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.

Spam is fun to eat. I fry spam up on trips and such. My grandfather and my god father loved it.

I mean, i actually personally like spam, makes it feel like a real unit/army lol.

Yeah, I find spam aesthetically and fluffily appealing for certain armies.

If you're not bringing your best to a tournament, then you shouldn't go.

I'd go to a tournament with an unoptimized list to play new opponents; but I'd have to accept the fact that I'm more likely to run up against lists that'll trounce me, then other unoptimized, fun seeking lists.

Also, read this: "Playing to Win" - http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

keithandor wrote:

Find the broken/too good for it's points stuff and take 10 of them , it's ridiculous.

that is how ALL turnys are for ALL mini games.
by doing it like that it comes down to the players ability to use the army and the dice roll/reroll.

like it has been said, if you dont like it dont play them. stick to campains that is fluff driven.

This is how it works for ALL games

its not exclusive to miniature games.

Cash money makes people really tune their gak till it gives them the absolute best chance of winning. then people copy those because all the work is done for them even if they dont know how to use it.

think Magic the gathering mana economy and card economy
CS GO strats and callouts and economy curves
all sorts of moba meta games

 Desubot wrote:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

keithandor wrote:

Find the broken/too good for it's points stuff and take 10 of them , it's ridiculous.

that is how ALL turnys are for ALL mini games.
by doing it like that it comes down to the players ability to use the army and the dice roll/reroll.

like it has been said, if you dont like it dont play them. stick to campains that is fluff driven.

This is how it works for ALL games

its not exclusive to miniature games.

Cash money makes people really tune their gak till it gives them the absolute best chance of winning. then people copy those because all the work is done for them even if they dont know how to use it.

think Magic the gathering mana economy and card economy
CS GO strats and callouts and economy curves
all sorts of moba meta games

There are many (but hard ot find if you loacl is small) places that will do things like Highlander, or 1 FoC tournaments, if you dont like using all the rules and want a toned down game, try one of those tournaments.

keithandor wrote:
Wow! , I tried a few tournaments.

The spam is ridiculous , why do tournaments allow spam , or why doesn't the game limit stuff ,8th seems like you can fit in whatever you want.?
Find the broken/too good for it's points stuff and take 10 of them , it's ridiculous.

Normal for any competitive game.

As for your suggestions, it doesn't work. Other games already limit things like this, as did Warhammer back in the day. Having Force Org charts or convoluted strategies that require a number of card types will simply result in even more cookie cutter builds. When you need 8 removal spells, 12 creatures, 24 land, 8 enchantments, and 4 artifacts in a 60 card deck, you're left with only 4 cards to actually customize your deck and make it unique from every other deck playing the same strategy. By allowing players to take anything they want, the game has actually opened up into a wide range of armies that differ greatly between them. Guilliman armies have no common formula other than they have Guilliman. Thousand Sons armies all have Magnus and Ahriman but that's where the similarities end. Some sport daemons, some spam Scarabs, some field thick blobs of Tzaangors, some ally in Obliterator detachments with Abaddon.

In the old days, when troop tax was mandatory, people fielded the cheapest squad of troops they possibly could to cover it. Two squads of cultists, done, 100 pts out of the list. Everything else spamming whatever's the biggest and baddest robot you have. Now we at least see some variety as everyone has their own idea of tactics and the meta is complex enough that counter armies aren't assured. Not like in 7th where you could rest assured that there would be super heavies on the battlefield and you absolutely needed some sort of D weapon or melta deep strikers.

This edition is the best yet!

The spam exploded in 6th for sure, double CADs to start, then formations thru 7th.

The only way this changes is to limit the tourney to a Brigade or battalion with one optional add on detachment. Some do this, but you have a hard time getting people to show up unless a large group like ITC or GW says it's the new normal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arkaine wrote:

keithandor wrote:
Wow! , I tried a few tournaments.

The spam is ridiculous , why do tournaments allow spam , or why doesn't the game limit stuff ,8th seems like you can fit in whatever you want.?
Find the broken/too good for it's points stuff and take 10 of them , it's ridiculous.

Normal for any competitive game.

As for your suggestions, it doesn't work. Other games already limit things like this, as did Warhammer back in the day. Having Force Org charts or convoluted strategies that require a number of card types will simply result in even more cookie cutter builds. When you need 8 removal spells, 12 creatures, 24 land, 8 enchantments, and 4 artifacts in a 60 card deck, you're left with only 4 cards to actually customize your deck and make it unique from every other deck playing the same strategy. By allowing players to take anything they want, the game has actually opened up into a wide range of armies that differ greatly between them. Guilliman armies have no common formula other than they have Guilliman. Thousand Sons armies all have Magnus and Ahriman but that's where the similarities end. Some sport daemons, some spam Scarabs, some field thick blobs of Tzaangors, some ally in Obliterator detachments with Abaddon.

In the old days, when troop tax was mandatory, people fielded the cheapest squad of troops they possibly could to cover it. Two squads of cultists, done, 100 pts out of the list. Everything else spamming whatever's the biggest and baddest robot you have. Now we at least see some variety as everyone has their own idea of tactics and the meta is complex enough that counter armies aren't assured. Not like in 7th where you could rest assured that there would be super heavies on the battlefield and you absolutely needed some sort of D weapon or melta deep strikers.

This edition is the best yet!

And those cookie cutter troop lists got stomped by good players. 5th was incredibly balanced until Matt Ward stuck acolytes and terminators into the troops slot and Phil stuck similar cheese into the troops slot.

keithandor wrote:
Wow! , I tried a few tournaments.

The spam is ridiculous , why do tournaments allow spam , or why doesn't the game limit stuff ,8th seems like you can fit in whatever you want.?
Find the broken/too good for it's points stuff and take 10 of them , it's ridiculous.

No matter what limits you place on a tournament, the players will find what they feel works best and flood the table. Game wide restrictions will hinder some armies more than others and is unfair.
Tournaments attract people who play to win, and they will go to great lengths to do so.

 gwarsh41 wrote:

keithandor wrote:
Wow! , I tried a few tournaments.

The spam is ridiculous , why do tournaments allow spam , or why doesn't the game limit stuff ,8th seems like you can fit in whatever you want.?
Find the broken/too good for it's points stuff and take 10 of them , it's ridiculous.

No matter what limits you place on a tournament, the players will find what they feel works best and flood the table. Game wide restrictions will hinder some armies more than others and is unfair.
Tournaments attract people who play to win, and they will go to great lengths to do so.

Not really unfair, just a different format. Magic the Gathering has cards that are great in standard, suck in draft, and are godlike in Commander. Depending on the format you will have some armies be better than others. It's not unfair too because GW already makes the base game lopsided in favor of Imperial Guard with Necrons crying about how much they suck. Shifting the rules around with limitations creates a new format and new meta for people to explore rather than the same tired old conscript spam.

The problem with tournaments isn't spam, nor is it broken lists, nor is it playing as hard as possible to win.

The problem with tournaments is when they infect casual games and narrative games and campaign games as well... so that the only mode you play has to be tournament-mode if you want a good game, because some players don't know when their tournament list isn't appropriate.

This is particularly telling in games workshop games where the balance is usually grotesquely bad.

 auticus wrote:

The problem with tournaments is when they infect casual games and narrative games and campaign games as well... so that the only mode you play has to be tournament-mode if you want a good game, because some players don't know when their tournament list isn't appropriate.

This is particularly telling in games workshop games where the balance is usually grotesquely bad.

Yeah and whenever I bring my casual magic decks to the store the standard players kill me in 3 turns and I can't do anything about it. Magic is so imbalanced man!

Or maybe that's just the case in every game that has enough variety and choice to create different lists/decks/etc... hell, WM/H was supposed to be the epitome of balance, and I have seen people getting stomped regularly without standing a chance, just because their list was not tournament grade. It's not a feature of GW specifically you know.

I know I can play a game of battletech casually and face an optimizer and not get destroyed. I did it last weekend. I've done it many times before that.

The whole concept of playing waac style in every venue and event and game despite it being a tournament or not is the problem. Its a culture problem.

Time and place for everything. Tournament lists should be consigned to the tournament hall. Campaigns and casual games should be free to run casual non-optimized lists and enjoy yourself.

Thats often not the case.

And GW games make it worse because their balance is pretty much the worst in most every tabletop game out there right now.

I never noticed it really with malifaux though. Usually its who best holds and plays their cards. I have seen some bizarre crews pull out wins that way.

keithandor wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ok.....
Tournaments are about testing your best list against another opponents best list and finding out who is best/better
.

Best/better at what ? Cheese and Spam ?

Yes.
Cheese and Spam.

Spam and cheese and spam.

Spam and cheese and bacon and eggs and spam.

ALL of the spam, as you have noted. It's something that hasn't changed in 15 years.

I still like unit requirements.

If you want that exarch you had to take a squad of aspect warriors.

Do more of that!

you want to take devestators you need to have a tac squad.

you want that tank you need to pair it with a transport

you want that character you need a command HQ squad, etc etc

Spam was always there but it wasn't noticable until 6th edition. This was because in 5th edition we were still restricted to a single FoC (and thus the only real spam you could do was troops) and the 0-1 limit was still somewhat being used. Before that you had to spam, since we didn't have the absolute buffet of units we have now. Most factions, especially newer ones, sometimes only had 1 or 2 choices in non-troop slots. Nids was the most lonely, with only 1 actual entry in the Elites section (The lack of entries there was helped by the fact that Warriors and Rippers switched roles depending on what they had).

Not to mention rank and file models were a lot more expensive back then. A bolter marine with both kinds of grenades ran at 18 points a pop, while Gaunts were 8-9 points and still considered "Swarms".

I remember back then a Terminator Lord, 2 squads of Chaos Marines, a terminator squad, a Raptor squad and a Chaos Dreadnought was considered a decently "Large" army. Nowaday it's just considered a "Good start".

40k Tournaments are try-hard fests..always have been and always will be.

They are for those that simply must prove they are the best at toy soldiers.

I don't really mind spam as most fluffy lists require some - except we just call it "theme".

One thing to remember, all games at a competitive level have some kind of spam. If you play modern MTG you basically have 4 of each card in your deck. Spam adds redundancy/consistency meaning that your outcomes are less random - which is exactly what you need when trying to win reliably.

As others have said, don't go to tournaments if you don't want to face optimized lists.

Minijack wrote:
40k Tournaments are try-hard fests..always have been and always will be.

They are for those that simply must prove they are the best at toy soldiers.

While the rest are doing what, playing kids games with toy soldiers? Proving that they are the best at painting toy soldiers? You are no better than tournament players just because you play with your toys in a different way.

Referring to the Magic the Gathering example, the balance there is the 4 named card per deck limit. This means that out of 60 cards you cannot have more than 4 of any one named card.

That type of restriction does not exist in 40k...

Ever heard the term, "Restriction breeds creativity"? Could be good for the competitive scene to apply a level of restriction to increase player enjoyment by having more variety in tournaments. Part of the skill test should be list building in my opinion anyway.

Examples of restrictions could be:

Max 3 of any one named unit type, i.e. Brimstone Horrors.
Max 1 of each Detachment type that does not include troops as core requirement.
Max 25% of army points spent of particular battlefield role (as per 2nd ed era) so no more than 25% HQ, Elites etc. Exception being Troops.

Just some thoughts and examples

fe40k wrote:
If you're not bringing your best to a tournament, then you shouldn't go.

I'd go to a tournament with an unoptimized list to play new opponents; but I'd have to accept the fact that I'm more likely to run up against lists that'll trounce me, then other unoptimized, fun seeking lists.

Also, read this: "Playing to Win" - http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/

Good call re Sirlin, to this day people thinking WAAC and playing to win are the same engrumples me worse than cooking shows instead of cartoons on Saturday morning TV


http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/introducingthe-scrub

Is a great explanation of the torny vs non-torny mindset, just sub all the SF terms with spam, optimal units and Gullyman etc

* note he uses the term WAAC but its not the same as our WAAC as cheating is kind of tricky in E-Sport

Minijack wrote:
40k Tournaments are try-hard fests..always have been and always will be.

They are for those that simply must prove they are the best at toy soldiers.

Yes, trying hard to win is exactly the point.

Are you suggesting that people don't try hard to win at tournaments for other games? Or are you suggesting that you shouldn't try hard to win at a competitive event?

For those bringing up Sirlin, I'm a fan of his writing but 40k (Warhammer of any flavor, actually) is 100% what he would consider a "degenerate game" because of how bad the imbalance is. It's not something that Sirlin's writing is really applicable to.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

keithandor wrote:

Find the broken/too good for it's points stuff and take 10 of them , it's ridiculous.

that is how ALL turnys are for ALL mini games.
by doing it like that it comes down to the players ability to use the army and the dice roll/reroll.

like it has been said, if you dont like it dont play them. stick to campains that is fluff driven.

This isn't 100% true. All tourneys are about taking the most optimized list. However, some games have rules in place that curb spamming to some extent. Malifaux for example has lots of unique models, other models that have a limit of say 3, and then some that have no limit at all, which tend to be on the less powerful end of things. In the end though either way you see the top lists rise to the top, they just aren't as spammy. So it comes down to how much it bothers you that the same unit gets repeated vs the same combination of units (i.e. every marine list becomes RG, 2 Preds, 2 Ravens, 2 Dev squads, 2 conscript squads etc.) I do think that "rare" limits on some units would be good for game balance (special characters have this now), but in the end it doesn't make the game a whole lot more fun unless all units are balanced. Which is really the key to killing spam, making all unit good.

Wayniac wrote:
For those bringing up Sirlin, I'm a fan of his writing but 40k (Warhammer of any flavor, actually) is 100% what he would consider a "degenerate game" because of how bad the imbalance is. It's not something that Sirlin's writing is really applicable to.

Agreed. Sharing the section from his site below for convenience.

Sirlin wrote:
When a game doesn't hold up to expert play, it's degenerate in some way. There's only one good move or one good character, or one good strategy, or something like that. The game offers what appears to be a lot of fun options, but you don't actually get to do those fun options against experts, even if you are an expert too. So for this type of game, playing to win really will make it less fun, but that's not a problem with the players who are doing their best; it's a problem with the game. I wouldn't fault players here or complain to them that they are playing in a boring way. I'd complain to the game developer or play a different game.

Wayniac wrote:
For those bringing up Sirlin, I'm a fan of his writing but 40k (Warhammer of any flavor, actually) is 100% what he would consider a "degenerate game" because of how bad the imbalance is. It's not something that Sirlin's writing is really applicable to.

That's a fair point, but even in a broken game picking the mosted busted options is the optimal choice for competitive formats, picking anything else is the "scrub"* choice

Are you claiming that there is only one good move or one good character or one good strategy in 40k? You should share it! I'm sure people would be fascinated to hear what that is.

Sarcasm and hyperbole aside, I think 40k can tend towards degeneracy due to the imbalance inherent in the huge number of units you can play and their - desirable and undesirable - interactions.

It's not "100% degenerate" though.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Minijack wrote:
40k Tournaments are try-hard fests..always have been and always will be.

They are for those that simply must prove they are the best at toy soldiers.

Yes, trying hard to win is exactly the point.

Are you suggesting that people don't try hard to win at tournaments for other games? Or are you suggesting that you shouldn't try hard to win at a competitive event?

All im saying is that its a hobby,not a sport .Many tournament players seem to think that its fine to throw the hobby aspect out the window,play with subpar "proxie models.terrible paint jobs and absolutely unfluffy army lists just in order to prove they are better at toy soldiers than their opponent when in reality,no one cares except the micro group of fellow try-hards around them.Sorry but its an attitude thats bad for the hobby as a whole.

Minijack wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Minijack wrote:
40k Tournaments are try-hard fests..always have been and always will be.

They are for those that simply must prove they are the best at toy soldiers.

Yes, trying hard to win is exactly the point.

Are you suggesting that people don't try hard to win at tournaments for other games? Or are you suggesting that you shouldn't try hard to win at a competitive event?

All im saying is that its a hobby,not a sport .Many tournament players seem to think that its fine to throw the hobby aspect out the window,play with subpar "proxie models.terrible paint jobs and absolutely unfluffy army lists just in order to prove they are better at toy soldiers than their opponent when in reality,no one cares except the micro group of fellow try-hards around them.Sorry but its an attitude thats bad for the hobby as a whole.

and your casual virtue signalling boswellox is somehow 'better' for 'the Hobby' because you say so, well that's me told, hallalubya I've seen the light