The attraction of Tournaments (any system)

[Idiotproof Dalek]

I should add, for clarity, that once embarked on turn 1, I do play to win in Warhammer. My point is simply that having a competitive rock/paper/scissors tournament when some people bring rocks, some bring scissors and some bring Witch Elves seems to me to be utterly pointless. Is it a test of skill? I really don't think so, and I think those that do are somewhat deluded.

With other more balanced games than Warhammer I have absolutely no problem with it. Monopoly tournaments, Settlers tournaments, any other balanced game - that's fine. Everyone has exactly the same resources to start with, and the only variable is your own skill and ability to play etc. That can be as competitive and cut throat as you like and I would not bat an eyelid.

Maybe it would work if you had faction specific tournaments? i.e Dark Elves play Dark Elves. Then everyone can bring the same build and it really would be decided by skill and generalship?

[Pip]

I just want to point out that arguing with Guillaume is maybe knocking down a straw man as he's speaking as a MtG player - he's said in this thread he doesn't play WFB.

I'd like to add though that trying to design a strong list is not WAAC. You seem to be laying out a binary choice between 'buy the top army, netlist, smash face' and chess-like games where both sides' resources are not just equal but identical.

I play lizardmen, I've always played lizardmen. I play them because I like their background and the aesthetic of the army.
But I know how to write a strong list. That's the strategic (as opposed to tactical)  dimension of the game for me and I find it enjoyable. But if I turn up with a cunningly designed list (NB - by no means a netlist!) against an army that is just made up of my opponent's favourite models to paint, say, or a WD-style list with one of everything, then I am going to have an easy time winning. We could both be using the same army book and that would still be true.

[Idiotproof Dalek]

I agree with everything you've said. When I play, I also try and design a list to win with - Although I like the idea of trying an all Common Goblin army, I would do this in a controlled environment where my opponent was fully aware that we were playing for shits and giggles.

My point (which keeps getting missed) is that you, when designing a strong Lizardmen list, have been gifted with a lesser set of tools than those who set out to create a strong list with an armybook that places higher on the power scale. You have been handicapped. Hence winning at a tournament will be a helluva challenge for you, in the face of players who automatically pick the power books and take off the shelf netlists. Now if they have no idea how to use the army they've picked, you have a chance. But why even go into the tournament knowing you have a handicap? You have already decided you aren't going to get anywhere. The tournament has been decided at the 'Buy the Armybook' stage....

[Pip]

Three reasons:

1. Because the "handicap" doesn't automatically decide the game. Some books are a lot stronger than Lizardmen, some books are only marginally stronger, some books are weaker. There are no books out there that it's impossible for a well-constructed Lizardman list to beat - in fact at Downfall last weekend two armies in the top 10 were Lizardmen, despite the fact that Lizardmen are pretty far down the supposed hierarchy of army books right now. In my personal experience, I would say my own list-building foibles (e.g. that I tend to take a unit of Saurus rather than more Skinks, and that I have an aversion to having too many mounted Scar-veterans running around on their lonesome) are a more significant handicap than my opponent's army book.

2. Because there's no reason to assume that while I am somehow a nice person who takes Lizardmen and plays for fun, everyone else there will automatically be a netlisting robot who takes Dark Elves and plays to taste the tears of their opponent. If you assume there is one "top list" that is the bestest list of all, then by your argument every single person at the tournament should have brought that list. Again, when I was at Downfall I saw a lot of elves, WoC and Daemons, but I did not see the same list copy-pasted sixty-one times.

3. Most importantly of all (and as Tom C said before, which I thought pretty much summed up the whole thing)... because I haven't wasted my time if I don't win! What I want from a tournament is
(A) to play more games than I usually could
(B) to see some pretty models
(C) to meet some new opponents
(D) to have some enjoyable and challenging games
It's nice if I do well but that's not required for me to have a good time.

I'm down the club this evening if you'd like to talk about this in person. Can even bring some Lizards!

[Idiotproof Dalek]

your first point is very interesting - I think it sort of gets to the nub of my problem. Although GW presents Warhammer as a game of expansive choice and produces models to fit this ideal, it actually ISN'T, and the better we know that, the happier we'll be.
You like Saurus, but Saurus are less of a good choice than Skinks. So we actually should get rid of Saurus. (this should really have happened at a play testing stage) Once the optimum choices and builds have been discovered by play testers they should not make it into the final edition of the armybook, as it fools people into thinking that they can be used effectively. Army books and codices should contain only the optimum choices, and then such a game can be played competitively by all and tournaments of such a game become obviously a good idea.
You can still have variation of strategy with players taking variable numbers of those optimum choices, but why pretend that anything else exists?

I guess from my point of view it seems like a bit of a con job to imply that you can individually assess how to build an army and play in a competitive environment, when really there are set ways of doing this which you ignore at your peril.

with reference to your point C, I find it very difficult to have an enjoyable game when an opponent steamrollers me due to liking the aesthetic of Dark Elves more than I do, or chaffs me up the whole game. I have played games with both powerful units involved and chaff and when neither are taken to extremes it's usually a great nailbiting game. I don't think I'll get this if I frequent a tournament, as I've played people casually who take their tournament lists and it just tends to be mechanical and tedious. I used to play one guy who was so well acquainted with his army's way of winning he would tell you what was going to happen, " And now my Dark Riders will flank you and break you, and my shades are right behind you so you are destroyed". And he was right every time. (I don't even think he did it out of malice)

I'm very damaged by 7th edition, I still bear the scars.....
I'd very much like a game of Warhammer actually, I was going to do Settlers.

[katarr]

You seem to be really stuck on the idea that just because a unit isn't optimal it means that you are assuming no one will take them at a tournament and they will all be net lists and various people have now said in this thread that this is simply not the case at all.

Even the best players are taking their own variants on the net lists, those few that take the "standard" netlist which doesn't actually even exist due to the shifting meta and varying tournament comps the netlist concept is merely "oh Chimaeras are pretty good". Even if you come across this somewhat mythical netlist and your army book is weaker in the meta and your list isn't optimised a good player will almost always beat a bad player.

Many non optimised units smart players can find a way to make them work, there is no con job going on here about the extensive choices in books because FAQs and new books and rulesets constantly keep the meta shifting making "dead" units viable again and no necessarily replacing currently usable units.

The bottom line is you are suggesting that there is no skill in playing only in listbuilding and that all the good list builders take the same list. None of that is true in any of the responders here in their experience with tournaments - there are very few if any carbon copies of armies and good players take unusual lists and still win events because they are just better at the game than others - it is somewhat reductive and a little insulting to continuously suggest there is no skill to the game it is just about building a broken list. If anyone one here who does go to the tournaments had agreed with those suggestions I would have rethought my position but that hasn't happened.

[Pip]

The first point is the one addressing the arguments about balance, but the second & third points are the ones about why people actually go to tournaments.

With regard to the first point, though:

You like Saurus, but Saurus are less of a good choice than Skinks. So we actually should get rid of Saurus. (this should really have happened at a play testing stage)

I don't think I agree. Saurus and Skinks do different jobs, but Saurus are pretty mediocre at doing their job while Skinks are brilliant at doing theirs. So if I want to build a top-of-the-range competitive list I need to recognise that I have a rubbish spanner but an excellent screwdriver, and build a plan that revolves around screwdrivers. If I redesigned the Lizardman list I wouldn't take Saurus out, I'd make them better in some way so that there was a meaningful choice between them and Skinks. That way you promote diverse lists.

Army books and codices should contain only the optimum choices, and then such a game can be played competitively by all and tournaments of such a game become obviously a good idea.
You can still have variation of strategy with players taking variable numbers of those optimum choices, but why pretend that anything else exists?

You're assuming here that whether a unit is "optimal" is just a single quantity, but the whole point of a game like WFB is that it's multidimensional. How good a unit is depends on what units other people are taking, and in what numbers. To go back to the example of Skinks, if the tournament scene is swimming in skinks then units that force a lot of Ld tests suddenly become a good idea! Or metal mages vs. Skullcrushers, etc. etc. The point of rock-paper-scissors is that it's circular, and the number of units to which there is absolutely no cost-efficient counter, while unfortunately not zero (Warllllocks!), is thankfully pretty small.

I guess from my point of view it seems like a bit of a con job to imply that you can individually assess how to build an army and play in a competitive environment, when really there are set ways of doing this which you ignore at your peril.

You seem to be trying to achieve two contradictory goals there - building your army for a competitive edge, or building your army to be a unique individual expression. For sure most books have more than one good build, but it's fairly obvious that in the space of all possible armies, the fraction that stand up well to meeting the enemy is going to be pretty small. You can't have it both ways; if you're concerned about losing the narrative/personalised side, well that's where some awesome modelling or painting comes in!

with reference to your point C, I find it very difficult to have an enjoyable game when an opponent steamrollers me due to liking the aesthetic of Dark Elves more than I do, or chaffs me up the whole game.

I used to play one guy who was so well acquainted with his army's way of winning he would tell you what was going to happen, " And now my Dark Riders will flank you and break you, and my shades are right behind you so you are destroyed". And he was right every time. (I don't even think he did it out of malice)

Sure, it's no fun to get continually tabled. That happened to me at Downfall and it did put a bit of a downer on things, but sometimes that'll happen in a dice game.

I've got to point out, though, that functionally the same thing can happen if your opponent is just good, regardless of their list. Using chaff and outmanoeuvreing your opponent doesn't require a bent netlist, you can do it with Beasts of Chaos!

For ages in 6th (my favourite edition) my regular opponent was a DE player. This was back when DE were fairly underpowered and Lizards were pretty strong. Nevertheless I lost more often than I won, and usually to situations like you describe - the killing blow was set up and then delivered as a sure thing. That was probably the period where I learned the most about how to play the game.

I'll bring some Lizards down with me, anyway - should be down around 7:30.

[Idiotproof Dalek]

I'm learning a lot here!

[fatolaf]

I can't agree with that. Playing competitively and actively seeking to exploit a poor turn of phrase are very different things. In my view its little better than stealing an extra half inch when moving if your opponent doesn't notice.

This isn't to say I disagree with competitive gaming, just gamey gaming.

Agree with Mike, that is one of the most tragic things I have ever heard.....

[Steve H]

I took underpowered janky lists to tournaments for years and had an awesome time!!! It's all about setting your expectations before the event and trying to find yourself some achievable goals... The widespread adoption of "best in race trophies" at events these days helps this greatly.

I've had fun against some of the top players in the country, and against some of the worst... I find my attitude is condusive to good entertaining games where both players have fun!

(...as long as Olly and myself aren't playing each other!!! ;) )

I was on the top tables at Midlands open with an all Night Goblin list and had an amazing time... The 2 things (tournaments and having a fun, friendly list) are definitely not mutually exclusive!