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.

Not everyone should go to tournaments. If somebody is both a bad loser and a bad player they should probably stay away. Trouble is, some folks are not self-aware of being either. They blame their losses on their opponents or "the system" instead of reflecting on their own mistakes in list-building and game play. At a tournament you must prepare in order to win and also be prepared to lose at the same time. Part of being a good player at a tournament is building a good list. Some folks are not good at that or don't even think about list construction. They can have a very hard time winning. If they are bad losers they will then vent their frustration against their opponent, probably with passive-aggressive remarks about "cheese" and "spam" and "waac." Don't worry - I've caught myself starting to do that from time to time. We can all have bad days. I find though, that we are all pretty good winners - we are usually gracious with each other. Perhaps part of being a good winner is letting the losing opponent vent his frustration without making a big deal of it.

I've played in a number of tournaments both local and national through the past twenty years. My first real FOW (Flames of War) games were actually in a tournament. My first 40K V6 games were also in a tournament (I'd taken a roughly two year 40K hiatus - took another one for 7th). Both of those tournaments were disasters in terms of won-loss, but I had fun and learned the meta. I recall that my first opponent in the 40K V6 tournament looked at my list and apologized before the game began. I laughed and said that what was about to happen was my fault - not his! It wasn't pretty, but I learned some good lessons.

Part of the fun of a tournament is building the list. If you find that you didn't build a good list, build a better one next time!

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Not everyone should go to tournaments. If somebody is both a bad loser and a bad player they should probably stay away. Trouble is, some folks are not self-aware of being either. They blame their losses on their opponents or "the system" instead of reflecting on their own mistakes in list-building and game play. At a tournament you must prepare in order to win and also be prepared to lose at the same time. Part of being a good player at a tournament is building a good list. Some folks are not good at that or don't even think about list construction. They can have a very hard time winning. If they are bad losers they will then vent their frustration against their opponent, probably with passive-aggressive remarks about "cheese" and "spam" and "waac." Don't worry - I've caught myself starting to do that from time to time. We can all have bad days. I find though, that we are all pretty good winners - we are usually gracious with each other. Perhaps part of being a good winner is letting the losing opponent vent his frustration without making a big deal of it.

I've played in a number of tournaments both local and national through the past twenty years. My first real FOW (Flames of War) games were actually in a tournament. My first 40K V6 games were also in a tournament (I'd taken a roughly two year 40K hiatus - took another one for 7th). Both of those tournaments were disasters in terms of won-loss, but I had fun and learned the meta. I recall that my first opponent in the 40K V6 tournament looked at my list and apologized before the game began. I laughed and said that what was about to happen was my fault - not his! It wasn't pretty, but I learned some good lessons.

Part of the fun of a tournament is building the list. If you find that you didn't build a good list, build a better one next time!

Amen to that.
Nothing wrong with tournaments, the fault lies with players who can't tell the difference between serious and casual - and I mean that for both sides, a casual at all costs player in a tournament is little better than a WAAC TFG bashing newbies.

Well, 40k is just a game for casual play not for tournament play.
The player base have asked for a tournament rule set several time, but GW have never made efforts in this direction. Dont take the tourneys too serious!
Compare this with PP's steamroller. Great ruleset.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, 40k is just a game for casual play not for tournament play.
The player base have asked for a tournament rule set several time, but GW have never made efforts in this direction. Dont take the tourneys too serious!
Compare this with PP's steamroller. Great ruleset.

And yet tournaments are regularly organised for 40k, if you don't like them don't go - is somebody guilt tripping you into making numbers?

As others have already stated. 40k is a casual game not a turnament game in the competitive meaning.
I would never play in a competitive 40k tournament again.

Contrary to that i would happily be a part of any Infinity tournament since it has a great ruleset, is far better balanced than 40k and that personal game skill matters allot more.

Bubbalicious wrote:
As others have already stated. 40k is a casual game not a turnament game in the competitive meaning.
I would never play in a competitive 40k tournament again.

Contrary to that i would happily be a part of any Infinity tournament since it has a great ruleset, is far better balanced than 40k and that personal game skill matters allot more.

The game is what the players make it....... For many its not casual. What about it makes it "Only" casual? thats a opinionated question and has no merit/bases to anything in the 40k BRB, the BRB literally says you play it how you want, if i want to be hyper competitive then i'm playing by the same rules as a super casual player.

40k is and will always be both, just b.c you dont like it one way doesnt mean others dont.

Edit: Spelling.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
The game is what the players make it....... For many its not casual. What about it makes it "Only" casual? thats a opinionated question and has no merit/bases to anything in the 40k BRB, the BRB literally says you play it how you want, if i want to be hyper competitive then i'm playing by the same rules as a super casual player.

40k is and will always be both, just b.c you dont like it one way doesnt mean others dont.

Edit: Spelling.

The ruleset is what makes it casual. It's not tight enough or balanced enough to be a suitable tournament game. The randomness factor is also quite high compared to more competitive games.

It's a game that relies on mutual understanding and gentlemen's agreements.

That doesn't mean you can't play it ultra competitively if you want to, but it's obviously not designed for that.

Note that this doesn't mean I wouldn't appreciate a 40k more conducive to conpetitive play, I would be all for that. It's just not what we have right now.

 Cream Tea wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
The game is what the players make it....... For many its not casual. What about it makes it "Only" casual? thats a opinionated question and has no merit/bases to anything in the 40k BRB, the BRB literally says you play it how you want, if i want to be hyper competitive then i'm playing by the same rules as a super casual player.

40k is and will always be both, just b.c you dont like it one way doesnt mean others dont.

Edit: Spelling.

The ruleset is what makes it casual. It's not tight enough or balanced enough to be a suitable tournament game. The randomness factor is also quite high compared to more competitive games.

It's a game that relies on mutual understanding and gentlemen's agreements.

That doesn't mean you can't play it ultra competitively if you want to, but it's obviously not designed for that.

Note that this doesn't mean I wouldn't appreciate a 40k more conducive to conpetitive play, I would be all for that. It's just not what we have right now.

Again the rules say it is comp and casual.... "It's a game that relies on mutual understanding and gentlemen's agreements." You literally just agreed with me right here.

Just b.c it isnt balanced doesnt mean it isnt Comp.... I mean look at Esports, they are highly competetive with hundreds of thousands as dollars for winners, and yet all those games also are not balanced and has "better characters, items etc.."

Being balanced isnt a merit of "Its competitive or not"

Edit: Spelling

 Amishprn86 wrote:


The game is what the players make it....... For many its not casual. What about it makes it "Only" casual? thats a opinionated question and has no merit/bases to anything in the 40k BRB, the BRB literally says you play it how you want, if i want to be hyper competitive then i'm playing by the same rules as a super casual player.

40k is and will always be both, just b.c you dont like it one way doesnt mean others dont.

Edit: Spelling.

A game is what the ruleset makes i to be not what a player wants it to be. And of course the rulebook from the company making it will say its both, it would be dumb saying its just one or the other as it would lower potential sales. Just because a company says one thing doesn't mean it is.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Again the rules say it is comp and casual.... "It's a game that relies on mutual understanding and gentlemen's agreements." You literally just agreed with me right here.

Just b.c it isnt balanced doesnt mean it isnt Comp.... I mean look at Esports, they are highly competetive with hundreds of thousands as dollars for winners, and yet all those games also are not balanced and has "better characters, items etc.."

Being balanced isnt a merit of "Its competitive or not"

Edit: Spelling

You can play 40k competitively, just like you can almost any game. That doesn't mean they're all suited for it, and I don't think 40k is.

Look at e-sports, why did Starcraft become such an e-sports phenomenon? Mostly because of the excellent game balance.

 Cream Tea wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Again the rules say it is comp and casual.... "It's a game that relies on mutual understanding and gentlemen's agreements." You literally just agreed with me right here.

Just b.c it isnt balanced doesnt mean it isnt Comp.... I mean look at Esports, they are highly competetive with hundreds of thousands as dollars for winners, and yet all those games also are not balanced and has "better characters, items etc.."

Being balanced isnt a merit of "Its competitive or not"

Edit: Spelling

You can play 40k competitively, just like you can almost any game. That doesn't mean they're all suited for it, and I don't think 40k is.

Look at e-sports, why did Starcraft become such an e-sports phenomenon? Mostly because of the excellent game balance.

Yes that 1 game, but look at many others.. they are not. But if you look at the community, many dont agree even starcraft is balanced. You might think it is, but many others dont (Depending when you asked, they added some maps and there was exploits that took a bit to fix and some units removed, they do TRY to be balance and it is clear they try to be, i will give you that).

Again, thats b,c its an opinion and has no merit on what is competitive and not.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, 40k is just a game for casual play not for tournament play.
The player base have asked for a tournament rule set several time, but GW have never made efforts in this direction. Dont take the tourneys too serious!
Compare this with PP's steamroller. Great ruleset.

And yet tournaments are regularly organised for 40k, if you don't like them don't go - is somebody guilt tripping you into making numbers?

Well, I have organized local tournaments here during the last years.
So I know what I'm talking about and before this I have won more local tournies than I have attended (almost - but impossible due to the pigeon hole principle).

IGOUGO makes it not competitive, can hardly believe they're still using this format

Surely not all tournaments have to be the same? There has to be plenty in the player base to warrant all manner of tournaments. A T.O. can offer as many restrictions as he wants to. Mono factions, single detachments, etc, etc. It doesn't have to be fully open every time.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:


And yet tournaments are regularly organised for 40k, if you don't like them don't go - is somebody guilt tripping you into making numbers?

There're tournaments for rock-paper-scissor, mobile phone throwing, air sex and toe wrestling too. Just because people make tournaments for something, doesn't mean whatever they make the tournament for is really suited for that "competitively" (as opposed to just having a laugh).



Organised 40K events work best in the spirit of a vintage cars / oldtimer rally. People go there to marvel at the nice cars (armies) people brought and the enjoy the vista along a nice scenic route. Crossing the finish line first is irrelevant.

Trying to win an oldtimer rally at all cost by using random spare parts from 20 different vintage cars to build some pseudo-racing car that's faster than the rest and perhaps qualifies thanks to non-watertight regulations not designed for Formula 1-type competitions kinda misses the point of the whole event.

Speaking of Rock, Paper, Scissor, there are even tournaments for that. LOL and yes there is strategies for it too.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Speaking of Rock, Paper, Scissor, there are even tournaments for that. LOL and yes there is strategies for it too.

Yes. But just because tournaments for it exist and some strategies can be used, doesn't make it particularly suited for dead-serious competitiveness or a skill challenge on par with winning, say, a major chess tournament.

It's still silly to be a "hard-core competitive rock-paper-scissor" guy as opposed to seeing it as a bit of a laugh.

Wonderwolf wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Speaking of Rock, Paper, Scissor, there are even tournaments for that. LOL and yes there is strategies for it too.

Yes. But just because tournaments for it exist and some strategies can be used, doesn't make it particularly suited for dead-serious competitiveness or a skill challenge on par with winning, say, a major chess tournament.

It's still silly to be a "hard-core competitive rock-paper-scissor" guy as opposed to seeing it as a bit of a laugh.

Silly yes, but same are serious about it. lol

If you go to a competitive tournament, what do you expect?
More so if there are high end prizes up for grabs.
Naturally you will see stacked lists spamming the most broken combinations possible.

However, not all tournaments are based around power lists.
You'll find alot of casual style tournaments that promote themed lists as opposed to OTT ones.
The second of which are also penalised to try and prevent it.


If you want some fun and good games, go to a more casual tournament.
If you want big prizes and to throw out everything you can with a solid list, go for the competitive tournaments.





Either way, I'm not biased with these.
Serious gaming can be good fun.
However, so can casual when you can chill out, have a drink and have some fun.

I agree that 40K was not designed to be a tournament system - 2nd Edition only worked at tournaments with some major surgery to the rules. I think that 40K was designed to be played by friends, maybe with some beer and some good laughs. Having said that, tournaments have certainly become a part of the game. I think that some editions have tried to cater to tournaments more than others - I am not sure which direction this set has gone. I feel that the 8th Edition core rules were written with friends in mind, while the FAQs are attempts to make it more tournament friendly. I think that 40K tournaments can certainly work. The fun that a player has will depend in a large part on his mindset. Going to a local tournament can be a great way to get some games in against new opponents and make some new friends, especially if you check your ego at the door and avoid snide comments when you lose.

I enjoy tournaments, but I think that team tournaments bring out the worst in gamers quicker/easier than other formats. In a one-on-one format you are totally responsible for your conduct. In a team context there is some group absolution and also peer pressure to win. They can be great fun, but you need to be ready for some shenanigans. I wouldn't recommend them to a first-time tourney player who is somewhat reluctant.

At our local tournaments the store owner and/or organizer will give a little public service announcement about conduct at the start. Seal-clubbing and boorish behaviour will earn a quiet warning, followed by sterner action if required. If I'm the TO (Flames of War) I won't play and I will walk around to check the barometer of sportsmanship. If I see something weird I will hang around that table and make sure that nothing really bad is going down (like a Vet rules-bending with a newbie) or tempers getting really heated. Prizes are a random draw. I think its a pretty good place to test the waters regarding tournaments, but not every community has the same conditions.

Cheers

T2B is basically completely right. Do any of you guys remember when the hyper competitive crowd basically ran a public push with internet personalities at the fore to eradicate soft scores from the community? A lot of us (especially those also playing Fantasy) warned you about this and why it was a terrible idea. Now you are seeing the long term results and its probably irreversible at this point.

You could try to do what the euros did and come up with an extra layer of rules and points (see ETC in fantasy), but really all you are doing is making another set of rules for the ethically flexible guys to distort. A small measure of soft scores (and separate awards for overall and best general so "those guys" play in their own corner for that award) solves this. But that door got slammed shut when a small but vocal group quite literally drove out all soft scores from general use in the community. The game is simply never going to be polished or balanced enough to be the Warmahordes/X-Wing kind of game that can exist without some anti-D-Bag mechanisms in place.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Spam doesnt equal Ability to win. An inexperianced player can still lose with spam.

See also: The winning list of a recent tournament held six of a unit that is considered by many players here to be some of the weakest units in the game, Tactical Marines. Even if they are weak (which, in spite of the very loud and fervent cries otherwise, is in dispute), the list made them win as the player is very skilled in using them as the primary infantry unit in the list.

 Melissia wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Spam doesnt equal Ability to win. An inexperianced player can still lose with spam.

See also: The winning list of a recent tournament held six of a unit that is considered by many players here to be some of the weakest units in the game, Tactical Marines. Even if they are weak (which, in spite of the very loud and fervent cries otherwise, is in dispute), the list made them win as the player is very skilled in using them as the primary infantry unit in the list.

He also took Gulliman, a unit considered by many players here to be the strongest unit in the game.

The list wouldn't have worked without Gulliman - plain and simple.

The Lascannons go from [6 shots, 4 hits, 2-3 wounds] to... [6 shots, 6 hits, 6 wounds]. Significant difference. Gulliman is just that powerful - rerolling ALL hits and ALL wounds is insane; Salamanders trait, all the time, on every model, every shot.

Yes, the 6! Razorbacks will do significant work, and were another reason the list worked, even without Gulliman's aura. They're rock solid dakka monsters that do a lot of work, at a super cheap points cost.

But don't fool yourself into thinking that 6 Tactical Squads+Lascannons are anywhere near the same level as 6 Tactical Squads+Lascannons+Gulliman.

Oh, and nevermind that Gulliman can CC any monster or model (superheavy or otherwise) that comes to threaten his circle of marines - throw the "lives until the close combat is over" strategem on top of that; there's no risk of him not doing his job, ever.

 Phazael wrote:
The game is simply never going to be polished or balanced enough to be the Warmahordes/X-Wing kind of game that can exist without some anti-D-Bag mechanisms in place.

True enough but then the chief method of being a D-bag is playing Space Marines since they traditionally get all the cool toys and strong dex. Or play Eldar if you want to as brokenly abusive as possible. Or play Orks if you want to suck.

It's not about who is or isn't being a D-bag. It's that the game started out without these superhuman primarchs or mega tanks and things still weren't balanced. So they add a new toy for the factions feeling weak and then those factions ACTUALLY BRING THEM! Chaos was a powerful codex in 3.5 and they were complained into being nerfed, even undoing the great victory they had earned in the Eye of Terror campaign. I think the fact of the matter is that even soft cores don't like to lose and the Space Marine players complained when it was their turn to have their backs against the wall. Oh sure, it's all beer and pretzels till someone loses a land raider.

After enough crowdpleasing, the game is where it is. You're welcome not to bring super competitive lists or only stick to Rhinos and Tacs. But then you're denying yourself Spartan Assault Tanks, Deredeo Dreadnoughts, Stormravens, Grav cannons, Centurions, Hellblasters, Fire Raptors, and all the other spam that hits the table. Guilliman, Magnus, and Knights aren't the only things we see that is broken. Conscripts proved that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and I forgot the most broken units in the game in my opinion... Officio Assassinorum. Culexus and Vindicare especially are fielded frequently and completely shutdown entire lists solo. Talk about game-changing broken balance, these singular units can upend the game by themselves at minuscule point costs and ONLY IMPERIUM CAN TAKE THEM! Now if I see my opponent has a Culexus and I'm playing Thousand Sons, I just pick up my models and find a new opponent. Oh you brought Grey Knights against an all Daemon list? Sweet, let me help you kill me faster.

fe40k wrote:
The list wouldn't have worked without Gulliman - plain and simple.

Actually, I'm pretty sure it would, as you'd still have additional points to spend on other things to make up for it. Guilliman is powerful, but he still needs things to buff, and those things to buff still are useful on their own.

Making excuses in order to make yourself feel like the underdog isn't very convincing.

 Melissia wrote:

fe40k wrote:
The list wouldn't have worked without Gulliman - plain and simple.

Actually, I'm pretty sure it would, as you'd still have additional points to spend on other things to make up for it. Guilliman is powerful, but he still needs things to buff, and those things to buff still are useful on their own.

Making excuses in order to make yourself feel like the underdog isn't very convincing.

Guilliman is OP, nobody is discusing that.
But people is still in the old mindset of units being powerfull on their own. Is obviously that we are in the age of Sinergyhammer.
"But without guilliman they suck!" yeah and without savage roar, Force of Nature was useless, but combined they where one of the most OP combos of Hearthstone before being nerfed.

I'll add that personally I prefer for units to be usefull on their own foot, and sinergies opening you more tactical and powerfull choices in-game. But we can't deny the importance of sinergies in the game right now.
So basically Melissia is right. You can't say "That list without Guilliman is useless" because thats not how this game works. Is based in sinergy.

Spamming is an issue because 40k gameplay is so incredibly shallow that you really have no reason to take anything other than the best power/toughness/cost ratio unit. Tactically complex games see less spam even when some units are less balanced on paper because you need different things to accomplish different objectives.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Spamming is an issue because 40k gameplay is so incredibly shallow that you really have no reason to take anything other than the best power/toughness/cost ratio unit. Tactically complex games see less spam even when some units are less balanced on paper because you need different things to accomplish different objectives.

But many times smap makes it more fun and even amazing looking. Would you call a Nid player spam list if he took, 6 units of Gants with 2 HT's, 3 units of Carnifex's and a Malanthrope? No you wouldnt its only when players do this with "good" units that it becomes spam.

The Warhammer world day 1 number 1 lists was 6 Tac Squads, 6 Transports, a Flyer and 3 different HQ's, that is spam, but its a "real" army and looks like a spam skirmish army.
That nid list is 4 different units, that SM one is 6, but i bet many players would be more happy to see the nids list even tho its more of a "spam" list.

Spam isnt the problem, some spam is good spam, some is bad. The problem is imbalances in points.

And as for this Match, it was poor knowledge of the players part as to what was about to happen. And sometimes there is still Rock, Paper, Scissor matches, sometimes you are just counter and other times you counter hard.

Infinity The Game is less spamm unit wise,, it allows reaction to every action at every step of the way and its vely limited in points so the army/squad sizes are small. BUT WITHIN ITS limits people still spam the best unit for the job because if you play a certain way you have to get the best bang for your buck so spam still occurs.

Back to 40K. im a returning player from 3 and 4th edition. (kids family etc got in the way) I picked up 8th ed and dusted off my old army and realised i had a spam of grenade launchers in every squad. Plasma was waay to expensive and killed you on a 1 role so all my regular TROOPS had grenade launchers. In the age of templates he bad BS of the guard made these GL extremely valuable because it bypassed the roll and you took your chances with the scatter roll.

I look at it now and GLs are useless. 5 points for a GL vs 7 points for a plasma. and plasma is SAFE unless you press that little red button on the side.
so i dont know how GL usefulness had decreased over the last few editions i did not play but i dont even know who woud use GL on guardsmen anymore. i have about 12-15 models i have to convert and find some plasma rifles to glue on instead of the grenade launchers.

so if I wanted to be fluffy i could leave them on but even as a fluff think about a defense directorate who are considering cost efficiency in their army why woyuld they issue GLs when they do less across the board of target profile they are compared against than any other special weapon option and the cheap plasma is better against ALL target profiles overall. so the army would have just issued plasma really.
the wording should really be changed that a Infantry Squad consists of 1 Sgt, 1 Plasma gunner and 8 soldiers and give the option to the plasma gunner to replace his plasma with a lasgun or flamer

In pursuit of BEST naturally it comes down to statistics and the rules in any game don't stand up to sheer weight of the optimal goal pursuit of the players looking to win. I don't blame them because its the nature of the beast.
If chess allowed you to pick any model to use in your army you would have 1 king and15 queens on the board and there will be mayhem. no tactical play and the one that goes first will almost always win because it will be a trade battle. each queen will trade like for like and the only variation you have is who goes first and where the initial trade happens because once majority queens are traded your endgame is not very interesting.
but even chess is balanced there are some openings that are BETTER than others both for WHITE and BLACK and some counters to an opening may throw the game. but this is at grand-master level. Not everyone knows all openings and counters. some time a fluffy opening you enjoy playing because its your playstyle may throw off an oponent who doesnt know what you are doing and you may win.
But equally matched opponents who know what they are doing will likely chose a play that has a lot more chances to lead to a win than a play that's "i like this because its fluffy to my army play style".

i have gotten off track. i appologise. but you cannot remove spam. even if you came down hard on limiting troops numbers and taxing troop choices with command squads again etc etc people will still find the wining combinations and use them.

I dont see a problem really. If I wanted to be a competitive bodybuilder I know i have to go down the steroid path if i wanted to win. If I wanted to un-fluff my 3rd ed army or re-fluff the plasma a plenty 8th ed im working on i would have to go down the plasma spam path. because i have no choice if i want to win. its human nature.

if i was playing for fun and just said forget about plasma being the bees knees my commander loves grenade launchers and that's all we have. no plasma spam. i could play this army for fun and would be just as much fun as rolling a Dungeons and Dragons character using only 3d6 for attributes and rolling them in order. sure it will be a unique character but chances are of him being SUPER AWESOME POWERHOUSE are slim to none..definitely unique though and fun to play if you don't want to be super competitive between the payers in the group of who has the highers DPS or kill count etc but if you wanted to b a specific class with high attribute in a specific stat then this wont be as fun and it may not even work.

so the decision is simple. Do you want to be a tournament player? if yes then do what the Romans do and spam and play the meta until it changes and change with it. If NO then enjoy your modeling, converting painting and playing and maybe those Grenade launchers will end up being awesome when you use them