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.

 FarseerAndyMan wrote:
Alright Fellas,
Again I think we need to define the concepts of the current tournament scene.
RTT's as I and many here knew them are a thing of the past..as sad as it makes me, the TO's have bent to the crying of a few vocal power gamers and are afraid to do something about it by implementing a resonable comp system -- and before you shoot off again MVBrandt -- I know what im talking about when it comes to 40k tourneys -- Ive been running them successfully since 1999. And my Tournaments include comp scores. Ive seen it and heard it from sooo many players after the event was over at other bigger national tourneys -- "That guy was a jerk, his army was totally broken and I didnt stand a chance, then when I didnt smile as he was butt slamming me i got knocked for sportsmanship!"
RTT's are gone as we knew them.
GT's are really just the stomping ground for the 'ard boyz that no longer have a tournament to go to.
So lets just drop the whole comp thing, cuz the cry babies who have no social skills but have exceptional jobs and can afford the flavor of the month will just cry and cry about not being able to play the army they want to play. While the long timers like myself will just keep on playing in the local scene and continue to help it grow by showing the new kids what a fun and balanced army should be and how much fun the actual HOBBY is, not just winning.

Trying to make it personal with a huge swathe of frankly fantastic human beings who routinely attend and enjoy GT's by claiming they are cry babies who lack social skills is ... kinda silly. It's even sillier when you follow up claiming they have exceptional jobs. So, let me get this straight. Anyone who plays in RTTs with Comp (especially if you run them) and doesn't have an exceptional job ... also has great social skills and isn't a cry baby. Anyone who enjoys un-comped GT's has no social skills and is a cry baby? Oh, and they used those lack of social skills and being a cry baby to get an exceptional job (TOTALLY REASONABLE).

Come on, man. This is where this sort of discussion goes off track. Where someone blatantly acts like a jerk and insults a huge range of people with blind generalizations ... by saying they're all jerks.

Well I for one have no social skills and tend to be a major cry baby.....

Just sayin

I love you Brad

I don't know how to deal with that love because I have no social skills. Sorry Mike

You cry about it obviously you cry baby

Target wrote:

When I said moving the bar I was talking about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

I'm discussing the way you're changing the criteria of the original claim in order to back up your assertion. First it was "when have orks won anything!" then when proof was provided: "Without Ben Mohlie, since tau and eldar, and now as primary"". It's pointless to discuss things that way. Yes, orks arent blazingly good right now - but they've obviously found a home in a "GT-Winning" list in the recent past, which is all I'm saying, and about all any book can hope for.

Yes, Tau and Eldar are currently a PITA, no, it's not a reason for comp - and as far as I know, it has made NO formerly "anything goes" tournament players reconsider if we should lose that attitude. The 4 people cited in the original post regarding da boyz (im one of them - Andrew) are not in support of comp - we're in support of Da Boyz, the two things aren't mutually exclusive. We all (if you've played a while) suffered through about 2 years of miserable Nidzilla and CSM dual lash dominance, I'm going to wait before rioting over tau and eldar until it's been at least a year and nothing has changed (which I don't expect to happen).

I didn't pose the original comment about orks winning a GT. I'm just saying the Ben winning WGC with Necrons and what amounts to one unit of orks, in a completely different meta, doesn't really apply to the current discussion.

And the OP was in response to an article on BOLS where Thomas Reedy hinted at the fact that comp might come back to the tournament scene. I don't remember if he explicitly said he was for it or not. And funny timing, the guys on the 11th company podcast said the same thing last week (again, I don't think they were necessarily for it, but they recognize the reason people might start pushing for it).

I philosophically think comp is absolutely necessary. Especially if people ever want 40k to become a mainstream form of competition. You can't have the sort of wild imbalances in the game that GW allows and expect your sport/activity/whatever to be taken seriously as a competitive exorcise.

Practically is where it breaks down. There isn't the sort of unity in the community to make a common set of rules that balance the game out. Think of any major competitive sport, there is basically one governing body that dictates the rules to participants. We don't have one governing body (other than GW which has abdicated). And the various "governing bodies" we do have in the form of major tournaments and TOs are reluctant to dictate anything to anyone.

I know this seems counter intuitive to say, but a player that truly wants 40k to grow into a major, mainstream competitive activity should be in favor of comp, at least in theory. It is in their long term best interests to have the most balanced game possible. If they really are the best players, they will still win. But their wins will be further legitimized and the game as a whole will be taken more seriously.

If a player just wants to leverage obvious imbalances for easy wins and the title of big fish in a small pond, then the current environment is well suited to that I guess.

It's more than just unity among TO's / etc. There's never been a comp put forth for 40k that would even come close to achieving some kind of magical flawless balance, b/c all comp is applied uniformly (Which is foolish).

The problem I think orients around the fact that most codices CAN compete right now, and while people do tend to take the "easier" routes of Tau/Eldar, there's really been 0 shakeup in the "who" of the regular top finishers / GT players since mid-5th Edition as far as I can tell, and many of them are still using esoteric or different lists ... while many are using more "contemporary" lists.

There's a lot of opining about comp, but never once a comp suggestion that will have any bearing on making the game somehow more balanced. Additionally, it's still more or less unpopular.

The other thing is what the community would benefit from more than Comp (as it is typically enforced) would be an Errata generated by the community to fix "broken" or OP units. Comp really does not do this because typically we are talking about restricting use of broken units, but then other units become more powerful etc...

@ MVBrandt

Agree 100% about uniform comp not being the right way to try and balance the game. The same standards/rules shouldn't be applied to Eldar and Orks.

I also agree it's unpopular, ON THE INTERNET. I don't think it is unpopular in the broader community. I've got nothing to prove this but I would guess it's tied or even popular amongst the broader base of GW customers. I think part of the problem is a lot of TOs are active members of the online community, and so the intense reaction comp systems get online falsely gets generalized to the entire player base.

And as for the over used, "the same players are winning", that's such a loaded and unprovable statement. You can prove that someone repeatedly finishes high, but because of how terribly unbalanced this game is compared to any other game played in a tournament setting, you can't necessarily take that as evidence that they are one of the higher skilled players in the room.

And in my experience (and we've discussed this already, my experience comes from different events and different parts of the country than yours) the "best" players don't run the same army for more than 6 months to a year. And the few "esoteric" lists are still out of the most powerful books, which means while they are esoteric they are still pretty d*** strong. There is a very legitimate argument to be made that the "best" players are the just best amongst other players playing the unfair and over the top armies.

And if they truly are the best, like I said, they'll be the best in a totally fair and balanced game too. And winning in a fair game will take away people's ability to write off victory to game balance. That would make wins more legitimate, the game more respected, and might entice other competitive minded people who stay away because they rightfully view the game as uncompetitive in virtually any meaning of the word (other than perhaps played to win).

I like competing. I like it when players are separated on skill. This game has never been especially good at that, and I personally think it's worse than ever right now. But It HAS to be good at separating people based on skill to become mainstream. GW isn't going to make it that way. If players who view themselves as competitive want it to become mainstream, then we all need to figure out a way to make it better.

ummm....as uncompetitive as GW may make it the game still separates people based on skill. Do top players bring stong armies sure...But if you look at different tournaments, different formats, over a period of years and see the same group consistenly on top with a variety of armies...it says something about player skill. This notion that somehow the guy playing Orks that goes 1-7 is somehow only there because of his army is a falsehood, were he a top level player (while he may not win) he would be closer to the top than that.

I joke a lot but seriously Artfcllyflvrd, I live relatively in the same part of the country you do. I attended events in NE, IL, MN, IN, WI, and VA this year and last year. I didn't make it as far west as CO or as far south as KS this year but a fair amount of players from those regions also attend events I do which makes me feel I've got a decent grasp here of how the country, outside of the westcoast and deep south really play this game.

And I got to tell you, it's not so different.

On the other hand I will grant that there are people out there who might not attend based on the percieved state of the game. I don't know any of them personally because I don't have time to get a large number of games in outside of events/tournaments. My time is limited and best served by condensing my games into events. But I am sure they are out there. I'm sure there are dudes out there not playing based on the state of the game who would kick my teeth in.

And if I thought comp would bring them out I'd be down for it. Unfortunately, it hasn't shown the larger GT's nowadays are larger then the GW sanctioned GT's of old (for 40k). And attendance for the most part is increasing as is the number of events (though mostly in the 64 person size). And when did that explosion mostly happen? With the death of comp as a general thing in GT's. But that's just my perception.

@Breng77

Did you miss the middle section of my post?

I know dozens of fantastic players that for whatever reason don't want to play Tau/Eldar, Necrons/CSM, GKs, or whatever the current ridiculousness is.

And these a people who are skilled, practiced, and play to win.

If given a level footing, I would put them up against any player in the country and feel reasonably confident.

So these people who keep showing up in the "top" of all these GTs, are the best amongst the people who bring armies that give them an unfair advantage over anyone not in two or three (of the 15 possible) of the other armies out there.

They are the best of the broken list players, that's all. You can't make a definitive statement that they are the best players because there are tons and tons of great players who don't want to participate in the codex arms races, and the two groups have never been evaluated fairly against one another.

I can predict your next post, army list building and army choice is a skill, and part of the game.

If I'm in a no holds bar fight, does it take any skill to realize bringing a knife is better than a fist? Does it take skill to realize bringing a gun is better than a knife?

The players that consistently place in the top are the best of the players with guns. They have never, probably will never if it were up to them, be evaluated fairly amongst the totality of the field.

And this goes back to the equipment discussion. In any legitimate competition, where the people who run the competition truly care about it's integrity (taking more about GW here than TOs) they do everything possible to limit the disparity in equipment. 40k is more or less anything goes with equipment. And more so than ever with allies and a much less restrictive FOC. Its completely antithetical to how legitimate competitive activities are managed.

Curious, are DA or IG considered one of the top 3? Or Grey Knights? Or Nids? Or Space Wolves? Or Necroncs? Just curious....

Note, only one of those is a 6th edition codex I'm asking about

@ Hulksmash

Are you asking me?

The top two or three currently would be eldar, tau, and daemons.

I mentioned Necrons/CSM, GKs as boogeymen of the past. I don't think any of those stands well to Tau and Eldar currently.

@ArtfcllyFlvrd-

What I'm saying is that I doubt that those players are really as good as you claim...or they never attend tournaments. You are telling me that since the begininng of 5th Ed none of these players has ever had a "powerful" codex?

So none of them Play
IG (have won GTs in 6th)
GK (Have won Gts in 6th)
SW (Won GT as allies at least)
BA (were powerful in mid fifth)
Tau (duh)
Eldar (duh, but saw good players place high with the old book as well)
Daemons (Won Gts with old and new book in 6th)
CSM (Have placed highly in Several GTs, not sure if they have won)
Necrons (Won lots in early 6th- won renman recently at BFS with allies)
Dark Eldar (Have won at least 1 GT in 6th -with allies and have also won as allies)
Space Marines (Ben Mohlie in 5th won a lot with these...are looking powerful yet again)
Black Templars (when they had a book) - won a GT in 5th
Dark Angels - saw them place highly several times in 5th
Nids- have placed highly in several GTs


So then they are all playing
Sisters of Battle Then?

I've seen what I would consider players in the top level take all of the above in some form an compete for the win or win at GTs.

So is it that they don't want to optimize their lists in their codex?

Or does it only matter who has done well in the last what 6 months since Tau and Eldar Hit?

What I am saying is I see the same players running various lists from various books and competing consistently on a high level...IT cannot all be codex/list.

It's kinda pointless logic anyway. There are all these great players I know and they'd be kicking everyone's ass if their codices were good. Nevermind the people performing well several editions regardless of codex, through today. The REAL badasses are just being held back by the same exact broad competitive codex set that isn't holding back most of the others.

Indeed, there are players performing reasonably well with just about ever codex out there...winning is not the only measure of codex success (in fact winning any given tournament is a poor measure) In general the community lacks the size to produce any truly meaningful data on what is or is not too powerful.

@ Breng77

IG w SW allies won GTs in early 6th when guard blobs were unstoppable.

GKs won 2 GTs in 6th as a paladin brick backed up Cron air when cron air (usually in Adepticon missions which heavily wieghed kill points).

Daemons won as screamer star or as the totally ridiculous white dwarf update.

Every army you are pointing out WAS the biggest and baddest at the time it won it's GT (or the GT was small, in which case weird results happen).

You can't compare results over time and use it as evidence that A) many different books can compete, or B) The same players are winning with many different armies.

You have to look at the landscape at the time of each of these GTs. And if you do you will see the top finishers were ALWAYS massively disproportionately in the most powerful books for that time.

I'm not saying it's all book. I'm not by any means saying the regular top finishers are bad. At the very least I'm saying they are the best of the people playing in the top book(s).

But I think the influence of codex power on results should be (and in reality is, despite the relative few on the internet who feel a need to defend the status quo) plain to everyone. Even if you don't think codex power is causing results, you can't argue with the fact that it is offering people a very reasonable alternative explanation for results. That de-legitimizes the game as a competitive exorcise.

Again, if you want the game to grow as a competitive sport (I think sport is the right word) it's in your best interest to try and figure out ways to fix this.

You missed the point again MVbrandt --
Point is -- the same people that cry about not being able to play the army they want to play are the people that are sucking the fun out of GT's. If your going to selectively cut apart my statement, then at least have a point to your cut and chop. You have not provided any reasonable counterpoint to my statement. All you did was twist words around. All im trying to say is that GT's should just drop the idea that they are holding a tournament for the OVERALL gamer. Without a COMP category, competitive play cannot be established on an even footing. Thats why in the world of sports, there is a difference between PRO and AMATURE. There are also DIVISIONS to seperate the schools with a higher student population so that the smaller schools dont continually get smashed by the bigger schools. In 40K , there are no divisions, no regulation, no governing body ( to speak of ) and no sanctioned officials. Quit trying to make a point of "fairness" when there are no guidelines to establish what is and isnt fair.
Its kinda funny, cuz when the GK's and BA's were running the GT scene, no one complained about COMP then...but as soon as their Tooled Marines start losing on a regular basis, it becomes a matter of "Balance"? Get over it folks, there will never be COMP at a GT... If you want to have fun at a tournament setting, go to one with COMP as a requirement. If you just want to bash peoples armies to bits and then get one over on them for not smiling while your trashing them, continue to attend GT's with no COMP.

So were Dark Eldar the most powerful book when they won Templecon? or placed Highly (winning Bracket 2) at BFS (both times allied with Eldar under different books? Qualified for the top 16 at adepticon?

Are CSM (placed top 10 at BFS) at top army right now?

Were Eldar top when theyplaced higly (top bracket) at BFS 2012?

GK/IG top when they won BFS 2012(or placed in the top 10 this year, NIds when 2 players went 5-1 the same year?

Were spacewolves top when they won the Connecticon GT in July?

Or do only some GTs count?

Was SM IG tops when Kopach made adepticon top 16?

You seem to just be making excuses that well, you cannot look at old results of players because it does not matter what they were playing....

Just because a lot of players near the top are playing a book does not mean other books cannot win and that players are not winning with them.

Also lets get this straight I feel no need to defend the status quo just to dispute that somehow all these unknown geniuses are out there that would topple the top GT players if only they did not always have an under powered book....where were they when they did not have this problem?

As for growing it into a competitve sports? I'm not particularly interested I am more concerned with players having a good time playing with their toys than making it truly competitive, it is a dice game it will never be truly competitive...no minis game truly is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FarseerAndyMan wrote:
You missed the point again MVbrandt --
Point is -- the same people that cry about not being able to play the army they want to play are the people that are sucking the fun out of GT's. If your going to selectively cut apart my statement, then at least have a point to your cut and chop. You have not provided any reasonable counterpoint to my statement. All you did was twist words around. All im trying to say is that GT's should just drop the idea that they are holding a tournament for the OVERALL gamer. Without a COMP category, competitive play cannot be established on an even footing. Thats why in the world of sports, there is a difference between PRO and AMATURE. There are also DIVISIONS to seperate the schools with a higher student population so that the smaller schools dont continually get smashed by the bigger schools. In 40K , there are no divisions, no regulation, no governing body ( to speak of ) and no sanctioned officials. Quit trying to make a point of "fairness" when there are no guidelines to establish what is and isnt fair.
Its kinda funny, cuz when the GK's and BA's were running the GT scene, no one complained about COMP then...but as soon as their Tooled Marines start losing on a regular basis, it becomes a matter of "Balance"? Get over it folks, there will never be COMP at a GT... If you want to have fun at a tournament setting, go to one with COMP as a requirement. If you just want to bash peoples armies to bits and then get one over on them for not smiling while your trashing them, continue to attend GT's with no COMP.

You ahve obvioulsy had some negative experience with Non-comp GT players. But it does not hold up with most experiences I have seen. As for divisions or such...never happen people won't let it. Events like NOVA already offer multiple formats and still people want to test themselves in the GT...people are just like that.

 FarseerAndyMan wrote:
You missed the point again MVbrandt --
Point is -- the same people that cry about not being able to play the army they want to play are the people that are sucking the fun out of GT's. If your going to selectively cut apart my statement, then at least have a point to your cut and chop. You have not provided any reasonable counterpoint to my statement. All you did was twist words around. All im trying to say is that GT's should just drop the idea that they are holding a tournament for the OVERALL gamer. Without a COMP category, competitive play cannot be established on an even footing. Thats why in the world of sports, there is a difference between PRO and AMATURE. There are also DIVISIONS to seperate the schools with a higher student population so that the smaller schools dont continually get smashed by the bigger schools. In 40K , there are no divisions, no regulation, no governing body ( to speak of ) and no sanctioned officials. Quit trying to make a point of "fairness" when there are no guidelines to establish what is and isnt fair.
Its kinda funny, cuz when the GK's and BA's were running the GT scene, no one complained about COMP then...but as soon as their Tooled Marines start losing on a regular basis, it becomes a matter of "Balance"? Get over it folks, there will never be COMP at a GT... If you want to have fun at a tournament setting, go to one with COMP as a requirement. If you just want to bash peoples armies to bits and then get one over on them for not smiling while your trashing them, continue to attend GT's with no COMP.

The point is your statement isn't supported by any evidence. When a wide range of people at all levels of fluff vs. hardcore army building and appearance attend events like the NOVA Open, and report afterward that they had more fun than any event they've ever attended ... it basically blows up unsupported and utterly fear-mongering / generalizing statements.

The following unsupported assumptions are involved in what you just posted:
1) People are sucking fun out of GT's
2) GTs today aren't fun
3) GTs aren't holding events for the overall gamer
4) GTs can only hold events for the overall gamer if they use comp
5) 40k players are different enough that there should be professional and amateur divisions
6) If you want to have fun at a tournament, you have to go to one with COMP
7) If a GT doesn't have comp, the ONLY reason to go is bashing armies to bits

All of those statements are ... frankly ... wrong. You don't know what you're talking about when it comes to GTs in the contemporary era. You're a veteran RTT organizer by your own description, and even at the local level it takes a TON to organize events. I'm sure the events you organize are a blast, and I'm sure you're a fun person in the real world. Your online handle, in this thread, is a generalizing, evidence-absent jerk. The kind of persona that sucks the fun out of those seeking to have reasoned discussion, you might say. Fortunately, that doesn't mean I'm going to draw a conclusion along the lines of "YOU SHOULDN'T EVER GO TO A FORUM."

I hope you catch the point being made here. It's also disingenuous to put forth nothing but assertions with 0 support other than opinion, and then demand any retort contain evidence. Well, this time I have provided it. Over 90% of survey respondents (over 60% survey response) in every year of the NOVA 40kGT have claimed it was a phenomenal time, tons of fun, with better sportsmanship than they'd previously ever experienced in a tournament setting. We didn't use comp, and we had a huge range of player styles and presentations. The 60% response level (Which is extraordinarily high for a survey anyway) also covers when analyzed the entire cross section of those player types (IOW, it wasn't the top 60% of finishers who responded). Also, after not using comp the year before, we had more people show up in the subsequent year than ever before.

As an aside for the rest of this convo, here are some known successful gamers doing well lately with armies people don't broadly consider to be "Good enough" per the above breng/arc/etc. convos:
John Parsons going 7-1 at NOVA with Tyranids
Adam Tricola going a combined 10-3 at NOVA with Grey Knights
Brad Townsend going a combined 8-3 at NOVA with IG/DA

And how about Andrew Gonyo going 5-5 with Tau at NOVA, yet 4-2 with GK/IG at BFS?

There are a lot more; I found these in about 5 seconds of Torrent digging.

Good players do well, and are able to do well, with almost any present codex. Lots of people use the newest codices, especially when they're very powerful, and no one has said Tau/Eldar/Daemons aren't; they really are. But wild claims of there being a bunch of great generals out there who aren't doing well JUST b/c of the meta? Wild claims is all those are.

Is it fair to summarize the comminuty position as follows:

Group 1. Self Titled "Elite/Competative" players
This group sees comp as a bad thing becasue to them the balance of the game lies in the fact that anyone can buy/play any codex. Their argument is, "It's is fair becasue you could be running the new hotness too."

Group 2. People Who Like Playing a Certain Armies/ Cannot Afford to Build a New One.
This group supports comp as a means of equalizing the power level of their codex against the rest of the meta. Their argument is, "Codecies are not balanced, lets descide as a community to find a way to balance them, that will make the game fair."

That is the impression I am getting. I place myself in Group 2 and support a single Errata documnet, created, backed, and maintianed by the TO's from the major GT's for the purpose of producing clearly worded rulings on many of GW's rules wording fails, and issuing Errata tweeks aimed at stopping codex creep so all books are equally powerful. (who wouldn't want that?)

Group 1 does not want this because they think it is not needed and don't mind buying/ building new stuff in order to compete.
Group 2 wants to be able to know that once you spend 2K in building an army, that army will be a tournament caliber army that has the tools to have a fair game against any other army, regardless of codex age.

I also think Group 1 only appriciates the final result (W or L) while Group 2 is more concerned with winning or loosing in a game that both players have an equal chance in winning and is descided much more by the players then the lists.

Quick Question. Do many Group 1 players play cassual games against non-tournament players? Many of the Group 1 players I know only play games with other Group 1 players. As a result, their only experience with 40k is in tournamnets, or against other Group 1's, thus causing them to view the "beat your face in" style 40k as the best/ only way to play 40k. They cannot relate to a Group 2 player who goes to the LGS everyweek and steers clear of them becasue they now that the G1 guy is running the uber cheese with his new dex and that game will not be a fun one for the G2 guy. Further more they know that the G1 guy doesn't care...

 IK Viper wrote:
Is it fair to summarize the comminuty position as follows:

Group 1. Self Titled "Elite/Competative" players
This group sees comp as a bad thing becasue to them the balance of the game lies in the fact that anyone can buy/play any codex. Their argument is, "It's is fair becasue you could be running the new hotness too."

Group 2. People Who Like Playing a Certain Armies/ Cannot Afford to Build a New One.
This group supports comp as a means of equalizing the power level of their codex against the rest of the meta. Their argument is, "Codecies are not balanced, lets descide as a community to find a way to balance them, that will make the game fair."

That is the impression I am getting. I place myself in Group 2 and support a single Errata documnet, created, backed, and maintianed by the TO's from the major GT's for the purpose of producing clearly worded rulings on many of GW's rules wording fails, and issuing Errata tweeks aimed at stopping codex creep so all books are equally powerful. (who wouldn't want that?)

Group 1 does not want this because they think it is not needed and don't mind buying/ building new stuff in order to compete.
Group 2 wants to be able to know that once you spend 2K in building an army, that army will be a tournament caliber army that has the tools to have a fair game against any other army, regardless of codex age.

I also think Group 1 only appriciates the final result (W or L) while Group 2 is more concerned with winning or loosing in a game that both players have an equal chance in winning and is descided much more by the players then the lists.

This isn't accurate. (Also, in a very non-jerk way I promise, go ahead and spell it "competitive" ... no "a" in the word; no one else is pointing it out to you, but since you keep typing it incorrectly, I figured I should say something ... nobody wants to roll around misspelling a word over and over with everyone in the room too scared of offense that they never correct it; it's like letting you walk around with a piece of food stuck in your teeth and everyone just privately giggling instead of helping a brother out)

There are plenty of people who like/want to win and build new armies and buy the shiniest stuff, but don't like the game as it is now and would enjoy comp.
There are plenty of people who can't afford a new army and don't like what the game has done to theirs, but don't want / like comp.

Generalizations and bracketing = not ok.

No game should be so dramatic in its shifts that you can't "play" it with your investment for more than a fortnight. That said, any game system that continues to generate money from a relatively niche market needs to have a way to get its customers to remain customers and continue to buy products. This isn't Milton Bradley, where they sell dozens if not hundreds of "one purchase and done for good" multiplayer games meant for a very broad audience and minimal re-purchasing of the same system.

So, a sense of entitlement that the rules-makers of the game will never revise what you've already spent money on in such a way that in order to stay relevant or play their game you have to continue to spend money ... is an unhealthy sense of entitlement.

I will say, for anyone reading this and considering a new army, consider this:

If you build an army using third party miniatures, heavy conversions, unique color schemes, etc., you can play almost ANY ARMY YOU WANT using those models without having to make new investments, because Games Workshop has almost no involvement in the international tournament scene. As a result, as long as models are a roughly accurate representation and you've taken time on them, you can use them to represent numerous different armies (i.e., Hulksmash's Ad Mech, who effectively can count as everything from Daemons to GK while still being cool to see on the other side of the table). This is an excellent strategy if you can't afford to constantly buy new models.

Additionally, on a personal level, I build up a new army on AVERAGE once every couple of years because I want to, hobby-wise. I used the same Tyranid models with success from 4th Edition through the present, and only acquired new ones when I had an inspiration for a new color scheme (based off Dendrobates azureus). I used the same Guard models for several years throughout 5th Edition despite the changing meta, often making only minor changes, and consistently running them as assault Straken guard while winning GT's. Same is true of the Nids. I acquired Eldar recently b/c I'd won a bunch of Eldar stuff in GTs and had a great idea for painting Wave Serpents, and only had to spend $20 to finish the entire army. Or else I'd have brought Tyranid again to my most recent GT and probably done as well (2nd) or won anyway.

There's a certain lack of empathy when there's personal evidence showing you don't HAVE to constantly buy the new hotness to be highly competitive, win lots of GT's, and always place highly.




PS/Edit - To the community in general, stop trying to lump our already niche group into "type" buckets. They're always ... ALWAYS wrong. There really aren't any big groups of people who feel or even generally feel a certain way. Even among those who want comp ... there are as many who want to kick peoples' asses horribly in every game they possibly can but just don't want to have to conform to do it (guess what ... gonna have to conform to whatever the comp changes to the new hotness anyway) as there are comp lovers who just want to see more variety. There are no camps. It's why any change to the game by a TO won't be appealing to any one large group of foot-voters. They aren't unified, nobody really has the same reason for wanting comp, and nobody really has the same idea of what good comp would even be. Unless your event is already established as using it and running well REGARDLESS of it (i.e., DaBoyz), it's not going to do the already-strained pockets of a major TO any favors to swap to it. Having lost over $25k in personal money since starting the NOVA (and finally finishing this year without, at least, losing anymore), I can tell you I'm not eager to take giant steps backward just to take wild stabs at satisfying a disunified and argumentative fringe. AND YEAH, we are tuned into the internet. Where do you think we get most of our attendees from? They don't even hear about us from pawn-shop-Idaho where they game in the back with compy houserules. It's the guys on the web who show.

@ breng77
Small regional gts aren't the same as 100+ player gts that attract players from all over the country. The metas tend not to be as concentrated at the top end, so it's not surprising at all that you see less typical winners at small gts. But at nearly every 128+ man tournament the top places are thoroughly dominated by the army if the day. It's stupid to argue otherwise.

And no one is saying that [insert army] is the only one that can win. If I roll nothing but 6s forever anyone can smash anything. What is being said is that the disparity in army quality makes it much more likely for certain armies to win, as born out by the consistent over concentration of most powerful armies in the top places at major gts.


@ breng77 & mvbrandt
It's completely arrogant to think that the ten or people that you run with so well have a monopoly on tactical ability. It's also disingenuous and a bit self aggrandizing to say that game imbalance and army choice doesn't play a significant part in their success.

Top place players come and go all the time. Does skill come and go all the time? Back in 5th I was exceptionally strong with my IG and placed extremely well at major gts. GKs came out and my performance started to wain. Did I change? We're GKs some sort if tactical enigma I couldn't figure out? Our was it that GKs had a massive on paper advantage (over pretty much everyone) and I didn't feel like chasing the meta.

There are stories like that everywhere. And even more players that switch builds when their army comes into power because they don't enjoy hollow lopsided games.

To claim consistent high level success doesn't require chasing the meta is a lie. To claim chasing the meta doesn't take leveraging known and obvious inequities in the rules is a lie.

I don't see why it's so hard to agree with the statement that a more balanced game would lead to a more competitive environment, and one that's more likely to grow. If you can't agree with that it makes me think you are personally invested in the inequities if the current environment.

No it is not fair to catagorize the community positions that way at all.....

1.) Not all "elite players" are anti-comp any more than People who don't want to jump dexes are for comp.

2.) Comp has every bit as much of an ability to make some one spend money (especially if it varies) as non-comp.

3.) Even were an errata were issued it would never make is to that all codices were equally powerful, it would simply tone down some ubr broken/un fun parts of the game. If Dark Angels are over shadowed by the SM book no one would favor a community rewrite of the book to make it work.

4.) I don't particularly like buying new stuff any more than the next. I play Daemons it was the army I decided to build at the end of 5th, and use for 6th ed...I don't intend to switch, but also don't intend to bitch if another book wrecks my face sometimes.

5.) There are very few games (regardelss of army) that both players have an equal chance of winning.

But if you want to make sweeping generalizations based on nothing....

Group 1.) Players currently attending most GTs and enjoying them selves more than not....and don't have issue because they realize tournaments are not about winning and losing.

Group 2.) People that don't attend and complain because they cannot win so the game needs to be fixes so that they can win or they won't go because it is not fun if they can't win with their toy solidiers.

See I can make false generalizations too.

 ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:
@ breng77
Small regional gts aren't the same as 100+ player gts that attract players from all over the country. The metas tend not to be as concentrated at the top end, so it's not surprising at all that you see less typical winners at small gts. But at nearly every 128+ man tournament the top places are thoroughly dominated by the army if the day. It's stupid to argue otherwise.

And no one is saying that [insert army] is the only one that can win. If I roll nothing but 6s forever anyone can smash anything. What is being said is that the disparity in army quality makes it much more likely for certain armies to win, as born out by the consistent over concentration of most powerful armies in the top places at major gts.


@ breng77 & mvbrandt
It's completely arrogant to think that the ten or people that you run with so well have a monopoly on tactical ability. It's also disingenuous and a bit self aggrandizing to say that game imbalance and army choice doesn't play a significant part in their success.

Top place players come and go all the time. Does skill come and go all the time? Back in 5th I was exceptionally strong with my IG and placed extremely well at major gts. GKs came out and my performance started to wain. Did I change? We're GKs some sort if tactical enigma I couldn't figure out? Our was it that GKs had a massive on paper advantage (over pretty much everyone) and I didn't feel like chasing the meta.

There are stories like that everywhere. And even more players that switch builds when their army comes into power because they don't enjoy hollow lopsided games.

To claim consistent high level success doesn't require chasing the meta is a lie. To claim chasing the meta doesn't take leveraging known and obvious inequities in the rules is a lie.

I don't see why it's so hard to agree with the statement that a more balanced game would lead to a more competitive environment, and one that's more likely to grow. If you can't agree with that it makes me think you are personally invested in the inequities if the current environment.

It's not arrogance. I'm asking you to show us all the people who are suddenly waning in success.

And for every one you can put out, there are others to throw out. I used STRAKEN guard ... I didn't use Manticores or Psyker Battle Squads or Hydras (I did have vendettas, mind you). I did well from the get-go with them ... against Leafblower, and Razorwolves, and Mephiston BA, and GK. My success didn't wax or wane throughout. Sixth Edition sure nuked it, but the Tyranid army I used at the beginning of 6th Edition is still brutally effective with no reduction in effectiveness at present.

We have our disagreement b/c we have personal and anecdotal evidence to the contrary of your opinion. Show me the 10 guys YOU know who we all recognize as regular top finishers who now suddenly AREN'T doing well. I'm not trying to sound arrogant (we all fail at this on the internet to some degree, b/c we all always think we're right), I'm not even opposed to change, but there's a huge difference between acknowledging the natural entropy on old rules by GW's own design ... and claiming the Meta is an impossible place where if you aren't fielding the newest hotness you can't win. That's a lie, it's untrue, it's wrong ... whatever word you want to pick to address it; because if someone like me can take a years old dex that everyone thinks is bad and crush renowned players with it in a GT setting ... plenty of you smarter people out there can too.

 ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:
@ breng77
Small regional gts aren't the same as 100+ player gts that attract players from all over the country. The metas tend not to be as concentrated at the top end, so it's not surprising at all that you see less typical winners at small gts. But at nearly every 128+ man tournament the top places are thoroughly dominated by the army if the day. It's stupid to argue otherwise.

And no one is saying that [insert army] is the only one that can win. If I roll nothing but 6s forever anyone can smash anything. What is being said is that the disparity in army quality makes it much more likely for certain armies to win, as born out by the consistent over concentration of most powerful armies in the top places at major gts.


@ breng77 & mvbrandt
It's completely arrogant to think that the ten or people that you run with so well have a monopoly on tactical ability. It's also disingenuous and a bit self aggrandizing to say that game imbalance and army choice doesn't play a significant part in their success.

Top place players come and go all the time. Does skill come and go all the time? Back in 5th I was exceptionally strong with my IG and placed extremely well at major gts. GKs came out and my performance started to wain. Did I change? We're GKs some sort if tactical enigma I couldn't figure out? Our was it that GKs had a massive on paper advantage (over pretty much everyone) and I didn't feel like chasing the meta.

There are stories like that everywhere. And even more players that switch builds when their army comes into power because they don't enjoy hollow lopsided games.

To claim consistent high level success doesn't require chasing the meta is a lie. To claim chasing the meta doesn't take leveraging known and obvious inequities in the rules is a lie.

I don't see why it's so hard to agree with the statement that a more balanced game would lead to a more competitive environment, and one that's more likely to grow. If you can't agree with that it makes me think you are personally invested in the inequities if the current environment.

I'm certainly not being Arrogant...I am a slightly above average to above average player...so I don't even fit in the group I am talking about. SO is it arrogant to say...hey I see the same guys running armies that are not top armies or net lists and placing high at multiple events? Am I saying there is no one out there that could possibly compete no- I certainly not...but if they could why don't they.. If we have evidence of players playing well with Non-top codices...I don't see the arrogance.

Also every event with 128+ players so that is what NOVA, BAO and Adepticon? I'm pretty sure that no other events have really topped 100 players this year. So....not very much for results....

Breng77 wrote:

 ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:
@ breng77
Small regional gts aren't the same as 100+ player gts that attract players from all over the country. The metas tend not to be as concentrated at the top end, so it's not surprising at all that you see less typical winners at small gts. But at nearly every 128+ man tournament the top places are thoroughly dominated by the army if the day. It's stupid to argue otherwise.

And no one is saying that [insert army] is the only one that can win. If I roll nothing but 6s forever anyone can smash anything. What is being said is that the disparity in army quality makes it much more likely for certain armies to win, as born out by the consistent over concentration of most powerful armies in the top places at major gts.


@ breng77 & mvbrandt
It's completely arrogant to think that the ten or people that you run with so well have a monopoly on tactical ability. It's also disingenuous and a bit self aggrandizing to say that game imbalance and army choice doesn't play a significant part in their success.

Top place players come and go all the time. Does skill come and go all the time? Back in 5th I was exceptionally strong with my IG and placed extremely well at major gts. GKs came out and my performance started to wain. Did I change? We're GKs some sort if tactical enigma I couldn't figure out? Our was it that GKs had a massive on paper advantage (over pretty much everyone) and I didn't feel like chasing the meta.

There are stories like that everywhere. And even more players that switch builds when their army comes into power because they don't enjoy hollow lopsided games.

To claim consistent high level success doesn't require chasing the meta is a lie. To claim chasing the meta doesn't take leveraging known and obvious inequities in the rules is a lie.

I don't see why it's so hard to agree with the statement that a more balanced game would lead to a more competitive environment, and one that's more likely to grow. If you can't agree with that it makes me think you are personally invested in the inequities if the current environment.

I'm certainly not being Arrogant...I am a slightly above average to above average player...so I don't even fit in the group I am talking about. SO is it arrogant to say...hey I see the same guys running armies that are not top armies or net lists and placing high at multiple events? Am I saying there is no one out there that could possibly compete no- I certainly not...but if they could why don't they.. If we have evidence of players playing well with Non-top codices...I don't see the arrogance.

Also every event with 128+ players so that is what NOVA, BAO and Adepticon? I'm pretty sure that no other events have really topped 100 players this year. So....not very much for results....

Did WargamesCon not break the 100 player mark this year? They did in 2012.

I was pretty sure I heard that they did not top 100 this year, but I can only find the top finishers for the event and not full results.

We all agree that some armies are stronger based on their rules. If we want a competitive game we have to address this so everyone and every army comes in with the same oppertunity. We have lots of examples of this already stated in the thread, (car racing, swimming, golf, etc.) For a sport, or in this case a game, to be viewed as legitimate, steps are often needed to insure equality among all participants, thats all comp is trying to do. Why is this so terrible?