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.

CaoCaoTipper wrote:
I won, I'll have you know! I don't think he was expecting my Khorne Demonkin to leap the barricades I was deployed behind and charge the Tyranids before they could come near. Best form of defence, heh.

Hah, well played.

CaoCaoTipper wrote:

The staff guy was super awesome, I was (and still am) quite a scrub so he turned it into somthing of a tutorial game to teach me a few things. The time in his work schedule was taken to do the game I guess, so he just played with me.

Nice.

Out of interest, how many points was it? And, were there any restrictions on armies/units?

CaoCaoTipper wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

CaoCaoTipper wrote:
I went to a more casual event run by the good folks at Warhammer World about a month ago, a "participation" game where players joined their armies together to fight against waves of Tyranids controlled by a member of staff.

Kinda wish I lived nearer Nottingham, because that sounds like a lot of fun.#

CaoCaoTipper wrote:
I was the only person to turn up.

Sounds like a win for the nids.

Out of interest though, what did happen? Did they play the game with just you there?

I won, I'll have you know! I don't think he was expecting my Khorne Demonkin to leap the barricades I was deployed behind and charge the Tyranids before they could come near. Best form of defence, heh.

The staff guy was super awesome, I was (and still am) quite a scrub so he turned it into somthing of a tutorial game to teach me a few things. The time in his work schedule was taken to do the game I guess, so he just played with me.

That's actually disappointing. I would love to play something like this. I still love 1v1 games, but sometimes it's just fun getting 4 or so players together and just having a scramble

 jreilly89 wrote:

CaoCaoTipper wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

CaoCaoTipper wrote:
I went to a more casual event run by the good folks at Warhammer World about a month ago, a "participation" game where players joined their armies together to fight against waves of Tyranids controlled by a member of staff.

Kinda wish I lived nearer Nottingham, because that sounds like a lot of fun.#

CaoCaoTipper wrote:
I was the only person to turn up.

Sounds like a win for the nids.

Out of interest though, what did happen? Did they play the game with just you there?

I won, I'll have you know! I don't think he was expecting my Khorne Demonkin to leap the barricades I was deployed behind and charge the Tyranids before they could come near. Best form of defence, heh.

The staff guy was super awesome, I was (and still am) quite a scrub so he turned it into somthing of a tutorial game to teach me a few things. The time in his work schedule was taken to do the game I guess, so he just played with me.

That's actually disappointing. I would love to play something like this. I still love 1v1 games, but sometimes it's just fun getting 4 or so players together and just having a scramble

My absolute favourite multi-player games of all time were the old 'Carnage!' scenario from 3rd edition.
4-6 Players depending on the table size going at it in a giant free-for-all, with all the scheming, 'alliances', backstabbing and treachery that makes my little Tzeentchian heart glow with inner pride!

Those were good times!

 Talizvar wrote:
@Grumblewartz: That is mighty fine parody.
Almost Doomthumbs caliber.
If not, I shall avert my eyes and back away slowly.

Automatically Appended Next Post:


We used to play games like that all the time. People really miss out on an incredibly fun and interesting version of the game.

 vipoid wrote:

CaoCaoTipper wrote:
I won, I'll have you know! I don't think he was expecting my Khorne Demonkin to leap the barricades I was deployed behind and charge the Tyranids before they could come near. Best form of defence, heh.

Hah, well played.

CaoCaoTipper wrote:

The staff guy was super awesome, I was (and still am) quite a scrub so he turned it into somthing of a tutorial game to teach me a few things. The time in his work schedule was taken to do the game I guess, so he just played with me.

Nice.

Out of interest, how many points was it? And, were there any restrictions on armies/units?

The event asked for players to come with 500 points, but I added 140 (Two Oblitorators) since I was the only one and he matched accordingly. Wasn't any restrictions on who we played, and I have no idea what his math was when he was deploying the waves of Tyranids. I just know that the second wave had Old One Eye and he killed my Demon Prince...

Edit: Also, the objective was to survive a number of turns (6, if I remember correctly) and it could well be the case he was handicapping himself for newer players. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to take the idea and make it balanced though.

CaoCaoTipper wrote:

The event asked for players to come with 500 points, but I added 140 (Two Oblitorators) since I was the only one and he matched accordingly. Wasn't any restrictions on who we played, and I have no idea what his math was when he was deploying the waves of Tyranids. I just know that the second wave had Old One Eye and he killed my Demon Prince...

Edit: Also, the objective was to survive a number of turns (6, if I remember correctly) and it could well be the case he was handicapping himself for newer players. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to take the idea and make it balanced though.

Thanks.

I'll have to see if my friends are interested in trying something like this.

We have a great casual tournament here in Canberra, Australia where you have to submit your list by email before the event. There is a panel who judge the lists and they can be rejected if they are too cheesy. Also sports and painting are worth more than battle. It's always fun and those who manage to sneak in some smelly cheese never place highly. There is even a guy who runs a grot rebels army.

 Kavish wrote:
We have a great casual tournament here in Canberra, Australia where you have to submit your list by email before the event. There is a panel who judge the lists and they can be rejected if they are too cheesy. Also sports and painting are worth more than battle. It's always fun and those who manage to sneak in some smelly cheese never place highly. There is even a guy who runs a grot rebels army.

Sounds like the Ordo Fanaticus Club Challenge kind of, or should I say, it sounds like what it used to be. It's pretty competitive now (though it aspires to be about fair fun matchups) but what you're describing is kind of like what OFCC used to mean. Maybe if i go on vacation to Australia, Ill do it when you're having your event.

The op brings up a good point, have different events for different types of players

Immortaldman wrote:
The op brings up a good point, have different events for different types of players

Except that there's no way to keep the over competitive try-hards from ruining the so-called "non-competitive" events.

Immortaldman wrote:
The op brings up a good point, have different events for different types of players

The problem I see is how does one determine what's a "casual" list? Competitive lists are easy enough to determine, but how does one determine what is casual enough for a casual event?

Experiment 626 wrote:
Except that there's no way to keep the over competitive try-hards from ruining the so-called "non-competitive" events.

Sure there is, it will just take a few years to collect a database. Anyone in the serious tournament who is being too casual (not getting a win or even a draw) can only go to the casual events after that. Those that get even a single win (or draw) at the serious event are blacklisted for casual play.

Experiment 626 wrote:

Immortaldman wrote:
The op brings up a good point, have different events for different types of players

Except that there's no way to keep the over competitive try-hards from ruining the so-called "non-competitive" events.

I recently played in a "friendly" tournament and was not surprised to see beardy lists.

Disappointed, but not surprised.

Unfortunately, one man's definition of friendly is another man's "OMG, ROFLSTOMP!"

Experiment 626 wrote:

Immortaldman wrote:
The op brings up a good point, have different events for different types of players

Except that there's no way to keep the over competitive try-hards from ruining the so-called "non-competitive" events.

You just set the rules to reward the behavior you want.
You can always add a questionnaire for the players of who was "the most fun".
Points for fiction or records kept of the army played.
As long as you set a game win in importance to some 30% or less you can reward the more fluffy aspects of the game.
A "competitive try-hard" could surprise you and actually do the work to put something awesome onto the field rather than "only" have the goal to win games.
Heck, you add cosplay elements into the mix if that is what an organizer wants to really get into the game (I would suggest holding around Halloween for the timid).

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

There's lots in our area, I think the issue you're seeing is that there aren't any, or many, strictly competitive tournaments with no soft scoring, painting scores etc.

 More Dakka 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

There's lots in our area, I think the issue you're seeing is that there aren't any, or many, strictly competitive tournaments with no soft scoring, painting scores etc.

There used to be a tournament in US that was strictly competitive... no painting requirements, no other scores besides 'winning'. It was a 2500 point tournament but I can't remember the name. I think what DMan wants is a tournament like that again. Then there's no illusion of the purpose of the tournament.

I just remembered the name. It was 'Ard Boyz

There is a certain irony in people who are literally playing the game wrong (at least by the game design's POV) asking to segregate and exclude the people playing it right, and I say that from the POV of one of the people who prefers competitive play.

As for fixing the issue of ringers infiltrating casual play events, scarp all vestiges of a 'Ard Boyz mentality and look back to the older official GW tournament rules (circa early-mid '90's) that gave more points to creativity and authenticity than battle performance. Things like having to submit an actual fluff description to justify the composition of your force.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zimko wrote:


There used to be a tournament in US that was strictly competitive... no painting requirements, no other scores besides 'winning'. It was a 2500 point tournament but I can't remember the name. I think what DMan wants is a tournament like that again. Then there's no illusion of the purpose of the tournament.

I just remembered the name. It was 'Ard Boyz

Yep that was it, and it was ultimately killed by GW HQ because it was in their eyes a business-eroding perversion of the game's intent. As an MBA, I get that since we Yanks tend to favor competitive gaming way more than other cultures and you don't make long-term relationships with new customers in any culture by having them getting utterly curb stomped by an existing player-base of hard core competitors (anybody who doubts this ought to look at the annual influx of new Warmahordes players and then look at how many are still around two years later). At the same time, as a player who prefers competitive play, I really miss the lessons I learned while getting beat down in 'Ard Boyz.

maxgravity wrote:
There is a certain irony in people who are literally playing the game wrong (at least by the game design's POV) asking to segregate and exclude the people playing it right, and I say that from the POV of one of the people who prefers competitive play.

As for fixing the issue of ringers infiltrating casual play events, scarp all vestiges of a 'Ard Boyz mentality and look back to the older official GW tournament rules (circa early-mid '90's) that gave more points to creativity and authenticity than battle performance. Things like having to submit an actual fluff description to justify the composition of your force.

While you can always loudly promote the event as casual, and set up the overall scoring system in a way that *should* utterly crush the possibility of a hard core competitive player from running the tables and cleaning up, it still doesn't stop those types of individuals from physically showing up.

Even if the event organiser decides to outright boot them from the event after the first game or two proves that the individual has shown up only to make everyone else miserable and take the top prize, you still end up with people who've had their event ruined by simply having to put up with playing against the donkeycave(s).

And that's the problem: we have a number of hyper competitive players who are saying, "give the gooby scrubs their own event so they stop wrecking our pro level Tournaments!"
Then these same individuals claim out the other side of their pie hole that any time there's a prize, or any kind of final ranking, the event is automatically "Competitive" and thus, all the gooby scrubs should stay home or else "L2P"/"Git Gud.lolz!".

maxgravity wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zimko wrote:


There used to be a tournament in US that was strictly competitive... no painting requirements, no other scores besides 'winning'. It was a 2500 point tournament but I can't remember the name. I think what DMan wants is a tournament like that again. Then there's no illusion of the purpose of the tournament.

I just remembered the name. It was 'Ard Boyz

Yep that was it, and it was ultimately killed by GW HQ because it was in their eyes a business-eroding perversion of the game's intent. As an MBA, I get that since we Yanks tend to favor competitive gaming way more than other cultures and you don't make long-term relationships with new customers in any culture by having them getting utterly curb stomped by an existing player-base of hard core competitors (anybody who doubts this ought to look at the annual influx of new Warmahordes players and then look at how many are still around two years later). At the same time, as a player who prefers competitive play, I really miss the lessons I learned while getting beat down in 'Ard Boyz.

'Ard Boyz was canned more because;
1) It was proven that there was rampant cheating & match-fixing throughout the prelims and regionals.

2) The 2500pts/3000pts army prize for the Semi round winners turned into a giant clusterfeth that cost GW massive inventory losses, and left stores with piles of unwanted product they'd never be able to shift.

The way it poisoned the community as whole was just the final nail in the coffin.

Immortaldman wrote:
The op brings up a good point, have different events for different types of players

Dboy's second account agreeing with his first? Just look at the poster's name.

 Lammikkovalas wrote:

Immortaldman wrote:
The op brings up a good point, have different events for different types of players

Dboy's second account agreeing with his first? Just look at the poster's name.

How has Dman not been banned yet? He just blatantly made a sock puppet account for trolling.

Well, it is so hard to exercise your split personality.
To fluff or not to fluff?
To competitive play or say fraggit and go full WAAC?
Multiple accounts would allow me to pose a coherent attitude all segregated to avoid confusion.

But anyway:


It would be nice to have each style of player to play like-minded players BUT if getting a game in where "it's all good" I would be hard pressed to try to dissuade them from coming.
They like to play the game right?
Hard to tell them to get lost when they are willing to chance being tabled.

<edit> If any MODs are listening my kids are very close to that age to want on this board so no BANE-ing without leaving channels open if I do not figure out how to set family / same IP settings. There I go, getting all paranoid...

Experiment 626 wrote:

Immortaldman wrote:
The op brings up a good point, have different events for different types of players

Except that there's no way to keep the over competitive try-hards from ruining the so-called "non-competitive" events.

A list committee is how OFCC dealt with it. they'd simply send your list back and say "yeah, really sorry, but gotta tone it down".

they also made it so that they rate lists 1-4 and cap the TEAMS TOTAL. So for example, 10 points amongst all team members. So the Captains submit the lists and self police how they think they will be rated, keeping in mind the 10. Then the rating committee decides if they agree. In this way you have two entities policing the lists.

the end result? A generally more agreeable experience because no one goes thinking their "list of doom" will annihilate everyone. Further, the prizes ARE raffled. So winning and losing, while personally important, isn't necessary so you're not feeling the need to stomp on peoples necks once you have them down.

Last benefit: though its less competitive from a list standpoint, the actual SKILL of generals shines through more. So the games tend to be more engaging mentally (not always but they tend to be). three years ago I went with a team that intentionally took 3 1's and a 2 just to see how well we could do with terribad lists. My result? 5-0. One judge told me he'd give my list a zero if he were able but was compelled by rule to give it a 1. I faced four 4's and a 2 during that tournament (sometimes you just get lucky that way). I personally loved winning against tougher lists using a weaker one. It made the whole weekend pretty awesome and every victory felt rewarding in the extreme.

Pretty fun format. The REAL threat here isn't the "try hards' as you call them. Its when the rating committee loses sight of what the event was originally there to accomplish. Thats the real problematic possibility. if their definition of 1-4 isnt consistent, well... You'll see an inevitable escalation in what they allow. So there's that.

Spetulhu wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:
Except that there's no way to keep the over competitive try-hards from ruining the so-called "non-competitive" events.

Sure there is, it will just take a few years to collect a database. Anyone in the serious tournament who is being too casual (not getting a win or even a draw) can only go to the casual events after that. Those that get even a single win (or draw) at the serious event are blacklisted for casual play.

That brings up problems of it's own. I'm sure there's players out there who go to these "try hard" tournaments and still like to enjoy casual games with more fun lists from time to time. Kinda seems overkill to ban people outright, and that could lead to a pretty segmented community.