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.

I for one wouldnt want to have to sit there and watch a game play for over 2-4 hours depending on the size.

If no one wants to watch then there is no sponsors. (IMO)

You only need enough super fans. That's why people watch people playing Starcraft for big money.

The BBC programmes weren't just, here's a wargame, watch it. You learnt some history and so on.

No matter what the gw haters and criers state here the main reason competitive minature gaming doesn't have large money is that it lacks sponsors. There are no major companies who can profit from advertising with competitive wargaming. No sponsors means no money.

FFG could do it if they got it sponsored by Disney. The winner getting his picture taken with Mickey Mouse and sleeping beauty would be one for the books. Could be held in Florida at Disney world and even broadcasted the tournament on their cable channel. But I don't see this ever happening.

GW is somewhat responsible for overall poor feelings towards the competitive scene, there is no denying that.

But that's only one part of the picture.

Sponsors want to be seen if they sponsor something, they don't want to just be seen at the event, but also at media related to the event.

Unfortuantely, wargaming of any kind is really, really not something easy or exciting to watch on say, youtube.

Youtube batreps have constant interruptions and camera issues, and that's with the participants actively helping create the batrep.

Written batreps are a hard sell, as you need perfect image coverage, and you're interrupting the flow of the game practically every move.

So to have decent media of events, you also need much larger support crews that you have to compensate in some way. People holding cameras and taking pictures and notes at every turn, which delays the actual gameplay. You need more TO or judges to arbitrate rules issues. You need people to record video, or write articles.

That's a lot of money to just barely make something readable or watchable online.

I've given some thought into this and a stopgap I was going to try was getting super high resolution video footage from high side angle. This means I could zoom in to do my own panning shots to keep with the action, while still having full HD.

Then have a good fast camera on a stick that had remote wireless controls that would allow me to quickly dart in to take an action shot near the table surface during a lull.

 Desubot wrote:
I for one wouldnt want to have to sit there and watch a game play for over 2-4 hours depending on the size.

If no one wants to watch then there is no sponsors. (IMO)

A few YouTube channels (with added Paywall) like MiniWargaming make a living offering just that. But even they seem to find a larger (or more affluent) audience going for campaigns and whacky games, not hardball competitive.

CMON does fine finding sponsors for competitive painting. Crystal Brush is 10.000 USD for the top place.

There is clearly an audience, sponsors and people willing to throw money at (a) excellent painting skills and (b) let's have fun, don't sweat the rules too much "friendly/casual" gaming for an audience.

It's simply that "competitive wargaming" far too often embodies the exact opposite of the two above, which means its at the exact opposite corner of where the money and 99% of the audience in this hobby is.

Frontline Gaming runs twice a week live streams mostly featuring 40k on Tuesday and Thursday nights at 7pm PST. Fun to watch and gets a couple hundred people in the chat per night.

http://www.twitch.tv/frontlinegaming_tv

200 viewers is pretty good for Twitch but it isn't going to remotely support a $250K tournament, obviously.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
200 viewers is pretty good for Twitch but it isn't going to remotely support a $250K tournament, obviously.

Its simply not interesting enough for the viewers.

 mikhaila wrote:
Warhammer isn't Magic. Isn't close to Magic.

Doesn't have the work done to make a coherent rules set.

Does not have a system that links all venues, with tournament software and uploaded results.

Doesn't have a couple of decades of work by the company that makes the game put into developing organized play on several levels.

Doesn't have a system for training and keepting track of judges.

Hasn't integrated the stores selling the product into their network.

In short, GW has not done any of the infrastructure, developement of softwar and OP, the training of judges, or the rules needed for a system like MTG.
GW is anti-tournament, and doesn't run any events. Their mindset isn't there.

And without GW being involved, warhammer will never develope a system similar to what WOTC has done.

Mikhaila is smart and people should listen to him.

I'm not a big tournament guy, but I have played in a few. I've also played in a lot of SW:CCG tournaments back in the day, including regional and national tournaments. I would not participate in a WH 40k tournament that had even $100 in cash on the line. TFG becomes TFG x15 when you throw cash on the table, and 40k is not nearly tight enough of a rules set as Mikhaila has stated.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
200 viewers is pretty good for Twitch but it isn't going to remotely support a $250K tournament, obviously.

Its simply not interesting enough for the viewers.

I would say the same thing about video games however somehow they manage to pull in the crowds enough to make money out of it

Though I agree there's too many hurdles and too much time of "nothing is happening" to make wargaming work that way.

 Talys wrote:
I'm curious: what's the biggest prize pot for MtG tournaments now?

I'm not suggesting a $250k prize pot for a wargaming tournament (at least not now), because the number of players just isn't big enough -- but a $50k pot with a $20k top prize would be a huge inducement, and PP/CB can most certainly afford that... I would think.

And I agree, nobody is playing for fun with significant prize money on the line.

The current pot for the Magic Pro-Tour is $250,000, with the winner taking $40,000 and prizes being paid down to 75th ($1000), along with the bonus of a large number of points in the ranking system which contribute towards free invites and air fare etc to future Pro Tours.

Like everyone else has said the loose rules, the amount of 'nothing time' (MtG has rules against stalling), the problem of filming as most bat-reps I've seen on YT are fairly shoddy (although SS82's are quite good and Frontline are getting there), and all the other issues folks have mentioned mean I can't really see it happening, especially with GW's swerve into AoS forge the narrative approach

As stated by others: you cannot compare 40k to Magic.

Magic in tournaments has enough restrictions to give balance and more or less equal chances (if you spent enough money on cards that is ;-)

40k, WHFB and most other wargames are not balanced enough and usually have a current "meta" that a small, but die-hard minorit of players uses to win battles by using "competitive armies", which is another word for using any current holes in the system.

I played a "Iron Hand" 40k Arena once, based on Iron Hand Magic. In the 40k version everything that died, got beaten with a sledge hammer.
My Dark Eldar Wych Lord came in second hahaha... flattened. I got to beat a few other miniatures before that.

It needs some measure of excitement and accessibility.
Could you imagine filling a stadium to watch any tabletop game?
Plus the game needs to have a level of competitiveness a person can make it profession (plus the money needs to be there).

Dota and League of Legends have created the E-sports superstars:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/31/technology/esports-explosion-brings-opportunity-riches-for-video-gamers.html?_r=0
It is visually appealing, has fast action and multiple means of being involved and big business backing them.

Pokémon seemed to pack them in 2014:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNNzKuyCPus

MTG is no slouch either, but even in this game due to money cheating is a problem even with good rules:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7l8jIajYH2Q

Another article calling for "narrative play":
http://cheatinsteve.blogspot.ca/2015/03/tournament-gaming-is-bad-for-table-top.html

Competitive wargaming just does not seem right with the way they function for a money based competitive play.
When I look at the computer based games of DOTA (1-2) and StarCraft, I think it IS possible to get the tournament balance on tabletop but the pacing is so slow, chess is exciting to the uninitiated in comparison.

Honestly, you want to see a true competitive spirit game kick-in: say you will hold a 40k tournament and 1st prize is the new Imperial Knight model.
Then watch the carnage ensue: it is rarely pretty.

Heck, I dropped a "starter" box for Pokémon at my local FLGS for their game night my kids started playing in and it got ugly in a hurry.
Some of the teenage boys started talking smack like nobody's business.
Something like this.

A prize or two add excitement, I think they are fine goals.
A little bit of something for all the participants (everyone wins!!!) is even better.
The little something for everyone, word gets around and helps grow a player base.
For the bottom of the heap, some tactics book or more product for their army/deck is helpful and good as well.

Just cannot see it happening unless the game has pacing like a deck game: move / counter-move captured a wider audience appeal (Halo??)

 Talizvar wrote:
Could you imagine filling a stadium to watch any tabletop game?

If it weren't for...

a) The overemphasis on the luck aspect (although maybe people wouldn't care about watching games come down to rolls of the dice, it would destroy it for me personally)

b) The imprecise nature of the rules (not just GW rules, but pretty much all rules for all games, the simple thing of measuring distances and moving models is a huge area of potential cheating that would be difficult to control).

I could imagine lots of people watching it if it weren't for that.... though I myself wouldn't After all, people watch golf, snooker, lawn bowls, poker, etc

Sponsored by Cheetos and Ed's Big and Tall clothing.

/stereotyping

How come tournaments have become bad for tabletop in the past month but they are good for video games? Or are they bad for video games too?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How come tournaments have become bad for tabletop in the past month but they are good for video games? Or are they bad for video games too?

They're largely indifferent for video games. There aren't many video games that specifically target a tournament approach, it's just a niche within a niche (if video gaming could be called a niche these days ).

 Talizvar wrote:

A prize or two add excitement, I think they are fine goals.
A little bit of something for all the participants (everyone wins!!!) is even better.
The little something for everyone, word gets around and helps grow a player base.
For the bottom of the heap, some tactics book or more product for their army/deck is helpful and good as well.

Y'know how people say there are moments that split time into everything that came before, and everything that came after?

For attitudes regarding 40K tournament play in the U.S., that moment was 'Ard Boyz IMO. Even more than the death of the GW GTs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:
Sponsored by Cheetos and Ed's Big and Tall clothing.

/stereotyping

Exalted.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How come tournaments have become bad for tabletop in the past month but they are good for video games? Or are they bad for video games too?

I noticed this too that it was brought up a few times that competitive play is considered "bad" at least for 40k.

I would say 40k is the offspring of the RPG heyday so a narrative is wanted.
This is similar to Napoleonic's where a specific battle was being reenacted and a preamble is given of what lead up to that point.
I would hate to say that view of competitive being bad is probably from my 40 something generation where the gripping stories of the time was an unfair matchup and the "hero" succeeding past the odds. The game unfortunately is designed by the old fogies so it has that leaning, get a hard-core Dota player who understands the balancing and maybe the mechanics behind the game and you could see a whole new game come from that person.

I feel everyone needs to experience "proper" competitive play: there are winners and losers in the world and "failure" is just a means of learning what works and what does not.
Your opponent can be a fine teacher if they are really good at what they do.

Tabletop and boardgames have the vibe of "hang-out" time, it may be a good thing that video games have taken over the medium for competitive play and we can be all unsportsmanlike in the comfort of our own homes and the voice feed can be cut at any given point as needed.

@Gorgon: I played a few "Ard Boyz" tournaments.
The scoring for these was a classic example of not knowing how to reward for the behavior you want.
It promoted all the worst the hobby could offer.
Hey! I found that article again of the "Back 40k" which outlined this quite well:
http://theback40k.blogspot.ca/2012/03/ard-boyz-is-dead-long-live-nova.html
I did find some cool people to play against and was happy for the experience but a couple players I would have been better off not knowing they existed.

I could not agree with you more, Talizvar.

Everything that you wrote rings true to me.

Being also from the 40-something generation and growing up with RPGs and only minimal video games in my youth (Odyssey, Aklabeth, the first Ultima, and Wizardry on the RPG end is where I started), I share the same perspective of the GW "narrative" guys, especially when it comes to a tabletop where I'm sharing space with someone I am or want to be friends with. The game IS important to me, but it's more about the social interaction, friendship, and having the miniatures hobby in common than it is about a competition.

I am now *highly* selective about with whom I play, because among other things, I invite them to my home But also, because I don't have much time to play, so I want it to be the highest quality gaming time possible.

On the other hand, when it comes to the Internet and I am relatively anonymous and my opponent is relatively faceless, I love to be mercilessly unsportsmanlike and a total TFG. The bloodthirsty side of me can surface, because the ONLY reason I'm playing is to win!

 Talys wrote:

On the other hand, when it comes to the Internet and I am relatively anonymous and my opponent is relatively faceless, I love to be mercilessly unsportsmanlike and a total TFG. The bloodthirsty side of me can surface, because the ONLY reason I'm playing is to win!

This is where finding llike-minded opponents is such a key thing... because personally, I'm more likely to be more bloodthirsty when playing with friends, and will be much more relaxed about the rules playing with people I don't know as well. Because friends know each other, and so crushing each other mercilessly when the situation warrants it isn't going to put anyone's nose out of joint.

We had a thing going at a gaming club I was a part of some time ago where we all set out to create the most evil lists we could specifically to target each others armies. The challenge was always to get one up over the other guys. That's something I wouldn't even dream of doing against players I don't know well, because when you're not prepared for it that sort of play just doesn't end well.

'Friendly' and 'competitive' play aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

Talys and insaniac: yep, same generation all right (or at least a similar value set).
We had a rule in our games as friends is that you could field the most evil thing you want... once.
We would laugh, say things like "you evil **lady of the night**" something or another which just drove us on to other shenanigans.
We could not wait for the next great evil to spring as well as evil laughs were encouraged.
The constant exploring for the latest never to be used again evil tactics made us experts in short order along with playing our more "balanced" lists.

Oddly, with strangers we are highly civilized in social settings.
In games of anonymity, it is back again to "the gloves are off".

Some measure of mutual respect is still wanted / encouraged because the game time is hard to fight for with kiddoes, wife, family and career understandably all demanding our time so "play time" needs to be a good time.

I like puzzles, made a career of it, competitive play is a puzzle. You get thumped, figure it out, then have another go.

Competitive play seems to lend itself well to games that you can play "out of the box". If they can look awesome out of the box, all the better.

The labor of love games that require a ton of work up front seem to make people need it to be more, be epic, have stories: character. Swiftly adjusting to a meta does not lend itself well to high labor games, you are sorely tempted to play your force "warts and all" because it is assembled / primed / painted.

Money is in drama, serious, hard played, demonstrative skills people admire: you have a game that can showcase these qualities and you will see the money.

@Talizvar - yeah, I'm happy to play against ANYTHING once, including being destroyed hopelessly by some uber-cool trick. But I don't want to do that for the next 20 games

I certainly don't want to have to be FORCED to adjust my army in order to have fun; and it's not like I'm unreasonable (or unreasonably stupid) in building my army.

@insaniak - I totally agree that Friendly and Competitive aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

However, list-to-win games or build-to-win games like 40k, Magic the Gathering, and Hearthstone make it such that you can heavily stack the deck (metaphorically) by making a highly efficient choices, or taking a choice that gives you a clear win scenario. If I take A, B, and C under conditions X and Y, I will win nearly 100% of the time.

In a competition and a quick game, this is great, because my goal is to remove as much uncertainty as possible (and I presume that my opponent is like-minded, because of matchmaking). Across from my buddies in a 6 hour game, this is miserable, because it greatly reduces the likelihood of trying new and weird things, because why blow half a day?

Even if I'm on the winning end, it kinda sucks. Since I play with almost the same (small) group of people every couple of weeks, I ideally want a win ratio of about 50%, and will actively work at making adjustments to my army to make that possible -- I'm happy to take fewer units, for example, if I'm pretty sure that my army will win (due to historical games), even if it means I'll be playing 1600 vs 2000 points, for example. Or, pare back Gladius so I'm getting less free stuff (or maybe no free stuff at all, against an opponent playing a weak army anyhow).

Competitive wargaming existed before GW. The venerable Wargames Research Group was originally formed to write the competition rules for the Society of Ancients annual tournament in the late 1960s. It is still going, and so are the tournaments. Historical wargaming of course offers fewer opportunities for winning by exploits, but crucially, the prizes are trivial. It is the introduction of large prizes that are responsible for ruining sportsmanship and fun in tournaments.

The big reason there isn't that much money in wargame tournaments is because there just isn't that much money in wargames to make it worthwhile. Compare the revenue of MtG to that of GW (which is still the big dog in miniature wargaming) and it becomes brutally clear.

Simple as that, really.

If 40k were to be involved in a competitive environment , ALOT of money would be need to fund and technology would be needed to help catch cheater. I know this obviously sounds crazy now, but I don't think it is impossible years to come.

But I always thought it would be cool if GW(or any other miniatures company) would make a game that would use a hologram or projection type board/game. Ever seen The older StarWars movies? Remember the game Chewbacca and R2-D2 were playing that involved the holograms? How cool would that be?!

Ok, sorry. That last part was totally me wish listing....

 Kirasu wrote:
Right.. as Insaniak says, if you put money on the table you will see abuse. Just look at the past 'ard boyz events for your example.

The prize was only like 1000$ and people turned into total tools. You would easily need 1 judge per table because the rules for 40k are not designed for any kind of serious competition.

I will also echo what Insaniak says: it need not even be money. Put up cool ass swag (unique medals from a real medal company, highly collectible type stuff, or enough prize support) and you'll see shenanigans and asshurt over rules callings.

I was a tourney organizer for years for warmachine and hordes. As much as i loved playing in competitive events, I hated running them, and eventually halted running them. It was astounding to me what a non-monetary coin of no intrinsic value would induce in some people.

Now add a cash purse to that, and now you've got everyone looking to glean any advantage possible.



Friendly and competitive aren't mutually exclusive... but i'll say this, it's not automatically inclusive either. Friendly, competitive, and money on the line ? Yeah, the gloves come off with that combination more often than not. You want to see two otherwise seemingly normal people become stark raving asshurt pedantic diva's ? Have a ruling that has all likelihood of deciding the game for one of them or the other depending on the call, with a cash purse on the line. You will see it more often than not in competitive pursed gaming that doesn't have a hardcore code of league conduct along with it like most big time poker leagues, etc.


There was a competitive card game a while back that, with the winning of a national level tourney, allowed you to design a card with the design team (with limited veto power by them and the winner), and a handful of ancillary accompaniment cards. The cheating (both real and accustations of), creative rules interpretations, and other shenanigans made it a miserable events for most participants, all of the judges, and the company in question. They vowed never to do it again it was such a cluster-f. And that was just for some say over designing a handful of cards.