Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/11/21 13:28:49
Subject: How well would a 'No Flyers Allowed' 40K tournament be received?
|
 |
Swift Swooping Hawk
|
Either you play the game or you don't.
If you feel the need to ban for logistic reason (Banning Fortress of Redemption because it is too big to place on the table without moving the scenery) I think people can understand this.
Banning or limiting Codex units because YOU feel inadequate facing them goes beyond list tailoring.
I think it is a low and cheap tactic.
I know that nobody here would stoop to playing "P***yhammer" because they are afraid of facing flyers.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/11/21 13:31:22
Subject: How well would a 'No Flyers Allowed' 40K tournament be received?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Ostrakon wrote:I love how all these threads boil down to "I can't beat WAAC players so I feel I have a right to create arbitrary rules to hobble them instead of adjusting my own playstyle."
We have a philosophy that revolves around winning. Clearly you care about winning or else you wouldn't be trying to add these asinine restrictions. The problem is that you think your style of play is more valid than people who have devoted their time and money into winning instead of whatever reason you put your army together for. You want to create an environment allows for people who didn't focus on winning to win, which is so ridiculously selfish and hypocritical that I can't even believe I have to point that out.
If you want to win, do as the WAAC-ers do. It's as simple as that. Trying to change the rules instead of your playstyle is just an implicit admission that you're a terrible player.
So your logic is either DONT play a game you enjoy because of WAAC players, or become one? How is that fair? I wouldnt joina tourny with the intentions of winning it in a total sweep, Id join a tourny to enjoy the game at a higher skill level, having to change my army to that of a WAAC army or just forget playing at all is just BS. So yes, handicap WAAC players so its everyone is on a more level playing field
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/11/21 14:23:04
Subject: How well would a 'No Flyers Allowed' 40K tournament be received?
|
 |
Fell Caller - Child of Bragg
|
KingCracker wrote: Ostrakon wrote:I love how all these threads boil down to "I can't beat WAAC players so I feel I have a right to create arbitrary rules to hobble them instead of adjusting my own playstyle."
We have a philosophy that revolves around winning. Clearly you care about winning or else you wouldn't be trying to add these asinine restrictions. The problem is that you think your style of play is more valid than people who have devoted their time and money into winning instead of whatever reason you put your army together for. You want to create an environment allows for people who didn't focus on winning to win, which is so ridiculously selfish and hypocritical that I can't even believe I have to point that out.
If you want to win, do as the WAAC-ers do. It's as simple as that. Trying to change the rules instead of your playstyle is just an implicit admission that you're a terrible player.
So your logic is either DONT play a game you enjoy because of WAAC players, or become one?
Yeah, actually. Tournaments are fundamentally about trying to win. If you don't care to put as much effort into winning as WAAC players, stick to casual club games instead of trying to hobble WAAC players by enforcing arbitrary rules. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ovion wrote: Ostrakon wrote:I love how all these threads boil down to "I can't beat WAAC players so I feel I have a right to create arbitrary rules to hobble them instead of adjusting my own playstyle."
We have a philosophy that revolves around winning. Clearly you care about winning or else you wouldn't be trying to add these asinine restrictions. The problem is that you think your style of play is more valid than people who have devoted their time and money into winning instead of whatever reason you put your army together for. You want to create an environment allows for people who didn't focus on winning to win, which is so ridiculously selfish and hypocritical that I can't even believe I have to point that out.
If you want to win, do as the WAAC-ers do. It's as simple as that. Trying to change the rules instead of your playstyle is just an implicit admission that you're a terrible player.
If you pay attention, it's a TO trying to make it fun for everyone that enters his tournament, being other players aren't really having fun. (And if it's not fun, less people will take part.)
Which personally, I find amicable, but you feel free to not actually read the thread and have your little rant.
At the end of the day, if it's only 2-3 people out of say, 15-20 that are WAAC, major tourney style players, and the remaining 13-18 players are semi-casual players just wanting to have fun, you ideally want to follow the feelings of the majority.
Why even have a tournament then? If you're a casual player, who cares if you win or lose, right?
This is why these threads always astound me - complain about WAAC players who will do anything to win while proposing to change the rules to allow themselves to win. All you're doing is proposing a shortcut to victory instead of earning it via modifying your tactics. There's no sportsmanship in unbalancing the playfield to better suit yourself when everyone else is perfectly content to use the default ruleset.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/11/21 14:27:00
Over 350 points of painted Trolls and Cyriss |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/11/21 14:46:05
Subject: How well would a 'No Flyers Allowed' 40K tournament be received?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Actually, this thread is about TO attempting to run an event which doesn't end up being about handing auto losses to a majority if the participants because not everyone can run out and buy 800$ worth of models to stay on the bleeding edge of the meta. Poor sportsmanship is a player who pretends the 40k ruleset is balanced and refuses to acknowledge "using better tactics" almost always takes hundreds of dollars and months of modeling. They are defending a paid for advantage, not one granted by skill in a fair system. This is not a video game where every player is equal. There is nothing wrong with a TO blunting the meta game to allow a local casual player base have an event of organized play. Most events including 100% of GW tourneys already do this with mission based comp for over a decade. Most events even today use custom missions designed to speed bump the army of the week.
You can argue the arbitrary default gw meta is "best" but no one can argue it is fair or perfect. And to browbeat people with "learn to play better" in such an unbalanced game which requires massive investments of time and money to change an army list is disingenuous and arrogant.
There is plenty of room for all sorts of tourneys, you don't like it, don't attend. Run your own facesmashing event. If people attend, great. You can't force people to attend and be meat in the grinder so one or two people can have fun board wiping them all day. Most of the players in an event have to lose, and if they stop attending because it is unfair the event never happens.
|
My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/11/21 14:47:01
Subject: How well would a 'No Flyers Allowed' 40K tournament be received?
|
 |
Fell Caller - Child of Bragg
|
Moreover: All you're doing by blanket-banning what you perceive as OP is treating the symptoms. WAAC players are still going to faceroll you using whatever is most powerful for a given environment. We adapt to the metagame. The only thing you do by banning things is create an environment with a new optimum, which you'll then need to consider banning. Where does it stop? 2+ armor infantry is OP, ban it? Invuln saves are OP, ban it? AV 14 is OP, ban it? Pie plates are OP, ban them? We hear this all the time and it boils down to the same thing.
Adjust your fething tactics. Automatically Appended Next Post: nkelsch wrote:Actually, this thread is about TO attempting to run an event which doesn't end up being about handing auto losses to a majority if the participants because not everyone can run out and buy 800$ worth of models to stay on the bleeding edge of the meta. Poor sportsmanship is a player who pretends the 40k ruleset is balanced and refuses to acknowledge "using better tactics" almost always takes hundreds of dollars and months of modeling. They are defending a paid for advantage, not one granted by skill in a fair system. This is not a video game where every player is equal. There is nothing wrong with a TO blunting the meta game to allow a local casual player base have an event of organized play. Most events including 100% of GW tourneys already do this with mission based comp for over a decade. Most events even today use custom missions designed to speed bump the army of the week.
You can argue the arbitrary default gw meta is "best" but no one can argue it is fair or perfect. And to browbeat people with "learn to play better" in such an unbalanced game which requires massive investments of time and money to change an army list is disingenuous and arrogant.
There is plenty of room for all sorts of tourneys, you don't like it, don't attend. Run your own facesmashing event. If people attend, great. You can't force people to attend and be meat in the grinder so one or two people can have fun board wiping them all day. Most of the players in an event have to lose, and if they stop attending because it is unfair the event never happens.
So it's okay to invalidate somebody else's purchase then? Nothing is stopping other players from adopting new tactics, but you want to create an environment where it's okay to infringe upon other players when the real problem (if it can be described as a problem) is with the players who want to win with less attention to winning. You do not have a right to win. Victory is earned.
Nobody could ever say that default GW rules are balanced, but it is what it is. Imagine a new player starting some army, only to find that the models and choices defined in his army are illegal according to the local balance czars. It's better to leave things as is because everyone can make the same assumptions instead of having to deal with armchair game developer TOs.
I have never, ever, ever heard anyone complain about people running victory-oriented lists anywhere but this website. This is the only place I've found where subpar players circlejerk about strawmen WAAC players because at any of the three LGSs I frequent people just play what's written down in the fething rules.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/11/21 14:54:35
Over 350 points of painted Trolls and Cyriss |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/11/21 15:06:52
Subject: How well would a 'No Flyers Allowed' 40K tournament be received?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Different areas have different expectations. Good job trying to tell groups of local players how they should enjoy the game. TOs and store owners listen to their players.
You must be new to 40k as people like you were literally laughed out of the store nationwide in the 90s due to the insurmountable imbalance of 3rd edition 40k. No one could seriously defend the default meta in any capacity. People have been setting arbitrary standards of how the game is played for decades. And while the game is much better than it was, I don't begrudge people running their events for them, their way. If I don't like it, I can attend another event or run my own.
What I won't do is hold one meta up as perfect then browbeat people who lose as whiners or bad players and that they lack skill as there is very real an often skill-eliminating imbalance in 40k. Saying someone with iron shoes should beat a person on a bike by running faster or buying a bike is disingenuous.
|
My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/11/21 15:17:30
Subject: How well would a 'No Flyers Allowed' 40K tournament be received?
|
 |
Fell Caller - Child of Bragg
|
nkelsch wrote:
What I won't do is hold one meta up as perfect then browbeat people who lose as whiners or bad players and that they lack skill as there is very real an often skill-eliminating imbalance in 40k. Saying someone with iron shoes should beat a person on a bike by running faster or buying a bike is disingenuous.
But that's the problem, isn't it? In this game, there's a nontrivial amount of people who insist on wearing iron shoes and complain about not being able to win. "I'm not going to use this model because it looks stupid." "I'm not fielding any sorcerors because my army is Khornate and he thinks sorcerers are pussies". "I'm not going to use allies because my Tau won't work with anyone." "I'm not going to change my army because I like mine too much".
When you start making concessions that impact your chances of victory, you're not allowed to complain about how other players steamroll you. It's asinine to think it's okay to take options away from others simply because you can't or won't use them. The game is what it is. Learn to adjust or stick to casual games like 95% of players. Don't show up to the tournament scene and expect them to compensate for your unwillingness to adjust.
|
Over 350 points of painted Trolls and Cyriss |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/11/21 15:32:06
Subject: How well would a 'No Flyers Allowed' 40K tournament be received?
|
 |
Ichor-Dripping Talos Monstrosity
|
Ostrakon wrote:nkelsch wrote: What I won't do is hold one meta up as perfect then browbeat people who lose as whiners or bad players and that they lack skill as there is very real an often skill-eliminating imbalance in 40k. Saying someone with iron shoes should beat a person on a bike by running faster or buying a bike is disingenuous. But that's the problem, isn't it? In this game, there's a nontrivial amount of people who insist on wearing iron shoes and complain about not being able to win. "I'm not going to use this model because it looks stupid." "I'm not fielding any sorcerors because my army is Khornate and he thinks sorcerers are pussies". "I'm not going to use allies because my Tau won't work with anyone." "I'm not going to change my army because I like mine too much". When you start making concessions that impact your chances of victory, you're not allowed to complain about how other players steamroll you. It's asinine to think it's okay to take options away from others simply because you can't or won't use them. The game is what it is. Learn to adjust or stick to casual games like 95% of players. Don't show up to the tournament scene and expect them to compensate for your unwillingness to adjust. Translation 'I should use the exact same army as everyone else, full of the most powerful possible units' Using fluff, or personal taste is all well and good, people recognise and understand that they'll probably have a harder time of it. HOWEVER, when there's certain glaring balance issues, things that are effectively unstoppable, then it'll take the fun out of it for a lot of people. Yes, the WAAC players will switch to something else, but other things have more counters and aren't always as clear cut, which will make it a closer tournament and more interesting. But not everyone wants to sink that much cash into the game. YOU want to play a game where everyone runs the same damn thing, and it's purely based on luck and minute skill differences, other people want to play a fun game. They should be allowed to do that. That's the difference, you want everyone to bend to your own narrow view of the game, other people here want a solution where everyone can have fun.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/11/21 15:33:03
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/11/21 15:33:50
Subject: How well would a 'No Flyers Allowed' 40K tournament be received?
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
Ostrakon wrote: Nobody could ever say that default GW rules are balanced, but it is what it is. Imagine a new player starting some army, only to find that the models and choices defined in his army are illegal according to the local balance czars. It's better to leave things as is because everyone can make the same assumptions instead of having to deal with armchair game developer TOs. This cracks me up.  Obviously you've never played one of the most aggressive and, more importantly, successful tournament games - Magic the Gathering. Every few months your winning deck is rendered obsolete and you need to upgrade and buy new cards, or the company will ban certain broken cards & combos if they are dominating and creating a broken meta-game. There are still good cards & great cards but there is very rarely a "best list" that everyone is forced either play or build to try and beat. By banning the extreme outliers you end up with everyone clustered somewhere near the center and create a much better game for it. I think it's hilarious that the so-called "serious" and "skilled" tournament players can be playing a game the creators admit flat-out is NOT intended to be a tournament game, that the players themselves admit is not balanced and still claim that if you're not playing by the "pure" rules you're not as skilled or serious as they are. Laughable. Ostrakon wrote: I have never, ever, ever heard anyone complain about people running victory-oriented lists anywhere but this website. You must be new to the internet. Welcome! Enjoy your stay! I hear they have cookies and naughty pictures.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/11/21 15:44:30
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/11/21 15:48:09
Subject: How well would a 'No Flyers Allowed' 40K tournament be received?
|
 |
Banelord Titan Princeps of Khorne
|
BTW, Ostrakon is trolling, so just stop feeding.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/11/21 15:55:36
Subject: How well would a 'No Flyers Allowed' 40K tournament be received?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
So.... what if you were to propose a "no spamming" tournament?? Say put a two unit limit on all units, characters & vehicles. That way you aren't preventing anyone from playing with a 6th edition army using 6th edition tactics... you're just curtailing some of the worst abuses that usually results from spamming armies. Everyone should be able to build a decent army with these restrictions, so everyone should be in the mix. Thoughts? To clarify... what I mean by a two unit limit is... no more than two razorbacks, two vindis, two storm talons, two assault squads, two sanguinary priests, etc.
|
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2012/11/21 15:58:59
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/11/21 16:25:03
Subject: How well would a 'No Flyers Allowed' 40K tournament be received?
|
 |
Old Sourpuss
|
Gitsplitta wrote:So.... what if you were to propose a "no spamming" tournament?? Say put a two unit limit on all units, characters & vehicles. That way you aren't preventing anyone from playing with a 6th edition army using 6th edition tactics... you're just curtailing some of the worst abuses that usually results from spamming armies.
Everyone should be able to build a decent army with these restrictions, so everyone should be in the mix.
Thoughts?
To clarify... what I mean by a two unit limit is... no more than two razorbacks, two vindis, two storm talons, two assault squads, two sanguinary priests, etc.
it's an interesting idea, but if I was playing my Ultramarines, I normally run 3 tac squads, I'd have to drop one for a scout squad right?
|
DR:80+S++G+M+B+I+Pwmhd11#++D++A++++/sWD-R++++T(S)DM+

Ask me about Brushfire or Endless: Fantasy Tactics |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/11/21 16:37:02
Subject: How well would a 'No Flyers Allowed' 40K tournament be received?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Yes. It probably limits standard marines (like my MWs) as much as anyone because we have the fewest options in the "troop" category.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/11/21 16:57:32
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/11/21 16:37:11
Subject: How well would a 'No Flyers Allowed' 40K tournament be received?
|
 |
Ruthless Interrogator
|
Ovion wrote:YOU want to play a game where everyone runs the same damn thing, and it's purely based on luck and minute skill differences, other people want to play a fun game.
What do you imagine the "same damn thing" is, anyway? There are a ton of competitive builds in 6th Edition, many more than 5th offered. It's not like the top tables at every tournament are all Necron players hoping they have better dice than their opponent. The top 16 at the Feast of Blades GT, for instance, included only one Necron player (who wasn't spamming Flyers at all). Besides that we had Tau, Eldar, Guard, Sisters, Tyranids, GK, SW, Orks, and Daemons represented---only one or two Flyer-heavy lists among them, I should mention. I doubt many 5th Edition tournaments had results nearly that diverse.
The thing I find funny about a "No Flyers" tournament is that Flyers are not dominating the competitive scene by any measure. They might be dominating at your FLGS, but that probably has more to do with your FLGS than 6th Edition. It could just as easily be Daemons, horde Orks, CWE/ DE, or Tyranids winning all the local events, but there probably aren't many local competitive players who are bringing those builds.
If your local meta isn't that competitive and can't handle Flyers (or doesn't want to be competitive/doesn't want to handle Flyers), then sure, banning/limiting them might allow more people to enjoy your tournaments. But what if you had a Tyranid player consistently winning, making events "less fun" for everyone else? Would you consider a "No Tervigons" tournaments? If Daemons start kicking ass left and right, would you go "No Flamers"? I'm guessing not. So rather than single out Flyers, why not just enforce comp? I'm not a fan of comp by any stretch, but I think it's worlds better than arbitrarily banning one slightly troublesome unit type because of a local meta unwilling or unable to adapt. Screw everyone or screw no one. Either option seems a lot more desirable than screwing only the handful of players who had the temerity to play with one of the defining units of 6th Edition.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/11/21 18:32:44
Subject: How well would a 'No Flyers Allowed' 40K tournament be received?
|
 |
Fell Caller - Child of Bragg
|
"Everyone who disagrees with the Dakka hivemind is trolling." Automatically Appended Next Post: Gitsplitta wrote:So.... what if you were to propose a "no spamming" tournament?? Say put a two unit limit on all units, characters & vehicles. That way you aren't preventing anyone from playing with a 6th edition army using 6th edition tactics... you're just curtailing some of the worst abuses that usually results from spamming armies.
Everyone should be able to build a decent army with these restrictions, so everyone should be in the mix.
Thoughts?
To clarify... what I mean by a two unit limit is... no more than two razorbacks, two vindis, two storm talons, two assault squads, two sanguinary priests, etc.
No more than two ork boyz, no more than two tac marines, no more than two necron warriors... No thanks.
Is spamming really the problem here? When you spam, you pidgeonhole yourself and anyone equipped to counter you will wipe you out, making it a poor strategic move. Air forces are counterable by any race with an ADL at lower point ranges, and and the relatively low AV of most of them (and the high penalty of taking pens, since a stunned flyer is pretty much useless) makes mass fire pretty effective, since if they sunk all their points into flyers they're not going to have a lot of infantry to shoot up.
It's like Draigowing - imposing but not without simple and effective counters.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/11/21 18:40:52
Over 350 points of painted Trolls and Cyriss |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/11/21 21:32:56
Subject: How well would a 'No Flyers Allowed' 40K tournament be received?
|
 |
Battleship Captain
|
Ovion wrote:
Translation 'I should use the exact same army as everyone else, full of the most powerful possible units'
Using fluff, or personal taste is all well and good, people recognise and understand that they'll probably have a harder time of it.
HOWEVER, when there's certain glaring balance issues, things that are effectively unstoppable, then it'll take the fun out of it for a lot of people.
Yes, the WAAC players will switch to something else, but other things have more counters and aren't always as clear cut, which will make it a closer tournament and more interesting.
But not everyone wants to sink that much cash into the game.
YOU want to play a game where everyone runs the same damn thing, and it's purely based on luck and minute skill differences, other people want to play a fun game.
They should be allowed to do that.
That's the difference, you want everyone to bend to your own narrow view of the game, other people here want a solution where everyone can have fun.
Tournaments aren't about fluffbunnies who are awful at the game having fun.
Tournaments are where good players go to escape that horrible mindset and actually play in a competitive environment.
So a person with a poor, fluffy list showing up to a tournament and complaining about all the lists being too strong is as ridiculous as a WAAC Tourney player showing up to your Pre-Heresy Campaign packing Necron Flying Circus and bagging on you for losing so much.
Translation: If you want to play tournaments; deal with the high tier of competitive players and competitive lists. If you don't want to do that, don't do tournaments. They're not for you.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/11/21 21:34:54
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/11/21 21:54:10
Subject: Re:How well would a 'No Flyers Allowed' 40K tournament be received?
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Mission comp is awful. It's just a clumsy way of saying "X is not allowed". If X is such a problem that you have to add mission comp to cripple it then you should just accept that it needs banning and ban it. The only reason to use mission comp is if you're obsessed with pretending that you're running a no-comp event (like 'ard boyz) but still need to re-balance the metagame. Remove that obsession and the obvious best option is to use clear bans (or restrictions) on the undesired unit/strategy/etc.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/11/21 22:18:18
Subject: How well would a 'No Flyers Allowed' 40K tournament be received?
|
 |
Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
nkelsch wrote:You must be new to 40k as people like you were literally laughed out of the store nationwide in the 90s due to the insurmountable imbalance of 3rd edition 40k. No one could seriously defend the default meta in any capacity. People have been setting arbitrary standards of how the game is played for decades. And while the game is much better than it was, I don't begrudge people running their events for them, their way. If I don't like it, I can attend another event or run my own.
Both the 40k community and the default meta have substantially improved since the 1990s, though. Arbitrary standards are both less desired-- as evidenced by the fact that comp is dead or dying in most areas of the US-- and less necessary.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/11/22 10:29:46
Subject: How well would a 'No Flyers Allowed' 40K tournament be received?
|
 |
Three Color Minimum
|
Gitsplitta wrote:Yes. It probably limits standard marines (like my MWs) as much as anyone because we have the fewest options in the "troop" category.
I like the idea but in practice I would not want to be sisters of battle.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/11/22 10:49:43
Subject: How well would a 'No Flyers Allowed' 40K tournament be received?
|
 |
Ichor-Dripping Talos Monstrosity
|
dragqueeninspace wrote: Gitsplitta wrote:Yes. It probably limits standard marines (like my MWs) as much as anyone because we have the fewest options in the "troop" category.
I like the idea but in practice I would not want to be sisters of battle.
I don't know... Yes they only have BSS squads for troops, but forced 2 means you get to take more other toys.
2 HQ, 2-3 Elites, 2 Troops, 2-3 Fast Attack and 2-3 Heavies wouldn't be difficult to do at 1500pts , and wouldn't be bad xD. And worse case, there's always allies for 2 more troops if you have a burning need for more.
It'd be rather interesting actually, and I'd quite happily take part
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/11/22 13:13:25
Subject: How well would a 'No Flyers Allowed' 40K tournament be received?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Kingsley wrote:nkelsch wrote:You must be new to 40k as people like you were literally laughed out of the store nationwide in the 90s due to the insurmountable imbalance of 3rd edition 40k. No one could seriously defend the default meta in any capacity. People have been setting arbitrary standards of how the game is played for decades. And while the game is much better than it was, I don't begrudge people running their events for them, their way. If I don't like it, I can attend another event or run my own.
Both the 40k community and the default meta have substantially improved since the 1990s, though. Arbitrary standards are both less desired-- as evidenced by the fact that comp is dead or dying in most areas of the US-- and less necessary.
Oh I agree. 3rd edition was unplayable without comp. 5th edition was the first edition which could be played without comp but still had 1/3rd of the codexes in an unplayable tier. So for people to forget where we came from and the reality of how absurd "adapt or die" really is, is terribly insulting.
I can accept when people say " it isn't perfect, but as long as everyone is capable fielding real 6th edition armies, the default meta is fair enough." That is a supportable attitude and works well for events like NOVA because everyone there is willing and capable of upgrading to adapt by spending hundreds of dollars.
But what I can't accept is this blind dogma which I have heard for decades of "adapt or die." In a rule system which is fundamentally unfair, unbalanced, not designed by the creator for competitive play and costs hundreds of dollars to adjust a minor tactic or change a list, let alone army. I feel it is fine for a large event like nova to expect participants to change everything. I feel like small store, 1 day RTTs are a different focus, includes different players and I think it is fine for TOs to plan to be inclusive of a different group of people.
I also disagree with people who claim there is only one way to play this game and want every TO to use their format of adapt or die. It doesn't hurt anyone if one group uses comp, especially if that is what the participants want.
Oh, and people don't insist on wearing iron shoes, GW gave them iron shoes and they can't afford to buy a new bike on a dime, nor should they always be expected to every time a new unit comes out. Defending a broken unfair game in the name of crushing skulls and defending how skillful you are for racking up credit card debt doesn't impress me.
|
My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/11/22 13:38:16
Subject: How well would a 'No Flyers Allowed' 40K tournament be received?
|
 |
Araqiel
London, UK
|
My local gaming club recently ran its first 6th ed tournament and it wasn't the flyers that caused the problems, it was more the allies.
Now this is a successful tournament thats been running in the outskirts of London for 10 years + but the allies option really divided the organisers, who spent 2 weeks online and 4 hours face to face before reaching a decision and the competitors to the point that some of our "regular attendee's" have asked if we can run an Allies Free tournament.
These are people who have been in the hobby for a number of years (i've been playing some of them now for almost 10 years at the tournament and they're a great bunch) but the allies thing has caused some of them to switch over to square bases for a while.
That being said, if you are going to a Tournament and you chose to take a fluffy non optimal list, then don't be surprised when you get curb stomped......
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/11/22 13:44:05
Subject: How well would a 'No Flyers Allowed' 40K tournament be received?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Ovion wrote:
I don't know... Yes they only have BSS squads for troops, but forced 2 means you get to take more other toys.
2 HQ, 2-3 Elites, 2 Troops, 2-3 Fast Attack and 2-3 Heavies wouldn't be difficult to do at 1500pts , and wouldn't be bad xD. And worse case, there's always allies for 2 more troops if you have a burning need for more.
It'd be rather interesting actually, and I'd quite happily take part
Yeah, with restrictions like that you wouldn't want to make it too large a battle... but it might knock some folks out of their army building comfort zone & expose them to new ways of thinking.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/11/22 16:42:44
Subject: How well would a 'No Flyers Allowed' 40K tournament be received?
|
 |
Infiltrating Hawwa'
Through the looking glass
|
You could just have a "Hostile Air Space" special rule. If you zoom you roll on a chart. On a 1 you get shot out of the sky and lose the model and all unit in transport.
|
“Sometimes I can hear my bones straining under the weight of all the lives I'm not living.”
― Jonathan Safran Foer |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/11/22 17:19:31
Subject: How well would a 'No Flyers Allowed' 40K tournament be received?
|
 |
Fell Caller - Child of Bragg
|
Necroshea wrote:You could just have a "Hostile Air Space" special rule. If you zoom you roll on a chart. On a 1 you get shot out of the sky and lose the model and all unit in transport.
Ideas like this are why game development is best left to professionals.
|
Over 350 points of painted Trolls and Cyriss |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/11/22 17:21:00
Subject: How well would a 'No Flyers Allowed' 40K tournament be received?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Necroshea wrote:You could just have a "Hostile Air Space" special rule. If you zoom you roll on a chart. On a 1 you get shot out of the sky and lose the model and all unit in transport.
|
Las Vegas Open Head Judge
I'm sorry if it hurts your feelings or pride, but your credentials matter. Even on the internet.
"If you do not have the knowledge, you do not have the right to the opinion." -Plato
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/11/22 17:26:55
Subject: How well would a 'No Flyers Allowed' 40K tournament be received?
|
 |
Infiltrating Hawwa'
Through the looking glass
|
I've played with wonkier rules in tournaments and still had fun.
I love how you shoot it down without giving much of a reason why. Please keep up the great discussion.
|
“Sometimes I can hear my bones straining under the weight of all the lives I'm not living.”
― Jonathan Safran Foer |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/11/22 17:31:22
Subject: How well would a 'No Flyers Allowed' 40K tournament be received?
|
 |
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch
|
If everyone played Codex: Space Marines, the players who talk about banning flyers would be the same players that would want to ban specific units or army comp within the codex because 'everyone has to play the same list' if they don't.
Codex differences aren't fair, so a better approach would be to give a benefit to those armies that are considered under powered in a specific area than messing with the total metagame for all armies.
Two more reasonable approaches:
Give a player that plays Tau with no allies a free ADL instead of messing with everyone else's army through heavy handed approaches.
Give armies the option to upgrade existing weapon options to skyfire for X points in line with the updated codexes.
This fills in the missing options that are the given reason for why those armies aren't able to handle flyer spam in the same way as how they have the options to counter other types of spam (2+ saves, vehicles,mass infantry, etc.)
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/11/22 18:41:12
Subject: How well would a 'No Flyers Allowed' 40K tournament be received?
|
 |
Mounted Kroot Tracker
|
Well, here's what we decided. Every player is going to get a free Icarus Lascannon emplacement that does not have the Interceptor special rule, which can be placed anywhere in their deployment zone. There will be no restrictions on flyers, rather everyone will be getting a free counter to them that, due to the loss of the Interceptor rule, will only be able to take snap shots at anything else. There will also be an extra VP at the end of the game for each of these emplacements that you control, for an extra 2 possible VPs in each game. The guns will be indestructible, and you have to place one in your deployment zone, even if you don't intend on using it, so the opponent has an opportunity to use it. We decided on using the Icarus Lascannon rather than the Quad Gun because it won't have as much of an impact with only one shot as opposed to four, and it will be much easier for me to build 16-20 lascannon emplacements rather than quad guns due to the availability of bits!
Thanks to everyone who helped come up with a compromise- it actually helped to be able to come up with a way to get the desired result without actually having to take anything away from anyone.
|
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2012/11/22 19:10:43
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/11/22 19:33:44
Subject: How well would a 'No Flyers Allowed' 40K tournament be received?
|
 |
Fell Caller - Child of Bragg
|
Necroshea wrote:I've played with wonkier rules in tournaments and still had fun.
I love how you shoot it down without giving much of a reason why. Please keep up the great discussion.
It's so manifestly stupid that I can't believe it needs to be explained.
Your proposed rule makes the most effective anti-flyer weaponry to simply let it move around. 1/6th of the time it will be outright destroyed - you've a greater chance of it blowing up than if someone tried to shoot it with a TL railgun. How does that make any fething sense? Automatically Appended Next Post: Oaka wrote:Well, here's what we decided. Every player is going to get a free Icarus Lascannon emplacement that does not have the Interceptor special rule, which can be placed anywhere in their deployment zone. There will be no restrictions on flyers, rather everyone will be getting a free counter to them that, due to the loss of the Interceptor rule, will only be able to take snap shots at anything else. There will also be an extra VP at the end of the game for each of these emplacements that you control, for an extra 2 possible VPs in each game. The guns will be indestructible, and you have to place one in your deployment zone, even if you don't intend on using it, so the opponent has an opportunity to use it. We decided on using the Icarus Lascannon rather than the Quad Gun because it won't have as much of an impact with only one shot as opposed to four, and it will be much easier for me to build 16-20 lascannon emplacements rather than quad guns due to the availability of bits!
Thanks to everyone who helped come up with a compromise- it actually helped to be able to come up with a way to get the desired result without actually having to take anything away from anyone.
That's actually not nearly as terrible as it could have been. Good show.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/11/22 19:34:44
Over 350 points of painted Trolls and Cyriss |
|
 |
 |
|