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 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.

Tell me what is unfluffy in any eldar list run or a super friends marine army or a gladius army?

I am going to a tournament later this week and though I doubt I will do well enough to get into the top games from the first day on the 2nd day they are pairing people based on performance the first day so I still have a chance to have fun and possibly still win some prizes. I would make a more competitive list but I just can't afford to go buy the models it would take to make one of my armies competitive.

The tournament will consist of two days of gaming. The first day (Saturday) will be used to separate opponents into 8 Person “Pods” for Round 4 plus Sunday’s games.

The Top 8 players from Saturdays games (Based on Match Score with strength of schedule and battle points used as tie breakers) will fight in the championship “Pod” on Sunday. With each following “Pod” having it’s own Mini-Tournament, with prizes handed out to the winners in each “Pod”.

I don't think a split is a good idea. Mostly because tournaments need attendance to do well and to continue. If you just had the top players you'd find it to be pretty meh, you'll run into the same 5 people every time, even though that seems to happen currently anyway.

Most tournaments are 75% push overs, 15% are decent enough players trying to win, and 10% actually have a chance to win and its luck of the draw for rounds to determine who gets it after that.

Just have everyone drink 4 beers before playing and you will truly only get the fluffy battles you desire.

Dman137 wrote:

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 am a decently competitive person actually, just not when it comes to 40k as there really isn't anything about that makes it worthwhile as a competitive game that relies on skill. (and I suck horribly with dice...)
Yes there's basic strategy and planning 2-3 turns ahead, but that's where it ends. The game is too inherently random, and the inter-army balance is a joke. (and always has been)

"Winning" at 40k has a lot more to do with simply picking the right army & list/rule exploitation and plain luck than it does any kind of actual skill. There's a helluva lot more skill involved in video/PC gaming than there is 40k/Tragic the Saddening.

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

Astronomi-con bills itself as "the tournament for people who hate 'Tournaments'".

Basically it's been designed to poo-poo all over the traditional power gaming mentality, and places more focus on the hobby in general than it does just curbstomping opponents. Hell, it even has awards for 'Best Terrain' (for the attendees who help provide all the tables & scenery), and 'Best Army List' (for those who literally turn their army list into a work of art, such as a Guard list that looks like an actual dataslate, or a fur bound tome for a SW's list!)

So obviously according to Dman, it's an event that's only for people who aren't 'gud enuff' to go to actual big boy Tournaments.

TuddFudders wrote:
Just have everyone drink 4 beers before playing and you will truly only get the fluffy battles you desire.

I would be down for that kind of event, except that for the fact that being barely 100lbs, drinking 4 entire beers would likely kill me.

Question about the casual tournaments: How would one enforce being casual? Would there be a banned unit list? Would you just submit your list to the TOs for approval?

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Question about the casual tournaments: How would one enforce being casual? Would there be a banned unit list? Would you just submit your list to the TOs for approval?

See throne of skulls. The tournament where you got more points for your opponent liking you than winning games. Also each army got an award, so showing up with sisters of battle pretty much netted you an automatic trophy by default.

Is there a definitive power ranking for armies? Like, I know that Eldar are top tier and CSM are bottom, but is there an actual power ranking? If so, maybe add an army ranking score to the score card with a modifier. for example. If an army beats a better army than it is ranked by one. The score modifier is +1, if it beats an army one level weaker than itself. its -1. Same army is 0 of course. It would need A LOT of fine tuning, but it may be a way to bring more armies to competitive events. Also makes playing lower tier armies a risk/reward for super competitive players. Beat eldar with just a CSM list? Enjoy that sweet +7 army tier score.

A less extreme version of the rules above would just be a positive score bonus added for lower tier armies if they beat a high tier, but not a negative modifier if a high tier beats a low tier.. For example, Eldar beats Eldar means no modifier, Eldar beats CSM and no modifier, CSM beats eldar.and gets a +7 for tier difference. This version wont make it feel like your being punished for playing a high power level army and beating lower tier armies if that's all your matched with. It's kind of like a difficulty modifier for the lower tier armies, meaning if you play them and win 3 against harder armies, you'll rank higher than someone who won three games playing top tier vs other top tier. Once again, the whole system would require A LOT of fine tuning, but it's an idea that is better than alienating other players and dividing up an already fractured gamerbase even more than it is currently for this game.

OT: No, you can't divide up competitive events vs non competitive just because the whole idea of what is competitive is subjective. What i consider fluffy and fun can also be damn right killy while someone else's idea could be very laid back. So there is no way to control it and monitor it without someone going home upset.

Experiment 626 wrote:

Dman137 wrote:

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 am a decently competitive person actually, just not when it comes to 40k as there really isn't anything about that makes it worthwhile as a competitive game that relies on skill. (and I suck horribly with dice...)
Yes there's basic strategy and planning 2-3 turns ahead, but that's where it ends. The game is too inherently random, and the inter-army balance is a joke. (and always has been)

"Winning" at 40k has a lot more to do with simply picking the right army & list/rule exploitation and plain luck than it does any kind of actual skill. There's a helluva lot more skill involved in video/PC gaming than there is 40k/Tragic the Saddening.

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

Astronomi-con bills itself as "the tournament for people who hate 'Tournaments'".

Basically it's been designed to poo-poo all over the traditional power gaming mentality, and places more focus on the hobby in general than it does just curbstomping opponents. Hell, it even has awards for 'Best Terrain' (for the attendees who help provide all the tables & scenery), and 'Best Army List' (for those who literally turn their army list into a work of art, such as a Guard list that looks like an actual dataslate, or a fur bound tome for a SW's list!)

So obviously according to Dman, it's an event that's only for people who aren't 'gud enuff' to go to actual big boy Tournaments.

TuddFudders wrote:
Just have everyone drink 4 beers before playing and you will truly only get the fluffy battles you desire.

I would be down for that kind of event, except that for the fact that being barely 100lbs, drinking 4 entire beers would likely kill me.

To be fair, Experiment 626, you sound like a delight to play, and Astronomicon sounds awesome.

 jreilly89 wrote:

Spoiler:

Experiment 626 wrote:

Dman137 wrote:

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 am a decently competitive person actually, just not when it comes to 40k as there really isn't anything about that makes it worthwhile as a competitive game that relies on skill. (and I suck horribly with dice...)
Yes there's basic strategy and planning 2-3 turns ahead, but that's where it ends. The game is too inherently random, and the inter-army balance is a joke. (and always has been)

"Winning" at 40k has a lot more to do with simply picking the right army & list/rule exploitation and plain luck than it does any kind of actual skill. There's a helluva lot more skill involved in video/PC gaming than there is 40k/Tragic the Saddening.

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

Astronomi-con bills itself as "the tournament for people who hate 'Tournaments'".

Basically it's been designed to poo-poo all over the traditional power gaming mentality, and places more focus on the hobby in general than it does just curbstomping opponents. Hell, it even has awards for 'Best Terrain' (for the attendees who help provide all the tables & scenery), and 'Best Army List' (for those who literally turn their army list into a work of art, such as a Guard list that looks like an actual dataslate, or a fur bound tome for a SW's list!)

So obviously according to Dman, it's an event that's only for people who aren't 'gud enuff' to go to actual big boy Tournaments.

TuddFudders wrote:
Just have everyone drink 4 beers before playing and you will truly only get the fluffy battles you desire.

I would be down for that kind of event, except that for the fact that being barely 100lbs, drinking 4 entire beers would likely kill me.

To be fair, Experiment 626, you sound like a delight to play, and Astronomicon sounds awesome.

Thank-you kindly!

Astro is a blast - best fun I've ever had at any type of 40k event. It's just too bad that my dice make my army into the Make-ya-Laughs of table top gaming...

I simply try & hope that my awful dice can provide my opponents with some amusing entertainment. (and one day I hope I might even pass Cypher's old 4++ save on 3D6!)

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Question about the casual tournaments: How would one enforce being casual? Would there be a banned unit list? Would you just submit your list to the TOs for approval?

Can you imagine a casual tournament with eldar lists? Almost every unit out of the codex is ranging from good to real good. The TO would have to ban all eldar players, or make them play some sort formation list with just banshees, avatar and those melee bikers.

Astro is a bad event, the missions are so dumb and it's been proven the the TOs change scores. Also @experiment626 for a event that you say is a tournement for people that don't like tournements. Even tho that last 5 years the overall winner has been someone playin with a very Competitive army. All the other stuff is basically prizes for people how can't play, you might as well just run a side event for those people like how back in the day you had the golden deamon and grand tournement. Good events would have just straight up battle points, sports is judged at the end and it's ranked by your fav person to play to least fav (or get rid of sports all together, such a pointless award) playing and painting actually require talent, sports is just a award for who kissed the most booty

Dman137 wrote:
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

"Skill level"? Dude. What. The. Feth. If anything, it's fluff bunnies that make 40k what it is. Keep tourns how they are. Anyway, in my area it's not too competitive.

I'd like to see you run a blob guard list against a screamerstar, Tau, or a Legion list. Then we'll see your "skills"

 Lunar Centurion wrote:

Dman137 wrote:
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

"Skill level"? Dude. What. The. Feth. If anything, it's fluff bunnies that make 40k what it is. Keep tourns how they are. Anyway, in my area it's not too competitive.

I'd like to see you run a blob guard list against a screamerstar, Tau, or a Legion list. Then we'll see your "skills"

your not very bright are you.? Fluff bunnies are great for narrative campaigns and AOS. Tournements are best left to those who play competitively

Dman137 wrote:

 Lunar Centurion wrote:

Dman137 wrote:
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

"Skill level"? Dude. What. The. Feth. If anything, it's fluff bunnies that make 40k what it is. Keep tourns how they are. Anyway, in my area it's not too competitive.

I'd like to see you run a blob guard list against a screamerstar, Tau, or a Legion list. Then we'll see your "skills"

your not very bright are you.? Fluff bunnies are great for narrative campaigns and AOS. Tournements are best left to those who play competitively

You're*

Dman137 wrote:

 Lunar Centurion wrote:

Dman137 wrote:
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

"Skill level"? Dude. What. The. Feth. If anything, it's fluff bunnies that make 40k what it is. Keep tourns how they are. Anyway, in my area it's not too competitive.

I'd like to see you run a blob guard list against a screamerstar, Tau, or a Legion list. Then we'll see your "skills"

your not very bright are you.? Fluff bunnies are great for narrative campaigns and AOS. Tournements are best left to those who play competitively

AoS is stupid, and explain to me how you would ban us? Anyway, you didn't answer the question, how would you beat a top tier list with a fluff list? Campaigns are great, I'll agree with that, but we have more skills, because we run mediocre lists on purpose, yet can still beat some of the much better lists.

EDIT: If this seems inflammatory, I apologize, I'm sorry, but it really needed to be said.

Well my IQ is over 200! And my dad can beat up your dad!

If you're comparing IQs or trying to assert that you're smarter than the other person in the discussion, it speaks volumes about you...and none of them good.

But thanks for the laugh.

On topic, anyone who wants to attend a tourney should be allowed to do so if they meet the requirements for said tourney. If you want an event that's more competitive, advertise as such and hope for the best, but there's no way to exclude, filter, or otherwise restrict people from entering events they want. Tourneys are a great way for even casual players to get in a large number of games guaranteed over a weekend.

 Lunar Centurion wrote:

Dman137 wrote:

 Lunar Centurion wrote:

Dman137 wrote:
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

"Skill level"? Dude. What. The. Feth. If anything, it's fluff bunnies that make 40k what it is. Keep tourns how they are. Anyway, in my area it's not too competitive.

I'd like to see you run a blob guard list against a screamerstar, Tau, or a Legion list. Then we'll see your "skills"

your not very bright are you.? Fluff bunnies are great for narrative campaigns and AOS. Tournements are best left to those who play competitively

My IQ is higher than 130, thank you very much, AoS is stupid, and explain to me how you would ban us? Anyway, you didn't answer the question, how would you beat a top tier list with a fluff list? Campaigns are great, I'll agree with that, but we have more skills, because we run mediocre lists on purpose, yet can still beat some of the much better lists.

so if fluff list are better and you guys apparently have more skill how come not one fluff list has won any GT lol and to answer your question you don't use a fluff list to beat a top list that's the whole point of the thread fluff people should have a event of their own and competitive list get their own. But hey if fluff army's like getting beat up by good list then that's their problem. First game at astro I tables my opponent in 2 turns, he sat down all sad and I went a got beer and enjoyed my free time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:
Well my IQ is over 200! And my dad can beat up your dad!

If you're comparing IQs or trying to assert that you're smarter than the other person in the discussion, it speaks volumes about you...and none of them good.

But thanks for the laugh.

On topic, anyone who wants to attend a tourney should be allowed to do so if they meet the requirements for said tourney. If you want an event that's more competitive, advertise as such and hope for the best, but there's no way to exclude, filter, or otherwise restrict people from entering events they want. Tourneys are a great way for even casual players to get in a large number of games guaranteed over a weekend.

I'm not disagreeing with you, everyone is allowed to attended whatever event they wish to, but it's really annoying when those people come to conpettive events and fully know that they are competitive and then after every game they lose you hear them complaining about how this is stupid and blah blah blah power gamers blah blah blah. You knew what was going to be there, if you didn't like it why did you come lol

Dman137 wrote:
I'm not disagreeing with you, everyone is allowed to attended whatever event they wish to, but it's really annoying when those people come to conpettive events and fully know that they are competitive and then after every game they lose you hear them complaining about how this is stupid and blah blah blah power gamers blah blah blah. You knew what was going to be there, if you didn't like it why did you come lol

Sure, but there's no real way to stop that. Even if another event is specifically geared for them, assuming its not at the exact same date as a competitive oriented event, you're going to get people looking for a great way to get in a bunch of guaranteed games.

Its the unfortunate side effect of poorly written games.

Honestly, the best solution is just to advertise the nature of the event clearly, and try and talk reasonably with anyone who takes issue with a list. Maybe they'll learn a thing or two and become a decent competitive player at certain events, or at the very least, not be a stick in the mud if they lose to a AAA list.

Which also has the knock on effect of developing a larger, more diverse, and even-footed pool for you to play with. Try and help develop players that show even a hint of wanting to win more at competitive tourneys. You won't stop'em, might as well try and lend a helping hand.

TuddFudders wrote:
Just have everyone drink 4 beers before playing and you will truly only get the fluffy battles you desire.

Listen. Forget competitive vs non. I want to hear more about drunk 40k.

Experiment 626 wrote:

 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.'

I once lost a 1500 point game against an opponent who could only bring about 900 points...

Come to think of it, I've lost every game I played against someone who wasn't a family member...

As for why I didn't match their points, it was during my first and only local tournament and I thought it would be an easy win. : (

I recently found a copy of Citadel Journal issue 6 from 1994, which had the details of the First International Warhammer Tournament (held in 1995, so 4th edition Warhammer) with 250 places available.

The scoring was as follows:
Playing games (60 points available, based on a fairly fiddly system. 3x 2000-point games across 2 days)
Painting (40 points, awarded by judges)
Army selection (20 points, awarded by judges)
Knowledge (30 points, multiple choice test)
Sportsmanship (30 points. Each player picks the opponent they think was the most sporting and friendly. 10 points are awarded each time someone's name is picked)

So, 33% is based on competitive gameplay, 28% on "soft" scores and 39% on hobby ability. It looks like it would allow a decent balance between "competitive" and "friendly" players.

It must have been reasonably popular, because similar events were advertised in White Dwarf over the next few years.

I'm confused as to the problem and I read this entire thread. Dman137 Are you upset that people seem to be bummed out and express their disappointments vocally when you beat them with a hyper competitive list when they have brought an army that they felt would be fun to play with against an number of new opponents, but you, have decided that for whatever reason their list is "noncompetitive" or "too fluffy"? The only solutions I can see are that either you start participating only in tournaments where everyone plays the exact same list so as to eliminate any cries of "power gamer". Or, just spit-balling here you try and remember that you are (presumably) a grown man, playing with tiny space toys in a game that was designed just so a company could move larger amounts of overpriced plastic across the Atlantic. I enjoy playing with my dolls just as much as you probably do as well, but I think you should take a step back and realize that even if you become the best, most undisputed 40k player in the world, GW can, and has officially changed the results of major tournaments to suit their own ends. Those ends being selling the above mentioned space dolls. At the end of the day you have no real power in this situation and people being upset with you over your play style is a reflection of your own behavior and attitude. This is a game, the rules are only there to help us pretend to be epic space heroes for a couple of hours at a time. Your ego should never be riding on the outcome of a game of 40k. This is a fight that you cannot, and for your own sanity and friendships should not win. I hope that you can find the enjoyment again that drew you into this game in the first place and give up your overriding need to win against only "worthy" opponents. Unless your original joy came from the ability to defeat your friends because you had more disposable income than they did playing 40k, then please just sell your models and walk away forever.

 Renesco P. Blue wrote:
I'm confused as to the problem and I read this entire thread. Dman137 Are you upset that people seem to be bummed out and express their disappointments vocally when you beat them with a hyper competitive list when they have brought an army that they felt would be fun to play with against an number of new opponents, but you, have decided that for whatever reason their list is "noncompetitive" or "too fluffy"? The only solutions I can see are that either you start participating only in tournaments where everyone plays the exact same list so as to eliminate any cries of "power gamer". Or, just spit-balling here you try and remember that you are (presumably) a grown man, playing with tiny space toys in a game that was designed just so a company could move larger amounts of overpriced plastic across the Atlantic. I enjoy playing with my dolls just as much as you probably do as well, but I think you should take a step back and realize that even if you become the best, most undisputed 40k player in the world, GW can, and has officially changed the results of major tournaments to suit their own ends. Those ends being selling the above mentioned space dolls. At the end of the day you have no real power in this situation and people being upset with you over your play style is a reflection of your own behavior and attitude. This is a game, the rules are only there to help us pretend to be epic space heroes for a couple of hours at a time. Your ego should never be riding on the outcome of a game of 40k. This is a fight that you cannot, and for your own sanity and friendships should not win. I hope that you can find the enjoyment again that drew you into this game in the first place and give up your overriding need to win against only "worthy" opponents. Unless your original joy came from the ability to defeat your friends because you had more disposable income than they did playing 40k, then please just sell your models and walk away forever.

my complaint is people coming to competitive events with list that are not combettitive and after their games they complain about power gaming, when they already new that the event was going to be a bunch of power gamers. I have friends that bring fluffy army's to competitive events but they no that going in and they come for the beer and to hang out play some games and whatever other reason they have but they don't complain about strong army's beating them.

I always find it funny that Dman always bases his trolling on some truth, casual tournaments should be the back bone of any game, and no I don't mean labeling a tournament casual and leaving it at that, I mean actually hosting consistent tournaments like FNM to provide a targeted home for casual players that can also facilitate competitive players who want a more relaxed setting.

Dman137 wrote:
my complaint is people coming to competitive events with list that are not competitive and after their games they complain about power gaming, when they already new that the event was going to be a bunch of power gamers. I have friends that bring fluffy army's to competitive events but they no that going in and they come for the beer and to hang out play some games and whatever other reason they have but they don't complain about strong army's beating them.

So, just to clarify, You are upset that someone else is angry, lost, and complained? What do you want done about it? Make the tournament scene more approachable to everyone with additional scores? Prevent casual players from playing tournaments you attend till they "git gud"? I guess I don't understand what you actually want. Is this just venting?

Edit: I guess what I'm asking is. If you don't like how it is currently, How would you fix it?

 Mr_Piddlez wrote:

Edit: I guess what I'm asking is. If you don't like how it is currently, How would you fix it?

If I were to fix it I'd take the same tournament style every game from MtG, to League of Legends, to Hearthstone uses, have the massive base of casual player events/tournaments that works up to a higher level of tournament brackets.

Dman137 wrote:


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

Ironically, the fun tournaments would enjoy it very much if players who feel this way would just stop showing up to their events and then complaining about it later on Dakkadakka.

I wonder why Hard mode players insist on going to tournaments they will only complain about later.

 Pouncey wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

 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.'

I once lost a 1500 point game against an opponent who could only bring about 900 points...

Come to think of it, I've lost every game I played against someone who wasn't a family member...

As for why I didn't match their points, it was during my first and only local tournament and I thought it would be an easy win. : (

Don't sweat it mate - I myself have never once passed Cypher's special 4++ save on 3D6... including when I was told to re-roll it.
The manager of the local GW at the time banned me from ever using the store's Cypher model again, as everyone was in absolute agony from laughing so hard. (so then I bought Dark Eldar, as I'd at least earn a moral victory for inflicting actual pain on opponents in-game! )

Personally I'd rather see my opponent have a good time (and a really good laugh, even if it's typically at my expense) than win a game of plastic man dollies.



@Dman: Have you stopped to consider that perhaps every so-claimed fluff scrub who has no business playing against your superior skillz, isn't peeved so much by your list, but by the way you act during the game itself?
Sure there's a very few so called "fluff scrubs" who will whine about pretty much anything any opponent takes. Mostly though, 99% of it comes down to perceived attitude and body language during the game.

Astro is the single best event I've ever been to - and I'd recommend it to anyone who wants to enjoy a more laid back weekend of gaming & beer drinking!
It's also the event where I've enjoyed the single most hilarious game of my life, due to the fact that we had the two most heigth-challenged people in the entire event, playing on a table that both of us could barely see the top of! (case of bad planning was really bad...)

Really, the only thing that shouldn't be allowed in any kind of event, and treated with the contempt it deserves, are people who show up to a table, see a power list (duh, it's a tournament - no matter how laid back/non-competitive it's advertised as, there'll always be a few really nasty lists!), and then refuse to play the game.

It's one thing to refuse a game against a list you won't enjoy playing against on random gaming nights. It's definitely not okay to do so however when everyone is putting down $20-$50+ just to get in the door! (let alone the cost of driving/transport, food and likely hotel room that come with event weekends)

Well, reward for the behavior you want.
Rewards or points for "sportsmanship", fiction for your army... something for promoting the fluff.
I really like the rules test however: promoting knowledge of the game really makes it more enjoyable when it runs smoothly.
I enjoy more narrative scenarios as well as competitive games.
They are two very different styles of play and valid.
All it takes is the understanding of rules to the max or the most thematic.
Trying to "stop" a certain kind of gamer coming to events is some unadulterated snobbery.
Just give fair warning not to bring a knife to a gun fight unless you are scary skilled.