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.

 Peregrine wrote:

There's a toxic attitude here, but it's yours. GW absolutely is at fault when the game requires negotiating about how many sub-optimal list building choices you're obligated to make, winning is seen as a bad thing and tournaments need sportsmanship/comp/etc to penalize competitive players and bring the losers up to parity, etc. And socializing should involve fun time with friends, not arguing over whether or not unit X is too powerful to use. If your life is so lacking in genuine friendships that you consider this pre-game negotiation to count as socialization, well, I have to feel sorry for you.

Or because they are not a nice person. I know a few guys who are top of their game in wrestling of my weight class. They are very not nice people. But they have results, so they get taken to events. Being a nice person is not part of the competition, neither should be painting. Plus if painting people really want to have a paint prize, why not make and sponsor a co event of their own, that runs along the tournament.

Martel732 wrote:
Problem being in 40K it's not clear when we can apply Chauvenet's criterion. As I said, data doesn't exactly work that way in practice. Even "absolute" statements are expected to have outliers.

A synonym that would apply to "absolute statement with outliers" is "wrong". There's a reason why absolute statements usually (see what I did there? ) should be avoided when making an argument.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
An insult? Not at all. There's more to being the best player than scoring the most kills.

No there isn't. There might be more to being the best painter than scoring the most kills (capturing the most objectives, etc), but that has nothing to do with playing the game. It's like having a painting contest but penalizing a beautiful GD-winning model because its weapon choices aren't optimal and there should be more to being the best painter than being good at painting models.

For my money - and, looking at some of the posts on the last page, I'm not alone on this - being the best player of Warhammer 40,000 requires more than just being a good general.

And even if we go with your narrow focus, it still requires more than scoring the most kills - there are these little things called objectives in scenarios, after all...

 Peregrine wrote:

Gordoape wrote:

Spoiler:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It has nothing to do with the gameplay though. Someone getting a few ranks higher because their Marines were painted slightly nicer than then the people that played better is basically an insult.

This is what happens when video gamers find 40k.

Yeah I have to feel like there are plenty of existing games for them to bring this toxic attitude to. “I shouldn’t have to socialize if I don’t want to.” is a real comment above and blaming GW game design for that not being possible.

There's a toxic attitude here, but it's yours. GW absolutely is at fault when the game requires negotiating about how many sub-optimal list building choices you're obligated to make, winning is seen as a bad thing and tournaments need sportsmanship/comp/etc to penalize competitive players and bring the losers up to parity, etc. And socializing should involve fun time with friends, not arguing over whether or not unit X is too powerful to use. If your life is so lacking in genuine friendships that you consider this pre-game negotiation to count as socialization, well, I have to feel sorry for you.

*cough*Rule #1*cough*

Any form of interacting with another human being - especially IRL - is a form of socialising. Whether it is your preferred form or not, or with your preferred circle of acquaintances or not, is irrelevant.

And note that when most people have been talking about any pre-game discussion, they've not been talking about tournaments - going into such events, you should expecting people to be fielding armies they have tuned and tweaked to their satisfaction. However, if we're wanting the best person to win the event, that person should reflect more than one facet of the game - ideally, they should be the best at all three primary pillars (Generalship, Sportsmanship, Craftsmanship).

 Dysartes wrote:
For my money - and, looking at some of the posts on the last page, I'm not alone on this - being the best player of Warhammer 40,000 requires more than just being a good general.

I don't think you understand what "player" means. Playing the game is about just that: playing the game. How well you painted some models before the game started has nothing to do with your skill at playing the game. It's just like how Golden Demon contests shouldn't penalize an entry because the squad has a grenade launcher instead of a plasma gun (clearly a poor choice for playing the game) and being the best Warhammer 40,000 painter requires more than just being good at putting paint onto plastic.

And yes, I am well aware that there is more to it than killing models, that's why I noted "capturing objectives, etc".

*cough*Rule #1*cough*

Interesting that you say this about my reply, but not about the original post making the exact same comment about a person's attitude being toxic.

Any form of interacting with another human being - especially IRL - is a form of socialising. Whether it is your preferred form or not, or with your preferred circle of acquaintances or not, is irrelevant.

Nonsense. Is paying for groceries at the store "socializing" because you have to hand your credit card to a human? Of course not. And if that kind of superficial interaction makes up a meaningful percentage of your "socialization", to the point that you'd be sad to see it go, then I really have to feel sorry for you.

And note that when most people have been talking about any pre-game discussion, they've not been talking about tournaments - going into such events, you should expecting people to be fielding armies they have tuned and tweaked to their satisfaction. However, if we're wanting the best person to win the event, that person should reflect more than one facet of the game - ideally, they should be the best at all three primary pillars (Generalship, Sportsmanship, Craftsmanship).

But why should those be three equal factors? A tournament is about playing the game, just like a painting contest is about painting. Should a painting contest judge you on how good your entry is at winning and how many tutorial videos you've put up helping newer painters reach your skill level? If not, then why should a game tournament be treated differently?

And TBH the idea that sportsmanship is part of the competition is a pretty toxic attitude. Good sportsmanship should be treated as a basic expectation and condition of participating in the event. You either play respectfully and within the rules or you get removed from the event for being unable to behave like an adult. Treating it as a score component both endorses bad behavior as an acceptable attitude towards the game ("feel free to be TFG, you just lose some points") and encourages people to go beyond mere sportsmanship and treat it as a winning penalty where a player that beats you, especially if their list was "too competitive", gets a score penalty in revenge.

Peregrine wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
An insult? Not at all. There's more to being the best player than scoring the most kills.

No there isn't.

Strong disagree. There's more to 40k than winning games, and the overall winner of a tournament should be someone who embraces all parts of the hobby, not just having a super l33t army.

There might be more to being the best painter than scoring the most kills (capturing the most objectives, etc), but that has nothing to do with playing the game. It's like having a painting contest but penalizing a beautiful GD-winning model because its weapon choices aren't optimal and there should be more to being the best painter than being good at painting models.

Which is why there's multiple different awards you can win, but the overall tournament winner is someone who embraces all of them.

I absolutely agree that a model entered for the painting contests should be judged only on it's painting, and an army entered to win the most games should be judged based on it's ability to do so, but someone looking to win the overall "Best Player" award should be good at both and more.

It's not like you don't have a "Best General" award. It's just that it's not the "top" award.

And socializing should involve fun time with friends, not arguing over whether or not unit X is too powerful to use.

Implying you can't have that in 40k?

Peregrine wrote:I don't think you understand what "player" means. Playing the game is about just that: playing the game.

Which includes socialising with people. Which includes having a well painted army. Which includes winning games. To play 40k is to do all of those things. It is to do more than just push pieces of plastic around and grunt at your opponent, it's to collect an awesome looking army that does well on the battlefield and have a good time with the person opposite from you.

Reducing 40k into "it's only about rolling dice and winning games" is exactly why you'd never win "Best Player". Best General, maybe, and I won't take that from you - but not "Best Player".

How well you painted some models before the game started has nothing to do with your skill at playing the game. It's just like how Golden Demon contests shouldn't penalize an entry because the squad has a grenade launcher instead of a plasma gun (clearly a poor choice for playing the game) and being the best Warhammer 40,000 painter requires more than just being good at putting paint onto plastic.

Which is why there's a seperate category for "Best Painter" for the painters, "Best General" for people who play to win games, "Most Sporting" for people who make the best social impression on others, and "Best Player" for someone who does best in all three.*

It's not like there's not a prize to validate you by. It's just that there's more to the game than that - not that you seem to care.

*there may well be more criteria, but for the sake of the argument, I'm using those three.

Any form of interacting with another human being - especially IRL - is a form of socialising. Whether it is your preferred form or not, or with your preferred circle of acquaintances or not, is irrelevant.

Nonsense. Is paying for groceries at the store "socializing" because you have to hand your credit card to a human? Of course not. And if that kind of superficial interaction makes up a meaningful percentage of your "socialization", to the point that you'd be sad to see it go, then I really have to feel sorry for you.

Well, if we're being super strict about definition, then, yes, ANY form of interaction is socialising. Sorry, but that's the definition for you.

Now, if you want to ignore that, even so - there's a massive difference between handing your credit card to a member of staff, and playing a game with another person face to face. Or, maybe I'm severely overestimating how you play 40k. I assumed you talked to your opponent, made conversation, or at the very least, made eye contact or some kind of ape-like grunts. If not, then I really do feel sorry for your opponents.

And note that when most people have been talking about any pre-game discussion, they've not been talking about tournaments - going into such events, you should expecting people to be fielding armies they have tuned and tweaked to their satisfaction. However, if we're wanting the best person to win the event, that person should reflect more than one facet of the game - ideally, they should be the best at all three primary pillars (Generalship, Sportsmanship, Craftsmanship).

But why should those be three equal factors? A tournament is about playing the game, just like a painting contest is about painting. Should a painting contest judge you on how good your entry is at winning and how many tutorial videos you've put up helping newer painters reach your skill level? If not, then why should a game tournament be treated differently?

No, a tournament is an event which DOES encompass all of the above. The tournament can be broken down into parts - the rolling dice and pushing about of models to try and win; the entry of models into the painting contest, as well as general observation of the army's appearance as a whole throughout the event; and the way you treat your opponents as a person. How well you do in one doesn't affect the result of the other, but seeing as the tournament itself is more than any one of those three things, of course the overall tournament winner should be judged on all three.

You make the mistake of thinking that GW's tournaments are about winning games. They're not. If you want to win awards for the game winning part, go win "Best General". If that's all you care about, winning games, then it shouldn't matter to you that the overall tournament winner is for something else.

And TBH the idea that sportsmanship is part of the competition is a pretty toxic attitude. Good sportsmanship should be treated as a basic expectation and condition of participating in the event. You either play respectfully and within the rules or you get removed from the event for being unable to behave like an adult. Treating it as a score component both endorses bad behavior as an acceptable attitude towards the game ("feel free to be TFG, you just lose some points") and encourages people to go beyond mere sportsmanship and treat it as a winning penalty where a player that beats you, especially if their list was "too competitive", gets a score penalty in revenge.

On the contrary, good sportsmanship should always be encouraged. As you prove so brilliantly, if the overall tournament WAS only determined by whoever won the most games, then we could end up with absolutely horrible people being the overall event winners, who really wouldn't deserve it.

By having the overall tournament be judged on more than just "who rolled best", it encourages people to think about more than just "I wanna win" and about making the event as pleasant as possible for everyone around them.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Strong disagree. There's more to 40k than winning games, and the overall winner of a tournament should be someone who embraces all parts of the hobby, not just having a super l33t army.

Why do those aspects of the hobby belong in a tournament? A tournament's entire concept and structure is about playing the game competitively, scores outside of winning games are at best a tacked-on supplement that feels out of place. So why try to force those things into a tournament instead of embracing them as worthy pursuits on their own? Why not run painting contests (as GW and various other groups do) as a separate event, where they can focus on being painting contests instead of having to fit within the 2000 point army structure?

And TBH the whole "embracing all parts of the hobby" excuse seems rather underwhelming when a commission painted army owned by someone who doesn't give a about painting but wants to maximize their overall score gets more points than an army painted by someone who loves painting but isn't very good at it.

Implying you can't have that in 40k?

Absolutely not. 40k can be a great social activity. But pre-game negotiation about what is "too overpowered" is not meaningful social interaction. It shouldn't be treated as a virtue, and it certainly shouldn't be used as an excuse for GW's failure to make a better game that doesn't require it.

You make the mistake of thinking that GW's tournaments are about winning games. They're not.

Correct. GW's tournaments are about selling Citadel™ Multi™-part™ Plastic™ Space™ Marine™ Kits™, with a side of CAAC attitudes from people who dislike competitive play but have to acknowledge that it has a useful business purpose. However, seeing as GW's tournaments are a tiny minority of 40k events that are inaccessible to the vast majority of 40k players, I don't think it's worth spending much time discussing them.

On the contrary, good sportsmanship should always be encouraged. As you prove so brilliantly, if the overall tournament WAS only determined by whoever won the most games, then we could end up with absolutely horrible people being the overall event winners, who really wouldn't deserve it.

That isn't true at all if sportsmanship is handled properly. The "absolutely horrible people" would be removed from the event for poor behavior because meeting a minimum standard of sportsmanship is a requirement for participating in the event and not just another score to compete at. There is no option to take a 0/10 score because you don't care about competing for that award, if you can't behave then you can sit in your nonrefundable hotel room crying over how much money you threw away before flying home on your nonrefundable airline tickets. And if you consistently can't behave then you can put your army up on ebay and try to recover some of the money you've invested in a hobby where you are no longer permitted to attend events.

But I suspect that by "horrible people" you really mean people who are polite and play within the rules but bring lists that are "too competitive", don't let you correct mistakes that might cost you a win, etc. And that's what sportsmanship scoring is inevitably about, punishing people who care "too much" about winning and giving them a penalty to their final score to offset the points they earn by winning games.

When you mix socializing and rules discussions, you somewhat increase the chance of said discussion turning into a disagreement/argument. While this isn't completely unavoidable because life, a ruleset that doesn't need its hand held to function would certainly help. When I'm playing a game like 40K with friends, I want to be able to just play the game as smoothly as possible and socialize over fun stuff, instead of thumbing through my opponent's list like a tax inspector and asking nicely for my opponent not to steamroll me.

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

Wayniac wrote:


Besides what was already said, the only thing ITC missions care about is killing units and holding objectives, and the way their missions work it's basically the same mission just with objectives in different set locations that are predetermined rather than placed by the players. This means that you already know where objectives will be for any given mission, so you can just come up with your plan entirely before the game. In addition, they let you tailor secondary objectives based on your opponent's army list (so if they have horde and monsters, you can pick the secondaries that give you bonus points for hurting monsters and killing models). That's a big reason; everything revolves around killing units with little or no actual tactical decisions to be made other than where to apply firepower. The GW missions have slight variances baked in (e.g. only characters generate VP, units with FLY supersede all others for objectives, no invulns within X inches of the objective, etc.) so you can't just build a gimmicky list and crush people because you don't know which mission you might get, and that unknown might factor into what you bring.

ITC removes this, so it has very stale list building since basically everything about the mission is already known and can be accounted for before you ever get to the table. It basically boils everything in the game down to listbuilding and math/theoryhammer by removing the majority of unknown decisions which are baked into the game to help AVOID boiling everything down to listbuilding and math/theoryhammer.

It sounds like ITC went out of their way to make Warhammer 40k less of a game and more of a puzzle to be solved in the most efficient way possible.

So really not 40k anymore.

The more & more stuff I learn about ITC and how different it is to the game as produced by GW, it boggles the mind why this is even a thing. Since these tourneys utilize rules/missions that are 3rd party, how then can anyone expect GW to "balance" a game that for all intents and purposes isnt even theirs?
Sounds to me like ITC should come up themselves with points costs and rules that just so happen to use GW models. that way GW wont have to worry about stupid scheiss that have different rules/missions.

Peregrine wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Strong disagree. There's more to 40k than winning games, and the overall winner of a tournament should be someone who embraces all parts of the hobby, not just having a super l33t army.

Why do those aspects of the hobby belong in a tournament?

Because the tournament is for the hobby, not just the gaming. If you want a gaming-only event, go to one, but I haven't got a problem with mixed events.

A tournament's entire concept and structure is about playing the game competitively,

No, that's your opinion of what a tournament should be. GW tournaments are more of an organised event where people can come together and enjoy the hobby, with awards for people who do well in certain aspects.

So why try to force those things into a tournament instead of embracing them as worthy pursuits on their own? Why not run painting contests (as GW and various other groups do) as a separate event, where they can focus on being painting contests instead of having to fit within the 2000 point army structure?

Have you actually *been* to a GW event? Because, from where I am, that's exactly what they do at WHW - they have sub-competitions, with different awards and aspects, plus an overriding "Best Player" award.

You still have an award for winning games which is unaffected by other things. Just because the whole tournament isn't obsessed with winning doesn't mean it's flawed.

And TBH the whole "embracing all parts of the hobby" excuse seems rather underwhelming when a commission painted army owned by someone who doesn't give a about painting but wants to maximize their overall score gets more points than an army painted by someone who loves painting but isn't very good at it.

And at the same time, would you also complain about someone who copy-pastes a list to win?

End of the day, there's an award for people who win games. Who cares if it's not "Best Player"? Does winning mean THAT much?

You make the mistake of thinking that GW's tournaments are about winning games. They're not.

Correct. GW's tournaments are about selling Citadel™ Multi™-part™ Plastic™ Space™ Marine™ Kits™, with a side of CAAC attitudes from people who dislike competitive play but have to acknowledge that it has a useful business purpose. However, seeing as GW's tournaments are a tiny minority of 40k events that are inaccessible to the vast majority of 40k players, I don't think it's worth spending much time discussing them.

So, by that same virtue, we shouldn't talk about LVO, because the "vast majority of 40k players" don't go?
Your words, not mine.

But I suspect that by "horrible people" you really mean people who are polite and play within the rules but bring lists that are "too competitive", don't let you correct mistakes that might cost you a win, etc. And that's what sportsmanship scoring is inevitably about, punishing people who care "too much" about winning and giving them a penalty to their final score to offset the points they earn by winning games.

If this is what you're worried about, I'd call it a guilty conscience.

Do you always think so lowly of people? Maybe this is why your sportsman scores might be low, not because of some kind of "casual players can't handle people beating them" conspiracy.

For what it's worth, when I took part in GW tournaments, the worst rating I ever gave an opponent was one that I beat, purely because his attitude was terrible. At the same time, when playing against lists that far outclassed mine, and I lost horrifically against, I actually gave those players good ratings - because they were good people, and I enjoyed their company.

But sure, keep assuming the worst in people.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Spoiler:

Peregrine wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Strong disagree. There's more to 40k than winning games, and the overall winner of a tournament should be someone who embraces all parts of the hobby, not just having a super l33t army.

Why do those aspects of the hobby belong in a tournament?

Because the tournament is for the hobby, not just the gaming. If you want a gaming-only event, go to one, but I haven't got a problem with mixed events.

A tournament's entire concept and structure is about playing the game competitively,

No, that's your opinion of what a tournament should be. GW tournaments are more of an organised event where people can come together and enjoy the hobby, with awards for people who do well in certain aspects.

So why try to force those things into a tournament instead of embracing them as worthy pursuits on their own? Why not run painting contests (as GW and various other groups do) as a separate event, where they can focus on being painting contests instead of having to fit within the 2000 point army structure?

Have you actually *been* to a GW event? Because, from where I am, that's exactly what they do at WHW - they have sub-competitions, with different awards and aspects, plus an overriding "Best Player" award.

You still have an award for winning games which is unaffected by other things. Just because the whole tournament isn't obsessed with winning doesn't mean it's flawed.

And TBH the whole "embracing all parts of the hobby" excuse seems rather underwhelming when a commission painted army owned by someone who doesn't give a about painting but wants to maximize their overall score gets more points than an army painted by someone who loves painting but isn't very good at it.

And at the same time, would you also complain about someone who copy-pastes a list to win?

End of the day, there's an award for people who win games. Who cares if it's not "Best Player"? Does winning mean THAT much?

You make the mistake of thinking that GW's tournaments are about winning games. They're not.

Correct. GW's tournaments are about selling Citadel™ Multi™-part™ Plastic™ Space™ Marine™ Kits™, with a side of CAAC attitudes from people who dislike competitive play but have to acknowledge that it has a useful business purpose. However, seeing as GW's tournaments are a tiny minority of 40k events that are inaccessible to the vast majority of 40k players, I don't think it's worth spending much time discussing them.

So, by that same virtue, we shouldn't talk about LVO, because the "vast majority of 40k players" don't go?
Your words, not mine.

But I suspect that by "horrible people" you really mean people who are polite and play within the rules but bring lists that are "too competitive", don't let you correct mistakes that might cost you a win, etc. And that's what sportsmanship scoring is inevitably about, punishing people who care "too much" about winning and giving them a penalty to their final score to offset the points they earn by winning games.

If this is what you're worried about, I'd call it a guilty conscience.

Do you always think so lowly of people? Maybe this is why your sportsman scores might be low, not because of some kind of "casual players can't handle people beating them" conspiracy.

For what it's worth, when I took part in GW tournaments, the worst rating I ever gave an opponent was one that I beat, purely because his attitude was terrible. At the same time, when playing against lists that far outclassed mine, and I lost horrifically against, I actually gave those players good ratings - because they were good people, and I enjoyed their company.

But sure, keep assuming the worst in people.

I think that's the only way they(negative raptor)know how.

to be fair tho, at least if you expect the worst in people and they're not, then you're pleasantly surprised.

Karol wrote:
Or because they are not a nice person. I know a few guys who are top of their game in wrestling of my weight class. They are very not nice people. But they have results, so they get taken to events. Being a nice person is not part of the competition, neither should be painting. Plus if painting people really want to have a paint prize, why not make and sponsor a co event of their own, that runs along the tournament.

"Unsportsmanlike conduct" is a real penalty in professional and collegiate sports in the United States.

ITC has set their standards for having extra points awarded to people who did more than just hurl a grey wad of models onto the table and game. People who actually used all aspects of the hobby in the competition demonstrate a talent for the hobby as a whole.

The wargame aspect of 40k is just as much a part of it as the modeling and painting, but the video gamer crowd converged on this and just saw 'expensive tokens'.

Racerguy180 wrote:

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

Wayniac wrote:


Besides what was already said, the only thing ITC missions care about is killing units and holding objectives, and the way their missions work it's basically the same mission just with objectives in different set locations that are predetermined rather than placed by the players. This means that you already know where objectives will be for any given mission, so you can just come up with your plan entirely before the game. In addition, they let you tailor secondary objectives based on your opponent's army list (so if they have horde and monsters, you can pick the secondaries that give you bonus points for hurting monsters and killing models). That's a big reason; everything revolves around killing units with little or no actual tactical decisions to be made other than where to apply firepower. The GW missions have slight variances baked in (e.g. only characters generate VP, units with FLY supersede all others for objectives, no invulns within X inches of the objective, etc.) so you can't just build a gimmicky list and crush people because you don't know which mission you might get, and that unknown might factor into what you bring.

ITC removes this, so it has very stale list building since basically everything about the mission is already known and can be accounted for before you ever get to the table. It basically boils everything in the game down to listbuilding and math/theoryhammer by removing the majority of unknown decisions which are baked into the game to help AVOID boiling everything down to listbuilding and math/theoryhammer.

It sounds like ITC went out of their way to make Warhammer 40k less of a game and more of a puzzle to be solved in the most efficient way possible.

So really not 40k anymore.

The more & more stuff I learn about ITC and how different it is to the game as produced by GW, it boggles the mind why this is even a thing. Since these tourneys utilize rules/missions that are 3rd party, how then can anyone expect GW to "balance" a game that for all intents and purposes isnt even theirs?
Sounds to me like ITC should come up themselves with points costs and rules that just so happen to use GW models. that way GW wont have to worry about stupid scheiss that have different rules/missions.

Its a legacy from an older approach by GW where they completely dropped the tournament scene and TO's had to sort it out themselves.

Now that Matched Play rules exist and GW actively tries to balance rules/missions its no longer really needed, atleast not in the large sweeping way ITC currently works.
(there is certainly value in things like the LoS rules in regards to ruins)

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
No, that's your opinion of what a tournament should be.

No, it's observation of how tournaments function. You have standardized missions, pairings based on record with the intent of determining a final winner over multiple rounds of competition, etc. Everything about the structure of the event revolves around playing and (hopefully) winning games.

Have you actually *been* to a GW event?

Nope. See comments about "WHW is not accessible to most players". But for comparison, NOVA has a bunch of competitive tournaments for various games (including 40k), alongside narrative events and a painting contest. Last year I played in US nationals for X-Wing (making top 16, so clearly there to compete) and it was purely a competitive event. There was also a painting contest that anyone attending NOVA could enter, and I could have entered an X-Wing ship in that event with no connection to anything happening in the gaming tournament. Hell, I could have entered that X-Wing ship without playing in any events at all and attended NOVA purely for the artistic events. That's the kind of separation I'm talking about, not running a tournament and then randomly scoring people on how well their game pieces are painted. And it's very productive separation. As a result of not being tied to any particular gaming event the painting contest could receive dioramas, busts, etc, that would be useless as gaming pieces but were pretty neat from an artistic point of view.

And at the same time, would you also complain about someone who copy-pastes a list to win?

Nope, because the prize is for winning games, not coming up with a good list. Netlisting might be part of a strategy for winning, much like looking up tutorial videos on NMM might be a useful step in getting good enough to win a painting contest, but it isn't the final result. Buying a commission painted army, on the other hand, is a direct path to getting a maximum painting score.

So, by that same virtue, we shouldn't talk about LVO, because the "vast majority of 40k players" don't go?

No, for two reasons:

1) Las Vegas is more accessible than international travel to one store in the UK for the majority of 40k players. Sorry, but US events are always going to be more relevant than anything in the UK because of the population size differences.

2) LVO is using the same ITC format as a lot of other tournaments. So, while a player might not be able to make it to Las Vegas for an event, it's a lot more likely that there will be a closer event run like the LVO. So the LVO is relevant as a representative example of the kind of tournament that most players have access to. WHW events, on the other hand, are not. GW does not run any events outside of that one location, nor do they provide any kind of standard tournament format that non-GW events can use. The only time WHW's event rules are ever relevant is if you're traveling to WHW to play in that specific event.

If this is what you're worried about, I'd call it a guilty conscience.

I prefer "accurate perception". When people constantly talk about things like "netlisting is poor sportsmanship" then yes, it's a reasonable assumption that those same people will give a lower sportsmanship score to someone they believe is netlisting.

How does GW not provide a standard tournament format when the rules for their tournaments are freely available online?

Any tournament can copy their rules. They use CA 2018 missions ffs, how much easier do they need to make it?

 Ordana wrote:
How does GW not provide a standard tournament format when the rules for their tournaments are freely available online?

Any tournament can copy their rules. They use CA 2018 missions ffs, how much easier do they need to make it?

Because individual mission rules are not the same thing as a tournament format. They are a necessary part of one, but they are not sufficient to define one. And GW's event rules may be freely available online, but they make no effort to promote them as a standard format like ITC does. The rules being available online is just a necessary consequence of making them available to people coming to that particular WHW event. It's not like how GW used to run standardized events in their stores all over the world.

(Granted, that standardized GW format was a dumpster fire of bad design that no sane person would have used, but they at least made the token effort.)

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
No, that's your opinion of what a tournament should be.

No, it's observation of how tournaments function. You have standardized missions, pairings based on record with the intent of determining a final winner over multiple rounds of competition, etc. Everything about the structure of the event revolves around playing and (hopefully) winning games.

Not GW ones, which is what Slayer-Fan was talking about in the first place.

GW ones include painting and sportsmanship.

Have you actually *been* to a GW event?

Nope.

So why do you think you're qualified to make comments about GW events? Which was the start of this whole chain.

See comments about "WHW is not accessible to most players". But for comparison, NOVA has a bunch of competitive tournaments for various games (including 40k), alongside narrative events and a painting contest. Last year I played in US nationals for X-Wing (making top 16, so clearly there to compete) and it was purely a competitive event. There was also a painting contest that anyone attending NOVA could enter, and I could have entered an X-Wing ship in that event with no connection to anything happening in the gaming tournament. Hell, I could have entered that X-Wing ship without playing in any events at all and attended NOVA purely for the artistic events. That's the kind of separation I'm talking about, not running a tournament and then randomly scoring people on how well their game pieces are painted. And it's very productive separation. As a result of not being tied to any particular gaming event the painting contest could receive dioramas, busts, etc, that would be useless as gaming pieces but were pretty neat from an artistic point of view.

Again, clearly lacking an understanding of GW's events.
There IS a "Best General" award, which is completely separate from any other categories other than winning games. Just because the Big Award for the event isn't all about competitive Warhammer doesn't mean you don't get something.

Why does the event NEED to be separated? You get your award, who cares if there's another one available to people who care about other things?

And at the same time, would you also complain about someone who copy-pastes a list to win?

Nope, because the prize is for winning games, not coming up with a good list. Netlisting might be part of a strategy for winning, much like looking up tutorial videos on NMM might be a useful step in getting good enough to win a painting contest, but it isn't the final result. Buying a commission painted army, on the other hand, is a direct path to getting a maximum painting score.

But most people in the competitive community, from what I've seen, believe that most of any tactical skill in 40k comes from listbuilding. Therefore, by taking a list made by someone else, you're just using someone else's work to pass off your own win.

Buying a commission painted army to win a painting contest is no different from buying the latest netlist in order to win - I dislike both intensely and feel neither should win.

So, by that same virtue, we shouldn't talk about LVO, because the "vast majority of 40k players" don't go?

No, for two reasons:

1) Las Vegas is more accessible than international travel to one store in the UK for the majority of 40k players. Sorry, but US events are always going to be more relevant than anything in the UK because of the population size differences.

You said "vast majority". LVO doesn't host the "vast majority" of 40k players in America, let alone the world. The vast majority of 40k players probably don't even go to tournaments.

Sorry, but you *did* say that WHW should be ignored because the "vast majority of 40k players" didn't go there - under those same words which you claimed, neither is LVO.t.

If this is what you're worried about, I'd call it a guilty conscience.

I prefer "accurate perception". When people constantly talk about things like "netlisting is poor sportsmanship" then yes, it's a reasonable assumption that those same people will give a lower sportsmanship score to someone they believe is netlisting.

Netlisting is the same in my eyes as commission painting an army - I dislike both. However, that doesn't influence how I rate them as a person and as an opponent. Again, as I've said, I played against people with incredibly powerful and certainly netlisted armies - that didn't affect my score because they were all-round nice guys to play against.

Someone mentioned people viewing 40k as a video game rather than a hobby that encompasses so much more than just winning games and I think that is were the break down is coming from.

40k is a hobby and all aspects of that hobby should be respected at a given event. I don't get people who invest in 40k (not a cheap buy in by any means) who don't have any interest in building or painting and just want the game to be purely about beating your opponents face in on the table top. If I just wanted to smash peoples faces in and not care about anything else then i'd spend 60 dollars for the latest COD.

It's probably worth noting that North America (including Canada) only generates around £4m a year more than the U.K. and Europe.

So on a turnover of over £100m certainly not the vast majority, in fact, essentially equal. Also, if we're assuming an American from say Chicago or Miami is prepared to travel to the LVO then I don't see it as unreasonable to believe that somebody from Paris, Madrid or Berlin could be prepared to travel to Nottingham, the distances involved are no greater and the freedom of travel is (currently) equal.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So why do you think you're qualified to make comments about GW events?

Because everyone is talking about 40k tournaments in general. If you want to restrict your comments to "GW's own events at WHW should be run this way" and not offer any opinion on anything outside of GW's WHW events then I will let it go, as I don't give a about what GW does with events that I will never be involved with. But I have yet to see that restriction happen.

Why does the event NEED to be separated?

Because separation makes both events better. The gaming event doesn't have random non-gaming scoring attached, the painting event isn't bound by the need to have legal 2000 point tournament armies. A painting contest run separately as a pure painting contest is a better activity for people who love painting, so why attach all of the baggage of a tournament?

Buying a commission painted army to win a painting contest is no different from buying the latest netlist in order to win - I dislike both intensely and feel neither should win.

It absolutely is different. Yes, list building is important, but so is knowing how to use that list and tuning it for the specific event. A low-skill player who copies the latest Imperial soup list might be able to crush another mediocre player, but against the top players they're going to lose. A low-skill painter who buys a commission painted army with a goal of a maximum painting score is going to receive a maximum painting score with zero effort beyond handing over their credit card.

Again, the more relevant comparison would be a painter following a NMM tutorial to paint their model. They're taking advantage of someone else's experience to skip directly to a better end result than they might have been able to get purely on their own, but they still have to execute the technique well. And that painter who uses a tutorial for help should absolutely be eligible to win a painting contest, we shouldn't have some bizarre requirement that you prove that all of your painting skills were obtained purely by trial and error without ever consulting anyone else for advice. Same thing with netlisting.

You said "vast majority". LVO doesn't host the "vast majority" of 40k players in America, let alone the world. The vast majority of 40k players probably don't even go to tournaments.

You are correct. I said "vast majority", but in a very different context. I said that WHW is inaccessible for the vast majority of players. LVO and LVO-like tournaments are much more accessible than WHW, whether or not people choose to participate in them. It's just like how WHW is accessible to someone living a 5 minute drive from the event, even if they choose to never attend anything there.

Netlisting is the same in my eyes as commission painting an army - I dislike both. However, that doesn't influence how I rate them as a person and as an opponent. Again, as I've said, I played against people with incredibly powerful and certainly netlisted armies - that didn't affect my score because they were all-round nice guys to play against.

Congratulations on your honesty then, that is the correct approach to things. However, I'm not going to put any trust in the majority of players handling it that way when "netlisting = TFG" comments are so common. It doesn't take many people like that to completely undermine the value of sportsmanship scoring.

And, again, sportsmanship should be a minimum expectation for continued participation in an event, not something you're scored on. You should not be allowed to be a complete TFG and get away with it because you're only competing for the "best general" title and don't care about the sportsmanship component of your scoring. If a person's behavior is such a problem that they don't deserve a full sportsmanship score then that should be handled by the TO, eventually resulting in removal from the event if the behavior doesn't change. So in a world where things are handled properly every player still in the event at the end should have a perfect or near-perfect sportsmanship score and the score becomes meaningless. The only time it can ever have any effect is when people don't use it correctly and treat it as a "anyone who beats me is TFG" penalty.

40k is not the sort of game where you only care about winning in an event, full stop. If you want that, go play a different game. Whether or not you consider that a failure of the system or not, that's how 40k is, always has been and always will be.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Also, if we're assuming an American from say Chicago or Miami is prepared to travel to the LVO then I don't see it as unreasonable to believe that somebody from Paris, Madrid or Berlin could be prepared to travel to Nottingham, the distances involved are no greater and the freedom of travel is (currently) equal.

As I said previously, that's not really a fair comparison because it isn't just about the LVO. GW's own events are run at a single location in the entire world, and nowhere else. You either travel to WHW, however expensive it may be, or those events are not available to you. LVO-like events, on the other hand, are run all over the place. In fact, that's the entire point of the ITC, creating a standardized tournament experience wherever you happen to be playing. So that person living in Chicago might not be willing to travel to Las Vegas, but maybe there's a 40k tournament at Gencon in Indianapolis, or a regional ITC-style tournament in Detroit or whatever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
40k is not the sort of game where you only care about winning in an event, full stop. If you want that, go play a different game. Whether or not you consider that a failure of the system or not, that's how 40k is, always has been and always will be.

And yet the last time GW had a tournament system outside of their events at WHW it was explicitly presented as "winning is all that matters".

 Peregrine wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Also, if we're assuming an American from say Chicago or Miami is prepared to travel to the LVO then I don't see it as unreasonable to believe that somebody from Paris, Madrid or Berlin could be prepared to travel to Nottingham, the distances involved are no greater and the freedom of travel is (currently) equal.

As I said previously, that's not really a fair comparison because it isn't just about the LVO. GW's own events are run at a single location in the entire world, and nowhere else. You either travel to WHW, however expensive it may be, or those events are not available to you. LVO-like events, on the other hand, are run all over the place. In fact, that's the entire point of the ITC, creating a standardized tournament experience wherever you happen to be playing. So that person living in Chicago might not be willing to travel to Las Vegas, but maybe there's a 40k tournament at Gencon in Indianapolis, or a regional ITC-style tournament in Detroit or whatever.

Except one is a GW event that GW is responsible for, and the other is not. GW defines the WHW rules and standards. Completely separate groups define ITC and ETC mission rules and standards. Therefore, GW does little to influence what happens at LVO, aside from releasing models and codices.

When I attended a national 40K Grand Tournament in 1997 run by GW sportsmanship, list building and painting were absolutely part of the overall score. At the risk of going off topic, while I was competing in Flames of War tournaments sportsmanship and painting were also part of the score. Its tabletop wargaming, not a game with pre-paints. There were still "Top General" awards, but to win overall you needed to score well in all categories. My local 40K scene still does this for our Club Champs.

Yes, you can get commissioned painters but you can can't commision sportsmanship.

Tabletop miniatures wargaming demands interaction between the players to function. Its an imprecise system regardless of the rules when you have terrain, models and tape measures. You need to be able to work things out. If this is offensive to somebody's sensibilities then perhaps they should try Advanced Squad Leader where a game has all the fun of negotiating a business merger.

I believe that the frame in which 40K was designed was a game to be played by friends. Reading old articles they talk about "beardy" types who would stretch rules or bring "beardy lists." I think that they trusted moral suasion to keep things in check. I think that they were genuinely surprised when folks brought lists of all Pulsa Rockits or the infamous Space Wolves Terminator loophole spam. Then they walked away from the tournament scene. I mix my own games between those at tournaments, open gaming days at the FLGS and BasementHammer with family and close friends. I think that Warhammer is a "big tent" that can accomodate all types, including those that want to make explosion noises as they game, those who are hobby heroes and those who really want to win. I think that many of us can identify with all three aspects as well, and are able to adapt to the game at hand. I like tourneys that emphasize mastery of those three domains: fun to play against, great army to look at and also able to win games.

Pre-game communication is key - the rule book even tells us to play "like-minded people."

 Peregrine wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Also, if we're assuming an American from say Chicago or Miami is prepared to travel to the LVO then I don't see it as unreasonable to believe that somebody from Paris, Madrid or Berlin could be prepared to travel to Nottingham, the distances involved are no greater and the freedom of travel is (currently) equal.

As I said previously, that's not really a fair comparison because it isn't just about the LVO. GW's own events are run at a single location in the entire world, and nowhere else. You either travel to WHW, however expensive it may be, or those events are not available to you. LVO-like events, on the other hand, are run all over the place. In fact, that's the entire point of the ITC, creating a standardized tournament experience wherever you happen to be playing. So that person living in Chicago might not be willing to travel to Las Vegas, but maybe there's a 40k tournament at Gencon in Indianapolis, or a regional ITC-style tournament in Detroit or whatever.
.

That one location in the entire world is accessible to most of half of its market, that trip from Chicago to Indianapolis is not really any longer in time than many places in the U.K. or Europe to Nottingham.

While I accept what you're saying about the US having more large tournaments, you're failing to grasp how close WHW is to a substantial part of GW's market if they've a mind to attend. What you might consider the catchment area for a big US event covers a large part of Europe.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Also, if we're assuming an American from say Chicago or Miami is prepared to travel to the LVO then I don't see it as unreasonable to believe that somebody from Paris, Madrid or Berlin could be prepared to travel to Nottingham, the distances involved are no greater and the freedom of travel is (currently) equal.

As I said previously, that's not really a fair comparison because it isn't just about the LVO. GW's own events are run at a single location in the entire world, and nowhere else. You either travel to WHW, however expensive it may be, or those events are not available to you. LVO-like events, on the other hand, are run all over the place. In fact, that's the entire point of the ITC, creating a standardized tournament experience wherever you happen to be playing. So that person living in Chicago might not be willing to travel to Las Vegas, but maybe there's a 40k tournament at Gencon in Indianapolis, or a regional ITC-style tournament in Detroit or whatever.
.

Smaller tournaments using formats similar to WHW happen all the time. That is what my FLGS uses. They remain popular because they are literally what is in the GW publications.

Of course the UK scene also has ETC style tournaments which are popular with players who want to try to make one of the ETC teams. There are even a few ITC style tournaments cropping up now, not so many that I have personally been to more than one ITC style GT but they are out there. It is a far more diverse tournament scene than parts of the USA appear to be from this distance. Perhaps those parts of the USA are also pretty diverse but the ITC stuff is all that gets the publicity and attention.

Peregrine - Because separation makes both events better. The gaming event doesn't have random non-gaming scoring attached, the painting event isn't bound by the need to have legal 2000 point tournament armies. A painting contest run separately as a pure painting contest is a better activity for people who love painting, so why attach all of the baggage of a tournament? 

Why should they be separated? Wouldn't a better overall representation of the hobby as a whole be beneficial to all those interested?
Maybe it would get more people to care about everything related to the hobby.

 Ordana wrote:
So your saying the problem isn't Castellans but the ITC mission format.
Thanks for realising something people outside of the US have been telling you for years.

In the US, just played my first pass at ITC missions and.... yeah, no wonder competitive 40k is miserable, kill points make 40k an absolutely lousy game. Competitive lists don't help any either.

That was the most static, boring game of 40k I've played. And I was actively punished(though not terribly effectively) for doing anything but sitting back and shooting while doing everything in my power to prevent deep strike. Mean while that was.... 50% of my opponents game plan, the other 50% was pushing his knights forward. And playing the rules rigdly is... annoying, as someone with less than ten games under my belt and still pulling out new units, the punishing nature of not being able to do a number of things absolutely nailed some of the rules home, but... egh, when your opponent briefly revels in a rule mistake it kinda ensures I don't want to play them again.

I feel like people took this line and twisted it.

40k is in a good place. Decent rate of releases, rules are getting FAQd regularly, they are speaking to the fan base almost constantly.

Yes there's things that can be done to make things better, and it was in a worse place. So all things considered its in a good place, not the best place but a pretty good one.

Adepticon looks like it has a pretty diverse top top 25.

Peregrine wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Why does the event NEED to be separated?

Because separation makes both events better.

I disagree. But that's your opinion, so fair.

The gaming event doesn't have random non-gaming scoring attached, the painting event isn't bound by the need to have legal 2000 point tournament armies. A painting contest run separately as a pure painting contest is a better activity for people who love painting, so why attach all of the baggage of a tournament?

I'm not sure if you're getting this: there IS an award for just the Best General which doesn't include any other criteria other than how well you play. There IS an award for best single model which doesn't factor in the rest of your army at all. There IS an award for the person who gets the most votes for "Best Sportsman". But there's ALSO an award for the person who does the best overall, who's combined score is highest, and they are the overall Best Player.

Just because there's another award doesn't mean that you don't get one for just being the best general.

Buying a commission painted army to win a painting contest is no different from buying the latest netlist in order to win - I dislike both intensely and feel neither should win.

It absolutely is different. Yes, list building is important, but so is knowing how to use that list and tuning it for the specific event. A low-skill player who copies the latest Imperial soup list might be able to crush another mediocre player, but against the top players they're going to lose. A low-skill painter who buys a commission painted army with a goal of a maximum painting score is going to receive a maximum painting score with zero effort beyond handing over their credit card.

But a high-skill player probably can't beat a low-skill player if the high-skilled player has an army that is incredibly incredibly inferior to the super-optimised netlist of the low-skill player. Again, as most people seem to think, most of 40k's strategic depth comes from what units you have, not how you use them.

Again, the more relevant comparison would be a painter following a NMM tutorial to paint their model. They're taking advantage of someone else's experience to skip directly to a better end result than they might have been able to get purely on their own, but they still have to execute the technique well. And that painter who uses a tutorial for help should absolutely be eligible to win a painting contest, we shouldn't have some bizarre requirement that you prove that all of your painting skills were obtained purely by trial and error without ever consulting anyone else for advice. Same thing with netlisting.

Perhaps, but at the same time, most of the "skill" in 40k comes not from actual tactics used on the board, but a series of gimmicks set up by netlists. You can almost automate what you do because the list does the work for you with little tactical input.

You said "vast majority". LVO doesn't host the "vast majority" of 40k players in America, let alone the world. The vast majority of 40k players probably don't even go to tournaments.

You are correct. I said "vast majority", but in a very different context. I said that WHW is inaccessible for the vast majority of players. LVO and LVO-like tournaments are much more accessible than WHW, whether or not people choose to participate in them. It's just like how WHW is accessible to someone living a 5 minute drive from the event, even if they choose to never attend anything there.

But as people have said above - 40k in America doesn't make up an extremely large portion of the 40k hobby. Yeah, it's big, but America's also a big place. Why is it unreasonable to assume that Europeans wouldn't come to WHW for events, but a New Yorker going to Las Vegas is completely normal?

Sure, you argue that LVO-style events are run elsewhere, but so are WHW style events, throughout the UK. In fact, WHW style events seem far more common in the UK than ITC style ones.

Netlisting is the same in my eyes as commission painting an army - I dislike both. However, that doesn't influence how I rate them as a person and as an opponent. Again, as I've said, I played against people with incredibly powerful and certainly netlisted armies - that didn't affect my score because they were all-round nice guys to play against.

Congratulations on your honesty then, that is the correct approach to things. However, I'm not going to put any trust in the majority of players handling it that way when "netlisting = TFG" comments are so common. It doesn't take many people like that to completely undermine the value of sportsmanship scoring.

Thank you. Maybe I'm just more trusting, but all I can say is that I've not seen the system fail in my experience.

And, again, sportsmanship should be a minimum expectation for continued participation in an event, not something you're scored on. You should not be allowed to be a complete TFG and get away with it because you're only competing for the "best general" title and don't care about the sportsmanship component of your scoring. If a person's behavior is such a problem that they don't deserve a full sportsmanship score then that should be handled by the TO, eventually resulting in removal from the event if the behavior doesn't change. So in a world where things are handled properly every player still in the event at the end should have a perfect or near-perfect sportsmanship score and the score becomes meaningless. The only time it can ever have any effect is when people don't use it correctly and treat it as a "anyone who beats me is TFG" penalty.

There's baseline sportsmanship, which I agree, should be expected, but there should be incentive for people who go that extra mile. Basic sportsmanship can still be incredibly dull - but someone who actually makes you laugh, makes you feel relaxed, someone who is genuinely polite and friendly: they absolutely should get recognition over someone who wordlessly rolls dice and moves models and makes no effort beyond basic social elements to interact with their opponent.

Again, that's just what I'd expect however.