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.

Instead of restricting armies both recent tournaments run by different groups have simply done away with best general and removed victory points from best over all consideration. So the tournament scene in my city is now nothing but paint jobs and [Watch your language and topics, next time will be a warning - MT11]. Can't really blame them the game is impossible to blanace.. Sigh....

And the point of this thread is?

So now, the winner is the person who did the best while also shelling out the extra $1000 to have his/her army professionally painted? Awesome.

 JGrand wrote:

Instead of restricting armies both recent tournaments run by different groups have simply done away with best general and removed victory points from best over all consideration. So the tournament scene in my city is now nothing but paint jobs [edit MT11]. Can't really blame them the game is impossible to blanace.. Sigh...

So now, the winner is the person who did the best while also shelling out the extra $1000 to have his/her army professionally painted? Awesome.

Sounds to me like the winner is the person who shelled out the extra cash to have his/her army professionally painted. No doing the best about it.

I still find it somewhat silly that you'd put anything but a minor emphasis on anything other than generalship in a tournament. If I wanted to win a painting prize, I'd enter a painting competition, not a tournament. If I wanted to be friendly and sociable, I'd go to the pub with some friends, not to a tournament.

 The Shadow wrote:

 JGrand wrote:

Instead of restricting armies both recent tournaments run by different groups have simply done away with best general and removed victory points from best over all consideration. So the tournament scene in my city is now nothing but paint jobs and [edit MT11]. Can't really blame them the game is impossible to blanace.. Sigh...

So now, the winner is the person who did the best while also shelling out the extra $1000 to have his/her army professionally painted? Awesome.

Sounds to me like the winner is the person who shelled out the extra cash to have his/her army professionally painted. No doing the best about it.

I still find it somewhat silly that you'd put anything but a minor emphasis on anything other than generalship in a tournament. If I wanted to win a painting prize, I'd enter a painting competition, not a tournament. If I wanted to be friendly and sociable, I'd go to the pub with some friends, not to a tournament.

Because in the RTT days it was not uncommon to have 32 people for a single day tourney which means you would have 4 people go 3-0. So that is when appearance comes into play. And with the imbalance in the rules back then and how horrible 'meatgrinder' was, I would much rather two-four people with the same score have the tie broken by who has a better looking army than sketchy screwball mission secondaries like they had in 3rd. Win Loss is great when you can have a single winner who went undefeated, but that was never a reality in the single-day tourney. Hence why we have best Overall, then best general and best appearance.

"And the point of this thread is?"

To discuss how tournaments are dealing with the new meta.

blackjack wrote:
"And the point of this thread is?"

To discuss how tournaments are dealing with the new meta.

what they are saying is that you went to 2 events and not tournament. by definition tournament is a competitive and from what you said they are not. Is like you going to beerhammer and expect BAO result. you are going in with the wrong expectation and wrong mindset. If you don't like the setup don't go. Seem to me they are pretty clear on what who they are beside calling it a tournament rather then a 40k event.

Tyllon these "Events" used to "Tournaments" by your definition. They still call themselves tournaments. For the last 8 years or so they were tournaments.

It's not a matter of what I like or don't like.

"If you don't like the setup don't go" is a lame copout as is "if you dont like the rules dont use them" and "if you dont like your opponents army don't play him", It's not a solution to anything.

I spent alot of money and time on my army i would like to play with them from time to time. GW has made doing that in a mutually fun way nearly impossible. Either my opponent stomps me or I stomp him with nearly no middle ground any more.

What GW wants is for two players to buy 5000pts worth of minis so they can custom tailor 1500pt lists that match each other in every game. I can't afford that and I don't want to do that.

So the tournament scene in my city is now nothing but paint jobs and blow jobs.

Must be an interesting tourney but I think I will pass.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blackjack wrote:
Tyllon these "Events" used to "Tournaments" by your definition. They still call themselves tournaments. For the last 8 years or so they were tournaments.

It's not a matter of what I like or don't like.

"If you don't like the setup don't go" is a lame copout as is "if you dont like the rules dont use them" and "if you dont like your opponents army don't play him", It's not a solution to anything.

I spent alot of money and time on my army i would like to play with them from time to time. GW has made doing that in a mutually fun way nearly impossible. Either my opponent stomps me or I stomp him with nearly no middle ground any more.

What GW wants is for two players to buy 5000pts worth of minis so they can custom tailor 1500pt lists that match each other in every game. I can't afford that and I don't want to do that.

If you don't like it pound sand? Ever heard of making your own tournament? Youngins these days, expecting everything handed to them on a silver platter.

blackjack wrote:
Tyllon these "Events" used to "Tournaments" by your definition. They still call themselves tournaments. For the last 8 years or so they were tournaments.

It's not a matter of what I like or don't like.

"If you don't like the setup don't go" is a lame copout as is "if you dont like the rules dont use them" and "if you dont like your opponents army don't play him", It's not a solution to anything.

I spent alot of money and time on my army i would like to play with them from time to time. GW has made doing that in a mutually fun way nearly impossible. Either my opponent stomps me or I stomp him with nearly no middle ground any more.

What GW wants is for two players to buy 5000pts worth of minis so they can custom tailor 1500pt lists that match each other in every game. I can't afford that and I don't want to do that.

I think Frazzled already answer your question so i am not going to add to it. you might have to travel to find what you looking for, this forum is a perfect place for that.

Seriously, take this as an opportunity not to gripe but do your own tournament. Its not difficult. In contrast it can be quite fun. Back in ancient time when dinosaur wiener dogs roamed the earth I ran or helped run several 40K and BFG tournaments. Its fun!