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 think the sooner people realize that "leagues" and "tournaments" are the nesting grounds for power gaming and stop whining when power gamers show up to a power gamer event, the better everyone will be.
If you participate in a league or any competitive event and the organizer has not outlawed min/max play, then you should expect it the same as you expect water to be wet.
If you want a "league" or "tournament" that caters to casual lists, then the organizer needs to put the work in to define what exactly that means.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/09 22:58:51
Just Tony wrote: So the gist of this thread is the debate on whether this is a wargame or a board game? I wonder if anyone has ever take a Snotling Horde to a tourney or competitive league.
No?
This gist, after reading the full thread, is more "Did bringing something heavy in a small points game make me TFG in a league with a $50 prize?" Depending on the view point, it can go either way.
I'm more interested in the $50 now. Was it just a 5 dollar fee collected from the ten players to play the games, or was it put up by the organizer and the league was free? The former way, makes it so it's sort of an incentive, but it's more of a bonus for coming and playing with everyone. The latter is incentive to bring good lists that will stomp your friends, even for just $50.
I don't know if we're getting the full story, but either way, Hotsauce should probably be a bit more careful in later leagues in this group, lest he get labeled the Tautide Bringer. Or something to that effect if the community is more relaxed.
It is the latter, we do pay 5$, but it goes to store credit for ourselves.
Here is the thing, im not asking for validation. I dont need that. Im just trying to understand the mindset that you go into a league, knowing there is a prize for those who win. Why think that people will not bring the best?
It is the latter, we do pay 5$, but it goes to store credit for ourselves.
Here is the thing, im not asking for validation. I dont need that. Im just trying to understand the mindset that you go into a league, knowing there is a prize for those who win. Why think that people will not bring the best?
Whenever I do play a league, rather than a tourney, I go to have fun. I will try to win, but I'm not bringing the only competitive list Tyranids have. Flyrant spam is not fun to play or play against. The prize isn't worth it if the games weren't fun/enjoyable.
I know others find it fun to bring broken combos (Riptide isn't broken, just extremely hard to deal with at 1250), and deathstars with rerollable 2+ or whatever. But That isn't fun unless both you and your opponent want that kind of game. I think the Rule and Restrictions should have been clear, rather than work on unwritten rules of the community, which can change over time. Not entirely sure how your community is, but from what you've said it's not competitive for the most part.
PourSpelur wrote: It's fully within the rules for me to look up your Facebook page, find out your dear Mother Gladys is single, take her on a lovely date, and tell you all the details of our hot, sweaty, animal sex during your psychic phase.
I mean, fifty bucks is on the line.
There's no rule that says I can't.
Imo, it's all up to TO to decide whether the league is a friendly league or a competitive one. If the TO specifically asks for everyone not to bring cheese and some guy still brings cheese - he's a...well. If there's no such 'limitations' - it's all up to players.
Here is the thing, im not asking for validation. I dont need that.
Yes you are. You are making excuses. First stop making excuse like "it's for money" or "money is the prize so people MUST play their best".
Im just trying to understand the mindset that you go into a league,
Because a lot of people like to play for fun and don't need to win.
knowing there is a prize for those who win.
here you are again, making excuses. So yes you are looking for validation. You have been told by a few people who said you were wrong. You were also told by a few people who agreed with you but yet you are still going on about the "money prize". People have different opinions. Some people are like you, bring your best, other people play for fun no matter what. I am one of these people who play for fun and be damned if there is a money prize or not.
I get it now. Maybe it's not about validation, you just want to be proven correct and other people are wrong now. Just put it we all have different opinions and play differently. Some people love anchovies, others don't. Some people love eating sardines out of a can, a lot of people don't. Does that mean the people who do love eating it are wrong because they have a differing opinion because the other people don't?
Why think that people will not bring the best?
Because they don't want to. They want to play for fun prize or no prize they still want to play casually and for fun.
Agies Grimm:The "Learn to play, bro" mentality is mostly just a way for someone to try to shame you by implying that their metaphorical nerd-wiener is bigger than yours. Which, ironically, I think nerds do even more vehemently than jocks.
Everything is made up and the points don't matter. 40K or Who's Line is it Anyway?
Auticus wrote: Or in summation: its ok to exploit shoddy points because those are rules and gamers exist to find rules loopholes (they are still "legal"), but if the same force can be composed without structure, it emotionally feels "wrong".
Okay, given your multiple comments against competitive play, we well know your opinion Davor. Here's a question for you: if you have no desire to win and have no fun playing in a competitive environment, why would you enter into one of those events in the first place? If you would, don't you kind of expect every type of play, ESPECIALLY competitive play, to be present?
Lol, I didn't even know there was prize support for the last tournament I went to. I thought it was just an entrance fee to help support the FLGS.
Meh. Even if I did want to bring my best, I couldn't physically do it since I don't have the models for it or even the right faction. That's what's frustrating about 40k at the moment is the guys who tend to beat out the competition are the guys with the biggest wallets who can cherry pick the best units in any faction whenever they feel like it. "Oh, you bought hundreds of dollars worth of tanks? Well feth you bro, you should have gone bikes or drop pods with some eldar and tau sprinkled in. Lol, you actually bought an Ork army? Are you an idiot?"
That's why 40k tournaments and leagues should be composed of like minded individuals who are on the same page in terms of competitive levels. The hardcore tournament guys should stick to themselves while the semi-competitive guys who do try to win, but throw some fluff units for the sake of liking the models/lore should work with their group. It's unfortunate, but segregation is the best way to play 40k without getting too frustrated by the other party half. Community should be divided into three classes
1) Competitive: Play to win any means necessary with no boundaries
2) Semi Competitive/Casual: Try to win, but has boundaries, will take some models they like, and would prefer a close to even game with their opponent
3) Narrative: Don't really care about winning as much as just telling a story and taking models they love
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/10/10 02:37:09
Just Tony wrote: Okay, given your multiple comments against competitive play, we well know your opinion Davor. Here's a question for you: if you have no desire to win and have no fun playing in a competitive environment, why would you enter into one of those events in the first place? If you would, don't you kind of expect every type of play, ESPECIALLY competitive play, to be present?
Well, to be fair, a league is not a tournament. It's a way to organise a series of games over a longer period of time, and generally have many more ways of scoring points than just winning. There's a prize at the end, and obviously some people will game it to get that prize, but it should involve much more than just winning games.
If you brought the OP's mindset to a tournament, I'd understand. A tournament is that environment where 'bring your best' is expected. But a league? No.
This vid is probably the best advice. The trick is to win and have fun at the same time. The ultra competitive stuff turns the game into statistics so a lot of the time people don't want to build their army that way, it's not their concept of fun.
I guess I've never seen a league not be competitive. The only difference to me with a league and tournament is a tournament is one or two days long and a league is weeks or months long.
I've never in 20+ years seen a non competitive league run. They have always competitive events where I am.
I think it's important to distinguish between out and out competitive play events and a more sedate journeyman league format.
The former is obvious wring all the advantage from lists that you can and go at it. The latter is about creating a simple on-going community event without the complexity and crunch of a campaign.
I would imagine the prize money is only there to show that it is a non-profit exercise and to establish and retain commitment in the group.
So taking a well known OTT min/max list at a 1250point event is just poor form, justifying it by saying that there is money at stake only adds an element of greed to it.
I mean you often get some dong that inadvertently tries (benefit of the doubt) to min/max, it's just this time the OP was the dong.
If you want to be the best player/take the biggest challenge then you should be able to take any average list and perform well with it. Skewing the odds from the start isn't bringing any sort of "game" or whatever daft notion you want to use especially in a community event.
How do you promote your Hobby? - Legoburner "I run some crappy wargaming website "
I think it depends on the league. They aren't all cutthroat "bring your best or don't come at all" type things, but they can be (and there's something cool about a "high stakes", not in reward, type of event to see who's the best of the best). Usually I consider a league to simply be a way to structure games versus just showing up and seeing who else turned up wanting a game; in the past leagues have been very laid back with maybe some basic house rules setting a points limit, but that's it. It's a very hands-off way of providing some sort of structure around the game, basically like trying to emulate FNM but usually not on a set day.
Sure I can see that. I live in a very competitive region though. We do regular narrative campaigns but there is ALWAYS a ton of politics and nasty comments going back and forth because there are a lot of people present that don't think you should be doing that with wargames and that it teaches people "to play wrong".
Thats why my experience with leagues is that they are always competitive, because in my region that has been the case.
auticus wrote: Sure I can see that. I live in a very competitive region though. We do regular narrative campaigns but there is ALWAYS a ton of politics and nasty comments going back and forth because there are a lot of people present that don't think you should be doing that with wargames and that it teaches people "to play wrong".
Thats why my experience with leagues is that they are always competitive, because in my region that has been the case.
auticus wrote: Sure I can see that. I live in a very competitive region though. We do regular narrative campaigns but there is ALWAYS a ton of politics and nasty comments going back and forth because there are a lot of people present that don't think you should be doing that with wargames and that it teaches people "to play wrong".
Thats why my experience with leagues is that they are always competitive, because in my region that has been the case.
Jesus. Narrative is a legit way to play. Sound like the most fun bunch.
PourSpelur wrote: It's fully within the rules for me to look up your Facebook page, find out your dear Mother Gladys is single, take her on a lovely date, and tell you all the details of our hot, sweaty, animal sex during your psychic phase.
I mean, fifty bucks is on the line.
There's no rule that says I can't.
It teaches people "to play wrong" because you'd have new players not using tournament sanctioned scenarios and you'd have house or comp rules that they shouldn't be using.
You'd be deviating from RAW, which is "playing wrong".
auticus wrote: It teaches people "to play wrong" because you'd have new players not using tournament sanctioned scenarios and you'd have house or comp rules that they shouldn't be using.
You'd be deviating from RAW, which is "playing wrong".
All the facepalms aren't enough. Seriously, people who feel that way should go feth off and play another game, there are plenty that are great for tournament style play and don't require house rules at all. Warhammer (any incarnation) is not that game.
auticus wrote: It teaches people "to play wrong" because you'd have new players not using tournament sanctioned scenarios and you'd have house or comp rules that they shouldn't be using.
You'd be deviating from RAW, which is "playing wrong".
Doesn't 40k have a few tournament scenes who have to vote/determine what a ruling on a rule/rule interaction is?
Also, sanctioned scenarios? Nothing in the BRB says anything about "Tournament Sanctioned Scenarios" as far as I know. If I recall, they push making up your own and giving a narrative and having fun games. The scenarios provided are used as templates and creative launchpoints from what I've seen.
PourSpelur wrote: It's fully within the rules for me to look up your Facebook page, find out your dear Mother Gladys is single, take her on a lovely date, and tell you all the details of our hot, sweaty, animal sex during your psychic phase.
I mean, fifty bucks is on the line.
There's no rule that says I can't.
When that was brought down on one of my campaigns it was 2012 or so. I think 5th edition was still the thing.
The "tournament standard" in my area then was the core rulebook scenarios and nothing else.
We were doing one of the Imperial Armor campaigns that year as a public event. Because the scenarios were not balanced, it caused a lot of heat against the campaign group and a lot of nasty commentary which even bled onto public forums.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/10 19:19:39
auticus wrote: It teaches people "to play wrong" because you'd have new players not using tournament sanctioned scenarios and you'd have house or comp rules that they shouldn't be using.
You'd be deviating from RAW, which is "playing wrong".
Maybe tournaments should spend less time "sanctioning scenarios" and more time weeding out the behaviors that makes people consider "competitive" players to be jerks?.
I guess it comes down to what is competitive vs. what is OTT. Back in the heyday of 3rd Ed. you'd have people running Biel Tan armies that ran multiples of one or two aspects and that's it. I faced a Dark Reaper army with multiple Star Cannon War Walkers supporting and a Banshee squad in Wave Serpent to finish off any stragglers. Comp wise, that army was completely fair, and to the credit of the balances of that edition, would have died in droves vs ANYTHING horde. However, pretty much anybody with any level of vehicle support in their army or any of the MEQs were less than thrilled against it. The list is technically fluffy as well. Where do you draw the line?
I think the two parties at fault here are the TO and the whiny players not the OP. And that is coming from a player who wouldn't be caught dead at a tourney/competitive league.
Personally I think 40k is a horrible vehicle to pretend to use as a balanced test of skill. It isn't designed to be a sport. Leagues and tournaments presented as balanced contests for a prize are in denial from the get go for most part because the game has many balance issues.
However if you insist on running a league/tourney you had better make it very clear what is and isn't allowed with whatever house rules and restrictions to lists that you deem fit for your event/community.
Likewise if you enter an event presented as a competition for a prize then expect to encounter nasty stuff allowed by the event rules/restrictions (or lack thereof).
If you fail to present comprehensive guidelines then you have failed as a TO.
If you are a player that whines at other players for bringing what the event/TO allows you have failed as well.
The OP has done nothing wrong.
I don't play tournaments/leagues because I don't enjoy that style of play and the types of players/armies it typically attracts, but if I did decide to play in one It would be pretty lame of me to then complain that people are trying to win an activity whose primary focus is to declare a winner.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/10/10 22:06:37
Just Tony wrote:Okay, given your multiple comments against competitive play, we well know your opinion Davor. Here's a question for you: if you have no desire to win and have no fun playing in a competitive environment, why would you enter into one of those events in the first place? If you would, don't you kind of expect every type of play, ESPECIALLY competitive play, to be present?
Funny we just wrapped up our league and not one person was competitive and we were all to have fun playing, win or loose. I am not alone here. I am saying it can be done, and is being done. Not everyone plays or thinks like the Original Poster.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/10 22:03:42
Agies Grimm:The "Learn to play, bro" mentality is mostly just a way for someone to try to shame you by implying that their metaphorical nerd-wiener is bigger than yours. Which, ironically, I think nerds do even more vehemently than jocks.
Everything is made up and the points don't matter. 40K or Who's Line is it Anyway?
Auticus wrote: Or in summation: its ok to exploit shoddy points because those are rules and gamers exist to find rules loopholes (they are still "legal"), but if the same force can be composed without structure, it emotionally feels "wrong".
auticus wrote: It teaches people "to play wrong" because you'd have new players not using tournament sanctioned scenarios and you'd have house or comp rules that they shouldn't be using.
You'd be deviating from RAW, which is "playing wrong".
"Do you even ITC or Nova, bro?" Every major tournament uses houserules and FAQs because the core 40k rules are vague on many issues and the scenarios are imbalanced in others.
When that was brought down on one of my campaigns it was 2012 or so. I think 5th edition was still the thing.
The "tournament standard" in my area then was the core rulebook scenarios and nothing else.
We were doing one of the Imperial Armor campaigns that year as a public event. Because the scenarios were not balanced, it caused a lot of heat against the campaign group and a lot of nasty commentary which even bled onto public forums.
Core scenarios aren't any better. Eternal war naturally favors death stars and gunlines while maelstrom of war favors fast armies and MSU like eldar. And of course narrative campaign scenarios are imbalanced because they're designed to be fun and tell a story. It doesn't sound balanced that I want to do a siege battle against heavily entrenched units while mixing in some beer pong and throwing pieces of paper onto the table to generate strength 8 AP3 ordnance large blasts, but it's a heck a lot of fun and I'm going to do it as long as the other people think it's fun too. The problem is people seriously need to communicate better and get on the same page as to what they expect in a group or campaign. If you don't want any imbalance, then stay the heck away from narrative campaigns where the GM's are open to do whatever they want. Also stay away from DnD because us DMs would absolutely hate having to deal with people who can't go with the flow for the sake of "balance".
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/10 23:53:04
CT GAMER wrote: I think the two parties at fault here are the TO and the whiny players not the OP. And that is coming from a player who wouldn't be caught dead at a tourney/competitive league.
Personally I think 40k is a horrible vehicle to pretend to use as a balanced test of skill. It isn't designed to be a sport. Leagues and tournaments presented as balanced contests for a prize are in denial from the get go for most part because the game has many balance issues.
However if you insist on running a league/tourney you had better make it very clear what is and isn't allowed with whatever house rules and restrictions to lists that you deem fit for your event/community.
Likewise if you enter an event presented as a competition for a prize then expect to encounter nasty stuff allowed by the event rules/restrictions (or lack thereof).
If you fail to present comprehensive guidelines then you have failed as a TO.
If you are a player that whines at other players for bringing what the event/TO allows you have failed as well.
The OP has done nothing wrong.
I don't play tournaments/leagues because I don't enjoy that style of play and the types of players/armies it typically attracts, but if I did decide to play in one It would be pretty lame of me to then complain that people are trying to win an activity whose primary focus is to declare a winner.
^^This. OP did nothing wrong. If the TO and other players didn't want to see the kind of list he brought, they should have said so before the league started and imposed specific rules to ban it. "Unspoken" rules are not rules.
CT GAMER wrote: I think the two parties at fault here are the TO and the whiny players not the OP. And that is coming from a player who wouldn't be caught dead at a tourney/competitive league.
Personally I think 40k is a horrible vehicle to pretend to use as a balanced test of skill. It isn't designed to be a sport. Leagues and tournaments presented as balanced contests for a prize are in denial from the get go for most part because the game has many balance issues.
However if you insist on running a league/tourney you had better make it very clear what is and isn't allowed with whatever house rules and restrictions to lists that you deem fit for your event/community.
Likewise if you enter an event presented as a competition for a prize then expect to encounter nasty stuff allowed by the event rules/restrictions (or lack thereof).
If you fail to present comprehensive guidelines then you have failed as a TO.
If you are a player that whines at other players for bringing what the event/TO allows you have failed as well.
The OP has done nothing wrong.
I don't play tournaments/leagues because I don't enjoy that style of play and the types of players/armies it typically attracts, but if I did decide to play in one It would be pretty lame of me to then complain that people are trying to win an activity whose primary focus is to declare a winner.
^^This. OP did nothing wrong. If the TO and other players didn't want to see the kind of list he brought, they should have said so before the league started and imposed specific rules to ban it. "Unspoken" rules are not rules.
This is exactly what a "proper" competitive player wants.
Give me ALL the rules not some self imposed unwritten ones I have no idea on.
A competition is not "life or death" but could you imagine any of this madness being applied to ANY competitive sport?
The rules define the game.
What makes a player awesome is how they play within those rules.
For the casual gamer, the object is to have fun but we must recognize that we all do not agree on what ingredients of the game make it fun for them.
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
Just Tony wrote:Okay, given your multiple comments against competitive play, we well know your opinion Davor. Here's a question for you: if you have no desire to win and have no fun playing in a competitive environment, why would you enter into one of those events in the first place? If you would, don't you kind of expect every type of play, ESPECIALLY competitive play, to be present?
Funny we just wrapped up our league and not one person was competitive and we were all to have fun playing, win or loose. I am not alone here. I am saying it can be done, and is being done. Not everyone plays or thinks like the Original Poster.
Well, yeah. But did you set up the ground rules going in, do you all know each other, or did you just get lucky in that everyone involved had the same mindset? You having an example doesn't set the rule of law.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/11 15:08:02