Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I am with Frazzled on this, he pretty much hits the nail on the head for the issues.

Ginjitzu wrote:I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Warhammer 40,000, as presented by Games-Workshop is not a very good game for any balanced, competitive, serious tournament. Whether it should or should not be is another discussion, but the reality is, it's not and never has been, and to be frank, I don't think it ever will be. That's why I think there really should be a concerted effort among serious, competitive gamers, and the people who organize such tournaments to create a ruleset that is. Until this happens, I don't see any end to the constant debate between us "casuals" who don't mind the flaws and just fill in the gaps ourselves and those who want to play Warhammer in a way that rewards serious strategic thinking and competitive balance.

This kinda sums it up. GW doesn't want to have a competitive focused ruleset and I am thankful for that. There should be a distinct difference between the two. Different point structure, force org etc.

So maybe stop complaining about the rules and come up with something better.
Most of us @ my flgs couldn't even give a scheiss about tournaments. even the ones who do have no problem playing a non competitive game and not being a WAAC/tfg/dbag/ahole about it.

I just hope that GW does do something like an official tourney packet that has stratagems that are the exact same for all factions, all psychic powers same, etc. that way since everyone is balanced against each other, there should be less room for shenanigans.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 whembly wrote:

-This was a well run tournament and had a blast. Seriously, its well worth it.

Obviously this can't be true. The people that weren't there say it was horrible.

Literally snorted my drink reading this... THANKS HOMIE!

Racerguy180 wrote:

Ginjitzu wrote:I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Warhammer 40,000, as presented by Games-Workshop is not a very good game for any balanced, competitive, serious tournament. Whether it should or should not be is another discussion, but the reality is, it's not and never has been, and to be frank, I don't think it ever will be. That's why I think there really should be a concerted effort among serious, competitive gamers, and the people who organize such tournaments to create a ruleset that is. Until this happens, I don't see any end to the constant debate between us "casuals" who don't mind the flaws and just fill in the gaps ourselves and those who want to play Warhammer in a way that rewards serious strategic thinking and competitive balance.

This kinda sums it up. GW doesn't want to have a competitive focused ruleset and I am thankful for that. There should be a distinct difference between the two. Different point structure, force org etc.

So maybe stop complaining about the rules and come up with something better.
Most of us @ my flgs couldn't even give a scheiss about tournaments. even the ones who do have no problem playing a non competitive game and not being a WAAC/tfg/dbag/ahole about it.

I just hope that GW does do something like an official tourney packet that has stratagems that are the exact same for all factions, all psychic powers same, etc. that way since everyone is balanced against each other, there should be less room for shenanigans.

Yeah, how cool would it be if there were 2 sets of rules. Lets call it Open and Matched play. Different points structures we can call them Power Level and Points. And in the Matched rules we can add force organisation charts and call them Detachments.

Wouldn't that be amazing?

(not saying its done amazing right now, but this divide your asking for with the examples your giving is what they actually did....)

If anyone wants to actually here judges talk about the card system used at LVO and how it was implemented/ will be implemented in the future, TFG Radio had a great podcast (it was the first time I've listened to them) Where they went through every round and the different issues they faced and how they are looking at making changes in the future. It was incredibly insightful listening to a judges perspective of the event

 Ordana wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Ginjitzu wrote:I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Warhammer 40,000, as presented by Games-Workshop is not a very good game for any balanced, competitive, serious tournament. Whether it should or should not be is another discussion, but the reality is, it's not and never has been, and to be frank, I don't think it ever will be. That's why I think there really should be a concerted effort among serious, competitive gamers, and the people who organize such tournaments to create a ruleset that is. Until this happens, I don't see any end to the constant debate between us "casuals" who don't mind the flaws and just fill in the gaps ourselves and those who want to play Warhammer in a way that rewards serious strategic thinking and competitive balance.

This kinda sums it up. GW doesn't want to have a competitive focused ruleset and I am thankful for that. There should be a distinct difference between the two. Different point structure, force org etc.

So maybe stop complaining about the rules and come up with something better.
Most of us @ my flgs couldn't even give a scheiss about tournaments. even the ones who do have no problem playing a non competitive game and not being a WAAC/tfg/dbag/ahole about it.

I just hope that GW does do something like an official tourney packet that has stratagems that are the exact same for all factions, all psychic powers same, etc. that way since everyone is balanced against each other, there should be less room for shenanigans.

Yeah, how cool would it be if there were 2 sets of rules. Lets call it Open and Matched play. Different points structures we can call them Power Level and Points. And in the Matched rules we can add force organisation charts and call them Detachments.

Wouldn't that be amazing?

(not saying its done amazing right now, but this divide your asking for with the examples your giving is what they actually did....)

It's really not though. Open has no balancing mechanic whatsoever and leaves it entirely up to the people playing to decide what feels fair. Matched tries and fails miserably, and there nothing that's even tighter than Matched for tournament play. That's a far cry from a tournament packet or special balancing for tournaments that aren't painted with broad strokes to every game.

Asmodios wrote:
If anyone wants to actually here judges talk about the card system used at LVO and how it was implemented/ will be implemented in the future, TFG Radio had a great podcast (it was the first time I've listened to them) Where they went through every round and the different issues they faced and how they are looking at making changes in the future. It was incredibly insightful listening to a judges perspective of the event

I just listened to that same episode. As you say, it was very interesting. It also made clear how awful it must be to play against certain mindsets of competitive players, and one in particular.

Lol is that what you got Hyperfocal? Saw that one tree really well did you?

puree wrote:
The point in dispute was that it was easy to tell the intentional cheat and honest mistake on a bizarre premise that it is obvious to spot someone not doing something that he could have, and treating it as a rule mistake.

I think this might be subjective - but I think it is.

Maybe not viewed through a grainy potato camera held 6 feet above the gaming table - but when you play someone you very quickly get an idea of their knowledge and experience. If they really know their army or whether are looking at their codex every 5 minutes. If they understand movement, objectives and so on or are just winging it.

People make mistakes. I am suspect however that people who are playing semi-professionally, 100+ games a year, going to reasonable sized tournaments every month or so, don't know the rules for their army.
40k is complicated if you play once every 6 months and your brain is going "back in 5th edition this unit had a special rule, do they still have that?" If you play the same army repeatedly you should have it down.

I don't think cheating is really harming the tournament scene - which frankly seems far healthier, and less populated by Those Guys who will cheat, or be aggressive than it was 15 years ago. In fact the whole hobby is - I don't know if thats because the average player is older and more mature but there you go. There was that thread about forums/blogs generally being less ridden by drama now, and I have to agree. 15-20 years ago things became incredibly toxic for reasons I don't really understand.

Not really, the rules for matched play obviously are not up to the task of having a large (# of players) tourney be balanced and fair to everyone. If competitive players want a rock-paper-scissors, then the ruleset needs to accommodate that mindset. As evidenced by GW's own attitude on how they designed & play the game, they're verrrry reluctant in how they approach the competitive aspect. Matched, Narrative & Open are the first step toward GW accepting(begrudgingly) their role in the 3 types of players & the interaction(read:ruleset) with them.

If GW actually buys into the tourney ruleset and leaves the rest of the game alone, hopefully it will quell the whining from the competitive side about balance & the narrative/open about WAAC/TFG screwing with the game.

I wish GW would put out a competitive play pack.

Reality is that their competitive play pack would just be Match Play though. They feel it is up to the task on it.

 Xenomancers wrote:
IMO - tournaments should be giving you a block of dice to use from a single source as part of your buy in. Using your own dice should NOT be an option.

Agree. They require you use their dice on the stream table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reemule wrote:
I wish GW would put out a competitive play pack.

Reality is that their competitive play pack would just be Match Play though. They feel it is up to the task on it.

Which is silly.

I've said before that they need to have another gameplay mode, which is tournament. That has rules like the rule of 3 and other stuff. Casual players don't need expanded restrictions.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
IMO - tournaments should be giving you a block of dice to use from a single source as part of your buy in. Using your own dice should NOT be an option.

Agree. They require you use their dice on the stream table.

I would imagine that has more to do with visibility than anything else. They want people watching the stream to be able to see the dice better.

Reemule wrote:
Lol is that what you got Hyperfocal? Saw that one tree really well did you?

The forest looks nice enough if that's what you like; for me, that one kind of tree sucks the fun out.

 EnTyme wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
IMO - tournaments should be giving you a block of dice to use from a single source as part of your buy in. Using your own dice should NOT be an option.

Agree. They require you use their dice on the stream table.

I would imagine that has more to do with visibility than anything else. They want people watching the stream to be able to see the dice better.

That isn't the case. Rolling happens in a dice tray which has a camera right over it. And it's not GW running the stream table, it's FLG.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
IMO - tournaments should be giving you a block of dice to use from a single source as part of your buy in. Using your own dice should NOT be an option.

Agree. They require you use their dice on the stream table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reemule wrote:
I wish GW would put out a competitive play pack.

Reality is that their competitive play pack would just be Match Play though. They feel it is up to the task on it.

Which is silly.

I've said before that they need to have another gameplay mode, which is tournament. That has rules like the rule of 3 and other stuff. Casual players don't need expanded restrictions.

Absolutely agree with your second statement. Half of those restrictions don't need to be for ALL matched play, just competitive events ("Organized Play" or whatever). But by putting it in Matched Play it inevitably affects all games from the finals of LVO down to a local RTT to casual games on game night. Not all of those things need the same level of restrictions. Most of them don't need to be in your average pickup game.

And ITC isn't the answer either.

Racerguy180 wrote:
[spoiler]If GW actually buys into the tourney ruleset and leaves the rest of the game alone, hopefully it will quell the whining from the competitive side about balance & the narrative/open about WAAC/TFG screwing with the game.

Your open disdain for competitive players is so refreshing.

Open and Narrative are basically wargame RPG games, without the compelling RPG elements.

But painters will keep putting models on the table and asking for praise, GW loves you for buying every new sculpt you never needed.

 Marmatag wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
IMO - tournaments should be giving you a block of dice to use from a single source as part of your buy in. Using your own dice should NOT be an option.

Agree. They require you use their dice on the stream table.

I would imagine that has more to do with visibility than anything else. They want people watching the stream to be able to see the dice better.

That isn't the case. Rolling happens in a dice tray which has a camera right over it. And it's not GW running the stream table, it's FLG.

You still want to use dice with a good contrast. I've seen them switch dice on Tabletop Tactics before mid-game just because they realize the dice were hard to read. It may not be the only reason, but I promise dice visibility is a major reason they don't let you use your own dice.

 Marmatag wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
IMO - tournaments should be giving you a block of dice to use from a single source as part of your buy in. Using your own dice should NOT be an option.

Agree. They require you use their dice on the stream table.

I would imagine that has more to do with visibility than anything else. They want people watching the stream to be able to see the dice better.

That isn't the case. Rolling happens in a dice tray which has a camera right over it. And it's not GW running the stream table, it's FLG.

The 40k stream at the LVO was run by WarhammerTV which is an extension of GW.
The dice used were WarhammerTV dice which you get as a present when you appear on the WarhammerTV stream.

And yes those dice are used for their high contrast and clear visibility, its why they started using specific dice for the stream as mentioned by WarhammerTV commentators when they made the change some time ago.

"But FLG people were commenting" you say. You'll be happy to know the Geoff and Frankie are members of the WarhammerTV team.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
[spoiler]If GW actually buys into the tourney ruleset and leaves the rest of the game alone, hopefully it will quell the whining from the competitive side about balance & the narrative/open about WAAC/TFG screwing with the game.

Your open disdain for competitive players is so refreshing.

Open and Narrative are basically wargame RPG games, without the compelling RPG elements.

But painters will keep putting models on the table and asking for praise, GW loves you for buying every new sculpt you never needed.

and it matters why? Just cuz I may not like a type/style of play doesn't mean I hate those whom enjoy a different version of the same game. Last time I checked, we all like 40k! Right? I am at least trying to offer suggestions to help, what are you doing to better the situation?

I just want stuff that is needed for "competitive" to stop being the default game mode. I may have zero interest in playing in a tournament, but I would like it if all (types of)players had positive experiences with the game. If that means GW needs to buckle down and craft a tourney pack that actually works, then so be it. Maybe use the upcoming survey to give some constructive criticism?

I don't think tournament packs from Games-Workshop will cut it. Most of the gripes from competitive gamers I come accross tend to attribute the root of any issue to either fundamental issues with the core rules, or general incompetence from the rules writers, neither of which would be solved in a tournament pack. No, once again, it's unlikely that Games-Workshop will ever provide a solution that satisfies the competitive scene, and therefore, as I've said before, it's up to the community to solve the issue. Otherwise all we've got are endless threads of vitriol and personal attacks, and that's about as likely to get us a balanced ruleset as flinging our own gak at the moon.

"In the grim reality of the immediate present, there is only complaining."

 Ordana wrote:
Yeah, how cool would it be if there were 2 sets of rules. Lets call it Open and Matched play. Different points structures we can call them Power Level and Points. And in the Matched rules we can add force organisation charts and call them Detachments.

Wouldn't that be amazing?

(not saying its done amazing right now, but this divide your asking for with the examples your giving is what they actually did....)

Yeah right that's not even NEAR to being good enough for competive game. For THAT you would need complete rewrite of all the rules and codexes. Total rework from ground up. Throw everything to garbage and start from scratch. To get good game for competive games you need to make game for it from the start for it.

As it is you need to decide yourself how to play whole bunch of rules that rules as it don't cover. How on earth are you supposed to play competive game when two people can play same situation differently and both are 100% correct because rules as are don't cover it so players have to determine how to play it themselves? Have fun playing ultra competive and then find out mid game that the rule your group plays way A this guy plays way B and it throws situation way off.

To get good game for competive games you need to make game for it from the start for it.

This would mean that all competitive games, including sports, are bad, because all of them started as non competitive.

As someone who regularly plays in tournies, I welcome the idea of a concise tourney driven pack from GW.

On the flip-side though... I know that my non tourney games would just gravitate to this pack, as it does now towards matched play.

I'm a big fan of the other types of playing but I do find that in order to get a game it has to basically use the rules a tourney would use. Consequently, I never play the other types.

If there was a tourney pack it would undoubtedly become the norm, in my area, to play it continuously outside of a tourney in preparation for one.

 lare2 wrote:
As someone who regularly plays in tournies, I welcome the idea of a concise tourney driven pack from GW.

On the flip-side though... I know that my non tourney games would just gravitate to this pack, as it does now towards matched play.

I'm a big fan of the other types of playing but I do find that in order to get a game it has to basically use the rules a tourney would use. Consequently, I never play the other types.

If there was a tourney pack it would undoubtedly become the norm, in my area, to play it continuously outside of a tourney in preparation for one.

At this point I think that the main reason tourneys are not switching to the CA18 mission set is inertia - and an element of "not invented here" syndrome. A lot of that attitude comes out is claims of inherent superiority of one mission set or another but really that is nothing other than preference dressed up as analysis.

The one thing still missing from the GW approach is a solid answer to poor sports and slow play; their events still have issues in this regard. The mission set is just fine now.

Strangely enough the very similar AoS mission pack is widely used in tourneys pretty much everywhere.

happy_inquisitor wrote:
Strangely enough the very similar AoS mission pack is widely used in tourneys pretty much everywhere.

And does very well. Truth be told, I find AoS tournies to be a far more satisfying experience.

Reemule wrote:
I wish GW would put out a competitive play pack.

Reality is that their competitive play pack would just be Match Play though. They feel it is up to the task on it.

They did. You're just playing the wrong game.

 lare2 wrote:

happy_inquisitor wrote:
Strangely enough the very similar AoS mission pack is widely used in tourneys pretty much everywhere.

And does very well. Truth be told, I find AoS tournies to be a far more satisfying experience.

This is what I find amusing. The AOS missions are fine for tournaments, but the 40k ones are not. If you look at ITC's AOS pack, it's basically just some ideas and guidelines for running events, it even mentions Narrative events (I'm not sure it's even written by them it doesn't look like their usual stuff). No house rules (it does have some suggestions to reign in some things). No custom missions.Even a section talking about how to get a community.

40k is basically "We know better so here's how we want to fix the game".

Wayniac wrote:

 lare2 wrote:

happy_inquisitor wrote:
Strangely enough the very similar AoS mission pack is widely used in tourneys pretty much everywhere.

And does very well. Truth be told, I find AoS tournies to be a far more satisfying experience.

This is what I find amusing. The AOS missions are fine for tournaments, but the 40k ones are not. If you look at ITC's AOS pack, it's basically just some ideas and guidelines for running events, it even mentions Narrative events (I'm not sure it's even written by them it doesn't look like their usual stuff). No house rules (it does have some suggestions to reign in some things). No custom missions.Even a section talking about how to get a community.

40k is basically "We know better so here's how we want to fix the game".

I think ITC and 40k is more "this is how we enjoy playing, you can play however you like" The guys that run ITC allow you to run ITC in any format you want and encourage you to do so... they simply like to add their own flavor on missions and obviously a lot of people like them considering they just ran the largest 40k event in history. I find it refreshing that different areas play in different ways if you want to play purely book missions nothing is stopping you or anyone else. FLG/ITC isn't some evil organization forcing everyone to play by their rules. Im also sure that with those guys personalities that if their main focus was AOS you would most likely see them adding their own flavor to that system as well

The ITC has a lot of influence and good will due to it being the primary organization in 7th that attempted to do any thing to at least try and salvage it at a competitive level. GW back then was probably at it's most unresponsive/forge the narrative we don't give a F.

They aren't perfect though and now that GW is back I do wish that GW would take the reigns back a bit more. The ITC missions changes how the game is played and what lists and options are good.