The attraction of Tournaments (any system)

[fatolaf]

Back in the hey day of the club and business, I must have gone to around 30-40 events a year in the first few years and the club built up quite a strong group of us who would go to various events around the country..
During the era of the rankings, we at one point were number one in he club rankings, which was good for publicity...

We had a mix of players, those who wanted to win, those who wanted to just have fun and most simply also wanted to meet up with old mates from the scene and have a few it not many beers...

This was in the time of 7/8th Edition and both had problems with rules, 7th was completely dominated by DoC and DE, the GT final at Warhammer world consisted of 147 Identikit Karos armies and then 3 other armies, my VC included, it was crazy..
8th spawned the horror of Magic dominance and 6 dice skillz....
Most indie events used comp and on occasion it worked, big events like SCGT would reach nearly 200 players and what ever the current Meta, you would still see every race and type of army, for every nob head of a players I have faced when I was playing the game, I have played 5 times the amount of really fun players, even the ones that were smashing me...
The game has descended into utter farce now and I would not like to play non comp games using the 50% lords rules or end times malarkey , if I was still playing (I quit all GW games after 40k went crazy as well)...
But the indie tournie scene was always great fun and I am still friends with many people I met from across the country as a result of meeting them across the table and then across the bar....

My advice, if you want to play im events, is go to our Waarghs as and when they happeb, many players from around london coke to them knowing our mantra, is fun first, winning, second.....

[Guillaume]

As someone who plays competitively (not warhammer anymore but the principal applies everywhere) the appeal is to find what works best within the set parameters, and adjusting for the possible conclusions that others will draw, for instance in a meta filled with wok and de with a certain comp, the aim is to be able to find a list that can beat the big players and still be competitive against the rest of the field, and having the ability to pilot it in a way that will allow you to give yourself the best possible chance of winning. If that means that you end up playing a similar list to everyone else then so be it, the point isn't to play something purposefully sub-par as a protest (I'm not saying you shouldn't play Brets cos they suck or anything I'm saying that you should be prepared to lose if you do), going to a competitive event means that you accept the parameters and are willing to either ignore them and do your own thing or to make use of them to try to win. This means that of course you will try and "brake" the game, and to beat others who have similarly broken the game, and the dominance of a particular list actually makes lid easier because the focus of list along is made easier. A balanced game is chess, an you've made a decision to play a high variance and characterful game which means that one list will always be better than another on paper, an a tournament is the chance for you to attempt to make te best list and pilot it in the best way, so you can't bemoan getting stomped on if you havn't accepte the point of competitive play. So if you don't like tournaments then that's fine but that's your fault not the fault of others playing the game or the Internet, those are just tools that can be used to improve your own chances.
What I'm trying to say is don't moan about how unbalanced a high variance game is in a way that might make the so called "automatons" feel ashamed of trying to win (which is hat your supposed to do), and complaining that some armies are op is fundamentally stupid in a game system like warhammer,  which isn't meant to be chess.
I'm sorry if that came across a bit harsh but as someone who enjoys playing competitively I don't like being called an automaton for doing what I'm supposed to do in a competitive environment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guillaume]

After reading what I just said I realised it isn't very readable  so to make it easier here are my key points
- the Internet and net listing isn't a bad thing, it jut levels the playing field for those ho don't have the opportunity to playtest with a large enough group
- you are supposed to try to brake the game, it's not a bad thing
-going to a tournament mean that you subscribe to the above, if you don't then don't go
- the dominance of an army is perfectly normal in an unbalanced game
Again this is from the point of view of someone who enjoys playing competitively and goes to tournaments in order to win(or do as well as I can)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[roland murat]

If anything this thread just goes to show the wide variety of ways people play both warhammer and other games. I'm guessing I fall somewhere between G and Dan, although closer to Dan's view. I generally enjoy the small events we have done at the club but have an inability to write a tough list, mainly because I don't find them fun to play with, or against.

As games go those produced by GW do seem to suffer more than others from having match ups where the game is lost before a die is rolled. Yes skill, luck etc comes into the equation but if two similarly skilled players meet and one has something the other persons army (and army list options) to deal with then its all over before it starts. I've been battered in this way far too many times for it to be fun.

It is easy, particularly for those at the extreme ends, not to understand why people at the other end of the spectrum get any enjoyment from the way they play. I understand why Dan, for example, wonders why a field consisting of small variations of two or three builds can be seen as interesting. Saying that I also enjoy playing to win but I'd rather have a game ending in a hard fought loss than getting involved in a WAAC smash down. Not everyone will agree and for some players winning is all that really matters to the extent that, on the warhammer forum, I once saw someone say in a discussion about how to create a fluffy, themed army that "winning is a theme". Of course that is quite an extreme view but it does highlight the variance and my point that those at the two exremes won't appreciate why the other end of the spectrum plays the way it does.

[roland murat]

- you are supposed to try to brake the game, it's not a bad thing

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.

[Pip]

Particularly in combination with the next point - you can read in this thread how plenty of people get a lot out of tournaments without subscribing to a philosophy of "trying to break the game".

[Idiotproof Dalek]

Fascinating points everybody - just the sort of discussion I was hoping for.

After reading what I just said I realised it isn't very readable  so to make it easier here are my key points
- the Internet and net listing isn't a bad thing, it jut levels the playing field for those ho don't have the opportunity to playtest with a large enough group
- you are supposed to try to brake the game, it's not a bad thing
-going to a tournament mean that you subscribe to the above, if you don't then don't go
- the dominance of an army is perfectly normal in an unbalanced game
Again this is from the point of view of someone who enjoys playing competitively and goes to tournaments in order to win(or do as well as I can)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This illustrates my point - there is such a gulf between Guillaume's point of view and mine, that it would be impossible for us to enjoy a game together, and is the reason I have never participated in a tournament. I disagree with all of it vehemently, but it's very interesting to hear.

[Guillaume]

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.

When I say brake the game I don't mean slow play etc... I mean making an unbeatable army or finding some combination of things that give you a huge edge


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[roland murat]

When I say brake the game I don't mean slow play etc... I mean making an unbeatable army or finding some combination of things that give you a huge edge


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wouldn't call that breaking the game - a first turn reform and congo so stuff can move further than is normally legal is breaking the game. What you described is just making the best of what you have, which is fine

[Idiotproof Dalek]

When I say brake the game I don't mean slow play etc... I mean making an unbeatable army or finding some combination of things that give you a huge edge


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This backs up my point - the tournament mentality leads you to try and find an unbeatable army. In an unbalanced game with easily accessible netlists this will not be a difficult objective to achieve. So why do you think it reflects any sort of skill on your part beyond buying the right armybook (BUYHAMMER) and modifying the right netlist (NETHAMMER)? We could all do it if we wanted, but a lot of us choose not to. The distraction of tactics and the ability to think on your feet and the fun of having a close run game is lost. I think you agree with me on all my original points, bar those which involved things that could be classified as cheating (slow play etc) which I have no doubt you would never do, but which I maintain are temptations for some weaker willed players given that the objective is WAAC...

Hence my point about having a separate tournament for tournament players then another for everyone else. You can all take your cookiecutter lists and play Borehammer, and you won't benefit from having easy wins over people who have bought the wrong army book/ decided to use the models they have/not looked at the internet. You'll play your own limited version of the game with others of like mind.