than ideal.

Jason, I'll reply.

1. Your first paragraph is a sesquipedalian venture into personal and hypothetical rhetoric. Speak plainly. It is better to be hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobic than a compulsive polysyllabricator or a pedantic elocutionist with a propensity for hyperarticulation and meretricious grandiloquence.

2. In the extremely lean meat of the suggested vegan sandwich of your first entreaty...just because YOU believe that dice play a significant role in determining the winner or loser of a game neither validates your opinion nor makes it true. I play Dark Eldar, and am legendary for my dice rolls. With a BS4, I consistently fail 2/3 - 4/5 of all shots fired in every game. I never hope for a good dice roll because such reliance on luck would inevitably lead to the despairing conclusion I should not play games involving dice. Any player (and there are many here on Dakka alone) who has ever played me could readily attest to this unfortunate calamity.

3. Throughout this thread, people have not used "incessant circular reasoning" or demonstrated a "fear of change" to advance personal rhetoric or suppositions of superiority of 40k knowledge. What has happened is this: Change has been advocated widely by the community, far beyond the couple people that you poisonously address, which I shall come to later. Instead of embracing change, you and yours have advocated your own accusation, and been resistant to any change.

4. Successful grand tournaments have taken place all over the country this year. It is not a mistake for people to point to the successes that have been had and give advice trying to help you replicate them. Why did the Nova Open fill to capacity, to overflowing, burst the bounds of its expansion into another waiting list? Why did the UK GT sell out in a week of being posted on the internet? What made the Mechanicon fill up so quickly? There were all tournaments, and yet they were also hobby events that amply rewarded the hobbyist - SIGNIFICANTLY moreso than the tournament gamer, or WAAC gamer as you so poisonously label. Those GTs, and several more that have taken place recently, along with the revised format of upcoming GTs, the buzz over Adepticon's upcoming offerings and format -

Why do people fling money and time into these ventures, while boycotting yours?

Ponder that. Read this thread again without a veil of malice covering your eyes, and don't simply read, comprehend the advice given here.

5. I know gamers around the country like you. I really do. Your thought process, your approach to the hobby, your style of writing, your goals, your means of getting there, your responses to the community - these are literally carbon stamped and replicated in niche groups of what I'd call "elitist" hobbyists throughout the country - those who don't like new gamers in their circle, who have an established way of doing things resistant to change, who despise anyone who suggests that there is a better way than theirs....this is a mentality that belongs to an aging breed of offensive people that will hopefully in the next 20 years be too feeble to taint this hobby with their unswerving believe that they know best. Older gamers are not bad, younger gamers are not good; but the lynchpins of enforced mediocrity and the support pillars that keep the hobby-destroying carnage together need to fade into obscurity as brighter minds, communicate minds, socially presentable minds, adaptable, changeable minds take the forefront role of making the hobby experiences that we all enjoy more prevalent.

6. Your personal attacks on Reecius, Hulksmash, and Blackmoor are despicable. I can't speak for Blackmoor because I don't think he travels to the East Coast, but the prospect of Reecius or Hulksmash attending an east Coast / NE tournament DRAWS gamers. You've made poisonous and unvalidated personal attacks on some of the community's most respected gamers, and given that Hulksmash pretty much ALWAYS gets maxed on sportsmanship and picks up voted as favorite opponent, it seems to be a safe assumption that your claim of people being driven away by knowledge of his attendance is simply false. When Staerek announced his attendance at the Nova Open, their website blew up with hits. I don't have any statistical points of data about Hulksmash, although he attended, and between us - I will not make unvalidated claims.

I've personally never gotten to throw dice down against Hulksmash, but in direct contradiction to your ridiculous claims, go look at Dakka discussion. There's a 30 page thread over there somewhere titled "Three people you would want to play against." Top tournament gamers get called out left and right - people wish they could play against them to try learning something. To test their mettle. To have done it. I pray there will come a day (and fear it) that I'll get to face off against Hulksmash on a table. I don't think it will be a pretty fight, but it will be memorable. And I *know* that he will have been a pleasure to play against - I can say the same for Reecius.

That's my two cents. Redact your ridiculous and unasserted claims, give serious consideration (and influence your compatriots to do the same) to what is making hobby events around the country successful, and start contributing more than poison to Dakka.

Dash said it better....I had a really cool and long response but his is more than good enough and not tainted in Espa's eyes by it being me.

Hahahaha, holy crap. I was in the middle of writing a long reply, but there is no point.

OK, I can accept the fact that perhaps I brought on part of this little hissy fit of yours Jason by saying some things about you, so fair enough.

But what you are doing here isn't helping anything and I highly doubt the other PacMads share your point of view. You seriously are actively trying to push people away from attending the event?

So seriously, let's try this again. I apologize for casting you in a negative light in this thread, I should have been more thoughtful in my word choices. I don't care about what happened between us way back when, it really is pretty laughable that we lost a friendship over a game of toy soldiers. Let's put this behind us and move on. I don't like having enemies and I don't want to have a situation where things are always tense. You are saying things that are flat out untrue now, and by throwing mud at me you are only going to escalate things.

Let's forgive and forget here, huh? It's pointless to continue this feud, it has already damaged this event and I would hate to see more of that type of thing happen. We're both adults so let's behave as such.

@Darrian
Dude, tell me you are being sarcastic?

OK, yes, hahaha, he was being sarcastic.

It has been kind of weird reading this thread. I was wanting a discussion on how the BSB was going to grow/progress and or change as I personally plan on going for the first time and I greatly enjoy the tactical/competitive battle portion of the game (so it was neat to see the discussion progress in regards to that subject). I just want to see with my own (neutral and unbiased) eyes what this is all about, lol, so I hope the event turns out great.

-Ultimately, it is the BSB’s choice how to run the event and if people want to go, fine, if not no big deal. I personally plan on bringing a kinda soft/fluffy list and have fun and if I win some games cool. In that light, if this tournament is designed to encourage such a thing (as some people might be implying), people bringing army lists that are designed for fluff and not for win, then that may be a good thing if that is what the community they are catering to really wants. While I don’t see how an all fluffy grot rebellion army is very tactical it could be fun but I don’t think that that sort of army belongs in a tournament setting.
If this is supposed to be a tournament, it should be based on the objective standard on who is the better player determined by battlepoints. Making the tournament have all sorts of restraints on what a person should bring in order to have a shot at winning the event isn’t really fun or fair IMO as it is more like a book/story/poem contest than an exercise in hobby application. Now I don’t know if any of these points are true but I think they represent some of the opinions previously posted. I think an easy solution would be to just have different categories of winners like “best fluff”, “best fluff gameplay” or something like that if a player particularly roleplays or plays their army to the fluff. Then have just the best general and that sort of thing based on a real good spread of BPs. (again just random thoughts to be taken with a grain of salt)
-One point I wanted to make though is that the battle/gaming/tactical aspect of the game is just as integral as the fluffy/hobby/painting one and I see in this discussion people who value the competitive aspect of the game greatly wanting this event to value it more too.
I mean what do you do after all the models are painted and converted and the fluff is written? You play with them, GW products are primarily designed to be played with, everything else builds up to enhancing the gaming experience.
So with that said, I too would like to see the battlepoints/gaming aspect have more weight than it currently does. I also just want to have a good time and I have known Hulk and Reacius and not had any problems with them. I always have seen their opponents have a good time playing against them so I am more inclined to see the “drama” as just misunderstandings that took root into bitterness that needs to be let go.
I mean, it’s not like your name is enigo Montoya and it’s not like they killed anyone’s father right? =).
Anyway, I hope everything works out and that the BSB turns out to be a great event! I don’t know what to expect so I’m just waiting to see how things pan out for myself before judging one way or another.

You say the nicest things about me Mortetvie

Personally, and this may have gotten lost in the haze, the original format Jason was promoting was fine. It had no comp, a much better paint checklist, and was clear even if BP's were only 39% of the total available. The singular major issue I had was with the scenarios as they aren't balanced. If they were reworked to be balanced and non-auto loss for certain codexes and it could be a great event as they have already made great strides to overcome the issues from previous years.

That Espa post is so full of win I can hardly contain myself. I may disagree with elements of it but it does highlight the differences between two distinct approachs and how some elements of either cannot get along.

@Dash - people drawn from around the country because Hulk is going??? Pull a little to strong from the bong whilst typing me thinks. Dude, I think you over-estimate a tad the idea of "40k personalities". For some people, as Espa says, the idea of meeting and playing against people like Hulksmash is an active discouragement to playing in tournies. You cannot argue with that statement - the fact I think people maybe wrong not to turn up & play just because HulkSmash is going to play in a tournie doesn't change the fact that what Espa says is true. Isn't that what this thread is showing?

Personally, I find it strange that tournie organizers were happy to through around the WAAC label. We need to stop using that term because it is an unfair term to describe the vast majority of tournie players who just have a different approach to the hobby. "Tournie player" is not the same thing as "non-hobbyist player"

edit: removed a bit

@fullheadofhair

The funny thing is I get along with 99% of gamers I meet. I don't claim that people will show up if I do. Dash is mostly refering to the marked improved traffic to MVB's site the day I announced I was attending which led to me playing in the Friday Night Whiskey Challenge but honestly that came as a surprise to me.

Last year a few guys from the SD region (mostly PacM's from what I understand) saw what I was posting on their board and decided I was a WAAC douche and that they would not attend. I feel bad that they made that decision as I love meeting and talking to new gamers but if they are that unhappy or worried about meeting new people that is their decision.

I don't understand what you mean by the what this thread is showing question. Do you mean it's showing people won't attend if I do?

Oh well, I wish we could genuinely just get along. I just wanted more balanced missions that increase everyones enjoyment of the event so no one goes home sour because of an auto-lose scenario but that got blown way out crazy and degenerated into personal attacks. I'm keeping my eye out for the finalized style of the event to see if I'd like to attend and I hope it's a successful (i.e. growth over last year) event either way.

@Espa - Sorry, but that attack was in poor taste. Here you have a group of people that know how they have fun. Does it really matter how long anyone has played? I have been playing for a little over two years, yeah novice, but guess what, I do know what I find fun and I am smart enough to be able to understand poor balance in missions. What bothers me about your post is that you took a discussion regarding trying to gather better missions, such that ones such as Hulk, Reece, or others have fun, and started attacking people saying how other don't like them. Really petty, in my opinion. People did not show because Hulk said he was going? Really? The reality is that gamers don't like them? Where do you conjure up this nonsense? I find your attack uncalled for and childish. Your statements have tarnished any integrity you may have thought you had before. As far as narrow minded thinking, you have now positioned yourself at the top of the heap, and I hope you find the sense to apologize for your senseless attack on your fellow gamers.

It is really upsetting that a few people can try to be critical of the environment, and you not only get defensive about how your way is the only way, you then turn around and attack the individuals trying to be critical of the product. This is immature at best.

Phazael wrote:Probably should not pee in the punchbowl here, but....

This is flatly untrue. Your group had five attendees come to the first Slaughter (back when Dark General was in charge, and it was at GMI games) and several of your membership bitched about it at the time (not you Kurt). When Mike and I took the reigns, there were some rumblings left over from the bitching about year one and your (then) involvement with Game Empire tourney guy (Clifford) that single handedly killed all of the events at Strategicon with his manipulation of scores and favoritism. Everyting you guys seemed to be doing at that time emulated his style and he was involved in some of your initial tournament creation. Some extremely negative things were said from your membership, as was from ours. For our part, we were very terse over members like Henry Hertz and other problem players being embraced by the group, so we essentially avoided each other's events in our year two.

Just so everything is clear...Cliff has nothing to do with our group, nor did he have anything to do with the creation of the BSB. The only involvement that Game Empire has is the fact the GW required, at least at that time, that you go though a local store for securing the prize support. Cliff's involvement with our group or tournament is another persistent fallacy that we cannot seem to shake. Our involvement with the Stratigecon goes back much further than Game Empire's running of the RTTs...in fact John used to run (and I assisted with many of them) most of the RTTs way back in the day.

The Pac Mads, do not represent San Diego, San Diego games or anything like that. I know about the bitching about which you speak and that was not from the Pac Mads, but from other San Diego gamers...some of whom have long sordid histories with some of the SCGWL guys. But it is often hard to know who speaks for whom. :( Henry, for example, is not now, nor ever was a member of the Pac Mads...nor really are 99% of San Diego gamers. Our club has about 20 members tops, only perhaps 5 of which you would like ever run into in the forums or at a tournament.

We allow anyone to post on our forums...most of those posting are not PacMads...we like it to be an open forum, though we do moderate a bit and remove/lock threads that get into personal attacks. The only PacMads in attendance at the Tides of War, were myself and Beav. A bunch of other San Diego players went, none of which are PacMads.

None of the judges/TOs of the BSB have ever played in the event except as a ringer. Wade may have played one year as a participant...I forget...but he was not a judge.

We choose 2200 points on WFB for no particularly good or specific reason. We have been watching the tournament scene and 2400-2500 seems to simply allow too many toys, deathstar units and the like. Seems to us like a smaller point value might be the way to go. Personally I love Dragons and Lord level characters....I wish we would see more of them.
* something that we did find in past years is that 2250 seemed to require a bit too much time to complete games, so we were looking at a points reduction regardless. Really we don't have enough experience with 8th to know if this is the case or not.

Lastly we do post all of our relevant rules adjustments on the rules page and address any specific questions in the FAQ. We don't have any house rules that are not posted in one of those two places.

This is a good honest discussion, to bad it sort of carries an overall negative context.

- Kurt

Some of these statements, accusations, and claims seem really odd to me.

Adding to what f.h.o.h. said, the term "WAAC" is getting really old. What exactly does it mean? Winning at all costs paints the image of someone who is willing to cheat to win, "all costs" meaning their own morals and values.

If it implies only players who comes to a tournament to win games, what's wrong with that? We all play at home or at our local FLGS for fun. We show off our armies, take pictures, and post them online because we're proud of them. Now, when the time comes to actually PAY to play 3, 5, or 7 games against a large field of dedicated hobbysts, is it wrong to want to win? If not, then is it wrong to want to bring our "best list"? If wanting to win at a tournament and bringing our best perfoming list to accomplish that goal makes a "WAAC" gamer, then we should find a less abrasive term.

Now to define a "tournament". You aren't going to have a tournament without playing games, or else you would call it a painting competition. If the act of winning a game in the tournament becomes minimized via heavy comp scores or abusable player scores and "chipmunking", then can we really call it a "tournament" instead of "hobby day" or "campaign day"? I've participated in RTT's where a round 3 losing player takes 1st over their opponent. Is there another competitive sport or hobby out there where a losing party wins? If losing the 3rd game means nothing to his final results, why play the game at all, is that fair to his opponent? "Go ahead, table me... I'm still going to take the trophy". If the act of playing the game becomes redundant in calculating results, why are we even playing, collecting, or painting at all???

Now, as it pertains to Hulk/Brad. People avoid a tournament because they hear he's going? Really? I've never heard of such a thing in my life. Does Tiger Woods stay home if he hear VJ is going to masters? If this is really happening, why are they avoiding him? Because of his sportsmanship? I've never seen or heard of below average sportsmanship or conduct on his behalf. His score was quite high at NOVA which was full of competitive players (Brad = 69, highest was 94, lowest was 25). Are people avoiding a tournament because they don't want to lose to him? He placed 22/88 at NOVA in the competitive sort. I'd be more worried about losing to the 21 people that placed above him. If you're avoiding a tournament so you don't lose to a specific person, maybe you should re-evaluate your list or tactics. We all have access to the same codexs and models, if you don't want to lose, make better choices. Don't avoid a tournament and claim it's because someone else made better decisions from the same group of opportunities you chose from. "In other news, the Yankees dropped out of the championships because they didn't want to lose to the Rangers."

As to more people showing up to face him, I guess I could go in this category. I love tourneys and I play to win with my best list and paint job. Guess that makes me a "WAAc Douche" also. If he came to DaBoyz GT in my back yard, I would try to get a game with him too. Who doesn't want the chance to say "I beat Hulksmash/Dashofpepper/Stelek/Darkwynn/insert name here the internet celeb/loud mouth"? All tourney players deep down inside want to be the best and have our day of glory.

So, based on those things, I'd say Espa's statements are based on personal vendettas, jealousy, and ignorance. Hulk has been showing his support of this event from the beginning and even offering his personal time to improve the mission and scoring balance. He's doing this because he wants to see the event grow and become more popular to a wider spread of players. Seems to me he has more value to the event than some of the hosting club members.

Hulksmash wrote:@fullheadofhair

The funny thing is I get along with 99% of gamers I meet. I don't claim that people will show up if I do. Dash is mostly refering to the marked improved traffic to MVB's site the day I announced I was attending which led to me playing in the Friday Night Whiskey Challenge but honestly that came as a surprise to me.

Last year a few guys from the SD region (mostly PacM's from what I understand) saw what I was posting on their board and decided I was a WAAC douche and that they would not attend. I feel bad that they made that decision as I love meeting and talking to new gamers but if they are that unhappy or worried about meeting new people that is their decision.

I don't understand what you mean by the what this thread is showing question. Do you mean it's showing people won't attend if I do?

Oh well, I wish we could genuinely just get along. I just wanted more balanced missions that increase everyones enjoyment of the event so no one goes home sour because of an auto-lose scenario but that got blown way out crazy and degenerated into personal attacks. I'm keeping my eye out for the finalized style of the event to see if I'd like to attend and I hope it's a successful (i.e. growth over last year) event either way.

Hopefully you realized I wasn't saying specifically you. What my bad rushed writing was trying to show was that using terms like WAAC and a perceived reputation that the typical hardcore tournie player has often incorrectly earned is what discourages people from turning up to play I believe. I don't think what Espa is saying is inaccurate even though I think he is plain wrong.

I was using your name to give my writing context in response to Dash - no insult implied, honest.

I myself still fail to understand the issue - being a "fluff bunny" (hate that term as well) I was always happy to take on a tournie list as long as I had advance warning to change my list to avoid a seal clubbing which no tournie player had an issue with me doing. I had just a good game playing a tournie player v's a fluff player - though I will point out more tournie players seem to have more fully painted armies than the fluff players.

Final thought: there are douches in both camps. bad people suck no matter their attitude to the game.

edit for grammar

For those others promoting the BSB listening, please note that I have taken Espas message to heart and I will not be attending BSB this year. I would have enjoyed playing a game with others in the community, but I will have to take my money and time, and friends, elsewhere. It is unfortunate that Espa was a promoter of the event, as he has failed. I hope that the rest of the promoters are not as petty. For those that go, have fun. This is really sad.

@captkurt - 2200 seems fine if you ask me. The last GT I attended was at 2500, I can't speak for the rest of the games, but I know in my games I had problems getting to turn 4. Out of five games, I think one made it to turn 4, the rest to turn 3. Not because one side won, just ran out of time.

@fullheadofhair

No offense was taken from your statement. I just wanted a little clarity. It's all good I really don't get offended across the internet as it seems I could have far more things closer to home to worry about if I felt the need

I agree with your final thought though