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.

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:

bogalubov wrote:Which part of that list is unconventional?

The 5 HQs? Coteaz? Or the psychic powers that help it destroy seer councils and ignore all other rules of the game?

At first I thought that a winning marines list would halt the call for tournament comp/reform, then I realized that this is another iteration of a cheese dick death star that aims to abuse battle brothers and the inquistion codex.

I think it's about time we started to hate the players or change the game.

Sigh, Tim comes up with a clever anti-meta build, pilots it to victory over 32 of the best players in the USA, and gets maligned as 'another iteration of a cheese dick deathstar'.

In the Grim Darkness of the 6th Edition, there is only whine.

Let me spell it out for you, since you seem pretty muddle-headed about what a tournament is about... it's about bringing your a-game, and whatever the rules allow. There is no such thing as 'abuse' because everyone has access to the SAME RULES.

His list is creative and unique. He played his way through a tough field and won. He deserves credit where credit is due.

Gornall wrote:I really want to find out how that Marine list works! Congrats to everyone, especially Tim!

CMs and friends join the centurions, they kill deathstars or anything else that gets in the way.

bogalubov wrote:Creative doesn't mean non-abusive. Plus using inquisition and especially Coteaz does not scream innovation to me.

Much has been made about the cyclical nature of 40k tournament lists and the eventual rise of the next cheese. But I don't think that we need to sit back and wait while hoping that some new broken combo or D weapons will deliver us from evil. Just because that is how the game progressed in the past does not make it the best way to the future.

My problem with the current top lists is that they seek to remove the participation of the other player. If players feel compelled to bring these lists because that is the only way to compete perhaps the rules need to be changed.

There isn't such thing as abuse in 40k tournaments. You use the best tools given to you.

I'm pretty sure both participants participated quite thoroughly in their games.

I'm still unsure what kind of list do you want people to bring. Mass tactical squads? Massed grots? Some sort of Rogue-Trader style army?

bogalubov wrote:My overall point is that we need to stop waiting for new broken rules or combos to advance the game.

GW has created a universe and model set that they're telling us to go forth and enjoy. That means getting together and deciding how best to create an enjoyable tournament game.

I'm pretty sure all the players who traveled to attend the INVITATIONAL tournament did so because they enjoyed it.

Blackmoor wrote:People have been talking about the Centurion deathstar for a while now.

It is just another deathstar in deathstar 40K

What, precisely, is wrong with deathstar 40k? Do you really demand military realism from your fictional space-opera toy game?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

KillswitchUK wrote:


Split fire only works on the sergeant. Turn one he is most liekly using scout from the Liber, but turn two he can give the unit split fire.

I only watched one of his games but his rules queries were on the border of stupidity, and he slow played extensively. I played Defranza at the Nova invitational and he took the loss graciously when I played him, however this game I could see he was getting very annoyed with some of the stuff Tim was trying to pull.

The list is certainly effective, however it isn't quite as durable as say a seer council or a screamer council. I do like that list and have been playtesting something very similar. Kudos either way on the win, but perhaps next time cut the crap and get on with the game

-Alex

Split fire USR gives one model from the unit of the players choice, it's not limited to the sarge. Look it up.

I think you'd be surprised by the durability of a unit of two CMs with 2+ saves, 3++, FNP and IWND. Council has no way of getting FNP and has only a 4++ rerollable against AP2, as well as T4. Since Seer Councils / Beastpacks lack reliable AP2 weaponry, the Gravstar is just as durable against them Screamerstars obviously are invulnerable with a 2++ but don't quite have the damage or shooting needed to compete in tier 1. The one weakness is the lack of Hit and Run in the Gravstar, however all those ICs in combat pack a pretty hefty punch.

I am still bummed that I gave you the duck back!

 krootman. wrote:

I am still bummed that I gave you the duck back!

Dude, that duck has seen a lot of action since then, he is my pride and joy. His even been keeping me company with the females I will never part ways with him haha



Godlike!

KillswitchUK wrote:

 krootman. wrote:

I am still bummed that I gave you the duck back!

Dude, that duck has seen a lot of action since then, he is my pride and joy. His even been keeping me company with the females I will never part ways with him haha



Godlike!

HE WAS IN MY HAND 2, but I saw the look on your face as I was driving away, I couldn't help but toss him out the window to you!

 krootman. wrote:

HE WAS IN MY HAND 2, but I saw the look on your face as I was driving away, I couldn't help but toss him out the window to you!

Hahahaha you missed out on his swager

-On Topic_ Apologies, you are all correct regarding the split fire ability on Omniscope

KillswitchUK wrote:

 krootman. wrote:

HE WAS IN MY HAND 2, but I saw the look on your face as I was driving away, I couldn't help but toss him out the window to you!

Hahahaha you missed out on his swager

-On Topic_ Apologies, you are all correct regarding the split fire ability on Omniscope

You owe me a drink next time you are in america!

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
Sigh, Tim comes up with a clever anti-meta build, pilots it to victory over 32 of the best players in the USA, and gets maligned as 'another iteration of a cheese dick deathstar'.

I like the list, which is unsurprising as I run a very similar one myself (but one of my CMs has a jump pack instead of a bike because I don't like cheating with the focus fire rules), but it's not like the guy invented fire. It's a Centurion deathstar. Lots of people play them.

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:


Sigh, Tim comes up with a clever anti-meta build, pilots it to victory over 32 of the best players in the USA, and gets maligned as 'another iteration of a cheese dick deathstar'.

In the Grim Darkness of the 6th Edition, there is only whine.

Let me spell it out for you, since you seem pretty muddle-headed about what a tournament is about... it's about bringing your a-game, and whatever the rules allow. There is no such thing as 'abuse' because everyone has access to the SAME RULES.

His list is creative and unique. He played his way through a tough field and won. He deserves credit where credit is due.

Anti-meta? It is a list built entirely in the meta. A conglomoration of universally agreed upon great characters that share USRs and psychic powers to create a death star. Just because his death star is very good at dealing with other death stars, does not make it innovative or interesting.

There isn't such thing as abuse in 40k tournaments. You use the best tools given to you.

I'm pretty sure both participants participated quite thoroughly in their games.

I'm still unsure what kind of list do you want people to bring. Mass tactical squads? Massed grots? Some sort of Rogue-Trader style army?

Yes, I would like to play mass grots vs mass tactical squads. I don't know why else I painted them if all I needed was a death star I have no interest in playing.

I'm pretty sure all the players who traveled to attend the INVITATIONAL tournament did so because they enjoyed it.

The event is an invitational, but the results are seen by everyone. It's not long before little Billy and little Jimmy pick up their net-death stars and start bashing their friends with it. Won't someone please think of the children?

What, precisely, is wrong with deathstar 40k? Do you really demand military realism from your fictional space-opera toy game?

Because it's boring and doesn't require that much thought or experience.

The reason for my complaints and the general anti-deathstar fervor on the internets is that it's not fun to play against as it removes the other players participation. There is little need to move, shoot or try to assault them. The death stars are immune to most of these events. The game is decided by the psychic power rolls before it starts. These aren't the old days where packing melta guns more efficiently was the peak of power. At least at that time the game involved blowing stuff up. Only one person could do it quicker than the other. The second player still had a chance to blow up some rhinos and feel a little better about doing so.

Now you might say that I can take my melta guns, rhinos and desire to not run a death star of my own and go feth myself. That's fair. However, chumps like me with similar attitudes make up the majority of big event attendees. The winner pool will likely be made of the same people that are winning now. However, I would like that to be decided by their superior skill (which I can learn to some extent) instead of their lack of scruples in brining a list that removes my participation in the game. Because if such anti-social list building continues, the number of people willing to travel and support large events is going to disintigrate over time.

bogalubov wrote:

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:


Sigh, Tim comes up with a clever anti-meta build, pilots it to victory over 32 of the best players in the USA, and gets maligned as 'another iteration of a cheese dick deathstar'.

In the Grim Darkness of the 6th Edition, there is only whine.

Let me spell it out for you, since you seem pretty muddle-headed about what a tournament is about... it's about bringing your a-game, and whatever the rules allow. There is no such thing as 'abuse' because everyone has access to the SAME RULES.

His list is creative and unique. He played his way through a tough field and won. He deserves credit where credit is due.

Anti-meta? It is a list built entirely in the meta. A conglomoration of universally agreed upon great characters that share USRs and psychic powers to create a death star. Just because his death star is very good at dealing with other death stars, does not make it innovative or interesting.

There isn't such thing as abuse in 40k tournaments. You use the best tools given to you.

I'm pretty sure both participants participated quite thoroughly in their games.

I'm still unsure what kind of list do you want people to bring. Mass tactical squads? Massed grots? Some sort of Rogue-Trader style army?

Yes, I would like to play mass grots vs mass tactical squads. I don't know why else I painted them if all I needed was a death star I have no interest in playing.

I'm pretty sure all the players who traveled to attend the INVITATIONAL tournament did so because they enjoyed it.

The event is an invitational, but the results are seen by everyone. It's not long before little Billy and little Jimmy pick up their net-death stars and start bashing their friends with it. Won't someone please think of the children?

What, precisely, is wrong with deathstar 40k? Do you really demand military realism from your fictional space-opera toy game?

Because it's boring and doesn't require that much thought or experience.

The reason for my complaints and the general anti-deathstar fervor on the internets is that it's not fun to play against as it removes the other players participation. There is little need to move, shoot or try to assault them. The death stars are immune to most of these events. The game is decided by the psychic power rolls before it starts. These aren't the old days where packing melta guns more efficiently was the peak of power. At least at that time the game involved blowing stuff up. Only one person could do it quicker than the other. The second player still had a chance to blow up some rhinos and feel a little better about doing so.

Now you might say that I can take my melta guns, rhinos and desire to not run a death star of my own and go feth myself. That's fair. However, chumps like me with similar attitudes make up the majority of big event attendees. The winner pool will likely be made of the same people that are winning now. However, I would like that to be decided by their superior skill (which I can learn to some extent) instead of their lack of scruples in brining a list that removes my participation in the game. Because if such anti-social list building continues, the number of people willing to travel and support large events is going to disintigrate over time.

So I highlighted that statement... Its a bit... cocky to put it lightly... please take a death star to a big event (read NOVA or Adepticon) and win. Then I might consider your argument a little more... If its true and they take "little" experience or skill (read thought)... any one should be able to win with them...

And truthfully i'm not trying to call you out to be a jerk about it... I'd love to see it actually happen so we can have a ground to stand on when arguing about deathstars in 40k... I also am personally against them! But I don't want to make the claim it takes no thought... or experience to run it

Running a Death Star is not an auto win. There is a reason that Defranza has done so well with seercouncil. He's been playing it for a long time (before 6th) and has experience and a high level of skill. It is a frustrating time for the meta when so many powerful and resilient Death Stars are around but they are here to stay for now. When GW began making it easier and easier to just blow units off the table the natural reaction would be to find more and more resilient units. I think if they didn't exist we would complain about the opposite, how quickly armies are removed and unfun to play because the strategy is point, shoot, and pick up models.

Also in defense of Tim G. I was at the tournament and watched most of the game. They were told that they had as much time as needed so not to worry about the clock. No one was slow playing anything.

In defense of my dismissiveness of the skill required to run a death star I will include another part of my post.

The winner pool will likely be made of the same people that are winning now.

One of the keys to winning games is having the experience to know what to do in given situations. That experience is best earned by playing many games and encountering tough choices in practice. I don't have the free time (nor the desire) to play enough to be a big tournament winner. I will openly concede that. I don't have the time nor the money to build lists that timely address changes in the meta. I go to tournaments to meet people in the hobby and it's a way for me to play a bunch of games in a small amount of time.

I'm not saying this to get pity, nor do I think the game's realities need to be made easier to accommodate my own restrictions on hobby time. However, it wouldn't hurt if the distinction between power lists and fluff lists was not as obvious. It would let more people feel like they have a chance to win and still allow good players, who put in the time to get good, to win their fair share of games.

bogalubov wrote:
In defense of my dismissiveness of the skill required to run a death star I will include another part of my post.

The winner pool will likely be made of the same people that are winning now.

One of the keys to winning games is having the experience to know what to do in given situations. That experience is best earned by playing many games and encountering tough choices in practice. I don't have the free time (nor the desire) to play enough to be a big tournament winner. I will openly concede that. I don't have the time nor the money to build lists that timely address changes in the meta. I go to tournaments to meet people in the hobby and it's a way for me to play a bunch of games in a small amount of time.

I'm not saying this to get pity, nor do I think the game's realities need to be made easier to accommodate my own restrictions on hobby time. However, it wouldn't hurt if the distinction between power lists and fluff lists was not as obvious. It would let more people feel like they have a chance to win and still allow good players, who put in the time to get good, to win their fair share of games.

I think experience is a lot of it, but having a good group of friends to help theory hammer with is also very important. I know a lot of the top players don't play many games in between gts, but play a lot on vessel or theory hammer with friends. I think you are spot on tho about every player wanting to go to a gt and having a chance to win with whatever army they own is important for the growth of the hobby.

instead of their lack of scruples in brining a list that removes my participation in the game

I don't understand why bringing an army that someone thinks gives them the best chance of doing well implies a lack of scruples.

In other competitive events, are participants expected to NOT do/bring/prepare to the best of their ability to win?

Are speed skaters expected to not wear their goofy hats because it gives them an advantage?

Would slalom-skiers be expected to wear cross-country skis so as not to have the best skis available?

Would Nascar teams be expected to not use their best engine because it might be better than another team's engine?

I really don't understand.

I'm not saying I like deathstar 40k, but I certainly do not think less of a participant in a competitive event because they bring the hardest and meanest thing they can.

If you don't bring the hardest and meanest thing you can, that's your fault, not mine. It's doesn't mean I lack scruples or am underhanded or mean or a bad person...it means you're not doing your best to win. Your problem, not mine.

Malagant wrote:

instead of their lack of scruples in brining a list that removes my participation in the game

I don't understand why bringing an army that someone thinks gives them the best chance of doing well implies a lack of scruples.

In other competitive events, are participants expected to NOT do/bring/prepare to the best of their ability to win?

Are speed skaters expected to not wear their goofy hats because it gives them an advantage?

Would slalom-skiers be expected to wear cross-country skis so as not to have the best skis available?

Would Nascar teams be expected to not use their best engine because it might be better than another team's engine?

I really don't understand.

I'm not saying I like deathstar 40k, but I certainly do not think less of a participant in a competitive event because they bring the hardest and meanest thing they can.

If you don't bring the hardest and meanest thing you can, that's your fault, not mine. It's doesn't mean I lack scruples or am underhanded or mean or a bad person...it means you're not doing your best to win. Your problem, not mine.

If we're going to take a racing analogy. Most of the sports you listed have inbuilt restrictions on equipment that you can bring to level out the playing field. This was done because some teams did use equipment that gave them a huge advantage over their competitors. Then various governing bodies convened and decided that was not a fun way for the sport to advance and made changes to make things more even as the participants with the advantages were not going to reign themselves in.

Beyond that, not every 40k tournament attendee comes from the same place. What I mean is that most people only play a few armies and have no means or time to start a new army just to be competitive. So although theoretically we all know that an Eldar army gives the best chance to win, it's not true that we all have the same access to obtain said Eldar army. There are also plenty of people who have no interest in playing as Eldar. Adjusting the rules to allow a greater variety of armies and builds to compete would in my mind increase tournament attendance as more people would feel like they have a shot at doing well.

bogalubov wrote:

Malagant wrote:

instead of their lack of scruples in brining a list that removes my participation in the game

I don't understand why bringing an army that someone thinks gives them the best chance of doing well implies a lack of scruples.

In other competitive events, are participants expected to NOT do/bring/prepare to the best of their ability to win?

Are speed skaters expected to not wear their goofy hats because it gives them an advantage?

Would slalom-skiers be expected to wear cross-country skis so as not to have the best skis available?

Would Nascar teams be expected to not use their best engine because it might be better than another team's engine?

I really don't understand.

I'm not saying I like deathstar 40k, but I certainly do not think less of a participant in a competitive event because they bring the hardest and meanest thing they can.

If you don't bring the hardest and meanest thing you can, that's your fault, not mine. It's doesn't mean I lack scruples or am underhanded or mean or a bad person...it means you're not doing your best to win. Your problem, not mine.

If we're going to take a racing analogy. Most of the sports you listed have inbuilt restrictions on equipment that you can bring to level out the playing field. This was done because some teams did use equipment that gave them a huge advantage over their competitors. Then various governing bodies convened and decided that was not a fun way for the sport to advance and made changes to make things more even as the participants with the advantages were not going to reign themselves in.

Beyond that, not every 40k tournament attendee comes from the same place. What I mean is that most people only play a few armies and have no means or time to start a new army just to be competitive. So although theoretically we all know that an Eldar army gives the best chance to win, it's not true that we all have the same access to obtain said Eldar army. There are also plenty of people who have no interest in playing as Eldar. Adjusting the rules to allow a greater variety of armies and builds to compete would in my mind increase tournament attendance as more people would feel like they have a shot at doing well.

You get into trouble when you get to this place, because most people think the best thing to do is restrictive and deconstructive, aka "Let's take away the toys people do well with." Any kind of rules change or ban that elicits a subsequent meta SHIFT instead of broadening the meta accomplishes nothing more than pissing in the cheerios of a different set of players (those who don't have whatever army is the new hotness as a result of the bans).

The only way to effectively broaden the bar instead of just shifting it is likely fundamental game rules changes and unit changes, taking the many, many units in the game that are broadly-speaking failures from a design component and amending them. This of course is a very difficult thing to accomplish in terms of buy-in (Though perhaps no more difficult than trying to accomplish broad buy-in of bans or comp restrictions).

From an organizer's perspective, in terms of what I'm looking at, at least - if Jetstar (for example) stops being very, very powerful as a result of my changes or bans, I've failed. If nothing else can compete with it still, I've also failed. If Dark Angels have just as many builds and just as good a shot at winning as Jetstar and any other Eldar build, however, I've succeeded.

IN any event, there's really nothing reasonable about judging the morality of a person based upon what army they take within what's been stated as legal by the organizers of the tournament they're attending, and more importantly, by the creators of the game they're playing. You might as well complain about Babe Ruth hitting home runs, and calling him a "cheese dick." If you as a team really think home runs are unfair, complain to baseball about the rough distance restrictions imposed on baseball fields for how far away the outfield fences can be at max.

This is the game we play right now ... and adding escalation is going to create just as many hilarious "cheese dick" list accusations as not btw ... it would be cool if we as a community could ponder ways to broaden or eliminate the meta, instead of just kneejerking from the bleachers all the time and praying for it to simply shift to another subset just waiting to be hated.


Edit - IN a sense, the short hand here ... I'm really tired of people complaining in 40K about XYZ cheese list winning. People file these complaints publicly and privately even at comp'ed events, where there's broad whining about how so and so "broke" the comp or built a list that wasn't in the spirit of the comp or whatever. It would be great to see the community work to set a tournament standard that enables people to bring a much broader list type and style from a much broader range of codices and have reasonable chances to do well on the tabletop. Doing so would allow those who are regular attendees and have already invested substantial funds into their armies to continue to do well. It would further allow many people who cannot afford or have no desire to buy the "current hotness" all the time to bring what they DO have and ... start to do well or do better, or at least feel like they have a chance. Everybody wins.

In a sense this is the same kind of thing that smaller local play groups do - they establish social and/or house rule protocols that ensure everybody has a chance each week, whether that's "don't show up without a super cheese list" or "Don't bring 2+ re-rolls in your lists" or even flat out changes or house codices. Establishing a social and/or house rule set of protocols for the tournament scene might actually make things better and more accessible for everyone if it was done in a way that allowed more to thrive, including those currently thriving, instead of reverting to the age old negative idea of banning peoples' toys (instead of making other peoples' toys better).

If we're going to take a racing analogy. Most of the sports you listed have inbuilt restrictions on equipment that you can bring to level out the playing field. This was done because some teams did use equipment that gave them a huge advantage over their competitors. Then various governing bodies convened and decided that was not a fun way for the sport to advance and made changes to make things more even as the participants with the advantages were not going to reign themselves in.

The players that are accused of being unscrupulous were following the rules and guidelines provided by the game designers and the event organizers. They brought their best list and their best game. Anyone that does otherwise...or chooses to not participate at all...has no right to complain, nor to judge players that do their best to win.

Beyond that, not every 40k tournament attendee comes from the same place. What I mean is that most people only play a few armies and have no means or time to start a new army just to be competitive. So although theoretically we all know that an Eldar army gives the best chance to win, it's not true that we all have the same access to obtain said Eldar army.

I empathize. It is not an inexpensive hobby. The armies that do well are constantly shifting. But are you implying that grown-ups with real jobs that can afford new toys should be told that they're not allowed to spend their money however they see fit? Do you think 40k needs a salary cap?

I think 40k is a horrible game, with broken rules and a complete lack of balance...but I still have fun playing it. I have no illusions about how bad the game is for competitive play, but I still play competitively with no illusions.

And I certainly don't think judging or insulting people for doing just that is appropriate.

I think pro-sports analogies are not particularly useful when thinking about 40k. Mostly due to the nature of the competition. In pro-sports everyone agrees that the goal of the competition is to see who builds the best team as measured by winning. In this instance, no team can complain that one player hit more home runs than all others.

However, I think 40k is much more like amateur sports. The competition does determine winners, but that is not the sole purpose of the competition. Kid sports are about getting them out of the house, teaching them discipline and sportsmanship. 40k is much closer to that spirit as the competitors don't make money from the event and it's a much more social endeavour. So the difference in army power level is much more akin to a football power house high school from Texas playing a 40 person school from South Dakota. They're all playing football, but braining your opponent by 80 points is not sportsman like, nor was the competition ever fair. So in this case, I feel absolutely fine getting on my soap box and discussing scruples.

As people are fine hiding behind the "it's within the rules" argument and not self-regulating their actions, perhaps structural changes need to be made so the rules are different.

I can see your point as a tournament organizer about limiting lists. If you end up banning the same number of lists that you allowed in, you get no net increase of participants. Hence the change is pointless. That is why I'm not suggesting that we flat out ban army lists or certain units. However, perhaps greater structural changes can be made to allow for a larger variety of armies to be competitive.

I don't really get people complaining about the variety in armies.

This weekend showed quite a bit of variety imo. Yes many featured a "deathstar" but there were a number of different books fielding such a list.

This is no different than in 5th Ed when MSU was all the rage. Regardless of the army you played, everyone would MSU. Now lots of people are doing the opposite of MSU. The important thing is they're accomplishing that using a variety of books.

To me the current meta is infinitely better than the days of Leafblower dominance -> Long Fang dominance -> the long reign of Grey Knights for the duration of 5th ed.

bogalubov wrote:
If we're going to take a racing analogy. Most of the sports you listed have inbuilt restrictions on equipment that you can bring to level out the playing field. This was done because some teams did use equipment that gave them a huge advantage over their competitors. Then various governing bodies convened and decided that was not a fun way for the sport to advance and made changes to make things more even as the participants with the advantages were not going to reign themselves in.

The rules themselves already provide a basis for this. Individual event customization enhances this ever more. However, the best players will constantly rise to the top regardless.

bogalubov wrote:
Beyond that, not every 40k tournament attendee comes from the same place. What I mean is that most people only play a few armies and have no means or time to start a new army just to be competitive. So although theoretically we all know that an Eldar army gives the best chance to win, it's not true that we all have the same access to obtain said Eldar army. There are also plenty of people who have no interest in playing as Eldar. Adjusting the rules to allow a greater variety of armies and builds to compete would in my mind increase tournament attendance as more people would feel like they have a shot at doing well.

BAM - 256 Player event Soldout.
http://cart.adepticon.org/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=40&products_id=809

And - Double BAM - 512 Player event Soldout
http://cart.adepticon.org/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=42&products_id=811

TOFs Invitational I believe was at or near max capacity. Other large events like NOVA, LVO, DaBoyz GT, ATC, etc are at or near max capacity.

So in summary - this mentality of "greater variety of armies and builds to compete would in my mind increase tournament attendance" really is not reflective of reality from an attendance stand point. People are attending events in greater numbers as event quantity and quality increase.

 Inquisitor_Malice wrote:
The rules themselves already provide a basis for this. Individual event customization enhances this ever more. However, the best players will constantly rise to the top regardless.

I already made your last point in an earlier post. The top players likely won't change. But TOs are not really worried about them, the money is with average players and drawing them out is the key to event growth.

Using one of the oldest, most famous events as an example of the overall health of the hobby is not that convincing. Things would have to be pretty bad before Adepticon attendance suffered. Especially since it provides many additional activities other than just 40k.

I think the events that you listed have grown not due to 40k, but due to inclusion of alternative games and activities. They are also the most high profile events. Growth should be examined on the local level.

Regardless of all those arguments, there is no reason to not look at ways to improve the experience for a wider audience.

Growth at the local levels is going to wax and wane depending on the gaming group, life circumstances, personal preferences, etc. Edition and codex changes see people come and go. I have heard of other groups declining, but others (as in our local area) have seen an increase in 40K players and event attendees.

The problem is you are calling for structural changes. The answer to that is - go ahead, start an event and work on implementing those structural changes. You will draw a certain audience and you may succeed in your vision. There is nothing stopping you.

However, the success of the well known events is based on their own structural foundation, which seems is proven and holding it's own. For that I would not expect significant changes for the "average" players are attending these events. The numbers speak for themselves.

I haven't encountered that many people that said that they love the new death star driven lists and how much fun it is to play against these lists.

The LVO instituted changes to curb death star prevalence based on a poll of their attendees. As the Frontline guys try to link the west coast tournaments they organize, these changes might be carried over to events beyond the LVO.

So there is a demand for change.

Is it really necessary to wait until attendance numbers suffer and then try to enact something? Or is it better to solve these issues before it gets to that point?

I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't wait and hope that the social aspects of tournaments carry the day over dissapointing games.

From what I heard the ruling for 2++/4++ on the Jetseer council deluded some players into wasting their fire power on the unit which in turn ended up costing them the game.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
From what I heard the ruling for 2++/4++ on the Jetseer council deluded some players into wasting their fire power on the unit which in turn ended up costing them the game.

That was a discussion point even among some attendant LVO guys ... namely that 2+ with a 4+ re-roll is still ridiculous to try and shoot through, thus not an effective nerf. Also some people may have brought lists with less consideration for facing those stars, thinking people wouldn't bring them.

They can obviously be played around and beaten and all that, it happens plenty, especially among good players. That doesn't mean the current starhammer meta is winning a lot of fans comparatively. This also doesn't mean throwing in revenants is going to fix it all and make people happy with the resultant new meta.

I doubt that anyone who made that error really had a good chance at winning against the council anyway. Probably not too many circumstances of "All your troops are out in the open within range of shooting...but I really think I can nail that council this time. Doing math be damned, I'm feeling lucky."

What I applaud is that the Frontline guys were willing to make a change to the rules in the first place. Their attendance was already set, yet they looked for a way to make the game more fun for everyone. Since GW has made it clear that they're giving the players the game and have little interest in making balanced rules, this sort of initiative is what is needed in the future.

bogalubov wrote:
Is it really necessary to wait until attendance numbers suffer and then try to enact something? Or is it better to solve these issues before it gets to that point?

I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't wait and hope that the social aspects of tournaments carry the day over dissapointing games.

It's the same argument heard through the ages. Tournament attendance will suffer unless you ban this, ban that, curb this and curb that. Literally - through the tournament ages that is what you hear and nothing has been resolved to ironically "curb this" issue. Tournaments are going strong. The meta changes to adapt in tournament play. Tournaments and gaming groups can implement their own "curbs" if they wish. Who is to say who is correct?

The argument that we should not change things simply because we've always done them this way is not a compelling one for me.

bogalubov wrote:
The argument that we should not change things simply because we've always done them this way is not a compelling one for me.

My point is as per Einstein - The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

bogalubov wrote:
The argument that we should not change things simply because we've always done them this way is not a compelling one for me.

I think the point he's trying to make is that it is compelling when things have been successful to continue along the thought processes that have led to them being successful.

My own example from personal experience is that every year the NOVA Open does things well, and does things OK, and does things less than OK, and we always try to make the OK better, the less than OK great, and the well as well or better. If every year our missions are great in review, and we make them a little better but keep them continuity-wise the same, great, reasonable, smart. If we drastically change them because a minority view didn't like them, that's the definition of insanity (as much as doing the same thing the wrong way over and over).

The events Greg listed have been growing year in and year out. For us to believe that we've been growing as a result of doing it all wrong is a little silly. Further, "change" for the sake of it isn't exactly a good suggestion.

All that said, I think it would be better to take a wider view at what various events are doing (Because most are doing a variety of things to address the present meta) than to suggest only one or none have done anything ... b/c the latter suggestion is actually patently and provably false.

I think most people can agree that balance and rule -wise 40k is not perfect.

In 5th there used to be a 40k faq made by tournament organisers that was fairly wide spread and accepted, even outside the writer's own tounaments. I personally loved that this document existed, even if I did not agree with 100% of its content.

Would it be feasable to try and make adjustments to core rules/army composition by a similar group that would be equally widely used/accepted ( assuming To's even want to do this)?

MVBrandt wrote:

bogalubov wrote:
The argument that we should not change things simply because we've always done them this way is not a compelling one for me.

I think the point he's trying to make is that it is compelling when things have been successful to continue along the thought processes that have led to them being successful.

The events Greg listed have been growing year in and year out. For us to believe that we've been growing as a result of doing it all wrong is a little silly. Further, "change" for the sake of it isn't exactly a good suggestion.

All that said, I think it would be better to take a wider view at what various events are doing (Because most are doing a variety of things to address the present meta) than to suggest only one or none have done anything ... b/c the latter suggestion is actually patently and provably false.

I'm not sure if I've heard the saying in the context of not altering your behavior in the face of success. Perhaps that's just human greed, a desire to alter things that work to make them better.

Also, without extensive polling it's hard to ascribe the reason for event growth. I would guess that the growth has more to do with the growth of the online community. Awareness of events and their advertising has certainly grown thanks to a greater online presence. I doubt that events have grown because of GWs stellar rules for 40k. However, I have no data to back that up either. So I will stick with my assumption that doing things the same way simply because that's the way they've always been done is not a helpful argument.

I also never implied that only one or two events are doing something about the rules. I pointed out one event that used a poll to drive their changes as an example that there is community wide desire to reshape the rules to eliminate some of the ridiculousness.

Throughtout the thread I've simply argued that I don't think deathstars are fun to play against. As most people will continue to use broken rules since they feel like they have no other choice to win, larger structural changes to the game are necessary. Waiting for GW to release more untested rules to shake up the meta is not helpful. As the company is clearly giving the reigns to the consumers about how to play the game, we should take them. Anyone who is willing to take on that challenge has my support.