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.

Since I've been attending 40k GT's for the last 5 years, I've noticed a steady decline in attendance. A lot of people seem to want to chalk this to the edition changes, but I think that's simply not the case.

I think the problem lies within most of the top players. They forget about the primary purpose of the game. They make it their sole objective to crush there opponents without regard for having fun or sportsmanship. One of the best definitions of sportsmanship I've heard is "having a vested interest in making sure your opponent has a good time too". Taking balls out lists (Ad lance and 3 riptides for example) and trying to break the game (rules lawyering) is not conducive to that end. That type of behavior also eschews the hobbying aspect of the game. Even as a GT regular, something that makes me not want to attend future events are models that look like dog poo.

Most of the time, first time GT players show up with whatever they have. Often times it's not what we would call competitive. These players often end up playing against lists they have no chance against and becoming discouraged. Worse than that, they don't have fun, and having fun is the primary objective of 40k. When new players don't have fun, they don't come back. Tournaments gradually get smaller, and the game dies.

I spoke with some people at BFS about a new format of tournament called Highlander. In a nutshell, it only allows one of each unit ,(one riptide, one knight, one land raider, etc.....) and no battle brothers. I'm sure a lot of people will say it just creates a different meta so the broken stuff will just change. While true, it will make games more competitive for people who are simply bringing models that they like to play with. How many people just bought models they thought were cool when they first started? It makes lists like that more relevant.

If you disagree with that format, what do you think should be done to help get new players to keep coming back?

 Master Shake wrote:

Most of the time, first time GT players show up with whatever they have. Often times it's not what we would call competitive. These players often end up playing against lists they have no chance against and becoming discouraged. Worse than that, they don't have fun, and having fun is the primary objective of 40k. When new players don't have fun, they don't come back. Tournaments gradually get smaller, and the game dies.

I'm not a GT attendee, but if this part of what you said is true, then that is something that needs to be addressed. 'Tournament players' shouldn't be attending a "Grand Tournament" with uncompetitive lists. This is, after all, a Grand Tournament.

It sounds like what is needed are more tournaments, but not more Grand Tournaments. It sounds like players need more opportunities to play against new opponents and new armies. While tournaments for the "best of the best" and the like are a part of the hobby, they don't need to be the focus of the hobby (or even of the tournament scene). If you have a lot of people showing up at GTs with uncompetitive armies, then it sounds like these people are having trouble finding regular opportunities to play, and are using the tournaments as a source of games. Perhaps we need fewer 'major tournaments' and more frequent local 'tournaments' (or even just open gaming) to allow people to play the game, and not to focus on tournament prizewinning.

This would benefit everybody. New and casual players would have more opportunities to play, and to meet new players, and to hone their skills if they wished to 'go tournament'. Die-hard tournament players would be able to know that actual GTs would consist of skilled, regular players with competitive lists, encouraging them to attend for serious competition. The challenge might be getting people to attend a gaming event that wasn't presented as a GT (and to pay to do so).

Neil Gilstrap's been leading the Highlander charge forever now ... I think the BFS / others are pushing to start using this already, and I know the DC locals do it on occasion.

FWIW most tournaments are not experiencing decreased attendance. BFS had about the same or more, so did Michigan GT, LVO is doing better than last year on sales, NOVA had more 40k players during its day track this year than ever before (though some went over to the Narrative instead of the GT now that it had a day track), etc. etc.

I do think format / missions / rules do have an impact on attendance, and events that do not present broadly appealing ones will see substantial reductions, but most events are showing similar or increased attendance with good formats/missions/rules/etc.

Highlander is intriguing though ... and another way to have fun building lists!

Da Butcha wrote:
I'm not a GT attendee, but if this part of what you said is true, then that is something that needs to be addressed. 'Tournament players' shouldn't be attending a "Grand Tournament" with uncompetitive lists. This is, after all, a Grand Tournament.

I completely disagree! I've attended several GTs for both fantasy and 40k, and having a competitive list is by no means a requirement. If you go way back, in fact, painting and theme were as or more important than list construction.

Things have shifted a bit in that regard, but by no means do people need to have a competitive list to attend these events. They do need to know what they're in for, though- which is a rather intense meta at the moment.

Also, to MVBrandt's examples- I doubt you'll see declining attendance at the very top GTs (you listed BFS, LVO, and NOVA) unless the game enters a much worse state than it is in now. Even in that case, it's the smaller events that would feel the pinch first. I can't speak to this beginning to happen or not- I only know that at my FLGS, fantasy previously dried up (along with some of the fantasy events in this area), and now 40k is doing similarly (again, just at my FLGS).

For me, this means broadening my scope a bit- at my FLGS, I just participated in an Infinity league, am playing some X-wing now, and we'll be doing another Dropzone Commander one soon (as well as a Dark Heresy 40k RPG on the side). Malifaux is all the rage there, although I haven't gone in for it yet. I see a lot of GTs catering to this, too- a friend and I will be attending MechaniCon next week, for example, just to play X-wing! And I'm considering whether to register for these type of events at AdeptiCon and, possibly for the first time since I started attending, forgo the 40k team tournament.

I'm still undecided on that last bit, but the point remains- I think events are going to continue to need to diversify, as many have been for some time, if they want to mirror gamer's interests. It's no longer a one car show! And that, in the end, is a very good thing

BFS discussed Highlander to use for our Winter League. It sounds very interesting and actually fun. Not really sure how it translates to the Tournament Scene.. but I would enjoy play testing it out and see how it works.

I think Neil has a pretty strong starting rule-set for it. I think the next step might be to develop a handful of tight missions around it.

Interesting fact around the BFS attendance this year.... We actually had a couple of more players this year then last years GT so our numbers increased. We did this going head to head with the NYC ComicCon and losing about a half dozen players who have attended BFS 40k pretty much every year to Malifaux and X-wing Tournaments which we held for the first time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MVBrandt wrote:

I do think format / missions / rules do have an impact on attendance, and events that do not present broadly appealing ones will see substantial reductions, but most events are showing similar or increased attendance with good formats/missions/rules/etc.

+1

Lets also not discount the sheer number of events now going. We had 3 GT's last weekend. Feast, Michigan, and BFS. I now don't have to fly and don't have to drive more than 10 hours to hit 6 GT's in year. Time was I got 2 GT's a year, maybe 3 if I was willing to go to Seattle or fly for another event.

We'll see how it goes. I think the biggest impact is the format of the event. People do want limited 40k. It's finding the right balance that's hard.

Part of it is lists but while deathstar hammer would have killed 40k the shift to 7th actually is going to help it. It just might take people a second to recover from 6th edition deathstar hammer.

I think the problem is with the attitude that the TOs seem to present. The competition between TOs to get people to their events seem to exude a poor appearance and a too competitive attitude.

Da Butcha wrote:

I'm not a GT attendee, but if this part of what you said is true, then that is something that needs to be addressed. 'Tournament players' shouldn't be attending a "Grand Tournament" with uncompetitive lists. This is, after all, a Grand Tournament.

Like many other groups of players, you are missing the point of Grand tournaments and I think, 40k in general.

The point is to have fun. Not to win $300 dollars worth of toys, so you can eBay them and pay rent.

 Master Shake wrote:

Da Butcha wrote:

I'm not a GT attendee, but if this part of what you said is true, then that is something that needs to be addressed. 'Tournament players' shouldn't be attending a "Grand Tournament" with uncompetitive lists. This is, after all, a Grand Tournament.

Like many other groups of players, you are missing the point of Grand tournaments and I think, 40k in general.

The point is to have fun. Not to win $300 dollars worth of toys, so you can eBay them and pay rent.

I think most top players tend to find winning to be a great deal of fun.

EDIT: that was perhaps, a pithy and, most importantly, incomplete answer. People who are best at this game enjoy the challenge of creating the soundest theory, and testing that theory against top players. They enjoy being highly competitive, and there is nothing wrong with that, at all. They are having fun. They're having the fun that they enjoy from mastery of their hobby.

There is no wrong kind of fun to have with your toy soldiers.

 Valhallan42nd wrote:

 Master Shake wrote:

Da Butcha wrote:

I'm not a GT attendee, but if this part of what you said is true, then that is something that needs to be addressed. 'Tournament players' shouldn't be attending a "Grand Tournament" with uncompetitive lists. This is, after all, a Grand Tournament.

Like many other groups of players, you are missing the point of Grand tournaments and I think, 40k in general.

The point is to have fun. Not to win $300 dollars worth of toys, so you can eBay them and pay rent.

I think most top players tend to find winning to be a great deal of fun.

Having won a few GTs (and now in multipe games, har har), I can't say I've ever looked through my prize pool or even been aware of it the day of the win. I won some stuff at BFS yesterday and haven't really looked at anything yet even. Winning can be fun, if you do it and enjoy the games along w/ your opponents. I haven't experienced most winners playing for the glory or the loot.

Playing for loot is much more of a Local event thing than a GT thing IMO.

If I go to a LGS and drop $10 for entry win and get say $50-60 store credit. I make out and can support my hobby.

If I travel to a GT, book a hotel, maybe fly, pay $50 for a ticket, at least the same for food. That prize support has to be huge to offset my costs.

People go to play games, and have fun generally.

That said I have played some people that are far more concerned with winning than having a cordial game.

The marketing part of my brain is telling me well you have identified the symptom of the drop in attendance, you have not identified the cause!

Try and talk to players who use to come to tournments, and ask why they no longer come. Sometimes their are common themes between responses that may surprise you.

In my experience these are some of the causes I've seen been the issue.

-Player culture (Top players crushing people for example.)
-Cost to enter (Maby the entry fee is to high?)
-Prize support (Do you only have one larger prize for the top player? Maby consider supporting a 2nd, 3rd and/or wood spoon awards.)
-If it's the appearance of armies like some people suggest and you just do a few large tournaments, then introduce a award for best painted army.

If top players are crushing people like you suggest do not introduce sportsman ship scores. Their abused to much, and don't fix problems. (What you tabled my army? F you, I'm going to give you a low score because of your cheesy power list.)

In my experience stuff like doing gimmicks for each tournament worked best. (Maby one tournment their are restrictions tank AV, max % of points can be spent in a FoC slot, ect) Gimmicks encourage more list building and top players to adjust their list.

 Lockark wrote:
The marketing part of my brain is telling me well you have identified the symptom of the drop in attendance, you have not identified the cause!

Try and talk to players who use to come to tournments, and ask why they no longer come. Sometimes their are common themes between responses that may surprise you.

In my experience these are some of the causes I've seen been the issue.

-Player culture (Top players crushing people for example.)
-Cost to enter (Maby the entry fee is to high?)
-Prize support (Do you only have one larger prize for the top player? Maby consider supporting a 2nd, 3rd and/or wood spoon awards.)
-If it's the appearance of armies like some people suggest and you just do a few large tournaments, then introduce a award for best painted army.

If top players are crushing people like you suggest do not introduce sportsman ship scores. Their abused to much, and don't fix problems. (What you tabled my army? F you, I'm going to give you a low score because of your cheesy power list.)

In my experience stuff like doing gimmicks for each tournament worked best. (Maby one tournment their are restrictions tank AV, max % of points can be spent in a FoC slot, ect) Gimmicks encourage more list building and top players to adjust their list.

Problem is, his symptom is inaccurate. GT attendance by and large is not dropping, nor is his symptom reflective of how most "competitive" players think when they attend a GT (in other words, most do not attend for the phat lewt or massive glory ... they just want to catch up with friends and play good games, and enjoy winning well enough).

If there is a disparity in army class between the top players and the first time players, that resides squarely on the system being played.

If math theory becomes the driving choice in army and unit selection and has a larger determining factor in game outcome, then it is squarely on the system being played.

If you have to force an army creation type to bring parity back and increase effect of generalship on game outcomes, that sits squarely on the fault of the system being played.

GW games, in their current incarnation, are the reason fewer people are shelling out money to play in tournements. They are the reason that alternative systems (Malifaux, Infinity, Bolt Action) can find enough players to put together a tournement scene. Ask any ten players of a different system why they are playing it, and I am betting a full 50% will cite somekind of problem with GW's current offerings on why they expanded their horizons.

Tournament culture is tournement culture. If doesn't matter if it is MtG, 40K, chess, or tiddlywinks. Changing the culture, might bring in new players, but it is just as likely to drive off the existing crowd.

Breng77 wrote:

People go to play games, and have fun generally.

This is the reason I spent 10 hours in a car this past weekend to go to the Michigan GT. I get to see my buddies from all over that I maybe get to see twice a year.

If people attend purely to catch up with old friends and have a good time, then why do you think missions have an effect on attendance?

They apparently didn't effect NOVA! lol

BAO 2014 this year sold out with only 1 month to prep and sell tickets.

LVO 2014 Sold out completely.

LVO 2015 is about to sell out for 40K, 4 months out from the event. (And our Highlander vent is proving to be quite popular, too!)

Guardian Cup 2014 sold out and had a wait list.

Brawl in the Fall sold out and had a 30 person wait list.

I could go on, but I think you all get the picture. 40K tournaments in a general sense are super healthy, I think there is just variance from event to event based on a host of factors that are not directly related to the game itself: marketing, venue, format, local culture, etc.

I haven't really been active here for too long but doesn't the OP post something hammering on tournament players quite often?

For me, I go to tourneys as much as I can. But i have a family and two small children and live in the middle of nowhere.

As Hulk said, he can go to a multitude of Gts within driving distance. I am able to at least make a few a year within 150 miles or so.

If anything i think the tourney scene is doing quite well. If anything we have too many events to choose from so the attendance pool is smaller at alot of events because they don't have to wait to go to LVO or NOVA or Adepticon to get theri games in. There are tourneys somewhere on any given weekend.

 Master Shake wrote:
If people attend purely to catch up with old friends and have a good time, then why do you think missions have an effect on attendance?

They apparently didn't effect NOVA! lol

I'm surprised at a comment that infers the only reason someone would care about a mission would be whether or not he/she could win at it.

Also, BeeCee, the OP is both a good / relatively harmless fellow, and a competitive tournament player who brings beater lists to tournaments. FWIW.

Fair enough, i retract any negative statements.

I was actually inferring that missions have no effect on having a good time, IMO.

I've seen nothing but bigger numbers from the events that actually happened this year on the west coast. BAO is the only standout in that regard as they dropped numbers from last year (due to a smaller but *much improved* venue) and yet they still sold out with about 5 weeks to sell tickets. LVO next February is nearly sold out and had to expand the room block once already.

By contrast, on the other side of the country, the 11th Company GT, by all accounts a great event, has plenty of tickets for sale with a few weeks left to go.

I don't think the competitive state of the game has much effect on tourney attendance at all. Consider all the work that goes into booking a large event, and then consider that the schedules of 100+ people have to line up perfectly to make it there (particularly a difficult feat during holiday times, which is why attendance tends to drop off in November events). If I had to list every factor that could cause somebody not to attend a GT I could fill three pages before I even touched on reasons that have to do with the actual state of the game of 40k.

Highlander stuff is cool too, though!

 Master Shake wrote:
I was actually inferring that missions have no effect on having a good time, IMO.

My counterpoint was that they DO have an effect on a good time. I do not know many people that enjoy the majority of their time at a con (which 2.5-3 hour 40k GT rounds in a 5+ round GT represents) spent playing crappy missions.

What would you consider a crappy mission?

 Master Shake wrote:
What would you consider a crappy mission?

Irrelevant. My opinion on crappy missions is only my own. The general point is that if an individual doesn't like the missions he's playing, he's not going to enjoy the game as much. I don't like Maelstrom, personally, so I don't enjoy games played with Maelstrom. That doesn't make Maelstrom objectively crappy, but it does mean I'm less likely to attend a tournament with Maelstrom missions, b/c I won't enjoy myself as much by some %.

Back to the main point - the theory that people attend tournaments for the prizes and glory and to kick teeth in is broadly inaccurate if applied to most "competitive" players. Most folks attend to have a fun time and catch up with friends. They are more likely to attend an event with missions and format that they consider more fun, then. Pretty consistent with the concept.

Also, Kelsey, don't start trolling (not saying you are at all, just that you do sometimes in these types of threads, <3).

I'm trying my best to leave my trolling pants in the closet, Mike!

yeah the one day rogue trader style events are probably hurting.

I don't play one day events anymore.
I prefer to play in 3 or 4 2 day events a year now.

so I will go to adepticon and 3 two day events in the PNW.
I will go play pick up games a FLGS on wednesday night but my weekends are to special to waste in a crappy little store anymore.
tourneys are not seeing less people. there are just more events now then in the past sure a used to be able to play in a RT almost every weekend in the early 2000's but those days are gone and have shifted to larger events. Adepticon will sell out again in less then 24 hrs and other events will continue to sell out. Why do you think that events are shrinking? sure you might think that are not your thing anymore because the guys who win are jerks. I win every event i play in because i go to hang with friends and throw some dice.

 Darkness wrote:
I think the problem is with the attitude that the TOs seem to present. The competition between TOs to get people to their events seem to exude a poor appearance and a too competitive attitude.

Citation needed. Please give examples of this other than anecdotal examples.

 Kimchi Gamer wrote:

 Darkness wrote:
I think the problem is with the attitude that the TOs seem to present. The competition between TOs to get people to their events seem to exude a poor appearance and a too competitive attitude.

Citation needed. Please give examples of this other than anecdotal examples.

+1

 skkipper wrote:
yeah the one day rogue trader style events are probably hurting.

I don't play one day events anymore.
I prefer to play in 3 or 4 2 day events a year now.

so I will go to adepticon and 3 two day events in the PNW.
I will go play pick up games a FLGS on wednesday night but my weekends are to special to waste in a crappy little store anymore.
tourneys are not seeing less people. there are just more events now then in the past sure a used to be able to play in a RT almost every weekend in the early 2000's but those days are gone and have shifted to larger events. Adepticon will sell out again in less then 24 hrs and other events will continue to sell out. Why do you think that events are shrinking? sure you might think that are not your thing anymore because the guys who win are jerks. I win every event i play in because i go to hang with friends and throw some dice.

I think this aspect might've been missed. Just because the big events are doing well doesn't really indicate much about smaller ones... I'm very much like skippper, ready to register for AdeptiCon the moment it goes live, but not likely to play in a local 40k RTT anymore.