The attraction of Tournaments (any system)

[Guillaume]

To address points people have made here:
-I did play wfb, but quit due to time constrictions
-I do t understand why people are so against the concep of net listing, is it really any different from asking your friends opinion on something except that you're asking a stranger
-if I understand correctly, what upsets you the lot is that you can't necessarily take your favourite army to a competitive tournament and stand a good chance of winning(correct me if I'm wrong) but my answer to this is that of course you can't! That's like moaning in monopoly that you don't win just from acquiring your favourite property, or your favourite football team not being on an equal footing with other teams in the league, or your favourite card in magic not being any good. As I said, this isn't chess, armies need to be bad to make the good ones good, because that's the nature of an unbalanced game, which if you play to win, your preference for a certain army comes second to what you think is the most powerful list (again, not for everyone, just for players who go to events with the intention of doing well), but this might not translate well to wfb, where prizes generally aren't of any value, which leads to loads of people just going for the fun of it. The easiest example ican think of is in magic I love the colour blue and dislike the colour green, but if I find a competitive deck that uses green I won't have any qualms about playing that colour in order to give myself the best chance of winning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[roland murat]

A net list is a lot different to asking your friends. Purely because of the scale of input. Asking a couple of people leads to greater experimentation whereas taking the 'net list' takes zero effort. I'd go as far as saying it negates much of the skill in building a list.

A bit like in magic where you can look to see what deck someone won the last big event with and the just buying the same cards. When I build magic decks, for example I try cards I think will work and then tweak and adjust over time to try and establish a more solid deck but I could shortcut this and drop a ton of cash on whatever won big last week. But that wouldn't be much fun for me.

[katarr]

This still goes back to my previous point in saying everyone is talking about netlists but I can only think of two armies that actually have a "netlist" which is o&g which I agree with you I don't like but to be honest if you take that you will probably take a purple sun down your entire army and you will lose and deserve it so it is really not common. The only other one would be daemons and almost all comps prevent that from being used.

Please stop talking about netlists as if it is this common practice that covers the tournament scene as it has been put to those that do go to tournaments what the truth is.

[Guillaume]

But think about it this way mike, if you went to a big magic event, you would want to play the deck you think is the best, which involves spending some money on playsets of rares etc... So lets ignore the money aspect for now. I recently read an article about the early days of the pro tour before the Internet had properly taken over and before magic online existed, and all of the people talking were deploring the fact that if you didn't have a large enough groupe of high level players you had a significant disadvantage over those who did and tht was fundamentally unfair to those who lived in an area where magic wasnt as prominent, what the Internet does is give everyone equal information on which decks are viable in the format and which Ones are arent. Lets take the example of Dakra mystic, an extremely powerful car on its own right that doesn't have a place in the metagame due to how clunky it is right now, but how are you supposed to know that without the help of the Internet or extensive testing which isn't always possible. Another point, at the pptq I went too on Sunday there were 4 different archetypes in the top 8, 1 enchantressy green black devotion, 3 abzan, 1 sidisi whip, 2 jeskai (including mine) 1 mardu. All of these decks were based on decks that had out up good finishes over the last 2 months but none if the decks were carbon copied of each other, (my jeskai deck had about 20 different cards in the 75 from the other one for example. What this demonstrates is that people don't just take the best deck (because first of all there isn't 1 best deck) and just copy it, but look at the information out there and see how to adapt that and improve on it to be as successful. Another way in which the information provided by the Internet is helpful, is shown by the presence of an ascendancy combo deck in the top 16, which was a totally different take in the combo which a friends of mine played and myself and a couple others worked on in order to overcome the shortcomings if the "standard" combo deck that is out there in order to attack the metagame in a more effective way. None of this is possible without the Internet or a sizeable testing team who devotes a large amount of time to determining the best archetypes for themselves. It might seem like this doesn't apply to wfb in the same way because ofthe fact that people tend to play the army that they like best rather than the one they think is the best positioned but That's the nature of the game rather than an issue with tournament play or net listing
I want to know everyone's opinion on this because I don't seem to understand everyone's frustration with the concept which to a magic player is a fundamental part of the game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Steve H]

Different games get different attitudes out of me...

At a Magic Event I will, of course, take the best deck that I have experience with, that is placed well in the metagame. This deck will have required significant investment.  Playtesting is tons easier in magic too... Much quicker and more effective.

No painting or modelling is concerned...

In Warhammer, where painting and modelling is concerned, I likely won't take the best list, unless it happens to be what I want to spend 100's of hours painting and building. That coincidence has happened a few times, but not always.

[Pip]

I understood about 0.01% of the Magic chat, but Steve makes clear what should already be obvious if you spend any time thinking about it - an army of little mens is much more of a labour of love than a deck of cards.

WFB is supposed to be dynamically balanced - each army book should be roughly as viable as the next, but in different ways. When the game tracks too far away from that ideal then people with pre-existing armies (which are huge investments of time and cash) have the right to feel a bit narked.

[roland murat]

I want to know everyone's opinion on this because I don't seem to understand everyone's frustration with the concept which to a magic player is a fundamental part of the game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think this is the common theme of this debate. Everyone has a preferred way of playing the various games they enjoy. For those who play a significantly different way that requires a different thought process and approach it is difficult to understand why other people have fun. They clearly do, or they would not play in the manner they choose but when the style looks nothing like that which somone else enjoys they won't be able to understand the reasons beyond appreciating that some merely likes playing a different way.

[fatolaf]

Gui
Last warning, use punctuation and paragraphs (spacing) or your posts will be deleted...

[fatolaf]

And I find as I am now older, that any form of competitive play becomes increasingly abhorrent.
To me now it's all about fun and socialising, MTG has become to much about winning at all costs that I have virtually stopped playing apart from once a week with a like minded small group who like to play drunken casual multiplayer..
As for other systems, I doubt I will ever play a tournament again, as I find arranging big fun multiplayer games much more fun..
My last one was a 6 players Bolt Action all day game entitled Von Ryan's Express..was great fun, even the 2 most competitive players at the club were in the spirit...my team (the Germans) even lost to one American soldier hanging onto the train for dear life at the end and winning the game....Was so much fun...

At the end of the day, each to their own, no one is ever going to agree, for many, tournaments are not for them (what ever system you play). Many games do not suit competitive play, GW games especially.
For some players it's all about winning at all costs, breaking what ever game they play and to hell with he opposition. Must win at all costs....hopefully most of the, grow out of that mentality, I met a few during my WFB years on the tournie scene, some far too old to behave like that. Sad to see, when at the end of the day it's a game after all....

Rankings and the ETC obsession harmed that scene...
Stupidly big prizes and the lure of the pro circuit brings out the worst in many MTG players...
No game system or rules set is perfect, and when you introduce medals, prizes, rankings etc, it will bring out the worst in the minority of players. But the vast majority will always play in the correct mind set, that of having fun, both for yourself and your opponents ...

My next event (playing Bolt Action) will be team based, heavily promoted for fun only and contain missions based on famous WW2 movies. No prizes except for the obligatory wooden spoon. To me that is the kind of event I would like to attend....

[fatolaf]

Stevo's avatar sums up the WFB tournie scene for me, that is him under his hotel bed after I had thrown it across the hotel room using just my little finger and the power of my mind....