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.

Mikhaila - no, it really isnt. Changing working rules because you dont like them is equally "bad" regardless of the working rules you are changing.

Banning ork nob bikers because you dont like them is the "same" as banning square based daemons, as both involve changing working rules of the game for personal preference.

You might not like that they are equivalent, but that doesnt alter that they are.

To the OP: you really shouldnt take this thread as meaning you should avoid tournaments; when all is said and done the "rule of cool" tends to win out over BRB rules. If your army looks fabulous. with some awesome looking conversions it is less likely you will have opponents taking issue with it.


Mann - I've posted on this over in YMDC

Polonius wrote:

silence indigo wrote:Being the original poster, I did learn one precious thing from this three-page long tirade: TO AVOID ALL TOURNAMENTS, ALL THE TIME! I'm sorry but the prospect of arguing about something as trivial as the 0,2mm trim difference between a round and a square 25mm base.

Though I appreciate the hints and all, I have a hard time believing whole days could be spent arguing on this, let alone invoking moderation, for such issue: what would it be if it was something really significant, like the fact that I (I barely dare say it) scratch built at my vehicles? I'd probably get massacred just getting within 100 metres of a tournament.

Allow me, without sarcasm, to thank you all, anyhow, for giving me a peek of what I could have experienced "live" after driving several hours to go at an organised event. I loathe arguments wholeheartedly, so I'll stick to friendly games. As I see that some players consider the game's detailed mechanics as austerily as chess, and that I strongly
dislike abstract games for this very reason, this exchange has allowed me to see how naive I was to think that scratch-building and "narrative games", as advocated by Jervis Johnson's various editorials, was mainstream practice. I was in the wrong, and I've learned a lesson here to avoid angry disputes and greater disappointment in the future.

Thanks again, sincerely, for showing to me that more "monodominant" (to paraphrase the WH40K Inquisition) aspect of organised play. I'll stay on the kids', artists' and modellers' side of the debate.

Wow. I mean... wow.

I'd ease up a bit, if I were you. First off, I think the most hard nosed thing said in this thread was that large bases might give you an advantage, and you shouldn't pretend they don't. Very few if anybody said they wouldn't play, or would assume you were cheating.

Second, scratch building is part of the tournament scene. Just don't model for advantage. from your statements, it sounds like you're not exactly going to be on the top tables at tournaments, so there's less concern.

Third, narrative games aren't the mainstream. Casual, friendly, games are closer to the mainstream than tournaments, and narrative games are a subset of them, not competitive gaming. But no, shockingly, at tournaments, people aren't interested in telling stories. They're playing to win.

Fourth, you seem to have either developed a serious misreading of tournament gamers based on this thread, or you're projecting experiences from elsewhere. Either way, even at tournaments most players are there to have fun. Yeah, we all want to win, but most know they're not going to.

Finally, you should check out the Casual Gaming Mafia. I don't know where they meet, but they're a great resource for learning all about how tournament players are soulless bastards who hate fun, cheat constantly, and are wrecking the hobby.

He has a bit of a point though, don't you think (albeit subject to over-exaggeration). It's not the first time I have seen threads both in the tourney forum and the YMDC forum descend into squabbling over what appears to be fairly minor points. What else is someone who is entirely new to the competitive gaming scene supposed to take from that other than there appears to be a high proportion of arguments occurring? That's the opinion I get after reading this thread and others like it and I am in the same boat as the OP; I have never been to a toruney before so my direct exposure to them comes from Dakka threads.

silence indigo wrote:Being the original poster, I did learn one precious thing from this three-page long tirade: TO AVOID ALL TOURNAMENTS, ALL THE TIME! I'm sorry but the prospect of arguing about something as trivial as the 0,2mm trim difference between a round and a square 25mm base.

Though I appreciate the hints and all, I have a hard time believing whole days could be spent arguing on this, let alone invoking moderation, for such issue: what would it be if it was something really significant, like the fact that I (I barely dare say it) scratch built at my vehicles? I'd probably get massacred just getting within 100 metres of a tournament.

Allow me, without sarcasm, to thank you all, anyhow, for giving me a peek of what I could have experienced "live" after driving several hours to go at an organised event. I loathe arguments wholeheartedly, so I'll stick to friendly games. As I see that some players consider the game's detailed mechanics as austerily as chess, and that I strongly
dislike abstract games for this very reason, this exchange has allowed me to see how naive I was to think that scratch-building and "narrative games", as advocated by Jervis Johnson's various editorials, was mainstream practice. I was in the wrong, and I've learned a lesson here to avoid angry disputes and greater disappointment in the future.

Thanks again, sincerely, for showing to me that more "monodominant" (to paraphrase the WH40K Inquisition) aspect of organised play. I'll stay on the kids', artists' and modellers' side of the debate.

More power to you.

Thanks for your trouble everyone. No offence meant. Of course, I supposed some people care more than others about rules, and I realise 75% wouldn't mind fighting square bases. My jaw dropped at the argument that I could position the bases diagonally for an advantage in movement; I had never consiered that and would consider that very poor sport were I to do such a thing.

What surprised me was mostly what you might call the "competitive attitude" I would have to expect at tournaments. I had stopped playing "friendly games" with an opponent in my small town, after 3 games, because I wasn't confortable with his "winning at all costs" approach, and even then he didn't bicker about the rules.

It's just the prospect that facing perhaps 25% of opponents who'd raise heated arguments about the way my orks were modelling, every time, would have me packing and leave. I respect the notion of competitiveness in tournaments, of course, but I confess that in regards to a game of customised miniatures (instead of standardised chess pieces), the clash between conversions and rules-austerity fosters a breeding cround controversy. My real-life job (related to politics) has far enough arguments for me to want controversy in my hobbies, where I seek escapism...

I'll check out the references hinted about the Casual Gaming Mafia, and casual gamers, thanks, but I'll avoid the tournaments and organised events until further notice for the moment. A few angry arguments would be enough for me to quit the hobby entirely, and I've worked too much since a year or two at modelling my plasticmen to quit just now.

No offence meant, of course.

I've been going to tournaments regularly for about seven years, and I think I've had maybe one argument that could be called "heated." I think most of the competitive gamers here will relate similar experiences.

It sounds less like you're concern is conflict, but simply competitive gaming in general. That's fine, it's a big hobby and there is plenty of stuff you can do that doesn't involved meeting win conditions.

I can't speak for all competitive gamers, but if you and I were to play in a tournament, I'd be polite, I'd allow your bases, I'd try to be friendly and encouraging, but I most certainly would try to table you with a relatively fine tuned army built out of a powerful codex (IG). If that's not what you're into, than tournaments probably aren't for you.

I'm not saying I would table you. I've suffered minor losses to guys that were playing their 3rd game after a decade before. I've also tabled GT winners. Any given sunday, man.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

filbert wrote:He has a bit of a point though, don't you think (albeit subject to over-exaggeration). It's not the first time I have seen threads both in the tourney forum and the YMDC forum descend into squabbling over what appears to be fairly minor points. What else is someone who is entirely new to the competitive gaming scene supposed to take from that other than there appears to be a high proportion of arguments occurring? That's the opinion I get after reading this thread and others like it and I am in the same boat as the OP; I have never been to a toruney before so my direct exposure to them comes from Dakka threads.

There is a bit of a point though, but if he's basing his opinion of tournaments solely on this thread on Dakka, that's not entirely fair. I could point you to a dozen positive threads about tournament experiences.

The problem with threads like thiis is that the OP gets his answer in four words "ask the tournament organizer." Everything else is a tangent.

Even assuming a complete answer, here's what I would write to the OP's original post (and if anybody disagrees, feel free to post)

"As always, ask a tournament organizer about any questions you have about legality of models or rules. The rules as written do mandate that models use the bases provided, so using square bases for orks would violate that rule. In addition, there is a small but measurable advantage to using 25mm square bases for disembarking from vehicles and minimizing blasts and templates. The majority of players and TOs would likely allow it, as there are ways to minimize those advantages, especially from a player new to tournaments that is likely not modelling for advantage. 40k is a game with strong local cultures, and it's important to be aware that something that isn't a big deal in one group could be a problem in another. Advance communication and being aware of potential problems will reduce friction. In addition, most tournament organiziers do understand the "rule of cool:" a well modeled and neat looking army is more likely to be allowed when non-standard than a half painted mess."

As above, plus loads.

The main thing is you can be competitive, i.e. wanting to win, WITHOUT being "win at all costs"

The vast, VAST majority of tourney gamers I have seen and played with have generally been better opponents than some casual gamers - mainly because they have a greater rules knowledge and tend to avoid the misunderstandings that can occur when someone who plays part 3rd part 4th and part 5th ed rocks up to a gaming store.

As said above - if you are thinking about attending a tournament have a chat with the TO about what THEY think about the models. Once you have got their approval, or not, what your opponents think is not relevant any longer.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Mikhaila - no, it really isnt. Changing working rules because you dont like them is equally "bad" regardless of the working rules you are changing.

Banning ork nob bikers because you dont like them is the "same" as banning square based daemons, as both involve changing working rules of the game for personal preference.

You might not like that they are equivalent, but that doesnt alter that they are.

I actually don't care. I've already stated I don't ban them at my tournaments.

You just don't want to accept that other people disagree with you, and that their may be more than one point of veiw on the subject. You've tried to link it to irrational behavior, personal problems, and some imagined dislike of nob bikers.

Probably easiest to drop the subject, and you can just make sure to never bring demons on square bases to one of my irational, nob banning tournamens filled with personal problems. You obviously wouldn't have any fun.

filbert wrote:He has a bit of a point though, don't you think (albeit subject to over-exaggeration). It's not the first time I have seen threads both in the tourney forum and the YMDC forum descend into squabbling over what appears to be fairly minor points. What else is someone who is entirely new to the competitive gaming scene supposed to take from that other than there appears to be a high proportion of arguments occurring? That's the opinion I get after reading this thread and others like it and I am in the same boat as the OP; I have never been to a toruney before so my direct exposure to them comes from Dakka threads.

I'd hope someone new to the game could bear in mind that internet forums are partially FOR niggling over little details and hashing out fine points. It's a decent pastime online, when we're NOT at the table. Actual at-the-table playtime is too precious for most of us to quibble over the little things during a real game.

If we encounter someone playing a rule significantly wrong, we might spent a minute or two talking about it at the table, but we're not going to launch into a tirade or waste even 10 minutes debating it. We'll either cede the point, roll a 4+, come up with some other mutually-agreeable compromise for the moment, or call a referee over for a quick ruling, so we can get on with the game! Tournament gamers want to get their game on; not spend time quibbling when we could actually be moving our army men around.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

silence indigo wrote:Thanks for your trouble everyone. No offence meant. Of course, I supposed some people care more than others about rules, and I realise 75% wouldn't mind fighting square bases. My jaw dropped at the argument that I could position the bases diagonally for an advantage in movement; I had never consiered that and would consider that very poor sport were I to do such a thing.

Okay, cool. IME, I've had games where I used my square-based daemons and noticed that I could gain an advantage if I wasn't careful. In one case the difference between having another objective and winning (and winning the tournament) vs. not having that objective and having a draw (and not winning the tournament) occurred in the final round. That kind of thing sucks, and at the end of three games I could easily have pivoted the model through inattention, not noticing what I had done, and inadvertently cheated my opponent.

You're right that it's a few centimeters of difference; but in a game where a half an inch or an inch frequently is the difference between getting an assault or an objective or not, those little differences can indeed matter. I know that most people who base on squares for cross-usages in 40k or fantasy do it without ever realizing that it could be a problem. I did. That's part of why I bother discussing it online, because I think it would help them to know, so they can make an informed choice, hopefully before investing a ton of time & effort modeling an army on squares.

silence indigo wrote:What surprised me was mostly what you might call the "competitive attitude" I would have to expect at tournaments. I had stopped playing "friendly games" with an opponent in my small town, after 3 games, because I wasn't confortable with his "winning at all costs" approach, and even then he didn't bicker about the rules.

Well, that's the thing about "friendly"/"casual" games. People bring different expectations to them sometimes. Tournament games are actually a bit more predictable, in that you KNOW that there's going to be at least a minimum baseline interest in winning. I rarely encounter "win at all costs" people at tournaments; mostly "try to win but have a good time and be a good sport doing it" people. Over eleven years and quite literally hundreds of competitive league and tournament games, I'd have to say I could count games which involved "bickering" about the rules on one hand. And have fingers left over. I've actually seen more bickering in casual games, because the people aren't on a clock and can afford to waste time hashing out how a rule's supposed to work. In a tournament game you've got a time limit, and no one wants to waste a bunch of time on a rules discussion.

silence indigo wrote:It's just the prospect that facing perhaps 25% of opponents who'd raise heated arguments about the way my orks were modelling, every time, would have me packing and leave.

That's what we're trying to tell you. I have never heard of a single person who would raise a heated argument about it. So you're leaping to an unfounded conclusion based on misunderstanding the discussion. In actual practice, most of us if we saw it in a real live game would compliment the person on their conversions and not even bring up the bases issue. Everyone who goes to tournaments knows and appreciates how much work and creativity goes into building a heavily-converted army, and no one wants to be confrontational or nasty or rain on someone's parade.

A couple of other people who have armies like this have reported that they've been using them for years with no complaints at all. The minority of us who are even aware of the difference would probably just keep an eye on your movement during the game to try to make sure you weren't using the bases in such a way as to gain advantage. And if we saw you doing it, we'd be very polite and restrained in asking you not to.

Mikhaila - you seem to think I was stating YOU would ban them. I was just stating that changing the rules in order to prohibit something otherwise perfectly legal is a personal preference thing - something I look to avoid in tourneys.

Personally i STILL hate falcons, but i wouldnt ban them!

nosferatu1001 wrote:I was just stating that changing the rules in order to prohibit something otherwise perfectly legal is a personal preference thing - something I look to avoid in tourneys.

As has been stated ad nauseum, in situations like this (where what is "perfectly legal" is not clear, unlike your repeated assertion otherwise) TOs will have to make rulings. If a TOs rulings don't match up with what your interpretation of the RAW is, you still have to accept their ruling.

Luckily, TOs like mikhaila, MVBrandt, and others frequent the interwebs and are usually very clear ahead of time on what their rulings will be in cases like this. Which (in this case) seems to be allowing it. So there's no issue... other than using exaggerated terms and putting everyone's backs up (who may even agree with you otherwise).

Nos, you're not winning this one. You were kind of nasty and cast personal aspersions, and Mikhaila was polite in the way he called you on it. Just cede the point and move on.

silence indigo wrote:this exchange has allowed me to see how naive I was to think that scratch-building and "narrative games", as advocated by Jervis Johnson's various editorials, was mainstream practice.

No, none of the crap Jervis espouses is "mainstream practice". That's what he wants you to think, though.

The best thing you can do is just ignore any of the crap that guy casts down at us from the Ivory Tower. He doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, and he's really done more harm than good for the hobby, as far as I'm concerned.

Polonius wrote:
Third, narrative games aren't the mainstream. Casual, friendly, games are closer to the mainstream than tournaments, and narrative games are a subset of them, not competitive gaming. But no, shockingly, at tournaments, people aren't interested in telling stories. They're playing to win.

Honestly I've never really seen the appeal in "telling a story" with my 40k army. It's not that I'm not that creative (which is what I'm sure a lot of you "artists" will imply), I'd just rather play an actual RPG designed for that kind of thing if that's what I were going to do...like D&D. I've been itching to play a good game of D&D for a while now, but don't really have anyone to play with. :(

Anyway, I can see why some people would want to roleplay, like most people I like the background for 40k (I think it's fun in how absurd and over-the-top it is) and I can see the appeal in it, it's just that I don't think 40k was really written with it in mind.

silence indigo wrote:My jaw dropped at the argument that I could position the bases diagonally for an advantage in movement; I had never consiered that and would consider that very poor sport were I to do such a thing.

Well, then what's the problem? Clearly that wasn't the intent and you can say as much. If you aren't actually placing them diagonally and measuring to the corners in-game then there's really nothing people can call you out on is there?

silence indigo wrote:I had stopped playing "friendly games" with an opponent in my small town, after 3 games, because I wasn't confortable with his "winning at all costs" approach, and even then he didn't bicker about the rules.

...so...what was he doing that made you want to stop playing him then?

silence indigo wrote:I'll check out the references hinted about the Casual Gaming Mafia, and casual gamers, thanks, but I'll avoid the tournaments and organised events until further notice for the moment. A few angry arguments would be enough for me to quit the hobby entirely, and I've worked too much since a year or two at modelling my plasticmen to quit just now.

The CGM is a joke, mostly kept up (and started by?) H.B.M.C., which mocks the attitude prevalent amongst some self-proclaimed casual gamers. It's true some people can get too competitive, but it's nothing compared to how nasty "hardcore" casual types can be. We're talking about people who seriously believe that if you play a game to win (which we all do, the goal of any competitive game like 40k is to win) you're the scum of the earth.

And if a couple of arguments is all it takes for you to quit the hobby altogether, then all I can say is you must not be all that invested in it to begin with. It's like a tournament player giving up entirely because a couple of fluff nazis criticized his paintjob for not being 100% accurate. "You know Librarians are supposed to be blue...yours is wrong."

nosferatu1001 wrote:The main thing is you can be competitive, i.e. wanting to win, WITHOUT being "win at all costs"

Exactly. WAAC, in my opinion anyway, refers more to people who will literally do anything to win. Cheating, modeling for advantage, browbeating and being a douche in general, etc. These people are usually easy to identify and aren't representative of competitive gaming as a whole.

RiTides - well, it is legal and it is clear - it is within the rules to use square bases for daemons. As a number of people have agreed on. People can argue with something that is clear, and that still doesn't make it an unclear rule.

Mann - not interested in "winning", just putting across the viewpoint that needlessly changing working rules isnt really necessary. Aware TOs can change rules on a whim, it's just a slippery slope to do so.

The "point" is that changing the rules to disallow daemons on square bases is equivalent, in terms of changing working rules, to disallowing armies that contain "X" otherwise legal unit.

A) No one here agrees with you that the two are equivalent.
B) You never needed to make comments attacking the person or character of TOs or people who disagree with you about basing.

A) Objectively they are. They are both functional rules, that work without the requiremetn for external "tinkering" to make them work in 40k, so to change them has to be a personal preference and changing one is equivalent to changing the other.

Any argument about the balance effects / power levels of doing so becomes subjective, not objective.

B) CHanging something because of a personal preference, and pointing out that this is the case, shouldnt be insulting anynoe.

The problem is, nos, that the way you're making your point is rather outlandish and you're sticking to it no matter what.

A better comparison would be not allowing modelling for an advantage, since that is also completely legal within the rules but also within a TO's discretion to disallow in certain cases. Outlawing the use of square bases (which, by the way, none of the TO's in this thread have said they do) would be more similar to outlawing using OOP ork trukks only because they are tiny, than it would be to saying you cannot use a certain unit. No one said daemon units couldn't be fielded, they said they were debating whether they would allow them to be modelled with square bases.

For example- at the fantasy 'Ard Boyz first round that I went to, there was an empire player who had stacked several GW watchtowers on top of one another. In the rules, it said you could have a certain number of models fire from each floor- but made no mention of how many floors were allowed. He wanted to claim something like 6 floors, but the TO ruled that he could only have 3. By the letter of the rules, what he wanted to do was legal, but the TO had to make a ruling about his modelling for an advantage in this case. I believe these kinds of examples are much more similar to what we're talking about here with square bases vs. round bases being used for daemons- not whether or not the daemons themselves can be used.

As to "B" above- it's the language you use more than anything else. Of course you can make a point, but the way you do it is going to have more of an effect than anything you actually say- because it appears most people in this thread actually agree with you on this ruling, just not the way you're expressing it, which is very polarizing due to the language you're using about people who do not agree with you.

I get the idea. Tournaments have fun potential. Maybe, sometime...

nosferatu1001 wrote:A) Objectively they are. They are both functional rules, that work without the requiremetn for external "tinkering" to make them work in 40k, so to change them has to be a personal preference and changing one is equivalent to changing the other.

Any argument about the balance effects / power levels of doing so becomes subjective, not objective.

B) CHanging something because of a personal preference, and pointing out that this is the case, shouldnt be insulting anynoe.

Oblivious Troll is Oblivious.

At this point it's pretty obvious to the rest of us, and oblivious to you, that some people disagree with your views. This does not make us irrational, or guilty of breaking rules, or of have personal issues. Most people would at this point take a hint, and cease trying to lable people that disagree with you in this way.

Luckily, I can just use the handy Ignore Function, and be thankful for the Atlantic Ocean.

Mannahnin wrote:Nos, you're not winning this one. You were kind of nasty and cast personal aspersions, and Mikhaila was polite in the way he called you on it. Just cede the point and move on.

In all honesty they were both being rude by the end of the conversation.

silence indigo wrote:I get the idea. Tournaments have fun potential. Maybe, sometime...

Cool! Thanks for hearing us out. I'm sorry if some of us came across a bit too strongly. We love our gaming, obviously.

And with that, it appears that the thread has lived out its useful life.