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.

With 2018 winding down, at the club we're casting our eyes towards 2019 and what cool stuff we can get up to in the new year. One idea that's been floating around is to organize one or more hardcore "Thunderdome" competitive tournaments. I have somehow managed to volunteer myself to organize the first of these. As I am much more of a squishy, fluffy narrative play kind of guy, I turn to the collective wisdom of you, my fellow Dakkanauts, for aid!

What would you want to see in a purely competitive tournament?

Off the top of my head, the following:

Armies:
- Must be selected according to Matched Play battleforged rules
- Must be WYSIWYG except for weapons/upgrades
- Models must correspond to size, shape and base size as seen on the GW webstore
- You must provide a hard copy of your army list to your opponent before the start of the battle

Missions:
- Tables will be set up symmetrically with the scenery taped securely in place
- Custom tournament mission revolving around kill points only: no objectives, no cards

Round Scoring:
- Three rounds
- Swiss System according to kill points

Rules and Arbitration:
- Judges will only rule on the applicability of written rules which must be pointed out by the player(s)
- If there are different interpretations of a written rule, each player must clearly explain their interpretation: the judge then dices for which interpretation to apply
- Only a die which lies flat on the table counts as a correct roll. Any other dice position is considered cocked and must be re-rolled.


That's basically it. No points for painting, modelling or sportsmanship. I'm considering adding in some sort of round time limit to prevent players from running the clock in the first couple of turns, but am stumped for ideas. Would chess timers work? Alternatively we could sound an alarm after, say, ten minutes and force a turnover after fifteen for the entire room.

What are your thoughts, oh wise Dakkanauts?

 General Helstrom wrote:
- Must be WYSIWYG except for weapons/upgrades

This doesn't make any sense. WYSIWYG is primarily about weapons and upgrades, why would you have a WYSIWYG rule that doesn't include them?

- Custom tournament mission revolving around kill points only: no objectives, no cards

This alone makes it a non-competitive event. Kill points only is an extremely poorly balanced mechanic and reduces the list of viable armies to death star lists built to minimize their total unit count (and therefore the maximum points that can be scored by the other player). Look at existing competitive event mission packs for ideas here, but the general idea is that you want a mix of kill points (rewards death stars, punishes MSU) and objectives/area control (rewards MSU, punishes death stars) so that any single mission might favor a given army but the average of the whole day won't.

- Three rounds

Also non-competitive unless you have a very small event. The general rule is to play enough rounds to have a single undefeated player at the end, and for all but the smallest events that's going to be at least 4-5 rounds. Having too few rounds means that standings come down to tiebreakers, and the winner is usually the best seal clubber who gets matched up against a newbie in the first round and runs up a huge margin of victory.

Would chess timers work?

No. 40k is not a game where it is clear whose clock should be running because there are too many cases where you are doing stuff during your opponent's turn or there's a legitimate argument for each player's clock for a given action. For example, do you switch the clock back and forth to roll saves? If not you have an easy way to stall and exploit the system, if so you have a ton of tedious clock swapping and it makes it very easy to miss a swap. If there's a question of LOS whose clock runs, the player who claims LOS or the player who disputes it? If there's a rule disagreement whose clock runs while someone gets out the codex to answer it? Etc. It's just not worth it. DQ anyone who is obviously stalling and be done with it, you don't need a convoluted system for something that is ultimately a subjective judge opinion anyway.

If I was organizing a purely competitive tournament right now, I would use ITC rules and standard missions from CA and the BRB.

At least here in the US, not too many people build lists just around kill points. I see a lot of units taken just to grab objectives. If you just had kill points, you'd be giving a huge advantage to armies that are just focused on offense.

Excellent points guys, thanks! I see how pure kill points would really screw over some armies and lead to weird builds. I'm looking into some of the bigger tournament rule packs now. Seems a combination of standard victory points (slay the warlord, linebreaker etc) and capture objectives would work best. I'm looking to avoid the inherent randomness of objective cards and such.

The WYSIWYG thing is kind of wonky as written. The local scene has a lot of non-GW minis going around, as well as glued-on weapons that folks are loathe to change. I guess the best way around that is to scrap the WYSIWYG rule altogether and instead go by the shape, size and base rule? Handing over the army list before battle should help.

I'm looking at maybe a couple of dozen participants and only one day for the tournament. I don't think we can squeeze in more than three rounds before dinner :(

As for time - good points, chess clocks lead to too many complications. How are you going to determine whether someone is deliberately stalling though? What if someone brings a massive horde army and just... plays... a little... slower... Is a simple time limit not sensible?

I'd also say if you're wanting to run a "proper" competitive tournament you need a better ratio of judges to players than most tournaments manage. You need sufficient judges on hand to make rules calls and deal with issues like slow play. On that note, your point about dealing with rules issues is probably the exact opposite of what I would expect from a competitive event. I expect judges to be knowledgeable about the rules and to be able to make a decision based on evidence. the last thing I'd expect is for them to roll a dice to determine the outcome of a rules dispute.

 General Helstrom wrote:
Excellent points guys, thanks! I see how pure kill points would really screw over some armies and lead to weird builds. I'm looking into some of the bigger tournament rule packs now. Seems a combination of standard victory points (slay the warlord, linebreaker etc) and capture objectives would work best. I'm looking to avoid the inherent randomness of objective cards and such.

Yeah, don't do random missions - just have a specific mission for each round, with a mix of different mission types that cater to different army types, in order to spread the love.

The WYSIWYG thing is kind of wonky as written. The local scene has a lot of non-GW minis going around, as well as glued-on weapons that folks are loathe to change. I guess the best way around that is to scrap the WYSIWYG rule altogether and instead go by the shape, size and base rule? Handing over the army list before battle should help.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooo.

WYSIWYG is essential for a smoothly running game. Particularly if you are running a competitive event, the absolute last thing you want is for a game to be getting to turn 5 and a player saying 'Oh! Wait! That guy was actually supposed to have a plasma gun ...'


Using non-GW minis is fine so long as they are reasonable stand-ins for what they are intended to be, but you need everything to be recognisable at a glance, not require players to constantly monitor each others' army list throughout the game.

How are you going to determine whether someone is deliberately stalling though? What if someone brings a massive horde army and just... plays... a little... slower... Is a simple time limit not sensible?

It's generally left to players to call in a judge if they feel their opponent is deliberately slow-playing. Having specific time limits on turns just encourages everyone to bring small, fast-playing armies and leaves those players with horde armies out in the cold. The trend over the last decade of larger points limits and shorter game lengths was exactly why I shelved my Orks for tournaments, and having chess timers or specific turn time limits to contend with would have made that happen even faster.

Slipspace wrote:
I'd also say if you're wanting to run a "proper" competitive tournament you need a better ratio of judges to players than most tournaments manage. You need sufficient judges on hand to make rules calls and deal with issues like slow play. On that note, your point about dealing with rules issues is probably the exact opposite of what I would expect from a competitive event. I expect judges to be knowledgeable about the rules and to be able to make a decision based on evidence. the last thing I'd expect is for them to roll a dice to determine the outcome of a rules dispute.

Or just wear a Judge Dredd helmet and declare a 'no whining' policy for the entire event. I've seen tournament judges intimidate players into being nice to each other before.

Here's my things:

- Absolute WYSIWYG with only grenades and other 'hidden' items as exceptions. If that sergeant has a plasma pistol, he'd better be modelled holding one. If the tank is modelled with multi-melta sponsons then that's what it has. Unofficial models are welcome, but must be obvious at a glance without needing explanation.

- The majority of tournament attendees aren't ever there for competition - they're there for the social aspect of a fun day/weekend of gaming against new people and armies. Just bear that in mind. In a bigger situation, if you really want to run an ultra-competitive tournament, consider having a 'narrative' option too so the minority of people with dick lists don't end up ruining it for the majority. But yours probably isn't big enough for that so just bear in mind that most of your attendees are there for the social event!

- Bear in mind that your competitive side will attract every donkey-cave around, so get more judges. You need to have good policies for rules lawyering, a decided policy on all the current 'contentious' rules, and a policy for slow-players.

A few further thoughts:

1) Practical WYSIWYG.
a) Weapons should be modelled clearly on the model and be accurate to what they are equipped with. If that warrior has a plasma pistole then its armed with a plasma pistole.
Primary weapons are the cornerstone of WYSIWYG as its a big detail that is easily seen at playing distances and most weapons are pretty distinct in appearance. They also play one of the biggest parts in most units function.

b) Upgrades need not be accurate nor modelled. This is purely being practical about wargaming. Most upgrade parts, even if they are on the sprue, are honestly little more than decoration. Even things like grenades are small enough that you won't see them on models during the game and are also more decorative. Consider that units like Marines have upgrades such as seals, but many of their models also feature them without any upgrade attached. Or Tyranids have things like carapace extension which, unless its highlighted with painting, most people won't even see on the model.

Furthermore upgrades change units and cost points and are often swapped around a lot between different army lists. It's purely impractical to expect gamers to faithfully model them every time because otherwise we'd need VAST collections to be able to change a few points here and there for upgrades (not to mention the nightmare of a codex change adding/removing upgrades from the listing and changing the properties of others).

c) Models should be clear as to what they are within the army. Ideally different squads should also be clearly identifiable (eg base colour variation; colour variation on models; etc....). This latter element is good to have, but not everyone does it.

2) Conversions. You've already said there's a fair few about locally so it sounds like they will be default allowed. I would say then you want to consider:

a) All conversions must be approved before the day of play.
This lets you approve things before the day (avoids snarling up the start with a mess as people get refused and haven't got alternative models, or others have brought loads that requite review).

b) Conversions must be modelled on the correct base size (as stated on the GW website - when sending out the infopack for the event put a link to this!); and must not abuse size for advantage. A lictor hiding under a rock and thus having almost no model on the base; a tank with a huge front dozer that blocks line of sight etc.....

c) When it comes to review remember its not just reviewing conversions on a one by one basis, but in context of the whole army itself. Last thing you want is someone to convert their whole army to look the same (or so similar its hard to tell what is what). Similarly a whole army conversion might be considered confusing if its such a huge swathe of conversions and style that its hard to tell what is what or even what army it is.

3) All players must bring their codex and any supplemental rules for their army. This includes official Errata etc.... Ideally all players should bring their copy of the core rules as well.

4) Judges/TO should have their own core rules copy, Chapter Approved and a print out of ALL game errata and FAQ documents. When resolving disputes they are to use their copies of material and the players codex for resolution and proof.
This ensures that judges have all the additional rules for the game (without requiring them to own every codex, which is impractical) and also gets around any errors in user printouts of supplemental rules not released in printed form by GW. This avoids any attempt to cheat and also any users who might print out an earlier version and neglect to update their own paperwork.

5) You'll want to sit down with the officials for the day and sort out a game plan for how to deal with issues that will arise. This isn't just in how to resolve them quickly and fairly, but also how to log details of all incidents for the day.

Assuming that this is more than a once-off, then logging information is critical to long term viability. Logging that Dave always makes certain mistakes can be a help; esp if Dave appears to be making lots of little mistakes that always seem to benefit his army. Even more so if you see a pattern from event to event to event which shows that he's either not learning or that he's attempting to game the system - this might mean that when Dave plays you keep an official near that game to ensure fair play is maintained.

As someone who is in charge of sections of people (not gaming) for a living you don't want variables. Make everything clear and concise before they arrive. So have a detailed Primer sent out weeks before detailing base size, paint needed etc)

1. WYSIWYG is perfect for that. If a person does not have a correct base size, they are out. Not correct weapon equipped, they are out. It's better than 5 people saying: "can I use X base size for Y, just cause have X" etc, then the opponent saying " X is to much advantage over Y make a ruling"... etc etc.

2. Things to think on: Have a detailed schedule, leave enough time for breaks and longer turns, bathroom breaks, risk management assessment, 1 TA per X tables (with a print out of all variable rulings for consistency), 1 first aid officer on hand, have a good PA system, time clocks per table etc, photography volunteers, security volunteers, (just thinking off top of head for this type of event) is prob more just 30 seconds thought.

2. Use what rules available. Idk if ITC rules are copy write, but if not adapt them. They have been going for years and have done well. Or just contact them and become an affiliate or whatever their version is and adapt them to what you want?

3. It has to be fun, but fun stems from clear rules (for the rules lawyers and fun play from the individual).

4. You will always have rules monkeys, so design the event around them and the normal guys who play for fun, will make it fun.

For a purely competitive event, probably a single list all participants have to play, e.g. perfect mirror match on all tables. Ideally, all tables also identical and perfectly symmetrical.

Also win condition as random and unpredictable as possible, so people have to anticipate a mathematically large variety of win conditions and cannot (even with perfect mirror lists) reliably rely on mastering board control or kill point or whatever over other ways that might decide a game.

I would not play in an event where the judge uses dice to determine how to interpret rules. I would think a good competitive event would have judges capable of making the interpretation themselves.

The ITC rules are pretty good for purely competitive games. They might be complicated for a lot of new players, but they create a good spread of scores for a one day, three round event.

Your format became embarrassing when you said your missions would revolve around Kill Points. Even GW is slowly abandoning them.

If you want top tier competitive missions snag the NOVA ones or their somewhat simplified version in the form of the ITC missions.

Swiss according to kill points is also bad, since your first round will include matches between players of similar skill and drastically different skill, so the # of points earned is largely irrelevant.

3 rounds is non-competitive unless you are only allowing 8 players.

 General Helstrom wrote:
- Tables will be set up symmetrically with the scenery taped securely in place

I do not think this is a good idea, nor is it necessary. Players invariably set their army tray down on the table. Either because on a chair is a dicey, unsafe proposition or there is no room to set the army tray on the side or under the table (how much room are you going to have?).

It is very common to move a piece of terrain, unload your army (not deploy) and then place it back when ready to start deployment, warlord traits, etc. Both players usually eye-ball the terrain set up and adjust symmetrically. My 6+ years of GTs and RTTs, if the terrain provided allows for a symmetrical field, both players can agree on a neutral layout if it gets moved. Worse, that 300 pound dude ( 21 stone, 136 kilos ? ) is going to accidentally gorilla his arm through a piece and break it.

 General Helstrom wrote:

- Judges will only rule on the applicability of written rules which must be pointed out by the player(s)
- If there are different interpretations of a written rule, each player must clearly explain their interpretation: the judge then dices for which interpretation to apply

Others have stated this is not likely to work well.

8e is by far the best rule set of 40k, and there are only (usually) questions on the latest of codex (and the orks got FAQ'd already) rules. Have your judges lurk in the forums and see which rules, strategems etc. seem to be of contention at that time, and plan to have an answer in case that scenario shows up (ah, wasn't 4e Skimmers VS. AP1 one of the best? *nostalgia* ).

There really shouldn't be a dice roll necessary, but if it is your local custom ...

 General Helstrom wrote:

That's basically it. No points for painting, modelling or sportsmanship.

If you're worried about sporstmanship, then include it *as part* of the final score. Purely competitive events, like an 'Ard Boyz that I can recall, had some harsh voices, shady plays and hurt feelings. By having a simple system ... oh, let's say thsi one:
6 - bro-love, you'd play this guy and marry him, any time, all the time, forever. <----- should rarely be given
4 - good, basic game. Rules, LOS and a couple disagreements came up, but were amicably resolved. Having a judge come over is perfectly permissible.
2 - not fun, and rules disputes were contentious. This does *not* include a judge being summoned (judge summons should not weigh in on any sports score). You'd prefer to not play this one again, but it wasn't the End-of-the-World.
0 - This complete tool needs to be Red Flagged and banned. Fold his army sheet into 5 sharp corners and stick it where the sun doesn't shine**.

You can encourage the top players to make sure they' earned 12+ points in being decent behaving opponents. Just include an entry at the bottom of papers collected what the players gave their opponents, or in can be incorporated in BCP scores, too.

I can say with pride, that it isn't needed in the events I go to. Here's looking at you ITC GTs

 General Helstrom wrote:
I'm considering adding in some sort of round time limit to prevent players from running the clock in the first couple of turns, but am stumped for ideas. Would chess timers work? Alternatively we could sound an alarm after, say, ten minutes and force a turnover after fifteen for the entire room.

Announcing a 15 minute "dice down" is a very good idea and common practice.

Chess clocks work. This is not even a question on USA west coast events (nor the east coast kids, right MVBrandt?

Defeintely have one or two for top 2 tables.



**credit to Dick Cavet, yeah the 60s talk show guy.

1) Start with the BRB/CA missions. This has to be the biggest thing missing in most so-called 40k tournaments. Start with the EW missions just to make it easier to sort out out you want to run your events. Move into the Maelstrom missions for larger point events and to make it a challenge for your players.

2) Mix it up for each event. Limit/Customize the FOC, standardize the Stratagem points allowed, restrict FW, etc. Make the format flexible to a wider variety of players and opinions instead of requiring them to always accept a playset that has prevented them from enjoying the game, or in a few cases, even attending events.

3) This should be a given, but coordinate around other events. This is a problem in the more populated areas where events are planned on the same day as another event forcing players to choose which to go to. I’ve seen a few cases where the more popular one filled up, and the other one was where all the others went because they couldn’t get a spot at the big one.

——-
Rest of these should be pretty standard.
- List submission, all books, materials, dice, all present on the day of the event.
- Judges have a firm ground on how they plan to make rulings, with any uncertainties cleared up by players prior to the event.
- Fixed Terrain is nice for time management reasons. There is no requirement to have it be Symmetrical and shouldn’t be.
- A big one that I feel needs to be mentioned. Safe Environment.
If there are people disrupting your players or event, then make sure that someone is there to limit player interruptions, answer questions from curious people, or general security if someone is harassing your event or players.

 Akar wrote:
1) Start with the BRB/CA missions. This has to be the biggest thing missing in most so-called 40k tournaments. Start with the EW missions just to make it easier to sort out out you want to run your events. Move into the Maelstrom missions for larger point events and to make it a challenge for your players.

2) Mix it up for each event. Limit/Customize the FOC, standardize the Stratagem points allowed, restrict FW, etc. Make the format flexible to a wider variety of players and opinions instead of requiring them to always accept a playset that has prevented them from enjoying the game, or in a few cases, even attending events.

So stick to inferior rules and then do weird house rules...roflmao

tneva82 wrote:
So stick to inferior rules and then do weird house rules...roflmao

I don’t see what is so funny? The ITC was built on inferior missions and has remained that way for at least the last two editions. Last time I checked they still aren’t playing the Matched Play Scenarios that have been designed by the GW team, even with their input. They’ve had the weirdest set of house rules that haven’t made any significant Improvements to the game. They ceased to be relevant when they restricted feedback to those who attend their events. Especially to those who’ve been hoping to have an event where they too could attend, and actually enjoy, instead of having to conform to a set of rules where their voice was no longer heard.

So suggesting a hit on the ‘Reset’ button, starting from the ground up, and go back to playing the game as designed, back to involving the 40k community as a whole, and providing feedback to the designers for actual improvement on the game as designed is laughable? When it’s the exact same pattern that alternate 40k formats have used? It was an honest response to the topic posted on “How to run a purely Competetive Tournament?”

Not everyone agrees that FW should be 100% allowable, but asking for a few events where it’s not allowed is wrong? Same applies to Mono-Dex or Allies? Single detachment or Multi Detachment? EW or Maelstrom? Even LoW or not? There are plenty of players on both sides of these, and I’m sure there are many more, of these different play styles. Those who don’t participate in the alternate formats have been labeled as ‘casual’ and their lists aren’t taken seriously. No one wants to hear ‘That game didn’t matter because it wasn’t a Tounament scenario’, or ‘I lost because it was a mission out of the book and not a real scenario’.

Please take a little care when responding to those who have a different opinion, or share their thoughts hoping that there will be an event that all 40k players can attend, instead of isolating them.

 Akar wrote:
hoping that there will be an event that all 40k players can attend

So your idea for this is to do things like banning FW, ensuring that some people can't attend that event?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Akar wrote:
hoping that there will be an event that all 40k players can attend

So your idea for this is to do things like banning FW, ensuring that some people can't attend that event?

But P, my best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw someone get stomped by FW units last night. I guess it's pretty serious, best stick to the good clean fun of Morty, Magnus, Castalans and the Cat Lady, untrooo story

 Akar wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
So stick to inferior rules and then do weird house rules...roflmao

I don’t see what is so funny? The ITC was built on inferior missions and has remained that way for at least the last two editions. Last time I checked they still aren’t playing the Matched Play Scenarios that have been designed by the GW team, even with their input. They’ve had the weirdest set of house rules that haven’t made any significant Improvements to the game. They ceased to be relevant when they restricted feedback to those who attend their events. Especially to those who’ve been hoping to have an event where they too could attend, and actually enjoy, instead of having to conform to a set of rules where their voice was no longer heard.

So suggesting a hit on the ‘Reset’ button, starting from the ground up, and go back to playing the game as designed, back to involving the 40k community as a whole, and providing feedback to the designers for actual improvement on the game as designed is laughable? When it’s the exact same pattern that alternate 40k formats have used? It was an honest response to the topic posted on “How to run a purely Competetive Tournament?”

Not everyone agrees that FW should be 100% allowable, but asking for a few events where it’s not allowed is wrong? Same applies to Mono-Dex or Allies? Single detachment or Multi Detachment? EW or Maelstrom? Even LoW or not? There are plenty of players on both sides of these, and I’m sure there are many more, of these different play styles. Those who don’t participate in the alternate formats have been labeled as ‘casual’ and their lists aren’t taken seriously. No one wants to hear ‘That game didn’t matter because it wasn’t a Tounament scenario’, or ‘I lost because it was a mission out of the book and not a real scenario’.

Please take a little care when responding to those who have a different opinion, or share their thoughts hoping that there will be an event that all 40k players can attend, instead of isolating them.

Even GW isn't hugely enamored of their own missions. Take a look at what they did with the much newer and GW official KT organized play missions, then compare them to NOVA/ITC missions. There's nothing balanced or competitive about GW matched play missions.

Yeah, 40k isn't AoS where the match play missions are actually meant to be used for competitive play

 Akar wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
So stick to inferior rules and then do weird house rules...roflmao

I don’t see what is so funny? The ITC was built on inferior missions and has remained that way for at least the last two editions. Last time I checked they still aren’t playing the Matched Play Scenarios that have been designed by the GW team, even with their input. They’ve had the weirdest set of house rules that haven’t made any significant Improvements to the game. They ceased to be relevant when they restricted feedback to those who attend their events. Especially to those who’ve been hoping to have an event where they too could attend, and actually enjoy, instead of having to conform to a set of rules where their voice was no longer heard.

So suggesting a hit on the ‘Reset’ button, starting from the ground up, and go back to playing the game as designed, back to involving the 40k community as a whole, and providing feedback to the designers for actual improvement on the game as designed is laughable? When it’s the exact same pattern that alternate 40k formats have used? It was an honest response to the topic posted on “How to run a purely Competetive Tournament?”

Not everyone agrees that FW should be 100% allowable, but asking for a few events where it’s not allowed is wrong? Same applies to Mono-Dex or Allies? Single detachment or Multi Detachment? EW or Maelstrom? Even LoW or not? There are plenty of players on both sides of these, and I’m sure there are many more, of these different play styles. Those who don’t participate in the alternate formats have been labeled as ‘casual’ and their lists aren’t taken seriously. No one wants to hear ‘That game didn’t matter because it wasn’t a Tounament scenario’, or ‘I lost because it was a mission out of the book and not a real scenario’.

Please take a little care when responding to those who have a different opinion, or share their thoughts hoping that there will be an event that all 40k players can attend, instead of isolating them.

Because nobody can suggest gw made scenarios for competive use in straight face. Gw can't write competive scenario even if their life dependent on it. Any tournament using them is not competive tournament.

Your suggestions are perfect for making least competive tournament rules. For competive they are so lol bad i have to assume you made that as a joke. Ergo roflmao. Good joke. Now let's get serious so that op gets help he wants

MVBrandt wrote:
Even GW isn't hugely enamored of their own missions. Take a look at what they did with the much newer and GW official KT organized play missions, then compare them to NOVA/ITC missions. There's nothing balanced or competitive about GW matched play missions.

Thank You Brandt. The ‘new’ GW has made many changes in their practices, and their attitude toward missions is no exception. What is happening is a direct contrast to the first part of your statement. Therefore it’s an opinion that isn’t shared, and we’ve talked about this before. The difference is that GW is actively working on their missions and as a result has invalidated the alt-40k Scenarios to those outside of those formats.

Unlike the transition from 6th-7th, where the tournament community wasn’t really involved, the transition to 8th included them and continues to do so. We’re not in a situation anymore where we’re left with a scenario pack, that events need to modify. It’s the complete opposite now, and that the events are failing to keep up with GW. There is nothing wrong with the alt-formats existing, and GW encourages it and left it in the rules. It’s an attitude that the reverse doesn’t apply.

I don’t know exactly when it started, but I noticed it in 6th when GW gave players what they wanted and gave a much needed shake up to what is now the EW missions. The game had evolved, but the missions hadn’t, so they gave us Mysterious Objectives, Random Game Length, changes to Reserves, etc. What they didn’t do was give it to them how they wanted, which is what the ITC was trying to do. So they gave the finger to GW and said, we’re going to do this our way. 7th gave us Maelstrom missions. There were problems with it, and a crap ton of house rules were immediately applied to try it out. It wasn’t surprising because it was the first iteration of it. The alt-40k formats (not just the ITC) really established themselves here, but ultimately all of the still gave the finger to GW and refused to play the Scenarios.

Now we have 8th and GW applied feedback and input into the edition. After taken that into account, GW said ‘Here is how we want you to play the game. Even Maelstrom survived and is much more flexible now. As with the previous editions, the alt-40k formats gave GW the finger, and continued to do it their way. Then it all changed. GW took even more feedback, and not only updated the missions, but also applied new universal rules in the CA. They have put down, in print, how they want the game to be played. Any of the so-called balancing mechanics that didn’t make it should’ve been rendered invalid, but the alt-40k formats continue to give the finger to GW. It’s about to happen again.

So it now creates a bigger problem within the 40k community. Those that play Competetive 40k, and those that play competetive Alt-40k. The Alt 40k formats have redefined the term to now be limited to those who refuse to accept the 40k missions and play using the modified format. This is now an exclusive community within 40k, and no longer represents the entire 40k community. This is supported by a combination of Alt-40k formats limiting their feedback to attendees of their events, and the Alt-40k players treating the whole 40k community and something less than their preferred playstyle. Using terms like ‘inferior’, ‘non-competetive’, ‘un-balanced’, or even just not taking them seriously. It’s gotten so bad where Tournament players don’t count their losses when playing the 40k missions, or even refuse to play them outright.

There seems to be this mythical set of rules or guidelines that seems to make a game fair, balanced or competetive. As long as the game has the same goals, objectives, and rules that allow both players an even chance at victory, then they are Competetive. EVERY excuse used to prop up the Alt-40k as more Competetive than 40k, is a myth. GW is updating their missions as fast as the Alt-40k formats. Even better is that they are taking feedback from the Alt-40k groups to improve their scenarios. It’s seems that it’s only the Alt-40k players that are blind to it, or willfully ignoring it.

Regardless of whether you agree with all of that or not, there are bigger problems. The first is that the Manufacturers have updated THEIR game with how THEY want it played and has been balanced how THEY see fit. The second is that the Alt-40k proponents not only ignore any views or opinions that don’t fit their model, but they write it off as invalid, inferior, as a joke, etc. The result is that a good portion of the 40k community that is still waiting for a Competetive event (the whole point of the OP) isn’t even heard, and they’re expected to conform to a standard that has failed to update or include them in its development. Something that GW is actively addressing.

I’m going to be a bit fair toward the ITC because they have an open end by allowing ANY event to count, and don’t require you to use their scenarios, changes, etc. Just read the comments/responses yourself and you’ll see why this is a terrible idea now. These are not the sportsmanlike players anyone should want at their event. Why would anyone want to create an event that limited everyone to a Patrol Battalion, Restrcited FW, or simply choose to use the GW missions over the Alt-40k Ones, and then want these guys to attend the event? It’s not enough for them to allow those who don’t prefer their accepted idea of what 40k should be. We have 52 weekends a year, surely some of them can be 40k, or a new Alt-40k right?

A Competetive 40k event should be built on the existing missions, while still remaining inclusive of the 40k community. We need more Matched Play events that used the Matched Play missions. We need events where FW is restricted, to include those who still disagree for whatever reason, instead of laughing them off or getting defensive. We need to look at other possibilities, like standardizing battalions for Competetive Play, and not limit the changes to the missions. That’s not going to happen until we go back to all voices being heard.

 Akar wrote:
while still remaining inclusive of the 40k community.
...
We need events where FW is restricted

So, we need to remain inclusive by running events that ban people from attending? We need to move away from the ITC and play the game as GW provides it, except when it comes to adding anti-FW house rules to appease people who don't want to play the standard game? Makes sense to me...

 Akar wrote:

So it now creates a bigger problem within the 40k community. Those that play Competetive 40k, and those that play competetive Alt-40k. The Alt 40k formats have redefined the term to now be limited to those who refuse to accept the 40k missions and play using the modified format. This is now an exclusive community within 40k, and no longer represents the entire 40k community. This is supported by a combination of Alt-40k formats limiting their feedback to attendees of their events, and the Alt-40k players treating the whole 40k community and something less than their preferred playstyle. Using terms like ‘inferior’, ‘non-competetive’, ‘un-balanced’, or even just not taking them seriously. It’s gotten so bad where Tournament players don’t count their losses when playing the 40k missions, or even refuse to play them outright.

There seems to be this mythical set of rules or guidelines that seems to make a game fair, balanced or competetive. As long as the game has the same goals, objectives, and rules that allow both players an even chance at victory, then they are Competetive. EVERY excuse used to prop up the Alt-40k as more Competetive than 40k, is a myth. GW is updating their missions as fast as the Alt-40k formats. Even better is that they are taking feedback from the Alt-40k groups to improve their scenarios. It’s seems that it’s only the Alt-40k players that are blind to it, or willfully ignoring it.

I agree that we’ve had, for a while, an ‘Alt-40k’ scene (particularly in the US) which likes to portray itself as the ‘correcr’ way, but is in fact a very different thing. I’d actually expand that to all ultra-competitive 40k scenes. GW write the game, primarily, for non-competitive events, even in ‘Matched play’. Changing it, adding a loads of rules and making the focus ‘who can break the game best’ makes it quite a different game. Alt-40k.

But I think when people point out what is best for a competitive tournament they’re often talking about missions that give a better spread of results, which mean you can ‘rank’ people better. I thought Mike’s NOVA missions and the ITC missions were designed to give a big spread of results rather than a straight win/loss, which makes it easier to rank people in a competitive tournament. That’s the idea, right?

Thank you for your response.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
But I think when people point out what is best for a competitive tournament they’re often talking about missions that give a better spread of results, which mean you can ‘rank’ people better. I thought Mike’s NOVA missions and the ITC missions were designed to give a big spread of results rather than a straight win/loss, which makes it easier to rank people in a competitive tournament. That’s the idea, right?

You are right and yes, these missions do a fantastic job at creating a spread of points to accommodate a perceived ranking issue. Using their systems you have fewer issues running into players with the same score, especially at the top, in a ‘There can be only one’ environment. It’s a fantastic way to address something we’re used to at smaller events, which is a clear cut, no loss winner. This is not something that has really needed to be addressed and there is nothing wrong with having more winners. The London GT got a ton of crap for this and I’m sure there were issues, but don’t feel that their scoring system had anything to do with the problems.

The Alt-40k formats seem to hold on to that idea that there shouldn’t be multiple winners at larger events. There are a few things that I’ve actually liked from these events when determining a tie breaker. Like the concept of counting each win as more points than a win from a previous round. It supports the intent of a Swiss style format where each round is supposed to represent a more difficult opponent. So naturally a good measure of which of the two players is better, is by looking at when his loss took place.

It’s not without it’s problems though. We’re not playing a game where we are all of the pieces have the same rules and both sides are identical, like chess. We’re playing a game of Rock-Paper-Scissors, but instead of 27 possible outcomes based on matchups, we have a system that has over 200 simply based on army choice. That number grows exponentially when you start to take into account unit choices, Allies, tactics, environment, and even dice rolls. So the flaw becomes apparent when the system fails to reflect a lucky or unlucky pairing, slow players, or even getting tabled. After all that you still run into the first round problem where there is no clear ranking of who gets paired which affects the final result.

Story time:


Back to how this relates to being on topic and something the OP should consider when running an event, is that these additional mechanics to create a broader range of scores make life easier for the tournament organizer IF that’s the type of event he wants to run. They don’t make them any more, or less, Competetive than the ones that GW has provided and for the first time since they stopped running their own events, have updated them to be Competetive mid-edition.

If the OP wants to run an Alt-40k event then the resources are already out there, which to me, would defeat the purpose of even posting in the first place. I feel that he’s looking for a broad range of ideas, and while ‘just use the ITC/Nova/etc’ is an acceptable answer, he didn’t post asking how to run an ITC/Nova/etc tournament. The Alt-40k formats are the most common Competetive events, but they don’t have exclusive right to dictate what should or shouldn’t be in a ‘Purely Competetive Tournament’. Especially when the Alt-40k formats aren’t including the entire 40k community.

So my very serious response stands, and the OP can decide for himself.
1- START with 40k. Play the 12 update missions and decide if you want to use them, use the Alt-40k ones, or come up with your own.
2- Talk to your local community and find out what they want. Be mindful of players that don’t subscribe to the aspects of 40k they don’t like.

* I’m not suggesting that you cater to the one guy who has a very specific way of playing and won’t budge any more than the guy who is flexible with whatever is going on. Just be aware that there are players who are wanting something more than what the Alt-40k is providing. There are players who need much less than the complicated system that the Alt-40k forces players to consider if they want to participate. Just make sure the rules and missions apply to both sides.

A tournament that uses the EW missions using Power Level is just as competetive as an event that has an excessive amount of rules. Maelstrom missions that restrict FW, or LoW, or anything else that is considered a part of the game, is still just as Competetive as long as it’s something that applies to all players. Introducing additional mechanics, like the ones that Alt-40k uses, are Competetive because they apply equally to both players.

 Akar wrote:
This is not something that has really needed to be addressed and there is nothing wrong with having more winners.

Of course there's something wrong with it. The goal of a competitive event is to determine a winner. If you have multiple "winners" then you aren't finished with the event yet. You've played too few rounds, not had proper tiebreakers or scoring margin, etc.

This is something that is lost with the current tournament player, and is borderline elitism.

It's not elitism, it's just acknowledgement of reality. Games later in the event between higher-ranked players are more likely to have useful information, whether it's about balancing or final scores. First-round games often have a huge skill or competitiveness difference, where victory is near-inevitable just because of who you were paired against. Considering the game against the 0-2 player equal to the 2-0 player actually risks making that 0-2 player have a miserable day because of the seal clubbing problem. Short events that depend on MoV scoring to separate out a winner incentivize getting an easy first-round opponent and absolutely annihilating them to run up as much MoV scoring as possible. No mercy given, hammer them on every possible mistake or rules disagreement or whatever. Sure, they're going to have a miserable day, but that first-round massacre against the 0-4 player counts just as much as the final table game against another undefeated player and you need every MoV point you can get.

A tournament that uses the EW missions using Power Level is just as competetive as an event that has an excessive amount of rules.

Uh, no. A tournament that uses broken and badly designed mechanics just rewards the players/armies that are willing to exploit the system. Winning PL is much less about skill and more about willing to invest in the dominant PL units/armies that will be useless paperweights in a normal game. And when people talk about "competitive play" they're assuming that the competition is about more than finding out which player is willing to give the most money to GW.

 Akar wrote:
A tournament that uses the EW missions using Power Level is just as competetive as an event that has an excessive amount of rules. Maelstrom missions that restrict FW, or LoW, or anything else that is considered a part of the game, is still just as Competetive as long as it’s something that applies to all players. Introducing additional mechanics, like the ones that Alt-40k uses, are Competetive because they apply equally to both players.

What events have you played that use the EW missions format?

Would you mind giving a couple of examples of "alt-40k" events? Did you mean events that use ITC and NOVA missions? Or, as I read your posts, it seems that the 'alt-40k' is something other than the ITC/NOVA missions.

OP:

I would encourage you to change your rule from "You must provide a hard copy of your army list to your opponent before the start of the battle" to "You must bring 4 printed copies of your army list."

The former gives room for players to hand-write a hard copy, show it to their opponents before the game, but not leave them with a copy of it, and your rule doesn't explicitly clarify it. I've seen that abused through laziness so many times. If you've having a three round tournament, they had better have a copy for the TO, and three copies to hand out to their three opponents - typed, not hand-written.

If you want to ensure accuracy, you can require them to submit their army lists in army builder, or submit them to you 48 hours in advance so that you can input their armies into army builder and check their validity.