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.

Breng77 wrote:
I don't agree that it is a joke, I just agree that it is not high level competition. You can play competitive pickup sticks if you want to, it only seem to be internet pundits that seem to care who the winner is. Me I just like going to events playing tough games against different opponents. I have no problem with tournaments as they stand simply because I don't care about the results beyond my own (did I play well, did I have fun)

This is how I used to think about tournaments. But unfortunately, GW is balancing the game around them now. This means that the results actually matter, because sweeping changes to the hobby everyone plays will be made based on the input of just a very few people. If those very few people aren't careful about how they play, then this entire process is flawed. Tournaments can no longer be considered "just a fun time". Results from them directly impact the entire hobby.

EDIT:
Just look at the heartache Marmatag is probably experiencing over the tension about Flyrants. Will Flyrants be nerfed? Is that why GW delayed the FAQ due to Adepticon's results? If that is why, then is it right to do so? Were Adepticon's missions aligned with how Warhammer is casually played? Did the Flyrant players make any mistakes at all? Did their opponents not know the rules?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I don't agree that it is a joke, I just agree that it is not high level competition. You can play competitive pickup sticks if you want to, it only seem to be internet pundits that seem to care who the winner is. Me I just like going to events playing tough games against different opponents. I have no problem with tournaments as they stand simply because I don't care about the results beyond my own (did I play well, did I have fun)

This is how I used to think about tournaments. But unfortunately, GW is balancing the game around them now. This means that the results actually matter, because sweeping changes to the hobby everyone plays will be made based on the input of just a very few people. If those very few people aren't careful about how they play, then this entire process is flawed. Tournaments can no longer be considered "just a fun time". Results from them directly impact the entire hobby.

Then shouldn't casual players organize themselves in a way to present the balance issues they see in their games in a coherent and cohesive way to Games Workshop? If you don't want them using tournaments for balance then you need to provide an alternate data point for them to use because without it then tournaments are the only visible source of many games being played at one time where data can be garnered.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I don't agree that it is a joke, I just agree that it is not high level competition. You can play competitive pickup sticks if you want to, it only seem to be internet pundits that seem to care who the winner is. Me I just like going to events playing tough games against different opponents. I have no problem with tournaments as they stand simply because I don't care about the results beyond my own (did I play well, did I have fun)

This is how I used to think about tournaments. But unfortunately, GW is balancing the game around them now. This means that the results actually matter, because sweeping changes to the hobby everyone plays will be made based on the input of just a very few people. If those very few people aren't careful about how they play, then this entire process is flawed. Tournaments can no longer be considered "just a fun time". Results from them directly impact the entire hobby.

Then shouldn't casual players organize themselves in a way to present the balance issues they see in their games in a coherent and cohesive way to Games Workshop? If you don't want them using tournaments for balance then you need to provide an alternate data point for them to use because without it then tournaments are the only visible source of many games being played at one time where data can be garnered.

No?
I don't actually have a problem with GW using tournament data for balance. I do have a problem with players at tournaments playing flippantly, with disregard for the rules of both the tournament and the game. That's what cocks up the data. A tournament, as in a real, cutthroat, competitive event where everyone is playing their hearts out and following the real rules of Warhammer 40k, is a fantastic place to gather data. It's just becoming increasingly apparent that "tournaments" aren't actually that.

I have no issue with that because I don't want to face top tournament lists at the local shop. I'm hoping flyrants will get the Tau commander treatment

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
No?
I don't actually have a problem with GW using tournament data for balance. I do have a problem with players at tournaments playing flippantly, with disregard for the rules of both the tournament and the game. That's what cocks up the data. A tournament, as in a real, cutthroat, competitive event where everyone is playing their hearts out and following the real rules of Warhammer 40k, is a fantastic place to gather data. It's just becoming increasingly apparent that "tournaments" aren't actually that.

So what are they?

Breng77 wrote:
I have no issue with that because I don't want to face top tournament lists at the local shop. I'm hoping flyrants will get the Tau commander treatment

As I have constantly been beaten over the head with:
"What's good balance for competitive players is also good balance for casual players."

So what you play at your local shop is directly impacted by what people are playing at tournaments. If their balance change to address Flyrants comes in the nature of "Supreme Command Detachments are no longer valid for matched play." then casual lists will definitely start feeling the effects. Taking a Lord of War with faction rules, for example, becomes a problem for Imperial Guard. Bringing an Inquisitorial Conclave is no longer possible without a Vanguard Detachment and forcing a player to spam Elites. The ripple effects of an FAQ can be felt far and wide, and can even require a second FAQ to fix the effects of the first. (I.E. the old Deathguard "Sure you can use a stratagem on a unit from another codex OH WAIT NO feth YOU CAN'T DEEPSTRIKE MORTARION AND MAGNUS STOP" problem)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
No?
I don't actually have a problem with GW using tournament data for balance. I do have a problem with players at tournaments playing flippantly, with disregard for the rules of both the tournament and the game. That's what cocks up the data. A tournament, as in a real, cutthroat, competitive event where everyone is playing their hearts out and following the real rules of Warhammer 40k, is a fantastic place to gather data. It's just becoming increasingly apparent that "tournaments" aren't actually that.

So what are they?

A joke.

As a casual observer. The moment I saw Peregrine posted, before I read the content, I knew it would be a complaint/bitchy comment.

Self fulfilling prophecy fulfilled.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
No?
I don't actually have a problem with GW using tournament data for balance. I do have a problem with players at tournaments playing flippantly, with disregard for the rules of both the tournament and the game. That's what cocks up the data. A tournament, as in a real, cutthroat, competitive event where everyone is playing their hearts out and following the real rules of Warhammer 40k, is a fantastic place to gather data. It's just becoming increasingly apparent that "tournaments" aren't actually that.

So what are they?

A joke.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

A joke.

That's not an actual answer - if they are not a real cutthroat competitive environment what are. Define what they are in non rhetorical terms.

Organized gaming conventions? That's what I'd call them.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

A joke.

That's not an actual answer - if they are not a real cutthroat competitive environment what are. Define what they are in non rhetorical terms.

Organized gaming conventions? That's what I'd call them.

And as a result they aren't viable data sources for GW to use to make game alterations?

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

A joke.

That's not an actual answer - if they are not a real cutthroat competitive environment what are. Define what they are in non rhetorical terms.

Organized gaming conventions? That's what I'd call them.

And as a result they aren't viable data sources for GW to use to make game alterations?

Not anymore so than games from my FLGS or buddy's basement or whatever are, with whatever house-rules we're using.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Not anymore so than games from my FLGS or buddy's basement or whatever are, with whatever house-rules we're using.

So basically GW can use the tournament scene to get a decent gauge of what's going on people's basements and FLGSs and use that data to make game alterations?

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
So basically GW can use the tournament scene to get a decent gauge of what's going on people's basements and FLGSs and use that data to make game alterations?

Yes! They can.
But according to most of the "competitive" players, they shouldn't, because using casual play to balance games is awful, and the game should be instead balanced by what's best for the cutthroat competition. Or haven't you been reading my posts?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
So basically GW can use the tournament scene to get a decent gauge of what's going on people's basements and FLGSs and use that data to make game alterations?

Yes! They can.
But according to most of the "competitive" players, they shouldn't, because using casual play to balance games is awful, and the game should be instead balanced by what's best for the cutthroat competition. Or haven't you been reading my posts?

I've literally read you state that they shouldn't use tournaments to balance the game because they're a joke. And then we managed to get from there to GW using organized gaming conventions to balance the game is OK.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
So basically GW can use the tournament scene to get a decent gauge of what's going on people's basements and FLGSs and use that data to make game alterations?

Yes! They can.
But according to most of the "competitive" players, Or haven't you been reading my posts?

I've literally read you state that they shouldn't use tournaments to balance the game because they're a joke. And then we managed to get from there to GW using organized gaming conventions to balance the game is OK.

I didn't say it was okay. In fact, I said the opposite. Here, let me help you by quoting myself:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
they shouldn't, because using casual play to balance games is awful, and the game should be instead balanced by what's best for the cutthroat competition.

You also said.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

This is how I used to think about tournaments. But unfortunately, GW is balancing the game around them now. This means that the results actually matter, because sweeping changes to the hobby everyone plays will be made based on the input of just a very few people. If those very few people aren't careful about how they play, then this entire process is flawed. Tournaments can no longer be considered "just a fun time". Results from them directly impact the entire hobby.

Pretty indicative to me.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
You also said.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

This is how I used to think about tournaments. But unfortunately, GW is balancing the game around them now. This means that the results actually matter, because sweeping changes to the hobby everyone plays will be made based on the input of just a very few people. If those very few people aren't careful about how they play, then this entire process is flawed. Tournaments can no longer be considered "just a fun time". Results from them directly impact the entire hobby.

Pretty indicative to me.

Indicative of what, exactly? All I said was "GW is using tournaments to balance the game." in so many words.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
You also said.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

This is how I used to think about tournaments. But unfortunately, GW is balancing the game around them now. This means that the results actually matter, because sweeping changes to the hobby everyone plays will be made based on the input of just a very few people. If those very few people aren't careful about how they play, then this entire process is flawed. Tournaments can no longer be considered "just a fun time". Results from them directly impact the entire hobby.

Pretty indicative to me.

Indicative of what, exactly? All I said was "GW is using tournaments to balance the game." in so many words.

Indicative that you think that that's a bad thing. You used the word 'unfortunately' to describe that it is happening.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
You also said.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

This is how I used to think about tournaments. But unfortunately, GW is balancing the game around them now. This means that the results actually matter, because sweeping changes to the hobby everyone plays will be made based on the input of just a very few people. If those very few people aren't careful about how they play, then this entire process is flawed. Tournaments can no longer be considered "just a fun time". Results from them directly impact the entire hobby.

Pretty indicative to me.

Indicative of what, exactly? All I said was "GW is using tournaments to balance the game." in so many words.

Indicative that you think that that's a bad thing. You used the word 'unfortunately' to describe that it is happening.

It's unfortunate that they're using "organized gaming conventions" to balance the game, yes. Because they should be using tournaments, though real competitive ones don't exist, unfortunately. Forgive the terminology screwup; it's what happens when a not-a-tournament calls itself a tournament.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It's unfortunate that they're using "organized gaming conventions" to balance the game, yes. Because they should be using tournaments, though real competitive ones don't exist, unfortunately. Forgive the terminology screwup; it's what happens when a not-a-tournament calls itself a tournament.

What tournaments could they possibly use given that none exist?

As a casual, somewhat interested in going to similar events and having ran small scale tournaments myself I have to wonder:

Why is the blame here being put at the TO's or judge's feet for bad play?
How can truly competitive games like Warmachine function at large scale events (and they do) without the need for a referee for matches?

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It's unfortunate that they're using "organized gaming conventions" to balance the game, yes. Because they should be using tournaments, though real competitive ones don't exist, unfortunately. Forgive the terminology screwup; it's what happens when a not-a-tournament calls itself a tournament.

What tournaments could they possibly use given that none exist?

Well, as I would hope my posting in this thread indicates, GW's not the one that should change; rather, the not-a-tournaments should shape up and start being what they pretend to be.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I have no issue with that because I don't want to face top tournament lists at the local shop. I'm hoping flyrants will get the Tau commander treatment

As I have constantly been beaten over the head with:
"What's good balance for competitive players is also good balance for casual players."

So what you play at your local shop is directly impacted by what people are playing at tournaments. If their balance change to address Flyrants comes in the nature of "Supreme Command Detachments are no longer valid for matched play." then casual lists will definitely start feeling the effects. Taking a Lord of War with faction rules, for example, becomes a problem for Imperial Guard. Bringing an Inquisitorial Conclave is no longer possible without a Vanguard Detachment and forcing a player to spam Elites. The ripple effects of an FAQ can be felt far and wide, and can even require a second FAQ to fix the effects of the first. (I.E. the old Deathguard "Sure you can use a stratagem on a unit from another codex OH WAIT NO feth YOU CAN'T DEEPSTRIKE MORTARION AND MAGNUS STOP" problem)

That is why I prefer to see unit limits not elimination of detachments limits.

I mean personally I would like to see all characters be 0-1 per detachment, non-troops/dedicated transports be 0-2 or 3 per detachement.

Breng77 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I have no issue with that because I don't want to face top tournament lists at the local shop. I'm hoping flyrants will get the Tau commander treatment

As I have constantly been beaten over the head with:
"What's good balance for competitive players is also good balance for casual players."

So what you play at your local shop is directly impacted by what people are playing at tournaments. If their balance change to address Flyrants comes in the nature of "Supreme Command Detachments are no longer valid for matched play." then casual lists will definitely start feeling the effects. Taking a Lord of War with faction rules, for example, becomes a problem for Imperial Guard. Bringing an Inquisitorial Conclave is no longer possible without a Vanguard Detachment and forcing a player to spam Elites. The ripple effects of an FAQ can be felt far and wide, and can even require a second FAQ to fix the effects of the first. (I.E. the old Deathguard "Sure you can use a stratagem on a unit from another codex OH WAIT NO feth YOU CAN'T DEEPSTRIKE MORTARION AND MAGNUS STOP" problem)

That is why I prefer to see unit limits not elimination of detachments limits.

I mean personally I would like to see all characters be 0-1 per detachment, non-troops/dedicated transports be 0-2 or 3 per detachement.

We can talk all day about what it should/shouldn't be, but the fact of the matter is that GW is using uncompetitive events to make competitive balancing decisions, perhaps in the mistaken belief that these self-styled "tournaments" are somehow competitive, despite not even requiring players to follow the rules of the game they're playing (provided both opponents agree of course).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It's unfortunate that they're using "organized gaming conventions" to balance the game, yes. Because they should be using tournaments, though real competitive ones don't exist, unfortunately. Forgive the terminology screwup; it's what happens when a not-a-tournament calls itself a tournament.

What tournaments could they possibly use given that none exist?

Well, as I would hope my posting in this thread indicates, GW's not the one that should change; rather, the not-a-tournaments should shape up and start being what they pretend to be.

So effectively you don't want them to make any balancing passes until there is a tournament that meets your standard? Also so that I understand fully - we cannot know that 7 Flying Hive Tyrants is unreasonable because there are no competitive events correct? Additionally we could not know that Malefic Lords were undercosted for the same reason?

You are reaching there, those tournaments across the whole of the field are still more competitive than most other 40k gaming that takes place, so given the number of results it is a fair place to identify problem areas in the game. For instance if several flyrant spam lists make it to the top in a number of events, it is fair to say that flyrants are a balance issue. By your argument no balancing should take place, which seems a worse proposition as it is what we used to have.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It's unfortunate that they're using "organized gaming conventions" to balance the game, yes. Because they should be using tournaments, though real competitive ones don't exist, unfortunately. Forgive the terminology screwup; it's what happens when a not-a-tournament calls itself a tournament.

What tournaments could they possibly use given that none exist?

Well, as I would hope my posting in this thread indicates, GW's not the one that should change; rather, the not-a-tournaments should shape up and start being what they pretend to be.

So effectively you don't want them to make any balancing passes until there is a tournament that meets your standard?

Do you want to know what I "want" to happen or what I think should happen? Because what I want to happen will make very many people unhappy, and so I am willing to set it aside in recognition of other people's wants & needs.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Do you want to know what I "want" to happen or what I think should happen? Because what I want to happen will make very many people unhappy, and so I am willing to set it aside in recognition of other people's wants & needs.

Go ahead and say what you want to happen. I'm excited at this point to continue to follow this circular logic pattern.

Breng77 wrote:
You are reaching there, those tournaments across the whole of the field are still more competitive than most other 40k gaming that takes place, so given the number of results it is a fair place to identify problem areas in the game. For instance if several flyrant spam lists make it to the top in a number of events, it is fair to say that flyrants are a balance issue. By your argument no balancing should take place, which seems a worse proposition as it is what we used to have.

I'm going to wait for Farseer's answer before I answer your question, as I think I'll have the same reply to both this and his posts.

From my perspective participating in the team tournament, the Adepticon judges were pretty worthless. I have two anecdotes and my only interactions with the judges.

1. The table next to ours was having an assault related rules issue. They couldn't agree and called a judge. He came over and they spent a few minutes and went through the scenario and he stared blankly at them, then laughed and goes, that's not really my strong suit, let me go grab another judge. He left. At this point, our table paused, and told them how we thought it should be played. The team about to lose out said we'll wait for the judge. Works for me. We went back to playing. A few minutes later, Judge A comes back with Judge B. They explain everything to B. He replies with, Hmmm.. I'm not really sure. Let me go ask someone. He leaves. A few minutes later Judge C strolls up. They explain everything to him. He says oh yea, blah blah, and reaffirms what we told them 10 minutes earlier. They continue their game.

Is having uninformed judges for the sake of having extra bodies on the floor worth it, or would fewer, better judges be more effective? It's kind of like you're being carjacked and you call 911 and they send a mall cop. My car is already in pieces at a chop shop and I'm bleeding out in the street, but thanks for that tip about hosiery at Sears.

2. This one actually happened at our table. We (both teams) took nearly 30 minutes to setup terrain and deploy both armies before top of 1. It was terribly slow and everyone was just goofing around and not paying attention so I didn't think anything of it. No ill will as of yet. Game starts. We have an amazing first turn and wipe out half their army. They are not happy. They fight back. Turn 1 ends. We're now 90 minutes deep into the clock. At this point they have one of their team mates go grab a judge claiming we're slow playing them. Judge comes over with a chip thinking we're the turds sand bagging and he's defending the complainers. He said since we're slowplaying, (not even asking for facts, just assuming it's our fault) he'll be watching the rest of the game to make sure it moves along and we finish all turns. He then says, starting now each team gets 15 minutes per half to play for the remainder of the turns and pulls out his phone and starts a clock. it's now turn 2, we still have a full army, they have 50%. We burn through our 15 minutes and have to stop mid assault phase. We leave locked units unable to make their attacks. Our opponents with way less models now play and easily finish all of their shots and attacks. We lose out a bit due to the nature of assaults and swinging first. We didn't get to swing back with all of our units because they went through their charges and not everything else was activated before their 15 was up. Next turn. Same scenario. At this point in time, there's absolutely no danger in us losing the game. But, the judge says, OK, we're switching to 7 minute halves. They're down to 30%, we're still at 80%. The only real goal left is to kill their warlord. At this point, it is my fault for not telling my partner to stop shooting so I can swing. I'll own that, but again, locked in assault and no swings. Turn 4 comes up. This time I flat out tell my partner to stop at the 2 minute warning so I can switch to assault. We did so, killed a bunch of stuff. Time's up. Our opponents interject, But we didn't get to fight with all of our stuff! The judge is like, "Oh. Ok. Finish all your assaults." So they spend 5 minutes finishing their assaults. Then he starts their 7 minute time. Then he leaves for the bathroom and comes back 12 minutes later. We end up playing another turn, never kill the warlord, and the judge stops the game with about 15 minutes left on the clock.

Now, I understand we had equal time per turns, but that's not the same as equal time per game. If this we're chess clock style, which someday soon it probably will be, we could have used more of our share of our remaining time in turns 3 or 4, instead of 7 minutes, and probably tabled them before turn 5. But since we were arbitrarily and unfairly limited, because they were upset, it was a giant cluster .

Anyone have any of their own to share?