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.

For me its the total cost of a trip now. It is basically $500 minimum between flights, hotel, food, and entrance fee.

 Sigvatr wrote:
I only take part in smaller tournaments.

My main reason is the stupid arms race you have to take part in if you want to win. You don't want to buy tons of the currently most overpowered units? TOO BAD, YOU LOSE.

I want the competitive experience but minus the WAAC I GOT SO MUCH MONEEEEEEEY crap and thus, I only play at smaller tournaments with 20- participants.

Ahhh well I need to move where you are because a 10-14 player tournament here where I live consists of guys with 27 Flamers and 27 Screamers lists.

The ludicrous amount of competition takes the fun out of it for me sometimes. I don't like arguing over things written in books... reminds me too much over the conflict of religion. I like keeping my wars on tables and computers where they belong.

 BladeWalker wrote:
In my opinion, when people make the step from local store gaming or garage gaming to tournaments they have the "big fish, small pond" feeling go away that they are probably used to. I know that I got my ass handed to me and was a little upset about it when I started tournaments. I still lose more than I win but I have no expectations because I build my armies on theme (or what I feel like painting). I think if I was more competitive and tried to "run with the big dogs" that win most of the battle points I'd get very little from tournaments. But I feel that I genuinely go just to have a good time and get in some games. Less expectations = less stress and less chance of accusing your opponent of TFG behavior.

That is a good attitude to have.

I just wonder how many people are turned off by tournaments because of the bad reputation they have for being WAAC? A lot it seems, from this poll.
I know that I have these preconceptions, yet one of my best friends tells me constantly it's not always like this (and I know he's probably right). Yet I still cannot bring myself to go to one. I don't see it as 'big fish - small pond'. I see it as having fun vs arguing over every single action with people slightly too obsessed...The latter I just couldn't handle and wouldn't enjoy. I also think I am slightly ageist being older than the average wargamer. Stupid I know, but I am set in my ways I guess...

I've been enjoying tournament play, but it's the new $85 codexes that will kill it off for me. Not being able to keep up with the new rules (because despite buying every codex since 2nd edition I refuse to pay that much for a codex) means that I'll be too far out of date before too long... so I'll be switching to a different game for my tournament fix.

 pretre wrote:

 Riker210 wrote:
I chose other; I hate rule lawyers and tournaments are just places for them to thrive and ruin the game for me. I dont play to face 'good opponents' i play for fun with my friends and for painting purposes. I actually dont like the 40k game, not as dynamic as I'd like it to be and it leaves many armies unbalanced/crippled due to length between updates.

How many rules lawyers have you actually run into at tournaments? Most people who debate rules online do not at tournaments.

I chose other. My major limiter is that I can really only hit one one-day event per month due to family requirements. Other than that, I would do any kind of event.

LOL normally and 95% of the time in my experience I would say 'the person who says they never see or had that happen are the problem/thing mentioned' but ive never played with you so I cant say. If you have never ran into one, you are blessed. I stopped playing between 3rd and 5th edition because of...them, just doesn't make the game fun to argue and nit pick wordings, count every millemeter and sit there for hours reading between turns to prove gak right or wrong. ive left many games because of it, its why now i try to play with the more 'i wanna try this today' people than 'DIE I NEED TO WIN, SHOW YOU MY NERD PENIS MUHOAHAHAHAHAH SPAM SPAM FLYERS' players. hahahahahah

Go to local tourneys. You'll be surprised. I really don't run into all these TFGs that people are afraid of... Unless, like previously mentioned, that means I'm one.

 BladeWalker wrote:


(I blame Overwatch for being a WAAC TFG)

He can't be that much the WAAC TFG, he only won the last tourney (Sept) and came in second in August.

Been a few years since he did much better.


Me? GTs are pricey and distance (made one trip form LA to San Diego's Game Empire - fun time, but long drive).

RTTs - I make 10 out of 12 at Game Empire, with family taking out a couple Saturdays. Even attended one of the others at a closer, but less 40k supportive store.

Ive got almost 150 ork boys that I bought cause they were cheap AOBR models. I run them as shootas; I couldn't do that at a tournament cause someone would bitch.

Conversion is half the fun with orks?

there should be an option that says kids. i bet it would be to top voted. keep gaming dads!

 pretre wrote:
Go to local tourneys. You'll be surprised. I really don't run into all these TFGs that people are afraid of... Unless, like previously mentioned, that means I'm one.

This.

 TheContortionist wrote:
there should be an option that says kids. i bet it would be to top voted. keep gaming dads!

No joke! I get one a month (1 day events only) if I'm lucky.

 TheContortionist wrote:
there should be an option that says kids. i bet it would be to top voted. keep gaming dads!

No doubt! The awesome side effect is that they want to play with you! Distance keeps me from tourneys but my wife and kids being gamers keeps me from going crazy.

 BladeWalker wrote:
I may have exaggerated a bit but we have a Town and Country and it gets crappy gas mileage especially when you have to climb the big ass hill from where I live up and over into the valley and beyond. LIke Overwatch said, you never know when the 101 will be a parking lot.

If we had 2 or 3 other Ventura/Oxnard area guys we could carpool but in my experience so far everyone who lives up my way is a garage gamer because of the perceived TFG syndrome this poll is showing.

(I blame Overwatch for being a WAAC TFG)

Fair enough...those are big trucks. All's fair and I'm happy to acknowledge that your fuel costs there in California suck!

@ compel - isn't this basically Throne of Skulls? I mean, a tourney that is actually just about having a fun weekend? I've only been once but thats my experience of it.

GW keeps me from attending big tournaments. GW's poor codex rule writing, lack of internal and external balance and lack of desire to even seriously try to balance/correct dex problems when simple errata could make so many mediocre units-biomorphs-wargear more effective. My main army is tyranid (and I don't play tervigons - still cannot stand them (concept and GW execution of the unit) though I understand why others will use them). Most of a dex should be viable (that is good choices) to fight most armies. If I am going to spend travel time and money going to a big tournament I would like a decent chance of winning games and the game to be enjoyable (win or lose).

Also, I have found in local tournaments (and from the internet it seems many other people experience this too) that as the size of armies continues to increase insufficient time is available to play horde type armies. I have seen this with other players that use horde orks also.

I can play horde Nids at 2k in a 2hour slot. Horde on horde is difficult, but doable.

I dunno, troy, I've never been!

If so, it might be something worth me looking into.

*Clicks on link*

Hmm.... Werrry Interesting. Flipping expensive, but werry interesting. And monthly.

It's the tournament howler monkeys. If I wanted poo flung at me, I'd go to the zoo.

Playing horde armies in a timely matter is a question of practice and knowledge. I rarely touch my wifes green tide, but I can still bang out a game in two hours with it at 2k. My guard foot horde is easy to get a quick game in. If you are not the stalling Dbag who takes forever to deploy and agonizes/argues over every little detail, its actually easy to pull off. There are people who play hordes who are simply incapable of playing at the brisk pace needed to complete a game in a timely manner, though.

 Phazael wrote:
Playing horde armies in a timely matter is a question of practice and knowledge. I rarely touch my wifes green tide, but I can still bang out a game in two hours with it at 2k. My guard foot horde is easy to get a quick game in. If you are not the stalling Dbag who takes forever to deploy and agonizes/argues over every little detail, its actually easy to pull off. There are people who play hordes who are simply incapable of playing at the brisk pace needed to complete a game in a timely manner, though.

I'm not massively slow, but decided not to play Nids at a recent 1,750 tourney as the rounds were only 1hr40mins and with 2 tervigons I know there's no way I can get through 5 turns in that time, including set up. I think it's unfair to infer that a horde army who can't finish in time is stalling. Often my opponents turn will take just as long as mine as there are so many shooting options to consider, movement choices, multi assaults to resolve etc.

Tervigons are the only real competitive troop choice Nids have and with no allies, no emplaced guns etc you're semi-losing anyway never mind not taking your best troop choice. With multi spawns and then having all the different broods to move it takes time - you then have all the psychic powers to consider. A non-tervigon/non-psyker list would be quicker to play but will also prove to be a losing list. Not fun.

100 minute games? 50 minutes per player, 10 minutes per turn. Easy. IF you're taking longer than that there's something wrong. Make plans during your opponents turn.
And yes, I use 2 Tervigons in all my lists. I dislike the unit, but I need the flexibility it provides.

rigeld2 wrote:
100 minute games? 50 minutes per player, 10 minutes per turn. Easy. IF you're taking longer than that there's something wrong. Make plans during your opponents turn.
And yes, I use 2 Tervigons in all my lists. I dislike the unit, but I need the flexibility it provides.

Yeah... that's not even remotely feasible for the vast majority of players, especially in 6th edition. You also failed to take into account everything that happens before Turn 1 (e.g., deployment). And you're assuming a 5-turn maximum.

Over the years I've seen lots and lots of experienced players make the claim that they can finish tournament games with superhuman speed, but when these guys get pitted against equally experienced opponents the games tend to run longer than average, not shorter.

 Danny Internets wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
100 minute games? 50 minutes per player, 10 minutes per turn. Easy. IF you're taking longer than that there's something wrong. Make plans during your opponents turn.
And yes, I use 2 Tervigons in all my lists. I dislike the unit, but I need the flexibility it provides.

Yeah... that's not even remotely feasible for the vast majority of players, especially in 6th edition. You also failed to take into account everything that happens before Turn 1 (e.g., deployment). And you're assuming a 5-turn maximum.

Over the years I've seen lots and lots of experienced players make the claim that they can finish tournament games with superhuman speed, but when these guys get pitted against equally experienced opponents the games tend to run longer than average, not shorter.

I do it, in 6th edition, counting deployment, and I've had games go to 7 turns.
It's not some extraordinary skill or magic. And I'm not saying that every game is that fast - that'd be silly. But it can be done, and on average I finish 1850 point games in 1:45, 1:30.

rigeld2 wrote:

I do it, in 6th edition, counting deployment, and I've had games go to 7 turns.
It's not some extraordinary skill or magic. And I'm not saying that every game is that fast - that'd be silly. But it can be done, and on average I finish 1850 point games in 1:45, 1:30.

Whether or not it can be done here or there isn't the point. Whether or not it can be done by most (or, preferably, all) attendees consistently throughout the event is what matters.

I've completed games in the allotted time in 6th edition as well, but if Nova and BFS are any barometer, completing more than 5 turns is the exception, not the norm (and that's with 2.5 hour rounds at 2,000 points).

Game speed greatly depends on the people playing. I've had no games currently not go to 5 and possibly 3 that didn't end naturally total. That's with an all foot army pumping out 100+ shots per turn. I'd say I wouldn't be surprised if my opponents used 75% of my game time though. I don't spend much time thinking

However, and this is a big however, the majority of players aren't at this standard. This isn't a knock since quite a few players couldn't get to this standard in 5th edition either. It's a new edition and people that are less comfortable are going to take longer than normal. Add in two horde players and you're hosed. Add in two horde players that spend time thinking in their own turn and you're lucky to get past turn 3.

A lot of it is not arguing over minor bs. I guarentee that you could put Hulk and I across from one another with 150 model count armies and we would breeze through the game, simply because neither one of us would argue with the other, let alone nitpicking over meaningless early turn moves. A lot of hypercompetitive people do that and it just bogs the game, intentionally or not. This does not happen as much in Fantasy, but I think thats because the Fantasy crowd still uses soft scores as a firewall against assclownery of this sort.

The easy fix in 40k would just be to award bonus battle points for completing X number of turns in a game. I bet if you did that games would go five turns a lot more often. I am not saying intenional stalling is at play entirely here (or that it would even be completely stopped), but people being concious of bonus points being on the line would make them more focused on getting the turns in.

 Phazael wrote:
A lot of it is not arguing over minor bs. I guarentee that you could put Hulk and I across from one another with 150 model count armies and we would breeze through the game, simply because neither one of us would argue with the other, let alone nitpicking over meaningless early turn moves. A lot of hypercompetitive people do that and it just bogs the game, intentionally or not. This does not happen as much in Fantasy, but I think thats because the Fantasy crowd still uses soft scores as a firewall against assclownery of this sort.

The easy fix in 40k would just be to award bonus battle points for completing X number of turns in a game. I bet if you did that games would go five turns a lot more often. I am not saying intenional stalling is at play entirely here (or that it would even be completely stopped), but people being concious of bonus points being on the line would make them more focused on getting the turns in.

At Game Empire in Pasadena there is a turn 4 rule. If your game doesn't get past turn 4 it counts as a loss for both players.

If it was at a convention with scantily clad booth babes I would not attend the tournament.

I'd be in the dealer's hall...