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.

So with this year coming to a close there have been some great events I got to go to, tho after every event it became clear that a lot of players there weren't very competitive and would complain about the competive players which I think is very unfair since a tournement is a competitive thing. With that said I think there should be events for more non competitive players so that they play people more at there skill level, it would be a lot more fun for them. And as a competitive player I hate playing against "fluff lists" while sure I don't mind the win, I much rather play against a hard army I find that more enjoyable. Do you guys feel like there should be a split

I feel like a player's competitiveness is more based on his personality than "skill level". Saying it the way you did kinda insinuates that you believe people who aren't always primarily concerned with who wins or loses a game always have less skill than someone who only cares about winning or losing the game. This is not true, I think.

That being said, I'm sure there are plenty of people who would find a campaign event more exciting than a structured comp tournament. I would count myself among them, and styling them differently would mean you don't have to invite a certain kind of person and exclude the other, just call it a campaign or tourney and let people show up if they're interested.

Doesn't this happen already?

I would like to attend both. I wish that they were always seperated.

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
I feel like a player's competitiveness is more based on his personality than "skill level". Saying it the way you did kinda insinuates that you believe people who aren't always primarily concerned with who wins or loses a game always have less skill than someone who only cares about winning or losing the game. This is not true, I think.

That being said, I'm sure there are plenty of people who would find a campaign event more exciting than a structured comp tournament. I would count myself among them, and styling them differently would mean you don't have to invite a certain kind of person and exclude the other, just call it a campaign or tourney and let people show up if they're interested.

Doesn't this happen already?

campaigns don't get that much support and unless your going to a GW then it's pretty hard to find a group of dedicated people.

Don't get me wrong if people want to come to a competitive event because they feel that they have a competitive army then go for it, it's the only way to get better. But if you no that your bringing a weak army and are not a fan of competitive play then why even come if your not going to have fun, a large portion of competitive players like to play against strong army's, playing against weak armys isent fun for either side.

If you played against a lot of fluffy armies and people interested in soft scores and having fun rather than playing to win, doesn't that suggest that there are events that are aimed at those sorts of people, and for whatever reason a few waac players managed to attend and ruin everyone's fun?

We need Warhammer Safe Spaces.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
If you played against a lot of fluffy armies and people interested in soft scores and having fun rather than playing to win, doesn't that suggest that there are events that are aimed at those sorts of people, and for whatever reason a few waac players managed to attend and ruin everyone's fun?

no it just means that those people had those army's, any tournement is competitive that's why they have best genarl, painting, and overall. Best sports is probubly the weakest award.
If people want to run a fluff event then advertise it as such.

the only problem with hosting an event dedicated for non competitive players is that ithere is no guarantee from keeping the high competitive win at all cost cheese list gamer from joining in as well, which is a bad experience for everybody.

i just went to the recent harvester of souls in spokane washington. this event is supposed to be more of a noncompetitive event where having an army painted and on display was rewarded more then actual tournament results, but what i saw was about half the attendees barely had display boards (some had flipped over little ceasars boxes), and even some without even painted armies. while my army itself wasn't as painted as i wanted it to be i worked hard to make a display board that would show off the style and theme of my force.

it was a little upsetting that many players didn't so much care for the spirit of the competition as they did for the rankings they could get from exploiting their cheese list among non competitive players.

I have gone to 2 trunys abd doubt all ever go again I went to meet more players and get more info in to the game . that was the biggest mistake ever I play for and to have a good time not waac all cost our to bring dick list. Also I learned you need to know ever codex and all rules realy good for a trouny because I found out there's a lot of crazy rules. Played one them krone demon army's that can get more demon princes by killing there units.
Our that new mars army where walker are all av13 there units get to pick all types of ammo to fit who they fighting and the get preferred enemy against ever one. That army seemed more op then tau ever did





Automatically Appended Next Post:
I could be comptive but I don't believe in being a duck to do it our abusing rules and other stuff find shady. Fight fair dang it don't drop your pods so I can't shot at the guys getting out our behind my army drop them in front of me like I do my pods and line your whole army up across the board don't castle up on side

geargutz wrote:
the only problem with hosting an event dedicated for non competitive players is that ithere is no guarantee from keeping the high competitive win at all cost cheese list gamer from joining in as well, which is a bad experience for everybody.

i just went to the recent harvester of souls in spokane washington. this event is supposed to be more of a noncompetitive event where having an army painted and on display was rewarded more then actual tournament results, but what i saw was about half the attendees barely had display boards (some had flipped over little ceasars boxes), and even some without even painted armies. while my army itself wasn't as painted as i wanted it to be i worked hard to make a display board that would show off the style and theme of my force.

it was a little upsetting that many players didn't so much care for the spirit of the competition as they did for the rankings they could get from exploiting their cheese list among non competitive players.

If it's a non-competitive event then why are there win/loss rankings?

I'd suggesting looking to the model that GW used to use for Battlegrounds - Changing points limits from game to game, asymmetrical points and objectives, no prizes based on wins.

geargutz wrote:
the only problem with hosting an event dedicated for non competitive players is that ithere is no guarantee from keeping the high competitive win at all cost cheese list gamer from joining in as well, which is a bad experience for everybody.

i just went to the recent harvester of souls in spokane washington. this event is supposed to be more of a noncompetitive event where having an army painted and on display was rewarded more then actual tournament results, but what i saw was about half the attendees barely had display boards (some had flipped over little ceasars boxes), and even some without even painted armies. while my army itself wasn't as painted as i wanted it to be i worked hard to make a display board that would show off the style and theme of my force.

it was a little upsetting that many players didn't so much care for the spirit of the competition as they did for the rankings they could get from exploiting their cheese list among non competitive players.

that's what I mean, it's not fun for anyone. The TOs at the event you went to should have been on top of that, they should have made it so that you needed to have your army fully painted and a display board or you get kicked out, if events want to push away Waac players or some events what them to come (competitive events) then the TOs are the ones that need to make a format the suits the type of event you want to run.

Alright, come on guys, try some spellcheck first. It's hard to have a discussion wen ur tx reads like dis and you spll wurds like genarl.

OT, I would like to see separate tournies: one no holds barred, and one more conservative that focused on army theming, fluff, and painting.

Yay this thread again.

If you play merely for winning and no other reason, you must have a very boring game. I don't see the fun in a tournament where 80% are Eldar Scatbikes and the rest various deathstars. I don't see the fun in having to combine three codices to be able to win over one.

geargutz wrote:
the only problem with hosting an event dedicated for non competitive players is that ithere is no guarantee from keeping the high competitive win at all cost cheese list gamer from joining in as well, which is a bad experience for everybody.

i just went to the recent harvester of souls in spokane washington. this event is supposed to be more of a noncompetitive event where having an army painted and on display was rewarded more then actual tournament results, but what i saw was about half the attendees barely had display boards (some had flipped over little ceasars boxes), and even some without even painted armies. while my army itself wasn't as painted as i wanted it to be i worked hard to make a display board that would show off the style and theme of my force.

it was a little upsetting that many players didn't so much care for the spirit of the competition as they did for the rankings they could get from exploiting their cheese list among non competitive players.

This is pretty much true.
The problem is not in non-competitive gamers going to competitive tournaments, it is competitive players attending every 40k event they can, even if it is intended for non-competitive players. The only solution is for a TO to outright ban some players from attending, and obviously most don't want to do that, because that would be mean.
And removing win/loss rankings is also not really a great solution. I mean, it is fun to pit different fluff lists against each other and see which one is the strongest, just as it is fun to pit different competitive lists against each other. The problem is that the two different ways of list building just don't work well with each other.

Let's be clear: there are two reasons people call for "less competitive" events.

The first is that people want a true beer and pretzels gaming event. It can be serious, with narrative scenarios, asymmetric win conditions, or even teams of players. They can also be goofy, with random events. These exist, although usually as side events at big events. They are a ton of fun, and when well designed cannot be easily gamed with standard cheese.

The second is a bit less noble, as its people that actually care quite a bit about whether they win or lose, but not enough to build and play a top tier army and play at the level required. Essentially, they don't want to include more casual players, they simply want to eliminate "good" players.

If anything, I would like the sportsmanship award to be worth much more, but only a fraction of the score to be based on the opponents score. Ideally, each match would have an impartial judge to decide rules debates and witness player interaction and that judge would award each player a score for sportsmanship.

Our events always include the special rules "Stem the gray tide" and "push back the shadows" (once per game you may gain army wide preferred enemy (bare plastic) and Hatred (primed models)) and we include best painter, most fun, best list theme.

Let's say you wanted to run a "non-competitive" event. How exactly would you enforce that?

Do you base it on power? Because that's a slippery slope right there, and certainly something a lot of people seem to disagree on - especially in terms of specifics and solutions.

Do you base it on fluff? Because I'm pretty sure a lot of very strong armies are also very fluffy (The Necron Decurion, War Convocation and massed Wave Serpents in 6th edition all spring instantly to mind).

I'm not against the idea, I'm just really curious as to how you'd go about enforcing it.

We just hosted the Beer & Pretzels in Sudbury and had a really great mechanic for helping people separate into "competitive" and "non-competitive" groups. When you arrived, if you wanted to compete for Best General, you would mark down a competitive score that would help set you up against a First Round Opponent of similar scoring. Otherwise, you didn't mark down anything, indicating you were playing casually (they were marked as a 0). This meant it was far less likely for a casual player to end up against competitive builds.

At the end of the day, your competitive score was added as a decimal to your total score, so if two people with the same record (3-0) were in line for first place, whomever scored themselves highest would win. There's more to it than that (kill points, and ITC points added as whole figures before the decimal, so a tie was unlikely), but the biggest deal is that no one could "smurf" the system by beating up casuals. Due to player attendance there were a couple casual vs competitive games, but far less than would occur in a normal tournament.

 vipoid wrote:
Let's say you wanted to run a "non-competitive" event. How exactly would you enforce that?

Do you base it on power? Because that's a slippery slope right there, and certainly something a lot of people seem to disagree on - especially in terms of specifics and solutions.

Do you base it on fluff? Because I'm pretty sure a lot of very strong armies are also very fluffy (The Necron Decurion, War Convocation and massed Wave Serpents in 6th edition all spring instantly to mind).

I'm not against the idea, I'm just really curious as to how you'd go about enforcing it.

It would have to be at the army composition stage: no allies, no formations, and limited lows and SHs. Basically, 30k rules with 40k models.

Edit: and no spamming rules.

Honestly, I wish that people would stop trying to turn what is likely one of the most, (if not THE most), unbalanced game of man dollies into a kind of pro sport.
There's not much actual tactical depth to the game, and the balance is laughable at the best of times. And that's before you even add in the fact that it's a freaking dice game! (the absolute bane of my existence. )

"Hobby" tournaments that add much more focus towards painting, sportsmanship, terrain making, etc... are the best.

If I want to stroke my ego and prove I'm the best at something, there's plenty of actual competitive sports or other hobbies out there. I play 40k to have fun, not prove I'm suddenly the second coming of Napoleon.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

It would have to be at the army composition stage: no allies, no formations, and limited lows and SHs. Basically, 30k rules with 40k models.

But, even then, won't some armies/builds still be vastly superior to others?

Also, this basically kills several armies. e.g. if you have any fluffy DE Coven lists you want to try... well sucks to be you.

Cant happen line three guys up and say oh 5$ and three jackarses take off. As long as there is someone trying to prove a point there will be competive people. There will be the one guy tryng to be the best none competive player, by competing to be the least competive.

What about if you play an OP army and lose to fluffy armies?

Are you a competitive or non-competitive player?

 Mantorok wrote:
What about if you play an OP army and lose to fluffy armies?

Are you a competitive or non-competitive player?

Apparently you're a scrub who just needs to 'L2P' and 'Git Gud.'

Silly OP, 40k is for collectors!

Dman137 wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
If you played against a lot of fluffy armies and people interested in soft scores and having fun rather than playing to win, doesn't that suggest that there are events that are aimed at those sorts of people, and for whatever reason a few waac players managed to attend and ruin everyone's fun?

no it just means that those people had those army's, any tournement is competitive that's why they have best genarl, painting, and overall. Best sports is probubly the weakest award.
If people want to run a fluff event then advertise it as such.

Somewhat missed the point there

Experiment 626 wrote:
Honestly, I wish that people would stop trying to turn what is likely one of the most, (if not THE most), unbalanced game of man dollies into a kind of pro sport.
There's not much actual tactical depth to the game, and the balance is laughable at the best of times. And that's before you even add in the fact that it's a freaking dice game! (the absolute bane of my existence. )

"Hobby" tournaments that add much more focus towards painting, sportsmanship, terrain making, etc... are the best.

If I want to stroke my ego and prove I'm the best at something, there's plenty of actual competitive sports or other hobbies out there. I play 40k to have fun, not prove I'm suddenly the second coming of Napoleon.

no offence but your only saying this because you don't actually win games and consider yourself a non-competitive person (you have said this in threads I've posted before) also are you saying that those people that play magic, counter strike, dota etc they aren't really in a pro sport, pro gaming has been a thing for many years and so people make a lot of money, now 40k doesn't have that kind of backing not because there aren't those who would like it but because there haven't been anyone willing to invest the time. But the ITC and ETC is probubly the most fun I've had playing 40k and a very long time, so for you to sit there and say competitive 40k is bad, if suggest playing in some real events and not just astro which btw is a bad event and I won't be surprised if next year it's canceled

I'm not familiar with astro, was was wrong with it?

Dman137...are you running out of material? Because this just seems like a rehash of this previous thread.

Believe it or not, I do think there should be events for less competitive players, i.e. friendly tournaments. I think the best way to do this would be in the tournament format. A Rogue Trader-style tournament, where hobby scores and sportsmanship count just as much as winning, would go a long way toward this goal of a more casual-friendly environment. There's also the argument to be made for mhaving to submit your army lists to a TO. Depending on the TO's judgement, you can be in the competitive tournament or the friendly tournament, but not both.