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.
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.
Go ahead and say what you want to happen. I'm excited at this point to continue to follow this circular logic pattern.
What I want to happen is for GW to make a game that reflects the lore and the fluff as they see it, and isn't terribly concerned with balance. Emphasize the narrative, write it more in the style of an RPG than a wargame, and mention that while there is a winner and a loser of the game, it is ultimately more about the narrative than competition. It'd be neat for codexes to turn into fluff-bibles, for "matched play" to fade away in favor of "recommendations to help make a compelling narrative" and so on. Take the game away from "balanced for competition we swear (not really)" to "this is a narrative storytelling game targeted at people who find the lore compelling, but want to be involved in grand battles rather than D&D style adventures."
deviantduck wrote: 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?
And this is why direct reffing would be a nightmare, there aren't enough good judges.
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.
Go ahead and say what you want to happen. I'm excited at this point to continue to follow this circular logic pattern.
What I want to happen is for GW to make a game that reflects the lore and the fluff as they see it, and isn't terribly concerned with balance. Emphasize the narrative, write it more in the style of an RPG than a wargame, and mention that while there is a winner and a loser of the game, it is ultimately more about the narrative than competition. It'd be neat for codexes to turn into fluff-bibles, for "matched play" to fade away in favor of "recommendations to help make a compelling narrative" and so on. Take the game away from "balanced for competition we swear (not really)" to "this is a narrative storytelling game targeted at people who find the lore compelling, but want to be involved in grand battles rather than D&D style adventures."
Sort of like how historical wargaming is.
I feel like right now they are trying to do both, but the community is stuck on using matched play for everything. They have narative rules, power level, etc. But unless you play in your house with buddies, people always opt for matched play.
What I want to happen is for GW to make a game that reflects the lore and the fluff as they see it, and isn't terribly concerned with balance. Emphasize the narrative, write it more in the style of an RPG than a wargame, and mention that while there is a winner and a loser of the game, it is ultimately more about the narrative than competition. It'd be neat for codexes to turn into fluff-bibles, for "matched play" to fade away in favor of "recommendations to help make a compelling narrative" and so on. Take the game away from "balanced for competition we swear (not really)" to "this is a narrative storytelling game targeted at people who find the lore compelling, but want to be involved in grand battles rather than D&D style adventures."
Sort of like how historical wargaming is.
That's all well and good but we know that won't happen (there's just less money in it). So back to balancing and the sources at hand - you don't think GW should make a balancing pass until there is a 'tournament' that meets your standard? And we obviously cannot know that 7 Flying Hive Tyrants or that Malefic Lords are too much because there is no tournament to get that information from.
EDIT: Also just played matched or Narrative play, they made game types specifically for this. If you choose to play Matched Play when it doesn't align with your interests how can you be upset?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/27 19:26:43
Breng77 wrote: And this is why direct reffing would be a nightmare, there aren't enough good judges.
And we're back to "why 40k isn't a competitive game" for 100, Trebek.
not really, competition and reffing are 2 different things. I don't get why they must be linked. If I play in a shop I am competing against my opponent, no ref, no judge. As I stated there are different levels of competition in this world, and 40k is on the low end (all miniatures gaming is really on the low end).
Breng77 wrote: I feel like right now they are trying to do both, but the community is stuck on using matched play for everything. They have narative rules, power level, etc. But unless you play in your house with buddies, people always opt for matched play.
And the reason the community is stuck like that is because competitive play is supposedly "more balanced" and players want balance. But, as we can see from this thread, "competitive play" is a lie. At least, play competitive enough that it actually helps the game improve.
Breng77 wrote: I feel like right now they are trying to do both, but the community is stuck on using matched play for everything. They have narative rules, power level, etc. But unless you play in your house with buddies, people always opt for matched play.
And the reason the community is stuck like that is because competitive play is supposedly "more balanced" and players want balance. But, as we can see from this thread, "competitive play" is a lie. At least, play competitive enough that it actually helps the game improve.
Yeah I mean clearly we at this point can assume that seven flying hive tyrants is healthy for the game because no true tournament has shown us how disruptive it is.
What I want to happen is for GW to make a game that reflects the lore and the fluff as they see it, and isn't terribly concerned with balance. Emphasize the narrative, write it more in the style of an RPG than a wargame, and mention that while there is a winner and a loser of the game, it is ultimately more about the narrative than competition. It'd be neat for codexes to turn into fluff-bibles, for "matched play" to fade away in favor of "recommendations to help make a compelling narrative" and so on. Take the game away from "balanced for competition we swear (not really)" to "this is a narrative storytelling game targeted at people who find the lore compelling, but want to be involved in grand battles rather than D&D style adventures."
Sort of like how historical wargaming is.
That's all well and good but we know that won't happen (there's just less money in it). So back to balancing and the sources at hand - you don't think GW should make a balancing pass until there is a 'tournament' that meets your standard? And we obviously cannot know that 7 Flying Hive Tyrants or that Malefic Lords are too much because there is no tournament to get that information from.
EDIT: Also just played matched or Narrative play, they made game types specifically for this. If you choose to play Matched Play when it doesn't align with your interests how can you be upset?
I think GW should continue to use tournament data for balancing, but I also think the tournaments should recognize that this is occurring and shape up. Fair?
And I don't get what you mean with your edit. I don't "choose to play Matched Play" as if I weighed the two and just picked it with a coinflip or something. I play Matched Play because that's all literally anyone ever plays, because they're after balance.
Breng77 wrote: I feel like right now they are trying to do both, but the community is stuck on using matched play for everything. They have narative rules, power level, etc. But unless you play in your house with buddies, people always opt for matched play.
And the reason the community is stuck like that is because competitive play is supposedly "more balanced" and players want balance. But, as we can see from this thread, "competitive play" is a lie. At least, play competitive enough that it actually helps the game improve.
Yeah I mean clearly we at this point can assume that seven flying hive tyrants is healthy for the game because no true tournament has shown us how disruptive it is.
I don't know what you're saying, really. Are you trying to claim that GW's use of flawed, house-ruled events that by their own admission do not use enforce the 40k rules as written, to adjust the 40k rules as written, cannot be improved?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/03/27 19:30:42
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think GW should continue to use tournament data for balancing, but I also think the tournaments should recognize that this is occurring and shape up. Fair?
And I don't get what you mean with your edit. I don't "choose to play Matched Play" as if I weighed the two and just picked it with a coinflip or something. I play Matched Play because that's all literally anyone ever plays, because they're after balance.
But you've stated several times that there is no true tournament so they cannot use them for balancing purposes - they would be using a 'joke' for balancing efforts. Ultimately I have no problems stating 'jokes' should get better, I'm an advocate of always getting better in everything you do. And regarding what you play - this is harsh - but do a better job selling your vision. If you honestly believe that narrative play is the best way to enjoy the game then sell that vision to other players and build a play group from it.
EDIT: Furthermore what I'm saying is that since those Flying Hive Tyrants did well in a 'joke' we don't actually know that they're not fine for the game if people just played with the actual rules.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/27 19:32:21
What I want to happen is for GW to make a game that reflects the lore and the fluff as they see it, and isn't terribly concerned with balance. Emphasize the narrative, write it more in the style of an RPG than a wargame, and mention that while there is a winner and a loser of the game, it is ultimately more about the narrative than competition. It'd be neat for codexes to turn into fluff-bibles, for "matched play" to fade away in favor of "recommendations to help make a compelling narrative" and so on. Take the game away from "balanced for competition we swear (not really)" to "this is a narrative storytelling game targeted at people who find the lore compelling, but want to be involved in grand battles rather than D&D style adventures."
Sort of like how historical wargaming is.
That's all well and good but we know that won't happen (there's just less money in it). So back to balancing and the sources at hand - you don't think GW should make a balancing pass until there is a 'tournament' that meets your standard? And we obviously cannot know that 7 Flying Hive Tyrants or that Malefic Lords are too much because there is no tournament to get that information from.
EDIT: Also just played matched or Narrative play, they made game types specifically for this. If you choose to play Matched Play when it doesn't align with your interests how can you be upset?
I think GW should continue to use tournament data for balancing, but I also think the tournaments should recognize that this is occurring and shape up. Fair?
And I don't get what you mean with your edit. I don't "choose to play Matched Play" as if I weighed the two and just picked it with a coinflip or something.
I play Matched Play because that's all literally anyone ever plays, because they're after balance.
Because quite often when someone suggests a narrative game it' is always a recreation of Pickett's Charge. Where they get all of the terrain and I'm standing out in a field getting shot to death. Yea story games.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think GW should continue to use tournament data for balancing, but I also think the tournaments should recognize that this is occurring and shape up. Fair?
And I don't get what you mean with your edit. I don't "choose to play Matched Play" as if I weighed the two and just picked it with a coinflip or something. I play Matched Play because that's all literally anyone ever plays, because they're after balance.
But you've stated several times that there is no true tournament so they cannot use them for balancing purposes - they would be using a 'joke' for balancing efforts. Ultimately I have no problems stating 'jokes' should get better, I'm an advocate of always getting better in everything you do. And regarding what you play - this is harsh - but do a better job selling your vision. If you honestly believe that narrative play is the best way to enjoy the game then sell that vision to other players and build a play group from it.
EDIT: Furthermore what I'm saying is that since those Flying Hive Tyrants did well in a 'joke' we don't actually know that they're not fine for the game if people just played with the actual rules.
I do sell my vision, and my local group is running a narrative campaign that's going fairly well... but they're using matched play. Why? Just 'cause. It's just become the standard, and that's just how it is. If the game were actually balanced with matched play, that wouldn't even be a problem, because I'll still enjoy it.
And what I was seeking to prove with the whole "joke" thing was that they shouldn't be taken seriously in their current iteration for balancing adjustments. However, recognizing the lack of other data sources, the only remaining option is that they stop being "jokes" and improve. This requires admitting there is a problem that needs looking at, which has happened with the [time limits] issue but not with the [sloppy play and unenforced rules even at the highest level] issue. All I am arguing against in this thread is the idea that "everything is fine, nothing can be done, let's just throw up our hands and accept jokes and mediocrity."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson Devil wrote: Because quite often when someone suggests a narrative game it' is always a recreation of Pickett's Charge. Where they get all of the terrain and I'm standing out in a field getting shot to death. Yea story games.
Sounds like you didn't cooperate enough on the story you wanted to tell with your opponent... but here you go, Farseer. Someone who thinks matched play is automatically less of a pickett's charge than narrative play, just because it has matched on the tin. I've seen plenty of hopeless games in tournaments as well, which is exactly where they're not supposed to happen (apparently? I don't really want to get into a discussion about what balance exactly is here. I actually think hopeless situations should be allowed to exist in the game-state from the very start, but I'm weird and eccentric).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/03/27 19:38:41
Breng77 wrote: I feel like right now they are trying to do both, but the community is stuck on using matched play for everything. They have narative rules, power level, etc. But unless you play in your house with buddies, people always opt for matched play.
And the reason the community is stuck like that is because competitive play is supposedly "more balanced" and players want balance. But, as we can see from this thread, "competitive play" is a lie. At least, play competitive enough that it actually helps the game improve.
DO you really believe that what is current doesn't help? That Dark Reapers are only good because people are "cheating", or Flyrants are good only because people don't play the game right?
I'd say what we have is more than competitive enough to help the game improve. What people here are calling for is play in which we know no errors in play have occurred, that is not a necessity for balancing unless the assumption is that everyone is making the same mistakes with the units that are deemed too powerful.
Really though until GW releases a tournament format with prescribed tables, there can never be true balance for competition because mission and table matter.
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?
My issue with this is that GW is letting tournaments dictate design. And while I get the reason behind that (tournament players are most likely to reveal what is too good/bad) is it really something we want to have them repeatedly chase tournament players around? We know that the tournament players will just move onto the next spammable/OP thing when Flyrants/Dark Reapers/Poxwalkers/whatever gets inevitably adjusted. Also, worse still it seems like GW does not really understand WHY something is too good and spammed, just that it is being spammed and needs to be nerfed to prevent spamming it.
I think we are more or less at the time where we need to split Matched Play from Tournament Play. Many changes that are made to adjust tournaments are being applied in broad strokes to all matched play (which has now become synonymous with "using points" despite that not technically being the case) so have farther reaching effects than helping tournament balance (which never happens anyways as they just move on to the next OP thing and the cycle repeats itself ad infinitum)
The bigger issue seems to be that the choice of missions has a huge impact on the meta. ITC Champions missions favor Eldar, but GW's Heat used Chapter Approved missions (maybe modified?) and there were no Eldar in the top 8 despite them being what, 5 out of 8 at LVO? Adepticon used its own missions (or non-Champions ITC missions, I can't remember) and it was Flyrant spam. There's no real balanced mission here, ITC Champions for all its claims of being balanced for tournament play, really discourages certain builds and encourages others which do not happen with other mission types, and vice versa. So the "meta" is determined not only by what is cheap/good so that it can be spammed, but what each tournament decides to use for missions. If Adepticon used ITC Champinos missions, would we see Flyrants dominating?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/03/27 19:45:24
And what I was seeking to prove with the whole "joke" thing was that they shouldn't be taken seriously in their current iteration for balancing adjustments. However, recognizing the lack of other data sources, the only remaining option is that they stop being "jokes" and improve. This requires admitting there is a problem that needs looking at, which has happened with the [time limits] issue but not with the [sloppy play and unenforced rules even at the highest level] issues. All I am arguing against in this thread is the idea that "everything is fine, nothing can be done, let's just throw up our hands and accept jokes and mediocrity."
You seem to be arguing that GW shouldn't use existing tournaments as data source to make balance changes to the game. if you'll go back through, I've never objected to the fact that tournaments should get better or defended the Adepticon judge. What I have taken issue with is this false narrative that somehow there is no true tournament as such there is no valid data to be garnered from the events that we have now. You've repeatedly gone with the 'they're not tournaments' you've stated that they're a 'joke' and that GW shouldn't use them because balancing from them is invalid. I don't think its terribly hard to see where one might draw a concern from that line of thinking. Ultimately I am glad GW is using events as a place to gather balancing data because at least they're gathering data, they're using real world observed behaviors and trying to make changes from them. I'd rather we encourage that that denigrate the people who are putting on these events ceaselessly. Could they be better? Absolutely. Has anyone presented any real methods for making them better? No not really, because the only suggestions I've seen is have a judge at every table which unfortunately isn't feasible. This is a volunteer refereeing gig, its hard to find 200 people who want to work for free.
BroodSpawn wrote: 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?
Funny enough the few times I have watched PP stream a major WM tournament on twitch there was a table judge to ensure that rules were followed correctly.
I think we are more or less at the time where we need to split Matched Play from Tournament Play. Many changes that are made to adjust tournaments are being applied in broad strokes to all matched play (which has now become synonymous with "using points" despite that not technically being the case) so have farther reaching effects than helping tournament balance (which never happens anyways as they just move on to the next OP thing and the cycle repeats itself ad infinitum)
Nah, people just need to do a better job of setting their expectations with their opponents. Making this split isn't going to stop big fish in a small pond kind of guys from trying to be bullies in that environment.
Breng77 wrote: I feel like right now they are trying to do both, but the community is stuck on using matched play for everything. They have narative rules, power level, etc. But unless you play in your house with buddies, people always opt for matched play.
And the reason the community is stuck like that is because competitive play is supposedly "more balanced" and players want balance. But, as we can see from this thread, "competitive play" is a lie. At least, play competitive enough that it actually helps the game improve.
DO you really believe that what is current doesn't help? That Dark Reapers are only good because people are "cheating", or Flyrants are good only because people don't play the game right?
I'd say what we have is more than competitive enough to help the game improve. What people here are calling for is play in which we know no errors in play have occurred, that is not a necessity for balancing unless the assumption is that everyone is making the same mistakes with the units that are deemed too powerful.
Really though until GW releases a tournament format with prescribed tables, there can never be true balance for competition because mission and table matter.
I think it's helpful, actually. But I think it has some significant flaws as well, and as the game gets rid of more and more egregious balancing failures, fine-tuning the game is going to be impossible while people aren't playing it correctly.
And what I was seeking to prove with the whole "joke" thing was that they shouldn't be taken seriously in their current iteration for balancing adjustments. However, recognizing the lack of other data sources, the only remaining option is that they stop being "jokes" and improve. This requires admitting there is a problem that needs looking at, which has happened with the [time limits] issue but not with the [sloppy play and unenforced rules even at the highest level] issues. All I am arguing against in this thread is the idea that "everything is fine, nothing can be done, let's just throw up our hands and accept jokes and mediocrity."
You seem to be arguing that GW shouldn't use existing tournaments as data source to make balance changes to the game. if you'll go back through, I've never objected to the fact that tournaments should get better or defended the Adepticon judge. What I have taken issue with is this false narrative that somehow there is no true tournament as such there is no valid data to be garnered from the events that we have now. You've repeatedly gone with the 'they're not tournaments' you've stated that they're a 'joke' and that GW shouldn't use them because balancing from them is invalid. I don't think its terribly hard to see where one might draw a concern from that line of thinking. Ultimately I am glad GW is using events as a place to gather balancing data because at least they're gathering data, they're using real world observed behaviors and trying to make changes from them. I'd rather we encourage that that denigrate the people who are putting on these events ceaselessly. Could they be better? Absolutely. Has anyone presented any real methods for making them better? No not really, because the only suggestions I've seen is have a judge at every table which unfortunately isn't feasible. This is a volunteer refereeing gig, its hard to find 200 people who want to work for free.
I know you haven't, but others have. Many others have objected to perfectly valid solutions, including mine: Let judges intervene in games where they're made aware of a rules violation, either through direct observation or information, if only to ask the players if a rule has been forgotten or violated, instead of hamstringing judges to being only able to make calls based on when one of the actual participants complains. EDIT: It's worth mentioning that GW's twitch streamers will do this. They'll send their "table man" to the table to ask what happened if a situation that appears incompatible with the rules is obvious.
This could sort out the slow-playing issue as well, as Tony's slowplaying against Alex is blatantly obvious: you don't need a "chess-clock" to verify information that's stored in a digital medium and can be reviewed fairly trivially and was witnessed by thousands (hundreds, probably, actually).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/27 19:48:48
Breng77 wrote: I feel like right now they are trying to do both, but the community is stuck on using matched play for everything. They have narative rules, power level, etc. But unless you play in your house with buddies, people always opt for matched play.
And the reason the community is stuck like that is because competitive play is supposedly "more balanced" and players want balance. But, as we can see from this thread, "competitive play" is a lie. At least, play competitive enough that it actually helps the game improve.
DO you really believe that what is current doesn't help? That Dark Reapers are only good because people are "cheating", or Flyrants are good only because people don't play the game right?
I'd say what we have is more than competitive enough to help the game improve. What people here are calling for is play in which we know no errors in play have occurred, that is not a necessity for balancing unless the assumption is that everyone is making the same mistakes with the units that are deemed too powerful.
Really though until GW releases a tournament format with prescribed tables, there can never be true balance for competition because mission and table matter.
I think it's helpful, actually. But I think it has some significant flaws as well, and as the game gets rid of more and more egregious balancing failures, fine-tuning the game is going to be impossible while people aren't playing it correctly.
I don't think fine tuning can happen until there is a standard tournament format and terrain layout/expectation. Compared to that some people making mistakes is small potatos
Breng77 wrote: I don't think fine tuning can happen until there is a standard tournament format and terrain layout/expectation. Compared to that some people making mistakes is small potatos
I agree with this premise as well... but it has to start with the organizers and judges. They'll have to see past the "fast&loose hammer" and start taking the actual play of the game seriously, including tournament format standards, terrain expectations and layouts, and rules enforcement, all in one nice package.
Breng77 wrote: I don't think fine tuning can happen until there is a standard tournament format and terrain layout/expectation. Compared to that some people making mistakes is small potatos
I agree with this premise as well... but it has to start with the organizers and judges. They'll have to see past the "fast&loose hammer" and start taking the actual play of the game seriously, including tournament format standards, terrain expectations and layouts, and rules enforcement, all in one nice package.
Without being too antagonistic - I take you'll be taking up this mantle too? In that I mean you'll be organizing events with this in mind? I'd personally love to have more judges at my event but I just can't find them, I hope some other folks will be able to provide some insight on getting the required amount of judges and the like.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/03/27 20:11:28
Breng77 wrote: I don't think fine tuning can happen until there is a standard tournament format and terrain layout/expectation. Compared to that some people making mistakes is small potatos
I agree with this premise as well... but it has to start with the organizers and judges. They'll have to see past the "fast&loose hammer" and start taking the actual play of the game seriously, including tournament format standards, terrain expectations and layouts, and rules enforcement, all in one nice package.
Without being too antagonistic - I take you'll be taking up this mantle too?
Yes! I am already helping with the terrain builds for NOVA as best I can, as well as throwing my three-superheavy list into mission testing when invited (which is rare), since it can be a good skew/stress-test thing. I'm also (ironically, considering my level of the involvement with the game) endeavoring to help a buddy of mine who's involved with the AOS narrative stuff at NOVA.
But I live near D.C. so it's easy.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/27 20:12:15
NOVA is one of the better terrained events honestly, many other events have way more issues with terrain. As for missions I really feel like that is on GW to standardize, without their leadership their will always be differences. ITC missions are pretty common in the US, but basically never get played overseas.
Breng77 wrote: NOVA is one of the better terrained events honestly, many other events have way more issues with terrain. As for missions I really feel like that is on GW to standardize, without their leadership their will always be differences. ITC missions are pretty common in the US, but basically never get played overseas.
NOVA and LVO both have good terrain levels. I do think GW has done a pretty good job with the CA scenarios all things considered. I do wish they'd publish their own tournament packet though.
Breng77 wrote:NOVA is one of the better terrained events honestly, many other events have way more issues with terrain. As for missions I really feel like that is on GW to standardize, without their leadership their will always be differences. ITC missions are pretty common in the US, but basically never get played overseas.
Farseer_V2 wrote:
Breng77 wrote: NOVA is one of the better terrained events honestly, many other events have way more issues with terrain. As for missions I really feel like that is on GW to standardize, without their leadership their will always be differences. ITC missions are pretty common in the US, but basically never get played overseas.
NOVA and LVO both have good terrain levels. I do think GW has done a pretty good job with the CA scenarios all things considered. I do wish they'd publish their own tournament packet though.
GW does run their own tournaments. Any deviation from that standard is inexplicable, really. Or at least I can't conceive of why. Back in the day, it used to be because GW made no effort to balance the game, so the TOs had to, but now, there's just no reason not to use the standard rules. I think Matched Play is intended to be the "tournament rules" for 40k. The only glaring omissions are time limits and terrain setups.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/27 20:23:11
Breng77 wrote: NOVA is one of the better terrained events honestly, many other events have way more issues with terrain. As for missions I really feel like that is on GW to standardize, without their leadership their will always be differences. ITC missions are pretty common in the US, but basically never get played overseas.
That is not true ITC is steadily growing in popularity overseas.
Bow down to Guilliman for he is our new God Emperor!
Martel - "Custodes are terrible in 8th. Good luck with them. They take all the problems of marines and multiply them."
"Lol, classic martel. 'I know it was strong enough to podium in the biggest tournament in the world but I refuse to acknowledge space marines are good because I can't win with them and it can't possibly be ME'."
DakkaDakka is really the place where you need anti-tank guns to kill basic dudes, because anything less isn't durable enough.
Unit1126PLL wrote: GW does run their own tournaments. Any deviation from that standard is inexplicable, really. Or at least I can't conceive of why. Back in the day, it used to be because GW made no effort to balance the game, so the TOs had to, but now, there's just no reason not to use the standard rules. I think Matched Play is intended to be the "tournament rules" for 40k. The only glaring omissions are time limits and terrain setups.
I'd argue that pre CA their scenarios weren't amazing and didn't often work well for any type of tournament or swiss style play, especially with missions like the relic. That said I think you can use the CA stuff to make a pretty solid rules set.
Unit1126PLL wrote: GW does run their own tournaments. Any deviation from that standard is inexplicable, really. Or at least I can't conceive of why. Back in the day, it used to be because GW made no effort to balance the game, so the TOs had to, but now, there's just no reason not to use the standard rules. I think Matched Play is intended to be the "tournament rules" for 40k. The only glaring omissions are time limits and terrain setups.
I'd argue that pre CA their scenarios weren't amazing and didn't often work well for any type of tournament or swiss style play, especially with missions like the relic. That said I think you can use the CA stuff to make a pretty solid rules set.
Right. I mean the idea is that it's evolving, so provided we stick with that idea and don't wander off into loony land (we = GW and the community) then the game will continue to improve, with the Chapter Approved missions being the first iteration of improvement on the original missions.
Unit1126PLL wrote: GW does run their own tournaments. Any deviation from that standard is inexplicable, really. Or at least I can't conceive of why. Back in the day, it used to be because GW made no effort to balance the game, so the TOs had to, but now, there's just no reason not to use the standard rules. I think Matched Play is intended to be the "tournament rules" for 40k. The only glaring omissions are time limits and terrain setups.
I'd argue that pre CA their scenarios weren't amazing and didn't often work well for any type of tournament or swiss style play, especially with missions like the relic. That said I think you can use the CA stuff to make a pretty solid rules set.
Right. I mean the idea is that it's evolving, so provided we stick with that idea and don't wander off into loony land (we = GW and the community) then the game will continue to improve, with the Chapter Approved missions being the first iteration of improvement on the original missions.
I think what would help a ton would be if GW released a 'tournament packet' with their 'best practices' so to speak. It being an official document I think could help it take off.
I am sure if they do it will say something in regards to cheating and how to handle these types of situations (not how to not handle it).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/27 21:19:19
Bow down to Guilliman for he is our new God Emperor!
Martel - "Custodes are terrible in 8th. Good luck with them. They take all the problems of marines and multiply them."
"Lol, classic martel. 'I know it was strong enough to podium in the biggest tournament in the world but I refuse to acknowledge space marines are good because I can't win with them and it can't possibly be ME'."
DakkaDakka is really the place where you need anti-tank guns to kill basic dudes, because anything less isn't durable enough.
.
