Local Tournaments are getting weird

[Shavnir]

So a couple friends and I were talking about a tournament that was coming up and were actually cooking up some interesting lists (backward comp rules will do that to you) but then we noticed some odd things about it.

1 ) It has a 20 point category for Composition then another 10 point for Army List.
2 ) Sportsmanship scores (lol) accommodate 60 points
3 ) Appearance has meticulously detailed guidelines totaling 30 points
4 ) Gameplay's only worth 78 points

and then it got really weird

5 ) GW Errata is in effect but not the FAQs. You're expected to just kinda decide on a per-game basis I guess.
6 ) Imperial Armor is in, Apocalypse's incredibly powerful flyer rules are in but the various Apocalypse AA units are not
7 ) VDR is allowed. Holy 2004 batman.
8 ) The tournament is somehow 75 dollars without any mention of prize support

Honestly maybe I'm being a bit harsh on them but is it just me or are at least a few of these things a bit of a turn off when it comes to a tournament?

[fuzzbuket]

1 ) It has a 20 point category for Composition then another 10 point for Army List.
2 ) Sportsmanship scores (lol) accommodate 60 points
3 ) Appearance has meticulously detailed guidelines totaling 30 points
4 ) Gameplay's only worth 78 point
5 ) GW Errata is in effect but not the FAQs. You're expected to just kinda decide on a per-game basis I guess.
6 ) Imperial Armor is in, Apocalypse's incredibly powerful flyer rules are in but the various Apocalypse AA units are not
7 ) VDR is allowed. Holy 2004 batman.
8 ) The tournament is somehow 75 dollars without any mention of prize support


OMG is this the crackheads throne of gundam 10' touney???

1,2,3,4) wait so if your army looks shiny and your a nice guy you can beat the most amazing players ever?????
5) WTF
6) right thas just silly= he who buys the most expensive FW fighter/bomber wing wins???
7) be prepared to see LOtS of gundam and CA (also does this meant those who artn 40 or dont have CA cant make ther own tanks :confused::confused:)
8) a $5 gw coupon :P



seriously this looks like "buy some FW flyers and a titan?" obiusly the host had some flyers and some custom guys he wanted to use??? and there painted nicely but he dosnt have any tactics??

[DarkAngelHopeful]

Deleted

I found my answer.

[Shavnir]

OMG is this the crackheads throne of gundam 10' touney???

1,2,3,4) wait so if your army looks shiny and your a nice guy you can beat the most amazing players ever?????
5) WTF
6) right thas just silly= he who buys the most expensive FW fighter/bomber wing wins???
7) be prepared to see LOtS of gundam and CA (also does this meant those who artn 40 or dont have CA cant make ther own tanks :confused::confused:)
8) a $5 gw coupon :P



seriously this looks like "buy some FW flyers and a titan?" obiusly the host had some flyers and some custom guys he wanted to use??? and there painted nicely but he dosnt have any tactics??

Apparently its a tournament series that has ran for a couple years up in Canada and decided to come down to Texas :confused:

Its really just puzzling. I have no idea why they're charging $75 a head for entry to their tournament.

[BuFFo]

1 ) It has a 20 point category for Composition then another 10 point for Army List.

What is the difference between Composition and Army list? Dump this crap already.


2 ) Sportsmanship scores (lol) accommodate 60 points

Ugh... Here goes the chipmunking...


3 ) Appearance has meticulously detailed guidelines totaling 30 points

Get painting the F-CK out of competitive gaming tournaments FFS!! Go enter a painting contest.


4 ) Gameplay's only worth 78 points

I assume this means getting objectives and winning? This should be 100% of the scoring.


5 ) GW Errata is in effect but not the FAQs. You're expected to just kinda decide on a per-game basis I guess.

This isn't weird at all. Erratas are official changes to all books that each player must use. FAQs are just house rules. If a tournament organizer does not wish to follow these house rules, that is their right. I have seen a few tourneys that do this.


6 ) Imperial Armor is in, Apocalypse's incredibly powerful flyer rules are in but the various Apocalypse AA units are not

Yeah.... This is just stupid.


7 ) VDR is allowed. Holy 2004 batman.

Wow... This is even dumber....


8 ) The tournament is somehow 75 dollars without any mention of prize support

Yeah.... Don't bother attending.... Especially with 3rd edition VDR rules in effect.

This tourney sounds like pure crap. Avoid it all at costs.

[Shavnir]

Somehow I knew you'd hop in on the FAQ point Buffo. I guess my complaint is it seems like a step backwards. Most tournaments try and eliminate rules debates in-game by explicitly stating how they'll be ruled ahead of time whereas it seems the organizers of this one want to encourage it.

Its just baffling.

EDIT : Nothing personal Buffo, its just that any mention regarding FAQs being official is like the bat-signal for you :p

[BuFFo]

Somehow I knew you'd hop in on the FAQ point Buffo. I guess my complaint is it seems like a step backwards. Most tournaments try and eliminate rules debates in-game by explicitly stating how they'll be ruled ahead of time whereas it seems the organizers of this one want to encourage it.

Its just baffling.

EDIT : Nothing personal Buffo, its just that any mention regarding FAQs being official is like the bat-signal for you :p

You commented on a single response I made. What about the others?

[Shavnir]

You commented on a single response I made. What about the others?

Preaching to the choir. I miss playing games where tournaments were events where people showed up and if you won games you got a prize. Do we really need to complicate things?

EDIT : In case its not clear I'm not the one organizing this event in any way shape or form. I'm more commenting on the absurdity of it.

[BuFFo]

LOL I would take dump in front of the establishment if there were no prizes for a 75$ entry fee.

[Shavnir]

LOL I would take dump in front of the establishment if there were no prizes for a 75$ entry fee.

Never said there were no prizes just no information of prizes of note. I could almost see that sort of fee if they were renting out a venue but its being held at a LGS so that seems unlikely too.

[Lerra]

$75 for a one-day tournament is much too high, regardless of prize support. Even the big cons only have a $30 entry fee, and the prizes are amazing. This tournament seems to be geared toward the non-power-gamer with all of the sportsmanship, comp, and painting scores, too.

What is VDR? Something from Chapter Approved?

[Shavnir]

$75 for a one-day tournament is much too high, regardless of prize support. Even the big cons only have a $30 entry fee, and the prizes are amazing. This tournament seems to be geared toward the non-power-gamer with all of the sportsmanship, comp, and painting scores, too.

What is VDR? Something from Chapter Approved?

Its a two day "con" that's nothing but a tournament. VDR is the old Vehicle Design Rules from a white dwarf ages ago.

Of course it could just be that they haven't updated their website for 5th edition but that's even more horrifying.

[DarkLink]

What is the difference between Composition and Army list? Dump this crap already.



Ugh... Here goes the chipmunking...



Get painting the F-CK out of competitive gaming tournaments FFS!! Go enter a painting contest.



I assume this means getting objectives and winning? This should be 100% of the scoring.



This isn't weird at all. Erratas are official changes to all books that each player must use. FAQs are just house rules. If a tournament organizer does not wish to follow these house rules, that is their right. I have seen a few tourneys that do this.



Yeah.... This is just stupid.


Wow... This is even dumber....



Yeah.... Don't bother attending.... Especially with 3rd edition VDR rules in effect.

This tourney sounds like pure crap. Avoid it all at costs.

Yeah, I agree. Though most tournaments I've seen do treat FAQs as fact.


$75 for a one-day tournament is much too high, regardless of prize support. Even the big cons only have a $30 entry fee, and the prizes are amazing. This tournament seems to be geared toward the non-power-gamer with all of the sportsmanship, comp, and painting scores, too.

What is VDR? Something from Chapter Approved?

Well, with how horrible the rules set-up is here, they might as well add insult to injury and charge a ridiculous amount to play as well:rolleyes:.

[HsojVvad]

VDR is Vehicle Design Rules, where you can make your own vehicles tanks and what not. Not generally used anymore, a bit shocked to see this.

Basically you can make anything you want, be way over powered if you like, but you pay the points for it. Even if you build a tank exactly as is in a codex now, the one you make will cost more.

[DarkLink]

A tau player, could, however, stick a short-barreled TL railgun (36" instead of 72") on every one of his vehicles for relatively cheap. One round of shooting and all the enemy vehicles are destroyed, then you just need to clean up.

Not that it would be game breaking, but it would be annoying.

[mysterex]

So a couple friends and I were talking about a tournament that was coming up and were actually cooking up some interesting lists (backward comp rules will do that to you) but then we noticed some odd things about it.

1 ) It has a 20 point category for Composition then another 10 point for Army List.
2 ) Sportsmanship scores (lol) accommodate 60 points
3 ) Appearance has meticulously detailed guidelines totaling 30 points
4 ) Gameplay's only worth 78 points

and then it got really weird

5 ) GW Errata is in effect but not the FAQs. You're expected to just kinda decide on a per-game basis I guess.
6 ) Imperial Armor is in, Apocalypse's incredibly powerful flyer rules are in but the various Apocalypse AA units are not
7 ) VDR is allowed. Holy 2004 batman.
8 ) The tournament is somehow 75 dollars without any mention of prize support

Honestly maybe I'm being a bit harsh on them but is it just me or are at least a few of these things a bit of a turn off when it comes to a tournament?

Weird yes, but then weird can be fun. I like playing at events, not because I expect to win, but because it means I can play a lot of games in a short period of time against people I don't normally play against. Consequently while I like to do well, it's secondary to how much I enjoy the games. To be honest some of my most memorable/enjoyable games have been close run ones where I lost on the last dice roll.

This event seems more tailored to anyone who just wants to get their "toys" out and have a bit of a laugh. The only thing that would put me off is the cost.

[RocketRollRebel]

Wow seriously? Thats lame and here I am complaining about 10pts for comp at our local tournys lately. Yeah I wouldn't go. $75 to play something with wonky rules that you are likely to leave feeling upset about something is redic.

[DarkLink]

Weird yes, but then weird can be fun. I like playing at events, not because I expect to win, but because it means I can play a lot of games in a short period of time against people I don't normally play against. Consequently while I like to do well, it's secondary to how much I enjoy the games. To be honest some of my most memorable/enjoyable games have been close run ones where I lost on the last dice roll.

This event seems more tailored to anyone who just wants to get their "toys" out and have a bit of a laugh. The only thing that would put me off is the cost.

But for $75?

And tournaments are a horrible way of getting in "fun" games. When you put people in a situation where they're competing for something, they'll do just that; compete. That's a lot of fun, but it doesn't mesh with the weird stuff well. A campaign event or apocalypse game, sure, but a tournament setting probably won't work well for this.

[Shavnir]

Apparently the main attraction is the variety of scenarios. There's going to be a scenario per table and they can be pretty intense.

Either way its not an event I'm interested in.

Now why can't we get like a 1500 or 1750 point version of 'ard boyz that uses INAT. That would solve like 95% of the issues with 40k tournaments right there.

[Spleen_stealer]

Crazy shenanigans... most of em don't make sense, But i do think someone with a painted army, who did it themselves, and who was a nice player should stand a better chance at winning, rather then the flying blood angels dreadnought cheese fest.

anyone can copy a tournament winning army off the internet, But if your a dick, your still a dick. And it depresses me fielding my fully painted based army that i spent 5 years on, And fighting someone, who hasn't even primed theri army, and needs to super glue things together at the gaming table, it makes me want to pack up and go home right then.

[GM Rex Nihilo]

Apparently its a tournament series that has ran for a couple years up in Canada.

I don't know of any tournaments up here with such a format.

$75 is too much for a tournament as it puts too much on the line for civil play. If you want to win money go to the casino!

[-=Lazuli=-]

As some one earlier mentioned, is this Astronomi-con? The earlier poster mentioned someone from Canada running the tournament is coming down.

If it is Astro I signed up for it :( Didn't read the points value stuff, but I know about Imperial Armor and VDR. To be fair the Flyers might not always win because the tables are supposed to be "terrain heavy" and the battles are all battle missions like.

EDIT: sounds like it is astronomi-con. It is a 2 day event and there are trophies and prizes. Read the adeptusnorth texas site, it has some info.

[DarkLink]

Crazy shenanigans... most of em don't make sense, But i do think someone with a painted army, who did it themselves, and who was a nice player should stand a better chance at winning, rather then the flying blood angels dreadnought cheese fest.

anyone can copy a tournament winning army off the internet, But if your a dick, your still a dick. And it depresses me fielding my fully painted based army that i spent 5 years on, And fighting someone, who hasn't even primed theri army, and needs to super glue things together at the gaming table, it makes me want to pack up and go home right then.

That's what sportsmanship prizes and painting contests are for. But they should have no effect whatsoever in any way, shape or form on the best general award.

[MajorSoB]

Is it possible to post a link to this tournament? Is there a website, etc or is this some random local tourney which no one will show at?

I see the usual suspects have fired off their usual posts about softs score. I admit these rules look pretty cracktastic but on the other hand if you show up with a decently painted army you are halfway to winning. In some ways I like it though. You see I can paint and I can play, so good battle scores with good painting will spell a win. You could be whatever kinda tool you like and still pull out the win. ( Plus I am sure that everyone crying about chipmunking does the same thing back at their opponents, I have played long enough to understand that is what happens in most cases! Do the math, it mitigates sportmanship scoring! )

As for VDR and Forgeworld, I am clueless to why anyone would do this. VDR is so easily abused, and Forgeworld just has so many rules that are unfamiliar to everyone except the hardcorest of gamers that it is pretty easy to trashed in a game when you have no idea what you are up against.

Again more info and a link, as well as a list of the drugs the organizer regularly takes...

[Porty1119]

I've pretty much laughed nonstop through this thread. Has anyone running this read ANYTHING on people's opinion of flyers? Almost every time a guy gets a Thunderbolt it vapes a titan. To make it even worse, I understood the VDR allowance as allowing custom (read: non-GW) models. Therefore, I can just go to the nearby hobby store and buy their stock of A-10s, use then as Thunderbolts at a quarter of the price, and blow something up. Did I mention that for less than a Land Raider I can give each of those 4 Str6 AP4 Apoc pieplates? Be afraid. Be very afraid.

[Shavnir]

The VDR did come with the restriction that they had to get TO approval prior to the tournament.

[MajorSoB]

The VDR did come with the restriction that they had to get TO approval prior to the tournament.

..and that spells shenanigans folks! If you are going to allow VDR why restrict it?

I played in a tourney like this several years back and it was a blast. I remember going to Toys R Us and picking out models to use. A few GW guns glued to them and we had instant walkers. I think entrance fee was $10 for 3 games and pizza, not $75. Seventy five freaking dollars, I better get a lap dance for that, let alone some guaranteed prize support!

[faolan]

The part where you say it came down from Canada kinda answers everything.

[-=Lazuli=-]

The part where you say it came down from Canada kinda answers everything.

Lol, linky:
http://www.astronomi-con.com/

From site:
78 points - Game Play
60 points - Sportsmanship
30 points - Appearance
20 points - Composition
10 points - Army List
2 points - Bonus for submitting your Army List prior to the event.
5th Edition Warhammer 40k Rules will be used.

If the Codex is available for your army you must use it and have it with you during all games, along with your army list for use as a reference.

Some Chapter Approved articles may be used. You must have the Chapter Approved book or the White Dwarf magazine with these rules with you if you want to use them in your games. See the FAQ page for a complete list of all approved additions.

Vehicles from the Imperial Armour books will be allowed.
Note: You are still limited to a single Force Organization chart for your army - so no Super-Heavy vehicles are allowed.


Special Characters WILL be allowed.

The rules for Flyers in the Apocalypse expansion book WILL be used.

VDR vehicles are being allowed - subject to the approval of the organizers. Stats and photos of your VDR creations must be submitted for approval no later than one month prior to the event. Email the stats and photos of your VDR creations to: [email protected]. VDR creations should be added to your army to enhance its theme - not for the purposes of power-gaming. The organizers reserve the right to disallow any VDR entry deemed to be inappropriate.

Citadel Journal rules will NOT be allowed.

All rulings by the tournament judges will be final.


This is supposed to be a hobby tournament and less of aan 'ard boyz.

[Lord Azaghul]

I'm all for awarding painting effort in tournies (I share a few annoyances against players who NEVER FREAKING PAINT) I think the effort should be awarded. Is painting required?

Comp? Nope 40k doens't need it, it simply is unnessecary. I don't quite get army list, isn't that comp 1.5?
Sports: I think how a players is plays is important as well. But I'm 40k, the truth is most players start whining when they lose, and many of them WILL dock an opponent on sports for beating them. I'm guessings it's a 12 points scale for this tourney, I think the 'environment' of the tourney will be the decieding factor on that one.

Battle points should be pushed up a far bit.

Flyers: I think someone just wants their vendetts to live longer.

[blackjack]

Quote:
3 ) Appearance has meticulously detailed guidelines totaling 30 points

Get painting the F-CK out of competitive gaming tournaments FFS!! Go enter a painting contest.


Quote:
4 ) Gameplay's only worth 78 points

I assume this means getting objectives and winning? This should be 100% of the scoring.


I just want to comment on these two points by Boffo.

Boffo, this may be a news flash for you but this is a MINATURES game. If you don't like to paint armies why not play 40k on Vassal? In fact, given the crappy rules and lack of balance why play 40k at all?

[Shavnir]

Boffo, this may be a news flash for you but this is a MINATURES game. If you don't like to paint armies why not play 40k on Vassal? In fact, given the crappy rules and lack of balance why play 40k at all?

Honestly? Its common and a lot of people already have armies. That's 40k's biggest draw for me at least. Now that I'm in a more populous area I donno if I need to keep playing it to have my wargaming fix every week.

EDIT : Should the Golden Daemon have a part where you have to prove you can properly beat a mechanized Marine list?

[DarkLink]

Boffo, this may be a news flash for you but this is a MINATURES game. If you don't like to paint armies why not play 40k on Vassal? In fact, given the crappy rules and lack of balance why play 40k at all?

Don't presume that just because you like painting, that everyone else does, and should.

Plus, winning a tournament based on your skill as a painter is just as bad as winning by your comp score.

[blackjack]

"Don't presume that just because you like painting, that everyone else does, and should."

I don't presume that you do, that's why I dont understand why you play the game with all these grey plastic minis that clearly need painting. Vassal provides the same game with no need for minatures at all.

"Plus, winning a tournament based on your skill as a painter is just as bad as winning by your comp score. "

Well painting is at least a skill (provided you paint your armies yourself).

[DarkLink]

I don't presume that you do, that's why I dont understand why you play the game with all these grey plastic minis that clearly need painting. Vassal provides the same game with no need for minatures at all.

I don't play with unpainted minis, for the most part (I need to get around to painting my Sisters). And having fully painted armies is nice.

But Vassal isn't a very good substitute for the actual tabletop. I want to play a game and hang out with friends and such. I don't know about you, but I like beating my opponent to his face.

And if someone does show up with an unpainted army and wants to play? I don't have the slightest problem with that.



"Plus, winning a tournament based on your skill as a painter is just as bad as winning by your comp score. "

Well painting is at least a skill (provided you paint your armies yourself).

It's a skill that should be tested in painting contests. Now, a tournament is a convenient time to hold a painting contest, having everyone score everyone else's armies. But keep those scores and prizes separate from the tournament and game scores.

[superscenic]

3 ) Appearance has meticulously detailed guidelines totaling 30 points


No wait guys, this applies to clothing.
1)Spandex pants +10.
2)Ballerina Tutu +20
3)Wear Chicken for Hat +15
4)The chicken is alive +30

This is for the greater good.

[TSINI]

This is the kind of tourney i'd love to be in, of course for a much smaller entrance fee.

the reason?

because i'd actually have a hope in hell of coming somewhere higher than dead last

but then i'm a tactically defficient, conscript loving guard player who is allergic to competitive activities and loves to paint hundreds of figures just to watch them die and go back into their case....

I enjoy competitive tournements to an extent, they are fun playing lots of games quickly. but i'd much rather play some "loose" games of 40k in the same spirit (ie scenarios that bend the rules, using units which arent standard, introducing all sorts of wacky rules)

VDR is cool to see, i loved that stuff when it was released (although i'd add the proviso it HAD to be either GW conversion, or scratchbuild in GW style. to remove all the toy robots)

i'd even go further to allow custom army rules, bestowing certain USRs to the entire army based on fluff, but then thats just me, i enjoy the whole hobby, not just the competition side.


By the way, i do understand that tournements are tournements, and that there is no room for "loose" game play, i am strongly of the oppinion that there should be recognition of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd places in the "best general" award for gaming scores. then recognition of the best army, and then recognition of best sportsman. whether these have prize support or not, they should be separate. (i totally agree with Shavnir who said "Should the Golden Daemon have a part where you have to prove you can properly beat a mechanized Marine list? " spot on, painting comps don't require sportsmanship or gameplay scores, so why should a tournament require painting scores... footballers don't get benefits from having a nicer coloured shirt)

painting and friendlyness have no place in the tournement "in-game" rankings, there is no system which will remove "chipmunking" or "hate rating". therefore if the system is corruptable, it has no place in final scores.


this competition however, does sound fun to me, but then i'm sure i'm in the minority... :D

[MajorSoB]

No wait guys, this applies to clothing.
1)Spandex pants +10.
2)Ballerina Tutu +20
3)Wear Chicken for Hat +15
4)The chicken is alive +30

This is for the greater good.

I like this rating for appearance and while we are at it how about rating hygiene?

1) Showered +10
2) Hair washed and combed +10
3) Clean Clothes +10
4) Wearing deodorant +50

...now this is a progressive idea for a tournament, but I am sure that half the gaming community will feel slighted that someone has taken away their right to offend my nose and personal space...LOL.

[BuFFo]

I have no idea what Blackjack says. I have him on ignore, and I can only see what he says through quotes.

It seems he still has nothing constructive to say.


I like this rating for appearance and while we are at it how about rating hygiene?

1) Showered +10
2) Hair washed and combed +10
3) Clean Clothes +10
4) Wearing deodorant +50

...now this is a progressive idea for a tournament, but I am sure that half the gaming community will feel slighted that someone has taken away their right to offend my nose and personal space...LOL.

Wow, you are just pure awesome!

[DarkAngelHopeful]

Please forgive my ignorance, but what is "chipmunking?"

[Bean]

I like this rating for appearance and while we are at it how about rating hygiene?

1) Showered +10
2) Hair washed and combed +10
3) Clean Clothes +10
4) Wearing deodorant +50

...now this is a progressive idea for a tournament, but I am sure that half the gaming community will feel slighted that someone has taken away their right to offend my nose and personal space...LOL.

I think you may be overweighting deoderant. Surely, "Showered" and "Clean Clothes" should be worth more. =P

[DarkLink]

Yeah, I'd take someone who forgot to put on deodorant over someone who hasn't showered in a week any day. Even if they start to smell bad after a while, at least they didn't smell at one point.

[TSINI]

Please forgive my ignorance, but what is "chipmunking?"

another internet slang i've picked up since being on BoLS

i think it means saying you'll rate a player high for sportsmanship to their face, then scoring them very low to the judges, removing scores from them, but possibly gaining yourself a high score because you've "befriended" your opponent.

hence why sportsmanshipscores and painting scores shouldn't be inclusive in the overall score in a tournement - because they are manipulated by the players...

[Lerra]

As far as I know, chipmunking means that you give your opponent a low score on sportsmanship because they beat you and you are bitter over the loss, even if the other player was a polite opponent. If you have a rude opponent, it's not chipmunking to give them a low score, even if you are all smiles with them to try to boost your own sportsmanship score.

I've also seen people chipmunk their opponents because their friends are competing in the same tournament and they want to increase the chance of a friend winning overall.

[-=Lazuli=-]

From the community around here I'd say the radical tournament approach would work fine. Everyone I've plaed minus one or two have been great sports and eveyone's going to get the full 60 points probably. And we have nicely painted armies so most people are going to get full points for that.

But if you bring an unpainted army, you're screwed even if you get max game points.

[BuFFo]

But if you bring an unpainted army, you're screwed even if you get max game points.

Which is the main problem with combining painting and gaming.

When was the last you saw a GOlden Demon entrant get second place witha superior paint job, only because the first place entrant's model could beat it in combat?

Sounds stupid and silly, right?

So does forcing painting on gamers.

[-=Lazuli=-]

Which is the main problem with combining painting and gaming.

When was the last you saw a GOlden Demon entrant get second place witha superior paint job, only because the first place entrant's model could beat it in combat?

Sounds stupid and silly, right?

So does forcing painting on gamers.

Most the gamers going already have nicely painted armies, but the standard varies.

Oh the trophies to the tournament looks really nice. The are data-slates with Best Appearance, Best General, etc.

[entendre_entendre]

Which is the main problem with combining painting and gaming.

When was the last you saw a GOlden Demon entrant get second place witha superior paint job, only because the first place entrant's model could beat it in combat?

Sounds stupid and silly, right?

So does forcing painting on gamers.

Painting is part of the hobby, and I do think it should be included in tournaments, but be marginalized so that it someone who lost every game doesn't end up winning overall because they are the best painter EVAR. Having painting/composition being 60% of your overall score is ridiculous and might discourage newer players form entering because they have not developed their painting skills enough to even get average scores. Having it less than 10% of the overall score seems more fair to me, but then everyone has their own ideas about how much soft scores should count (we all know your stance :rolleyes:).

I think a simple rubric for painting/comp would be far more useful as it would be easier to keep track of. Then have separate winners for best general/sportsman/painted, etc. but with prizes of similar value for each. This way, everyone can play their own way and (possibly) be rewarded for it. A simple system is also easier to catch chipmunkers as (at least the painting category) are easier to check.

E.g. Appearance:
Are there any unpainted* minis in the opponent's army? y/n y=1 n=3 *unpainted = grey plastic or primed only
Does the opponent's army have 3 colour minimum on each model? y/n y= 3 n= 1
Are the bases of your opponent's minis covered by paint, sand, flock, etc? y/n y=3 n=1

Sportsmanship:
Was your opponent polite? y/n y =3 n=1
Was your opponent ever rude to you? y/n y =0 n =3
etc.


And yeah, $75 is too much. I don't think adepticon is even that much up here at home. Overall, it's not the uber competitive tournie that is 'Ard Boyz (which you all love soo much), but more of a "fun tournie". However, this does not stop it from being overpriced.

[Shavnir]

Painting is part of the hobby,

See, this is where I tune out. Anytime you authoritatively say what is and isn't part of "the hobby" I want to crap all over my thread like I did with the other one with arbitrary categorizations as to what "the hobby" is and isn't. What if the hobby for me is arguing about rules? Why should I be penalized for enjoying the hobby?

[Azazel665]

Tournament scoring aside, I think we can safely say minis are intended to be painted. Besides, I think GW's definition of "the hobby" pretty clearly includes painting. I wouldn't "force" it on anyone, but I'm just saying, to act like painting is some fringe activity is a bit disingenuous. The context very clearly suggests otherwise.

[DarkLink]

Doesn't matter what GW says. Doesn't matter how many other people like it. Doesn't matter if painting is a fringe activity or not.


If you don't like painting, no one has the right to force you to do it, and no one should ever expect that you should like painting just because they do.

[Dionysus]

No one is "forcing" you to paint your army. If you don't like painting, don't paint. Just know there will be some tourneys that are focused on the hobby side of this game more that the competitive side, if you read the website for this tourney this is clearly one of them. Obviously this tourney is not for you.

There are plenty of tournament in my area that don't require painting and that painting scores are held separate from the game scores. If there are none of these in your area either there isn't much draw for them or you need to go talk to some lgs owners and let them know they are missing out.

Think about this though, if a professional sports player showed up to a game without a uniform, would they let him play? Should they let him play? He has the same ability, and can do the same things he could do if he had the uniform on. So why should he have a uniform? Obviously there are a lot of reasons for this, but a big one is pride in your work.

40k is not a video game that you buy for 60 bucks, plug it in and play with your friends. If you don't like to hobby, why play a game where even the creators of the game say its not meant for competitive play? Instead of trying to make all of the tourneys out there adjust to your view of how this game should be played, go pick up a game that meets your requirements. Its that simple.

This isn't an issue I normally speak up about. It just boggles the mind though that there are so many people out there that spend so much money on little army men and plastic modeling kits, and then ***** when people expect them to actually put the stuff together and slap a few coats of paint on it.

I know i will never change anyones mind, and we can all agree to disagree, just had to say something as this seems to be creeping up again in several forums (ironically so close to 'ard boyz, a huge tourney that had no painting requirement and was nation wide.) No animosity is intended here, and as always ill play any army, painted or not, that is put in front of me. Just some thoughts.

*Dismounts from soap box*

[Melissia]

Blah blah blah, etc etc etc. Your argument falls apart in the face of fact, Dionysus

In order to participate in COMPETITIVE GAMING, you are FORCED to paint. In order to participate in completely separate portion of the hobby, you must paint. This is undeniable, it's literally part of the complaint.

Tell me, how would painting enthusiasts react if golden daemon required the people who submitted their entries to also win 'ard boyz tournaments and get into the finals in order to participate? I'm fairly certain that the painting enthusiasts would drop golden daemon in a ****ing heartbeat. But why would they do that, it's not like anyone was forcing them to participate in tournaments!

No, because Golden Daemon is a pure painting competition. What the gamers want is a pure gaming competition.


You can have both in the same tournament. The painters/modelers get their competition, and the gamers get theirs. And both groups are happy. I don't know why people are so avidly against this idea, but then, I don't claim to understand the minds of illogical people.

[Old_Paladin]

Mel, your argument doesn't hold up very well either.
There are many tournies that require little, to no, painting and have no painting 'soft scores'

There are clearly different set-ups
'Pure gaming': It's all about who wins the games ('Ard Boyz).
'Hobby gaming': That range from mainly gaming, with some painting and sportsmanship; to ones that have painting and sportsmanship really affect the outcome.
'Pure Painting'.


'Ard Boyz only requires you show up with fully assembled models, then it's all about who plays the best.

[Melissia]

Mel, your argument doesn't hold up very well either.
There are many tournies that require little, to no, painting and have no painting 'soft scores'

There are clearly different set-ups
'Pure gaming': It's all about who wins the games ('Ard Boyz).
'Hobby gaming': That range from mainly gaming, with some painting and sportsmanship; to ones that have painting and sportsmanship really affect the outcome.
'Pure Painting'.


'Ard Boyz only requires you show up with fully assembled models, then it's all about who plays the best.

And how does this do anything to diminish my argument in any way?

Oh wait, it doesn't. In fact, I'm thinking you're actually agreeing with me without even realizing you are. The fact that there are a few tournaments that are purely competitive gaming doesn't change the conclusion of my post at all, in actuality it only enhances it-- why would, for example, a painting hobbyist want to participate in 'Ard Boyz?

The existence of 'Ard Boyz and Golden Daemon, however, doesn't really change the complaints about the seeming majority of tournaments, which try to mix the various aspects of the hobby into one tournament-- something which can be done, but these tournaments fail miserably at it. And my post argued the best way to fix this is to have two separate competitions in these tournies, one for gaming and one for painting. One can even have a "Best overall", which combines the two, but in the end the separation should be made so that people who are not into one aspect of a tournament can still enjoy the others without being penalized.

[Old_Paladin]

Except that one of your complaints is that "you are FORCED to paint, in oder to play"

You're wrong about that (or maybe it's just the area you play in; in my area, painting is encouraged, but not forced or penalized if you don't).

In the most competative games you don't need to paint at all, in the majority of hobby games you don't need to paint at all.

In some hobby tournies you might not get 'best overall' if you don't bother to paint, but I will deny you're statement that "In order to participate in completely separate portion of the hobby, you must paint."

You don't have to paint if you don't want to; just go for fun, or go for best General, or just go to play at all. But you don't have to paint to play. You just can't claim to be the best in the hobby if you don't partake in all aspects of the hobby.

[Melissia]

Which is fine, but it isn't what the majority of people experience given how common such complaints are. So I suppose your area is more mature in their tournaments (but then, that's Canada for you).

[Old_Paladin]

Which is fine, but it isn't what the majority of people experience given how common such complaints are. So I suppose your area is more mature in their tournaments (but then, that's Canada for you).

Ha, that makes me laugh a little.
My local area might be fine for that, but you need to look up Astromoni-Con.

It actually won't let you play if you don't have a fully painted, using a min. 3 colour standard. It's the one time your statement about paint to play is actually true (not painted... then go home!).
78 points out of 200 are for actual game play. The rest in painting, attitude, list building and list presentation (yes, up to ten points based on how good the paper copies of your army list are formatted and decorated!)

And this is Canada's big national tournie; it's the major events for gaming here.

[Melissia]

Here it appears to be the opposite... it'sthe big tournies-- 'ard boyz, golden daemon-- which are focused and specialized, while the little ones are general.

[BlacknightIII]

From the sound of all the commotion I might be tempted to ask my LGS if I can have one of his tournement sheets to make a PDF out of so other stores can use it. Its very simple and basic.

Round 1 seize ground
Round 2 Capture and control
Round 3 Annihilation

Major Victory - 5 points
Minor Victory - 3 points
Draw - 1 point
Loss - 0

There are some secondary objectives he will throw in like take out the enemy HQ for 1 point or destroy most expensive unit for 1 point and everything is cleary defined as to what he means by major, minor, and draw. As well as defining the meanings for the secondary objectives. He does this so that he is the rules lawyer and you are playing by his rules.

There are no soft scores, no painting, no sportsmanship. If you think your opponent was a bad sport or had a well painted army then its up to you to be the adult and tell him.

[DarkLink]

I would say he should include major/minor losses, because there can be a big difference there. To be honest, I like the 'ard boyz battlepoint setup, which is only very slightly more complicated than yours. The only thing tricky about 'ard boyz is the weird scenarios.

[Shavnir]

From the sound of all the commotion I might be tempted to ask my LGS if I can have one of his tournement sheets to make a PDF out of so other stores can use it. Its very simple and basic.

Round 1 seize ground
Round 2 Capture and control
Round 3 Annihilation

Major Victory - 5 points
Minor Victory - 3 points
Draw - 1 point
Loss - 0

There are some secondary objectives he will throw in like take out the enemy HQ for 1 point or destroy most expensive unit for 1 point and everything is cleary defined as to what he means by major, minor, and draw. As well as defining the meanings for the secondary objectives. He does this so that he is the rules lawyer and you are playing by his rules.

There are no soft scores, no painting, no sportsmanship. If you think your opponent was a bad sport or had a well painted army then its up to you to be the adult and tell him.

Have you tried running a simple 1-0 scoring system? 1 point for a win, 0 points otherwise, pair based on Strength of Schedule (sum of opponent's scores).

[DarkLink]

Unless you can get in 5 or more games, then that will probably just result in a bunch of ties. In fact, it almost certainly will.

If you go by only win/loss totals, then you need to be able to fit in a bunch of games so you can separate out the scores. If you can't get in that many games, then you're going to have a more involved scoring system.

[Shavnir]

Unless you can get in 5 or more games, then that will probably just result in a bunch of ties. In fact, it almost certainly will.

If you go by only win/loss totals, then you need to be able to fit in a bunch of games so you can separate out the scores. If you can't get in that many games, then you're going to have a more involved scoring system.

Yep, its a binary log to tell you how many rounds you'd need. For a 32 person tourney you'd need 5 rounds. Is that so unreasonable?

[DarkLink]

Well, it depends on the game size.

Locally, we've done several small points tournaments with that exact same layout, playing 5-7 games.

However, if you're doing a 2000pt tournament, you probably won't have time for that many games. That may or may not be a problem.

Just for reference, my 3 games of 'ard boys went from about 1100 to 1900 hours. That's about 8 hours for 3 games, give or take an hour. I don't remember the exact start and finish times. It also includes a 45 minute lunch break.

[BlacknightIII]

Again these are three round tournements done at my store which usually has about 6 or 7 tables of 40k during the tournements.

What works here may not work at other places but that doesnt mean it cant be modified to fit.

[Shavnir]

Well, it depends on the game size.

Locally, we've done several small points tournaments with that exact same layout, playing 5-7 games.

However, if you're doing a 2000pt tournament, you probably won't have time for that many games. That may or may not be a problem.

Just for reference, my 3 games of 'ard boys went from about 1100 to 1900 hours. That's about 8 hours for 3 games, give or take an hour. I don't remember the exact start and finish times. It also includes a 45 minute lunch break.

Honestly given how comically imbalanced 40k gets above 2000 or 2250 or so I'm kinda intrigued that they continue to play games that big but I guess its just further proof that GW doesn't really care as long as we're spending money.

But yea I'd say at 1500 with decent round timers (chess clocks would help if the game's turn structure was a bit more orderly) and you'd have a good shot at having a real swiss tournament.

[DarkLink]

Again these are three round tournements done at my store which usually has about 6 or 7 tables of 40k during the tournements.

What works here may not work at other places but that doesnt mean it cant be modified to fit.

Then an 'ard Boyz style battle points system will probably work best.

[DarkAngelHopeful]

Honestly given how comically imbalanced 40k gets above 2000 or 2250....

I think that's funny. When you said that it made me think of chemically imbalanced. I'm not sure if you intended it to sound similar, but I thought it was funny and it made me laugh. :D

[Senekal]

Well, that was an interesting read.

It displays something which is often seen, but seldom realized fully - that there are a great many different kinds of GW players. Some play for the game, some for the miniatures, some for the camaraderie etc.

Tournaments are like that. There are many designs and styles. Some are purely for the thrill of competition and battle such as the 'Ard Boyz style. Others are more varied and emphasize lots of different things.

There is no such thing as a 'right' kind of tournament. There is only the kind of tournament that an individual player likes. The kind that they most enjoy is the right kind for them.

Now, I'll be entirely honest and say that I don't personally get those who don't paint their armies. Why play with expensive miniatures then? Why not use simple printed out counters? But, to each their own. I don't have to understand that mindset - some people clearly favor it.

Now - as to the tournament that originally started this discussion, I found the read - entertaining, to say the least. All kinds of commentary - and a great deal of it ignorant. Note that I didn't use the term 'stupid'. Ignorant is just a lack of information.

Astronomi-con is not a 'new' event. It's ten years old and runs in multiple cities. I believe the Dallas event will be our twenty first full two day event. All the discussion of things like VDR, Flyers, this that and the other? They've all been there from the beginning folks and if they didn't work we'd have pulled them long ago. Last month at Astro Toronto there was a fellow whose heavy support was three thunderbolt fighters. His scoring was somewhere in the middle of the pack. Didn't win anything. Not best overall, not best general, nothing. He did do fairly well in the generalship area, but not enough to go home with a trophy. The Best General award went to a Dark Eldar player. So no, people, aircraft don't 'guarantee' you a win. While they're cool to see in play, they don't perform as well as the mathhammer types think they will.

VDR? It's no big deal. Everyone talks about all the fearsome things you can do with it but no one ever has. Not in 21 events. The ONLY reason we review submissions is just to quell the kind of panic I've seen in this thread. And you know, we've never once had to bounce a submission. I think we asked for minor changes on one or two, usually asking them to reduce an armor rating by a point because what they stated wasn't supported by the model they were using. That was it.

Chipmunking? Honestly folks if you are spreadsheeting your event it's ridiculously easy to pick out chipmunking. We even have a policy for dealing with it in place but you know, we've never once had to put it into effect. These kinds of behaviours simply aren't seen much at the kind of events we run. I guess we don't draw that kind of player.

Is Astronomi-con the right kind of tournament for everyone? Of course not! Not anymore than a 'Ard Boyz tournament is. That's fine. We often bill it as the 'tournament for folks who don't like tournaments' and that's by and large true. It's an event for people who like the ENTIRE range of the hobby. Painting, generalship, fluff, everything. If that's not your bag, that's fine.

As to the cost, let me be clear on this - up until this week we'd probably have lost money on this event at the $75.00 price point. Now we're at about break even. Prizes? The trophies, folks are custom made, light up and the total trophy cost for a single event is roughly $800.00. Yes people, EIGHT HUNDRED DOLLARS. Each of those trophies has more resin in it than a FW Thunderhawk (we weighed it). They cost over a hundred bucks each. Now, if you don't want a cool trophy, again that's fine. But there are folks who do.

And yes, the event is being held in a gaming store. Which is CLOSING for the weekend for the event. Guess how much business that costs them? Of course we have to pay them a venue charge for that - and it isn't a pittance either. Then there is transport. Airfare isn't cheap. We're actually keeping costs down by crashing with folks in Dallas or we'd still be in a money losing position.

So no, people, we don't even try and pretend our events are for everyone. But they are fairly priced and those who do attend them really enjoy them and frequently come back year after year. We have hundreds of customers across Canada that flock to our events with a lot of excitement every year.

So no, it may not be for you - or for the type of folks who tend to generally post on BoLS. That's fine. I'd much prefer not to take the money of folks who won't feel that it was well spent. But for those who DO like this kind of event, well there's a reason we're still doing them ten years on and now in four cities and two countries. Some folks like them - and for those folks, we'll keep on doing them.

Thanks for reading.

[Cossack]

Mike was nice with his response because he's that kind of guy. I'm not.



OMG is this the crackheads throne of gundam 10' touney???

1,2,3,4) wait so if your army looks shiny and your a nice guy you can beat the most amazing players ever?????

Yes. The whole point of the hobby is to paint up models and play games with them. The 'Most Amazing Players Ever" are the ones who do the whole thing - painting included. Some of us actually have the crazy idea that sportsmanship is more important that winning. Funny that.....



5) WTF


Simple. Mike knows more about it than you.



6) right thas just silly= he who buys the most expensive FW fighter/bomber wing wins???


Again, you do not know, yet love to pass judgement. Your statement is just wrong.



7) be prepared to see LOtS of gundam and CA (also does this meant those who artn 40 or dont have CA cant make ther own tanks :confused::confused:)


Wrong again, and who cares if it looks good and we have fun?



8) a $5 gw coupon :P


Not for you. Apparently you don't understand WHY such a tournament would be popular.

This is a tournament FOR THE REST OF US. If you don't want to participate then don't worry about it. And the most ultimate tactical genius player of all time will not be missed if he can't do the rest of the stuff, like paint and be a good sport.

My name is Clay Smith. I will be there this weekend. Please drop by and take a look if you're in the area. And when it's over, I hope to put up a comprehensive report so everyone can see what we did.

[Melissia]

Mike was nice with his response because he's that kind of guy. I'm not.Which makes him cool, and you a douchebag?
Yes. The whole point of the hobby is to paint up models and play games with them.The whole point of the hobby is as a tool for GW to sell miniatures and books. Aside from that, what you do with the hobby is up to each individual person, not some lame-*** elitist.

[inquisitorbroeska]

Well said Senekal.
I've been pouring over this thread and frankly I'm alarmed at the negativity, really alarmed. Wow, you dudes take tourneys WAY too seriously. Do you even have fun at events?

I play at any event I can. I play miniature games, card games and board games in tournaments. I've played in dozens of events in dozens of cities over the years. I never care about comp, painting or sports scoring. I go to play, chain smoke and make funny with other nerds. I go to laugh and get inspired.

I've played at several Astonomicons over their ten year run and they have ALWAYS been killer. Yeah it's pricey, but so's a Land Raider. If your complaining about costs, you shouldn't play Games Workshop games. I found the high cost keeps out the twelve year olds. I'm an old fart and I like playing older players. VDR and fliers has NEVER mattered. Sure it's there, but you also have to BUILD the model. I brought one once, a triple barreled, chain linked mortar for my Nurgle legion. Everyone had a laugh as they blasted it off the table in turn two. Then I never used the model again. Downside to VDR. The heavy paint scoring ensures you are facing off against great looking armies. I frigging HATE playing in a tourney again unpainted crap, totally amateur.

Bottom line is these guys run a fun, challenging event. If you hate the sound of it, don't go. You won't be missed. If you want to be challenged, play on great tables against great armies and opponents, then nut up and roll up.

-chris

[Shavnir]

Well said Senekal.
I've been pouring over this thread and frankly I'm alarmed at the negativity, really alarmed. Wow, you dudes take tourneys WAY too seriously. Do you even have fun at events?

I usually do unless I run into


I frigging HATE playing in a tourney again unpainted crap, totally amateur.

That guy.

[Ratboy]

Wow, this thread is pretty intense! Let me pike in as a ‘Local Moron’ who’s been around since Astro first started...

Now, I’ve never attended an Astronomi-con, but I’m hoping that this year will be my first time. It’s never really been a matter of not wanting to go, but the stars are never aligned to see me show up (damn real life). I’ll be the first to say that Astronomi-Con is a QUALITY event. You will never see more enthusiastic, good attitude, and knowledgeable 40k players in one place. Even though I’ve never made it to play in an Astro, I’ve tried to come out as much as I can just to see the players and armies that show up.
That being said, Astro LOOKS amazing. The quality of armies that show up is second to none, with a solid-chunk of golden demon armies being present. I’ve seen converted ork flyers, to impeccable Gray Knights, all the way to elephant mounted Imperial Guard (not kidding).

In all seriousness, what shocked me most about this was the stereotyping I see at play here. Having played in several Canadian based tournaments and several in the US, there is distinct difference between play styles in the two countries. Yes, some countries still keep the soft scores, and yes some even like to reward players for sportsmanship. It’s a preference in a lot of cases as to what a player wants to see at a tournament. If you don’t like soft scores, and that determines your attendance than Astro might not be ideal for you. Nuff’ said there.

Personally, I dislike tournaments where Sportsmanship is a checkbox of “Did your opponent remember to bring pants YES/NO?”. I grew up in a system where sportsmanship was a 1-5 scale where you as the player had to make the choice on what you thought of your opponent. Was it fair? Hard to say, but you didn’t see the 100% scores that a lot of other events seem to have now,

For the ‘Hard Scoring’ game, I play Warmachine. :)

[DarkLink]

Mike was nice with his response because he's that kind of guy. I'm not.

So? You're mad because someone, somewhere, disagrees with you? And those people are somehow bad for doing so?

We've stated our opinions on what we feel works best for a tournament. You disagree? Fine. That's cool.

But attacking our opinions just because we disagree with you? Check your attitude at the door.




Yes. The whole point of the hobby is to paint up models and play games with them. The 'Most Amazing Players Ever" are the ones who do the whole thing - painting included.

And why should someone be punished because they don't care for painting?



Some of us actually have the crazy idea that sportsmanship is more important that winning. Funny that.....

Some of us have the idea that being polite and respectful of others opinions, even when we think they're wrong, is important. Funny that...

And don't think that just because we don't want sportsmanship scores, doesn't mean that we're all the dreaded WAAC player (who in reality are very rare, though one does rear its ugly head from time to time).

Personally, I don't think sportsmanship is something to be scored, because sportsmanship should be a prerequisite to play. If my opponent is being rude or cheating enough to cause problems, then tell them to grow up. Kick them out, if you have too.



This is a tournament FOR THE REST OF US. If you don't want to participate then don't worry about it. And the most ultimate tactical genius player of all time will not be missed if he can't do the rest of the stuff, like paint and be a good sport.

You could accomplish the exact same thing with separate scores for painting, sportsmanship and gaming, and have Best Painter, Best General and Best Sport awards. And everyone would be happy that way, not just "the rest of us". That can create conflict where it really isn't needed.

[Senekal]

Personally, I don't think sportsmanship is something to be scored, because sportsmanship should be a prerequisite to play. If my opponent is being rude or cheating enough to cause problems, then tell them to grow up. Kick them out, if you have too.

I agree with you in principle. The difficulty is what you can do in practice. In any kind of large event you have to first notice the problem, which means going by the table when some kind of kerfuffle is going on or having someone actually complain. Let me tell you - no matter how big the jerk almost NO ONE will complain to an organizer. So it's almost chance unless you have a huge staff of refs who are going to stand at each table and be bored to tears for several days. Not feasible in practice.

For those events that care about sportsmanship, the scoring is mostly there to keep honest people honest. The real jerks quickly become evident (thankfully they're rare) but it is those little sportsman cards that tell you, as an organizer, "Houston, we have a problem" and give you the chance to do something about it.

It would be nice if everyone were always fair, even keeled and fun to be around. Sadly the human race isn't quite that evolved yet...




You could accomplish the exact same thing with separate scores for painting, sportsmanship and gaming, and have Best Painter, Best General and Best Sport awards. And everyone would be happy that way, not just "the rest of us". That can create conflict where it really isn't needed.

Can't speak for other folks but this is precisely what we do at Astro which is why there are so many awards.

Best Overall is just that - most total tournament points. The winner is generally at least a very good painter but is often not the Best General, the Best Sportsman etc. He's often second or third in many of these but totals high enough in all of them together to have the highest score. Truly the best 'overall' hobbiest at the event - at least by the metrics we use.

Best Sportsman is obvious.

Best Appearance is the Highest Appearance score.

Best Army is voted on by the attendees. So is Best Single Miniature and Best Terrain.

Best General is for the person with the most points for winning games. No other criteria (I think Composition, for which there is no award, is used as a tiebreak)

Best Army list is probably the most subjective of the lot. A lot of folks above have this weird idea that this is about what's in the list (ie part of Comp) but it isn't. This is about the creativity that goes into presenting the list for your army. A standard Army Builder or Excel list is, for instance, a four out of ten. A list which includes history of your army, names of characters, photos of models or even hand done art or all matter of other things increases the score. It's a reward for investing in the army's background and its presentation. The very rare tens have been things like entirely hand done comic books about the army, multi media presentations complete with pirate music and dancing grots (for an Ork Freebootaz army) and once even an entire IG backpack full of personal items and kit. The list was a bloodstained journal at the bottom.

We have players who come only to compete for the Best General, or Best Appearance because they know that's where their strengths lie.

So we are doing that.

Comp, by the way, is not a 'competition' (since the system is published and has no subjective component). It serves us in two ways. 1) This is the kind of army we expect to see at the event (and which will also perform well at it, leading to more fun play) and for seeding for the initial games. Everyone can have a 20 as far as we're concerned, it won't bother us but it would be an event with less 'tuned' armies.

[Mongo44]

Guys, I've been playing 40k for about 20 years and I've been to many tourneys and I can honestly say that Astro is the single best tourney system I have ever played. Like Mike says it may not be to everyones liking, but it really made me take stock of the way I was playing the game. After my first Astro in Winnipeg about six or seven years ago I was really frustrated with my scores and I had to seriously re-evaluate my playing style, painting skills and especially my sportsmanship. It pissed me off that I hadn't done very well. I took the time to evaluate my performance and try to elevate my game and it paid off.

I've been going to Astro Winnipeg every year since my first sub par performance because it was a lot of fun. The missions they use are fantastic, the terrain is top notch and the player base they draw is the best thing of all. Every year after the GW Toronto GT I left angry at having to play so many arse wipes...maybe it was just poor luck of the draw...but after an Astro event I leave wanting to play more
40k , not less. I'm charged up to paint and convert even more models. I quit going to GW run events all together because they just don't measure up to the quality of an Astro tournement. I can honestly say that trying to succed at Astro has made me a much better overall player. My painting got way better, my generalship improved greatly and I learned how not to be a douchebag to my opponent. In the last six years I went from being an also ran to winning Best Overal two years in a row with different armies. I also had a best army one year in Toronto and a best army list once. I'm not saying this for self aggrandizement but to illustrate that the quality of your opponents and the quality of the event can be used to elevate your game too. A lot is expected of a player at an Astro and that first year my shortcomings were painfully obvious to me looking back at it.

I think people would do well to give this type of tournment a shot. It is a great experince that is very different from the standard tourney that most are used to. Like Mike said, it may not be for everyone but if you have an open mind you will find it fun, and very challenging. I'd strongly reccomend trying it out, rather than ****ting on it because it dosen't fit the standard tourney format you may be accustomed to. Give it a try and you'll probably enjoy it.

[DarkAlman]

I'm just absolutely amazed by the ignorance of you people.

I've been playing for almost 15 years and this "Ard Boyz mentality" thing you seem to have is less than 3 years old.

I've been to several Astro's and they've all been a blast. What makes it so awesome is that you CAN bring VDR if you want and you CAN bring your forgeworld kits and your flyer. but it doesn't mean that everyone does. It's there to give players the option to make really cool armies and original ideas.

In a soft score system people who come out just to play to win games don't win the tournament. They can only win Best General. If winning games is all you care about GO PLAY MAGIC THE GATHERING you'll be in good company.

Astro had a guard player come out one year with VDR'd elephants instead of chimera's! How awesome is that? You won't see that anywhere else and that's at the core of the hobby. Why do you think they made VDR in the first place? why do you think they put Rick Priestley's Deoderant bottle tank on the cover of white dwarf? Astro is a chance to play with that mentality in a tournament environment.

You just immediately take the standpoint that this system is open to horrible abuse and is full of cheese mongers. It's not. In ten years of Astro's and similar local cons that has never happened.

We've had 1 chipmunker in that time and he got chastised by the community. He never played in a 40k event again, we wouldn't let him because we didn't tolerate that kind of behavior.

I have been organizing tournaments for over 5 years in a similar format to Astro that I have consistently filled to capacity having events of up to 40 players. Every player always has a blast, and they almost all come back the next year. Why do they come back? because I provide them more than just 4 terrain tables and a structure for playing 3 rounds of 40k to decide who can win the most games.

People come out to my tournaments to hang out, see the cool (fully painted) armies and the terrain that we spend months building. We're not talking about 2 hills and 2 tree stands that US players call "regulation terrain" for tournaments here either.

We charge more to give players are nicer place to play in. We rent hotel ballrooms so that you don't have to have 40 people crammed into a small gaming store.

These people play in store run quicky tournaments to start and then come out to our event to see what a 'real' tournament is like. And you know what? They don't want to go back to playing in tournaments that only gameplay matters after that.

It's simple we try to draw a higher class of player.

Tournaments with a soft scoring system are nothing new. You should look up the Rogue Trader Tournament system for 5 years ago. A 30% for painting, 30% for sportsmanship and 30% for gameplay was the RECOMMENDED system pushed out by games workshop up until the release of the 'Ard boys tournament system. This is the system that my tournament is based on, and Astro originated with as well.

To borrow Senekal's famous words "We've evolved past the rogue trader system".
You clearly have devolved, taking queues from Wizards on how to run Magic tournaments is not the foundation for a solid hobbiest tournament system.

Why was it done this way? Because painting, modeling and sportsmanship are very important parts of the hobby. Something that alot of people conveniently forget.


And why should someone be punished because they don't care for painting?
and why should someone who spent 3 years hand painting a golden demon class army have to insulted having to play against a guy who can't even bother to spray prime his figs?

It's in my tournament rules clear as day "Players who show up the day of the tournament with unpainted figures will not be allowed to play"

My players spent the time and effort to paint and make high quality armies, they expect the same respect back.


6 ) Imperial Armor is in, Apocalypse's incredibly powerful flyer rules are in but the various Apocalypse AA units are not

Having fought several flyers in a tournament 40k game, they aren't as powerful as people make them out to be. They came, they got shot down, he cried, I won.
Flyers are an interesting addition to the game, but assuming there a game winner is mistake. You don't need AA guns to shoot one down either. I killed a thunderbolt with a Big Shoota.
Any suitably skilled player will win out against all odds.



7 ) VDR is allowed. Holy 2004 batman.

Out of context I can see why you find that alarming.
In context VDR is a great system for allowing custom figs.
Astro doesn't just allow any VDR either, if you bothered to read the rules you'd see the judges require rules and pictures ahead of time to prevent people from showing up with crazy broken figs.

If a player spent alot of time converting his land speeders into jeeps to use for his marines why shouldn't he be allowed to use them? That's cool.

And as for the player who models a VDR 12" wide dozer blade to give his squad cover as they move up? That's just being a d*****bag.


8 ) The tournament is somehow 75 dollars without any mention of prize support

$75 bucks is a land raider and you have no problems paying that.

besides... DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT IT COSTS TO RUN A TOURNAMENT!?
Renting a nice room with 600 sqr feet for a day can cost upwards of $1000

2 days = $2000
2000 / 40 players = $50 a player just to cover the room
Plus there's administration costs, terrain costs, travel costs.
Renting tables and setup fees are usually extra.
We have or domain name and website to keep up, the cost of the graphic artist for the posters and artwork.
Your name tags, trophies, objective counters, scenario sheets, score sheets those all cost money too.

How professional is it to hand a sheet of looseleaf to a player and say "Here, just jot down your name and if you won or lost"

And where does this money come from?
*Our pocket that's where.*
Until you pay us the day of.
I'm not in this to make money either, I barely break even

And yes we have to pay for your prizes too.



ait so if your army looks shiny and your a nice guy you can beat the most amazing players ever?????

Yes, but only if you manage to beat out every other player who plays well, gets a great sportsmanship score and paints better than you do.

You spent all this time and effort painting your army, why the hell SHOULDN'T you get scored for it?


6) right thas just silly= he who buys the most expensive FW fighter/bomber wing wins???
Only if all his opponents don't know what they're doing. I haven't seen a flyer heavy army win a tournament yet. There not a make or break model. They help yes, but they can get shot down, they don't automatically rape an entire army for you and they can't grab objectives.

It's such a fallacy to assume that spending money on 40k will win you games.
The 2008 GT winner had 60 marines a librarian and a rhino, that's it.
How did he win against flyers? he shot them down
How did he win against land raiders full of lightning claw terminators? he shot at them
How did he win against a swarm of bugs? He out shot them, then out numbered them in hth
Simply put, he out played his opponents with what looked like crap on paper

Hey Senekal what was in your GT winning space marine list again?
I don't remember seeing a flyer, titan or a land raider in there.


7) be prepared to see LOtS of gundam and CA (also does this meant those who artn 40 or dont have CA cant make ther own tanks )
Try high end forgeworld figs, custom sculpted tyranid monsters and scratch built realistic tanks, jeeps and elephants (yes elephants!) then you might be more in the solar system.


What is the difference between Composition and Army list? Dump this crap already.
Composition is what you choose in your army, army list is the physical list you hand in.

Some players hand in an excel spreadsheet or hand written crap.
Some players use graphic design skills to print off high quality lists with fluff and pictures/artwork.

The first guys get no points, the second guys get points for army list.


Ugh... Here goes the chipmunking...
There are rules against that, if you look at the scoring during the day its obvious if anyone's chipmunking.
We deal with it simply, it's cheating. You do it, you're gone!


If it is Astro I signed up for it Didn't read the points value stuff, but I know about Imperial Armor and VDR. To be fair the Flyers might not always win because the tables are supposed to be "terrain heavy" and the battles are all battle missions like.

Astro missions vary from table to table. On one table you could be grabing objectives, the next you need to take and hold a building, the next your fighting for kill points and the next your trying to blow up a baneblade. Some terrain is light, other is heavy.

Real battlefields aren't open fields with 2 tree stands and a hill, so why should 40k games be that way?

40k games should challenge a player about his skill as a player, not just his skill at making an armylist.

Army comp is a big deal, but it's not everything.


Get painting the F-CK out of competitive gaming tournaments FFS!! Go enter a painting contest.
Get generalship only players out of 40k tournaments, go play magic the gathering!


I see a trend here, all you people who bash Astro have never even seen it or played in it!

Go play or go watch, then judge. Don't just read the rules and assume things.

If you still don't like it, play in the 'Ard boyz that's what its for.

[Cossack]

See, this is where I tune out. Anytime you authoritatively say what is and isn't part of "the hobby" I want to crap all over my thread like I did with the other one with arbitrary categorizations as to what "the hobby" is and isn't. What if the hobby for me is arguing about rules? Why should I be penalized for enjoying the hobby?

Get out then.

This hobby has always been about playing games with PAINTED FIGURES.

Can you GUESS what the first actual miniatures wargame was, when it was written and who wrote it? H.G. Wells "Little Wars"....and it was designed for the express purpose of taking collections of model soldiers off of shelves and onto a model battlefield to push around and fight battles. Winning/losing is just a scenario objective.

Even today, when you lose, the figures just go back into the box. They still look cool in the next game.

If you're so hyper-competitive...play chess. Or Magic. Or something else that isn't designed for playing with model soldiers. Good grief - 40K is a crappy ruleset for a competitive game.

When I show up for a game, I expect my opponent to have put in the effort to get his army presentable. That is MORE IMPORTANT than winning/losing to me. You want to win, I want to see painted troops. If you brought a painted army, I'd be happy and play to win but not get all worked up about it and certainly wouldn't argue rules with you.

So I suggest you find another gaming outlet...this one is a strange choice for somebody who doesn't want to paint figures.

[Paul]

Get out then.

This hobby has always been about playing games with PAINTED FIGURES.

Can you GUESS what the first actual miniatures wargame was, when it was written and who wrote it? H.G. Wells "Little Wars"....and it was designed for the express purpose of taking collections of model soldiers off of shelves and onto a model battlefield to push around and fight battles. Winning/losing is just a scenario objective.

Even today, when you lose, the figures just go back into the box. They still look cool in the next game.

If you're so hyper-competitive...play chess. Or Magic. Or something else that isn't designed for playing with model soldiers. Good grief - 40K is a crappy ruleset for a competitive game.

When I show up for a game, I expect my opponent to have put in the effort to get his army presentable. That is MORE IMPORTANT than winning/losing to me. You want to win, I want to see painted troops. If you brought a painted army, I'd be happy and play to win but not get all worked up about it and certainly wouldn't argue rules with you.

So I suggest you find another gaming outlet...this one is a strange choice for somebody who doesn't want to paint figures.

I have been waiting for someone to say that for years; I always thought it was weird that people wanted to play a game with toy soldiers, but didn't care what the soldiers looked like.

Why pay the money? You could just buy paper counters and write Lasgun, Plasma Gun, Power Sword or whatever on them and get the same effect as an unpainted army.

[DarkAngelHopeful]

Why pay the money? You could just buy paper counters and write Lasgun, Plasma Gun, Power Sword or whatever on them and get the same effect as an unpainted army.



In high school I didn't have a lot of money for models. And I actually learned to play Warhammer Fantasy with paper blocks. We would create them on our computers to get the scale right and then print them out and mark them off or cut them off as "models" died. So, playing with paper isn't too far a stretch of the imagination. However, my gaming group was rather large considering that I rarely if ever played at a game store until college. I was lucky to have a group of friends who were into gaming. So, not having models, which most of us didn't, wasn't that big of a deal. :)

[Shavnir]

Get out then.

Nope. I will continue to sit here and play this game just because it bothers you that ******* much.

Seriously. Get over yourself.



When I show up for a game, I expect my opponent to have put in the effort to get his army presentable. That is MORE IMPORTANT than winning/losing to me. You want to win, I want to see painted troops. If you brought a painted army, I'd be happy and play to win but not get all worked up about it and certainly wouldn't argue rules with you.

I actually would rather have an opponent that had an unpainted solid list and lose than win over someone who's holier-than-thou about painting.

EDIT : It doesn't look like I could stop for your tournament anyways. No, literally, my brakes are going out and I'm going to spend Saturday getting new pads put in. :p

[Senekal]

Hey Senekal what was in your GT winning space marine list again?
I don't remember seeing a flyer, titan or a land raider in there.


Well except for Armorcast there weren't any Titans back then. And very few flyers too. I did have a Land Raider but I didn't bring it.

Let's see...

There was a Chaplain, a Commander with Retinue (which back then everyone said sucked), some tactical squads in rhinos, two of them I think, a scout squad, a dev squad in a razorback and some bikes (which everyone also said sucked).

Pretty sure that was it.

[Melissia]

This hobby has always been about playing games with PAINTED FIGURES.

Shows how much you know-- which is nothing. The hobby has always been nothing more than a tool for GW to sell miniatures in order to make a profit. All other aspects of the hobby are guided by the individual hobbyist, not by elitists like you.

Painting is an unimportant aspect of the hobby to quite a few people. Some want to game. They buy miniatures because the miniatures are the right ones for the game. They buy the codices because those are the ones they need to use to play the game. They go to the store to game. They might paint their models specifically to ensure that they can tell their models apart from other armies of the same codex or because of asinine rules in tournaments which require it, but it really isn't important to them. If this offends you, please, remain offended, while I point and laugh.

Other people just love the background. Maybe they're unable to paint very well, or don't enjoy it, but either way they buy the miniatures because those are the ones that officially represent the armies they love the most-- and their personal army, the one they created with their own minds. Sometimes they get into Dark Heresy, and I suspect even more will with the upcoming Deathwatch version of the PnPRPG system. It may not be the best competitively, but it's the one they love. They buy the codices for the fluff in them, and they read Black Library's better books because of what's in them. And they write their own fiction about their own personal army. Painting is often a chore to them, because they're not very good at it (most people aren't, even those supposedly really into painting often suck at painting miniatures), and they might not enjoy it, but they do it if only to try and match the background created for their given army. If this also offends you, then please remain offended some more! I will continue pointing. And laughing.

[inquisitorbroeska]

The hobby has always been nothing more than a tool for GW to sell miniatures in order to make a profit. All other aspects of the hobby are guided by the individual hobbyist, not by elitist dip****s like you.

Dude, that's the definition of business, not a hobby. A hobby lets me enjoy some zen time painting or playing games with my friends. Of course GW makes a profit. Like anyone does anything for free for your benefit. I don't see the point of saying that. I dig you like to argue and disagree, but you're making less sense as this thread continues. I love this whole idea that Games Workshop is evil because they make money as a business. Yet people keep playing and buying their stuff, *****ing the whole way along. If they didn't turn a profit, there would be no new models. That's business.

[Ratboy]

Shows how much you know-- which is nothing. The hobby has always been nothing more than a tool for GW to sell miniatures in order to make a profit. All other aspects of the hobby are guided by the individual hobbyist, not by elitist dip****s like you.

I totally agree on this (minus the dip**** part). The goal of GW games is for GW to make money, and the aspects of the hobby are dominated by the people who play it. Up here in the Cold White North, many of our tournaments were shaped by what RTTs were like at the time, and this included comp, painting, sportsmanship, and the like. Up here it is commonplace to have a requirement for painted armies, sure it's not for all people, but it's something as a community we've decided on.


Painting is an unimportant aspect of the hobby to quite a few people. Some want to game. They buy miniatures because the miniatures are the right ones for the game. They buy the codices because those are the ones they need to use to play the game. They go to the store to game. They might paint their models specifically to ensure that they can tell their models apart from other armies of the same codex or because of asinine rules in tournaments which require it, but it really isn't important to them. If this offends you, please, remain offended, while I point and laugh.

Unoffended here! I play Warmachine with a bunch of local gamers here, and unlike our 40k community we are very laid back when it comes to that game. Most armies here are unpainted or 'ghost white' armies, and that's viewed as being ok. I still keep some of my 40k programming and tend to paint up my figs in preparation for events, but that's about it.

What gets me about the 'surprise' from some people around here is that even GW stores (at least up here) require that you show up with painted models only if you plan on playing a game at their stores. Heck most GW events mandate that you MUST have a painted army in order to play. This isn't something new, and sure there can be a lot of debate about it... but it's Astro's choice. If this idea offends you, please, remain offended, and maybe run your own event. It's what I did :)


Other people just love the background. Maybe they're unable to paint very well, or don't enjoy it, but either way they buy the miniatures because those are the ones that officially represent the armies they love the most-- and their personal army, the one they created with their own minds. Sometimes they get into Dark Heresy, and I suspect even more will with the upcoming Deathwatch version of the PnPRPG system. It may not be the best competitively, but it's the one they love. They buy the codices for the fluff in them, and they read Black Library's better books because of what's in them. And they write their own fiction about their own personal army. Painting is often a chore to them, because they're not very good at it (most people aren't, even those supposedly really into painting often suck at painting miniatures), and they might not enjoy it, but they do it if only to try and match the background created for their given army. If this also offends you, then please remain offended some more! I will continue pointing. And laughing.

I am a huge fan of Dark Heresy and other 'fluff' aspects of the hobby, it's something that has always attracted me to the 40k universe. I remember when Astro had a quiz during the middle of the tournament specifically geared towards rewarding the Fluff heads among the crowd.

I already touched on the painting bit above, so I won't beat a dead horse...

[Melissia]

The hobby has always been nothing more than a tool for GW to sell miniatures in order to make a profit. All other aspects of the hobby are guided by the individual hobbyist, not by elitist dip****s like you.

Dude, that's the definition of business, not a hobby. A hobby lets me enjoy some zen time painting or playing games with my friends. Of course GW makes a profit. Like anyone does anything for free for your benefit. I don't see the point of saying that. I dig you like to argue and disagree, but you're making less sense as this thread continues. I love this whole idea that Games Workshop is evil because they make money as a business. Yet people keep playing and buying their stuff, *****ing the whole way along. If they didn't turn a profit, there would be no new models. That's business.

And, since you aren't actually paying any attention, GW is a business. A business that created this hobby to encourage people to buy its miniatures and books so that it could profit. This goes with my point was that you have no right to define the hobby for anyone other than yourself and you're an idiot with a head up somewhere if you seriously try and do so.

I never stated that businesses are evil, but I can see where someone might see that. But only if they're incompetent, illiterate, stupid, and/or didn't bother to read the post they were responding to (Which implies the first one anyway).

[Senekal]

Shows how much you know-- which is nothing. The hobby has always been nothing more than a tool for GW to sell miniatures in order to make a profit. All other aspects of the hobby are guided by the individual hobbyist, not by elitist dip****s like you.


It has an element of that to be sure but it has never been all about that and only that. I've spent a lot of time with folks who write for GW (and count some of them as friends). While it is a job, they also have a real, decided love for the universe and the background. The game, to those who are writing it and creating it, is far more than just a medium to sell models. The suits see it that way (and the game has often suffered due to their idiocy) but the bulk of those who work at the studio that I have met see that as a very secondary thing. Yes, selling models puts food on their tables, but you just don't get the level of creativity from that amount of people just for cash. Writing just for cash shows. You can really tell which scenes in "A Tale of Two Cities" were written when Dickens just needed to get paid as opposed to being motivated to tell the story - very evident in that work because it was originally published as a weekly newspaper serial not as a complete novel.

No question GW is a company and needs to make money. And that's a good thing because without that we'd have no 41st Millennium, no Space Marines or Guard, no models and no game. None of those would have come to pass without GW needing to make money and sell models. Lots of good with the mercenary there.



Painting is an unimportant aspect of the hobby to quite a few people. Some want to game. They buy miniatures because the miniatures are the right ones for the game. They buy the codices because those are the ones they need to use to play the game. They go to the store to game. They might paint their models specifically to ensure that they can tell their models apart from other armies of the same codex

I can understand entirely how painting might be unimportant to some folks - or even impossible for some. My buddy Jim quite literally cannot paint due to a medical condition (epilepsy meds if anyone cares) which cause his hands to shake far too badly to be able to work in 28mm. But it's better than life threatening seizures! I can understand loving the universe and even the game I guess - although it seems to me that if you are a non-painter most would do what Jim does and just play games that don't require such a task. There are plenty of games now with pre-painted models, some of them quite nice. There are plenty of games that don't use models at all. Virtually all of these have better rules than 40k which, let's be honest, has very poorly put together rules which are often made worse by new codices.

I can see fiction writing or RPGing - those make sense to me. But I don't think I'll ever fathom people playing 40k who don't want their army painted - even if they didn't paint it themselves. I just can't follow the logic.

Mind you - I don't have to as it's not my thing - but it still doesn't make sense to me. Models are very expensive. Why use them at all to game if the appearance isn't important to you? I just can't get my head around it. Make some cardboard counters and save the hundreds of wasted dollars.


or because of asinine rules in tournaments which require it,


Here you're going a bit far. Just as it is reasonable for a purely 'game' tournament to not bother with painting requirements, a 'hobby' tournament is perfectly within their rights to require painted models. Such rules aren't asinine - they emphasize a different part of the hobby. When Astro started we didn't have a painting requirement (although if you wanted anything in the way of a prize other than Best General and maybe Best Sportsman having some paint on your models was pretty much a requirement). Later, due to a number of factors we started requiring a minimum level of paint to enter. We sometimes waive that rule for new communities (such as Dallas) because painting takes a long time but even so we make it clear that if your models aren't painted, you're not likely to win a bloody thing.

This isn't 'asinine' at all. We spend hundreds, if not thousands of hours building and painting really nice terrain and then more time maintaining it. Given that amount of effort, of course it's annoying to see a bunch of bare metal and plastic romping about on it. It greatly detracts from the appearance of the game and of the event. Now, if you don't care about that, that's fine. But we do or we wouldn't put so much work into the terrain - so having a painting requirement isn't 'asinine'. Within such a context bringing a non-painted army is 'asinine'.

It's all about context.

All aspects of the hobby can get along quite well. There is no need to run each other down or start yelling things like 'elitist' or 'asinine' around. To me spending hundreds of dollars on models that could easily be replaced by free counters which would look as good or better is 'asinine' - because it makes absolutely zero sense to me. It's a complete waste of money. But that's my own personal opinion only and I recognize that others don't share it.


Other people just love the background. Maybe they're unable to paint very well, or don't enjoy it, but either way they buy the miniatures because those are the ones that officially represent the armies they love the most-- and their personal army, the one they created with their own minds.

I agree entirely with this as something people love but I don't follow your argument. If the models are unpainted, unconverted and just tossed together out of a box how can there be any kind of attachment to a 'personal army'? They're exactly the same as that other person's over there. You could swap a couple of models, provided they're the same race, and neither owner could tell. I cannot understand how you can see a personal connection from the person's hard created background to the model in such a circumstance.

Now, if the models are converted or painted with a specific scheme or style or basing or unit markings etc. - then I get it. Then those models are personal - unique - YOURS and a reflection of the personal fiction created for them. But a bog standard marine with a boltgun in bare metal or plastic which is the same as every other bog standard marine with a bolter? How does that work?


Sometimes they get into Dark Heresy, and I suspect even more will with the upcoming Deathwatch version of the PnPRPG system. It may not be the best competitively, but it's the one they love. They buy the codices for the fluff in them, and they read Black Library's better books because of what's in them. And they write their own fiction about their own personal army. Painting is often a chore to them, because they're not very good at it (most people aren't, even those supposedly really into painting often suck at painting miniatures), and they might not enjoy it, but they do it if only to try and match the background created for their given army.

There are days I certainly don't enjoy painting, although I am considered to be fairly good at it.

Clay is very very focussed on his painting. It's almost a phobia to him and he's probably one of the most extreme people I know when it comes to that. Playing against unpainted models for him absolutely and completely ruins the game - so you can see where he'd be a big supporter of painted models. For all that he can be intolerant, he will paint models for people, lend them painted models and very much go a long way to support what he believes in. He has a lot of admirable qualities that way that get lost in his desire to see painted models only. I happen to agree that playing against a painted army greatly enhances the game experience and playing against an unpainted one damages it - but to me it doesn't 'ruin' it and I can still enjoy the game.

A live and let live attitude is fine. Some events won't require painting, some will. Both should respect those rules and not slam each other with labels like elitist or asinine. These are simply differences.

I should note, however, that the 'unpainted' thing in tournaments is very new. Even just a few years ago almost no major event I'd ever heard of would allow unpainted models. So a few of the 'older' tournament gamers are going to carry a torch for the good old days, naturally.

[Aldramelech]

Shows how much you know-- which is nothing. The hobby has always been nothing more than a tool for GW to sell miniatures in order to make a profit. All other aspects of the hobby are guided by the individual hobbyist, not by elitist dip****s like you.

Actually the hobby is a tool for GW to sell Miniatures, paints, glue, brushes, books, modeling tools, terrain and computer games in order to make a profit.

Also Paragraph 1, Page 1 of the rulebook:

Warhammer 40,000k is far, far more then just a game. Its is an engrossing and fulfilling pastime that allows you to collect and paint armies of Citadel miniatures and then use them to fight table top battles.

Pargraph 4, Page 1 of the rulebook:

There unlimited possibilities and players must be prepared to expend time and effort collecting, assembling and painting their models.

So I guess the elitist dip****s are GW themselves hun?

Ooooh Im soooo gonna get spanked!:D

[Melissia]

Oh good, I should go bring my unfinished Ork army and intentionally seek him out just to ruin his day for being an elitist.


Adrelmech: Considering how much GW collectively likes to suck off the ultrasmurfs, I wouldn't doubt it that many of them are.

[DarkAlman]

Good grief - 40K is a crappy ruleset for a competitive game.

Truer words are rarely spoken

[Ratboy]

Truer words are rarely spoken

Great Emperor yes!

It's why my competitive gaming side goes to Warmachine instead... not perfect, but a heck of a lot more streamlined than 40k's sometimes/maybe/kinda rulings.

Of course, as Melissia said, there are a lot of people who love 40k fluff out there (me being one of them) and thus 40k remains my 'hobby' game of choice. :)

[Melissia]

If this idea offends you, please, remain offendedHeh, cute. I'm not offended, I just think the tournament is stupidly designed. Course I also think four certain people who have just registered last night and only posted in this thread and nowhere else are actually the same person logging in to different accounts, but then that's just me being pessimistic about the internet.

Truer words are rarely spokenIf you aren't into the rules and the gaming, get out of the hobby. *

Huh, so that's what being a douchebag feels like.

*Waits for someone to get self-righteous about this even though it was obviously sarcasm...*

[Ratboy]

Heh, cute. I'm not offended, I just think the tournament is stupidly designed. Course I also think four certain people who have just registered last night and only posted in this thread and nowhere else are actually the same person logging in to different accounts, but then that's just me being pessimistic about the internet.
If you aren't into the rules and the gaming, get out of the hobby. *

Huh, so that's what being a douchebag feels like.

*Waits for someone to get self-righteous about this even though it was obviously sarcasm...*

<self-righteous>
ZOMG! YOU DOUCHEBAG!!!!!! :P
</self-righteous>

Naw, I can see the reasons not to attend. When I was younger those were the same reasons I never attended Astro (that and the price... I was a wee-chitlin after all). Personal choice to attend, but I think a lot of people who have been involved with Astro jumped in here just to defend them since the first 8 pages were witch-hunting blasty-ness!

[eldargal]

My groups in-group tournament has a painting section seperate from the gaming section, but if you win both you get a bonus. Last time it was a fifty pound prize for each section and if you won both an extra fifty pounds. Seemed to solve the bickering about painting scores and such.

[Melissia]

My groups in-group tournament has a painting section seperate from the gaming section, but if you win both you get a bonus. Last time it was a fifty pound prize for each section and if you won both an extra fifty pounds. Seemed to solve the bickering about painting scores and such.

How often does someone win both anyway?

[eldargal]

In the past five years or so, three people have taken out both in 40k (we run two or three 40k tournaments a year). It happens a bit more often in the annual Necromunda, Gorkamorka, BFG and Mordheim campaigns, but the prizes are smaller. I won both in the 2009 Necromunda campaign.
The only problem we had was that a couple of the less confident painters became discouraged when one of our better painters won twice in a row (40k) so we put in a rule that you couldn't win best painted army twice in a row for the same ruleset.


How often does someone win both anyway?

[Melissia]

That seems like a good rule, especially if you have multiple tournaments in a year.

[Ratboy]

That's why I agree with the idea of having different awards for different things (Sportsmanship, Painting, General, etc) as it encourages different types of players to show up.

I admit that seeing the same person show up and sweep a series of rewards can be a bit discouraging... and we have the same problem for that up here (notably one great Eldar player). Of course it's not quite fair to penalize that player in subsequent events just because he's got a fantastic army. It's a tight rope sadly :(

[Aldramelech]

Oh good, I should go bring my unfinished Ork army and intentionally seek him out just to ruin his day for being an elitist ***hole.


Adrelmech: Considering how much GW collectively likes to suck off the ultrasmurfs, I wouldn't doubt it that many of them are.

You kiss your Mother with that mouth?;)

[Senekal]

Course I also think four certain people who have just registered last night and only posted in this thread and nowhere else are actually the same person logging in to different accounts, but then that's just me being pessimistic about the internet.



Nah. In this case it's just what happens when someone posts a link to this thread on my Facebook status.

I was actually trying to log onto my other BoLS account through Facebook but for the life of me I couldn't remember what all the stuff for it was so in the end I just made a new one.

<shrug> But believe what you like.

Oh yeah, sarcasm can be VERY difficult to pick up in text. Of course I'm sure you know that.

[Melissia]

You kiss your Mother with that mouth?;)

No, but I do hug her with these arms. Kissing family members is for Frenchmen and Okies :P

Senekal: Yes it is. Typically, my shorter responses tend to be joking or sarcasm. If I really want to respond seriously to someone's post, I put effort into it. Some conversations are just not worth responding to, however...

[inquisitorbroeska]

Just wanted to say I didn't chime in to offend anyone. Sorry if it came across like that. No, I'm not the same dude spam posting a hurried defense of Astro.

Bottom line is we all CLEARLY have different opinions of the hobby, and that's totally cool.There are different tournys to support the different aspects of the hobby which is really killer if you think about it.

I just see a lot of guys who have never been to one of these long established events taking a dump all over their system. That's fine, we all have a right to our opinions, but these dudes are coming a long way to bring your gaming community an event that is really different and unique. They are going out of pocket and putting in late hours to prepare this for you, the players. These guys are not a business, as in there is no profit for them, this is purely for the love of the game. You don't want to scare off them or future tournament organizers with such a mindset. We had a bad dry spell in my hometown from people hating on tournament structure and it scared off organizers for years. Dry spells suck.

So if you hate the sounds of it and don't want to go out of your comfort zone, then don't sign up for it. I do think you should go check it out though. Astro is renowned for being a great social event as well as a great tourney.

Keep it real fellow nerds.

[Melissia]

And all I was responding to was the elitist moron who idiotically tried to claim that if you aren't into painting you should get out of the hobby, because his limited mental capacity is incapable of understanding the fact that there are multiple aspects of the hobby and any given person can like or dislike any number of those aspects without feeling the same about the rest.

While I cordially dislike both tournaments AND tournament organizers (no, I'm not directing this at anyone in this thread, rather I just have bad experiences with multiple examples of both, ESPECIALLY sportsmanship and composition scores), and believe that there are far better ways to run a tournament than how the majority of them run theirs... I don't say "don't run your tourney because I don't like it", rather, my statements amount to merely saying "I'm not gonna join, and I'd rather see one run this way". The difference is very important-- a disagreement about what one enjoys and how one would go about doing something is perfectly normal and rational, and isn't bashing.

As for going out of one's comfort zone, why don't you try that and do something different to how you normally set things up? Just because something works in Canada doesn't mean it works in other places. Even just the difference between the local gaming cultures of various cities in Texas can be jarring, nevermind between the various states, or even different countries.

[DarkLink]

That's why I agree with the idea of having different awards for different things (Sportsmanship, Painting, General, etc) as it encourages different types of players to show up.


Right. There's no reason to argue over all this stuff, when a perfectly reasonable solution that I've yet to see anyone complain about is sitting right in front of our faces. Have those separate scores, and everyone's happy.

[Aldramelech]

Right. There's no reason to argue over all this stuff, when a perfectly reasonable solution that I've yet to see anyone complain about is sitting right in front of our faces. Have those separate scores, and everyone's happy.

Agreed

[Senekal]

While I cordially dislike both tournaments AND tournament organizers (no, I'm not directing this at anyone in this thread, rather I just have bad experiences with multiple examples of both, ESPECIALLY sportsmanship and composition scores), and believe that there are far better ways to run a tournament than how the majority of them run theirs...

Been there, done that. Oh my yes. In fact experiences exactly like this is precisely why we created Astronomi-con. In fact, it's also the reason that the Comp score is completely transparent, published and right on the website. EVERYONE knows their comp score going in. No mysteries.

Sportsmanship, at least at our event is rated by opponents so I'm not sure why anyone would take organizers to task over that. Was something weird going on?


I don't say "don't run your tourney because I don't like it", rather, my statements amount to merely saying "I'm not gonna join, and I'd rather see one run this way". The difference is very important-- a disagreement about what one enjoys and how one would go about doing something is perfectly normal and rational, and isn't bashing.

I think the point was that it is perfectly okay to say 'I'm not going to join' and event to discuss other ways of running or scoring things - but that it's important to recognize that while some scoring decisions are empirical, most are really matters of opinion. Like whether to score for army painting or not - or to require painted armies or not. There are those who really like hidden comp (I don't particularly) but even with my dislike of those systems I've been to good events that have used it and had fun at them. Something different isn't always a dealbreaker unless it's something that one has an extreme view about.


As for going out of one's comfort zone, why don't you try that and do something different to how you normally set things up?

What makes you think he hasn't? Most long standing tourney players have gone to many different kinds of events, frequently including ones that aren't on their 'top of the list' for what they'd like. Last month I played in a local 'Ard Boyz event for instance. I know IB has - particularly when he moved from one country to another and had to get used to an entirely different gaming scene and culture.


Just because something works in Canada doesn't mean it works in other places. Even just the difference between the local gaming cultures of various cities in Texas can be jarring, nevermind between the various states, or even different countries.

What is your point here? Just because something works in Canada doesn't mean it WON'T work in Texas either. In fact, I have it on pretty good authority from one of the major local organizers in Dallas that he thinks that it will work very well and I trust his judgement.

What's more, while Canada has a lower population than the US it is physically much larger and has lots and lots of empty spaces which cause even greater cultural divides than south of the border. Just like the areas of the US; Eastern Canada, Western Canada, Central Canada, the Maritimes, the Territories (to name only some of the large regions) have very different cultures. Newfoundland is as different from British Columbia as Maine is from Oregon. Possibly even more so given that there are people still alive today who recall it as a separate COUNTRY from Canada. Heck we have one entire large region in which the official language isn't even English!

Despite these vast cultural differences we run our events in cities THOUSANDS of miles apart. One in Toronto (think straight north of Upstate New York State), one in Winnipeg (straight north of North Dakota) and one in Vancouver (straight north of Seattle in Washington State). Each of these areas has different gaming cultures, and yet those events are successful. What's more other people have used our entire system, whole cloth including our forms, scoring system, scenarios, everything to run events in Idaho, Ottawa and a couple of other places. All successfully. In addition we have drawn people from far distant areas in the US and even other countries. They all had a good time and some of them routinely drive 14-15 hours to attend an Astro. From the US - indeed from regions around Chicago where the gaming culture is VERY different.

Yet for some reason you think that such a proven system shouldn't be tried in new areas? Why not? We haven't hit an area yet where it's been a failure - what makes you think Texas will be any different?

[blackjack]

I can kinda see most of what Adeptacon is up to but why ban the FAQs? FAQs are the easiest cleanest way to settle disputes.

Also if you are going to allow the wildly unbalancing imperial armor books why bother with comp? Most people will not have imperial armor models, will have no idea how imp armor stuff works and those that do have the knowledge will run over the ones who don't.

I perfectly respect the right of anyone to run any tournament the way they want to but I dont quite get the reasoning behind this one.

[Cossack]

Thanks for the support on the painting issue. I think I might stick around here! (Especially now that I found the "Ignore User" option....sweet! I invite anyone who disagrees with me to use it on me.)

[Melissia]

[snip]I've gotten bad Composition and Sportsmanship scores for simply having a Sisters of Battle army. Oh, double lash is okay, but if I dare put three exorcists in a list, I'm suddenly a baby murderer and a **** war criminal. People abuse these scores simply because they don't like a particular army, or because they don't want to give their opponents any points, and so on.

"Different" is irrelevant. I disagree with the setup because it leaves the system open for abuse, and most tournament organizers don't want to hear it because how dare you question their holy and almighty decisions on how to run their tournament.


I invite anyone who disagrees with me to use it on me.I won't, because I'd rather continue pointing out that your elitism is idiotic. I don't care if you disagree with me, plenty of people do. Just don't be a ****ing elitist prick about it.

[Senekal]

I can kinda see most of what Adeptacon is up to but why ban the FAQs? FAQs are the easiest cleanest way to settle disputes.

We wanted to use the FAQs, actually - and have gone through them line by line several times over the years - each and every one, comparing them to the Codices and to the rules.

Only about 60% of the FAQs are even correct according to the rules as written. And much of what is correct is easily found by simply reading what's in the rules or the codices. In other words unnecessary. The other 40% is either incorrect, according to the actual written rules and in some cases are actual rules CHANGES - which have no place in an FAQ. Oh, yes, some of the FAQs have rulings which contradict each other too, although in fairness there are only a few of those.

We'd have liked to have used them. But the simple fact is - they suck. The quality of the content is just flat out poor. It's also worth noting that they are NOT in any way official (in fact the introduction specifically says that the aren't) and that they weren't written by the people who actually wrote the rules and codices - or even approved by them. Most of the FAQs were written by folks from Adepticon and just grabbed whole cloth by GWUS and stuck up on the web with a bit of re-formatting. They're no more valid than if I wrote them. In fact probably less so as I don't think any of the people who wrote them ever got a credit in an official 40k rulebook or supplement or have written for White Dwarf (I've done all three).

Let me ask you a question as regards disputes. One player says "I'm doing X". Another players says, "The FAQ says you can't." The first player shows the second his rulebook. He shows him his codex. Both support what he's doing. The other guy says, "Yeah but this thing which is listed as unofficial which I got off the 'net and was written by some guy who calls himself 'Yakface' says you can't."

So which has a better pedigree? The actual published and purchased rules of the game, or something that some guy spewed out on the 'net which even states it's not official in any way? I know which one I support. That kind of conflict is why we tossed the 'FAQs' into the midden where they can try and outstink the rest of the poo.


Also if you are going to allow the wildly unbalancing imperial armor books why bother with comp? Most people will not have imperial armor models, will have no idea how imp armor stuff works and those that do have the knowledge will run over the ones who don't.

Now that's an interesting statement. So, umm, what items in the IA books are so 'wildly unbalanced?' Have you ever actually PLAYED games against those models? Run an event that allowed them? Which ones terrify you so that you would make such a claim?

Before you answer, let me caution you on something. We've been running events allowing those models for a decade now. Multiple events a year in multiple cities. Each event either six or, in the early days, seven games per event with an average of about 38 people per event (rough numbers without checking but they'll be close enough for this). That's roughly four thousand six hundred games of 40k. I've seen a fair bit of Imperial Armor stuff at those games and you know what? Most of it is overcosted and underperforms on the table. I can think of only one best overall winner who had an IA piece in his army, and let me tell you - that thing's performance was nothing to write home about. In fact it sucked in pretty much every game but one the year he won (it was an ork fighta bomma btw). I don't think we've ever had a 'Best General' who had an IA piece in his army and if they were unbalanced in game play, that's where they would show up.

Every once in awhile those models do have a good day and maybe win a game for a player, but that can be said of any model. I can't think of a single thing that we allow from any of the Imperial Armor books that has as craptacular rules or is as badly balanced as, say 'The Doom of Malantai'.

So, keep in mine, before you answer, that my experience - based on thousands and thousands of games of 40k that I've moderated, has yet to show anything from those books that can be described in the terms you use. If they were wildly unbalanced, we'd have stopped allowing them years ago. But the simple reality is - they aren't. Not on the tabletop in games.

That's why we allow them.

As to comp - remember that it's a published system. Everyone knows going to the event what their comp is. Everyone can have max comp if they like. They'll just have a bit less powerful army.

That's the point. In fact it serves three purposes. It's a (very very small) handicapping system for more tuned armies - although really that has little effect as those armies will make those points up very easily by turning even a single draw into a win. It serves as a 'first seed' which allows the power armies to play each other first game and the less tuned armies to clash - hopefully resulting in something a bit more fun for all. Better competition from those who brought the more tuned armies and a more relaxed game for those who didn't. Last, because it's published, it serves as a guide to new players as to what expectations are at the event and also what armies are likely to perform best at the event. Because of the nature of the kinds of scenarios we run, the tuned armies, which are all too often one trick ponies, will frequently find themselves struggling. By showing in advance what's expected and what the event in general was designed around, they have a better chance of getting an army which will perform better.

That's why the comp system is the way it is.

[Melissia]

Only about 60% of the FAQs are even correct according to the rules as written.A FAQ ruling that changes the wording of the rule in order to clarify or ensure that it is used in the way that was intended does not go against RAW, because the FAQ IS RAW. To me, that's like saying looking at 5th edition C:SM and then 4th edition C:SM and saying "well, fifth edition C:SM goes against RAW" because the latter one is different from the former.

[Senekal]

I've gotten bad Composition and Sportsmanship scores for simply having a Sisters of Battle army. Oh, double lash is okay, but if I dare put three exorcists in a list, I'm suddenly a baby murderer and a **** war criminal. People abuse these scores simply because they don't like a particular army, or because they don't want to give their opponents any points, and so on.

I guess we're fortunate then, we don't see that kind of behaviour on the sportsmanship side. Mind you - the double lashies DO get kind of hammered on. Quite hard in fact.

I wish I was surprised by your experience, but I'm not. Just saddened that players stoop to that. I guess I'm lucky that the kind of players who pull that usually take a look at the structure of our even and biatch about how awful it is and then don't show up. I'll count my blessings on that one. System working as intended.


"Different" is irrelevant. I disagree with the setup because it leaves the system open for abuse, and most tournament organizers don't want to hear it because how dare you question their holy and almighty decisions on how to run their tournament.


We do. We hand out surveys at every event and we READ them and analyze them and, when the trends are clear, we make changes. We've dumped or re-written scenarios entirely based on that feedback. Made changes to the scoring system. Lots of stuff.

Obviously, we don't change everything that everyone doesn't likes because we can't. I've seen players comment, "I hate that scenario and told you so, why did you keep it?" to which the response usually is, "Because you and one other person hated it but eight other people voted it as their favorite at the event."

Oh - you confused my by splicing posts there. I was looking at that last bit going 'I don't think I said that, did I?"

[Melissia]

Actually I just did "[snip]" because it keeps quotes from getting too long. That's just generally kinda obnoxious, and most forum posters try to avoid it.

[inquisitorbroeska]

Dude, I've been playing in tourneys since 1989. Probably longer than you've been walking. All I do is play outside my comfort zone in different events in different cities and countries. That doesn't matter though. I tire of this thread. Astro is a fun event, go or don't. Good luck with your future games and events.

P.S.: I play sisters too. 3 Exorcists is sweet. Guess I'm a fellow baby murderer!

[Senekal]

A FAQ ruling that changes the wording of the rule in order to clarify or ensure that it is used in the way that was intended does not go against RAW, because the FAQ IS RAW. To me, that's like saying looking at 5th edition C:SM and then 4th edition C:SM and saying "well, fifth edition C:SM goes against RAW" because the latter one is different from the former.

Not a bit of it.

The FAQs are not rules as anything. They are unofficial entirely (and say so clearly in their introduction). They are just someone's house rules. Nothing more. Placing them on the same level as the printed rules is - well, ludicrous.

[Melissia]

[snip]They're official Games Workshop rules, created by Games Workshop, endorsed by Games Workshop, and posted on the Games Workshop website. I don't buy your or Buffo's arguments that FAQs aren't RAW.

[Senekal]

They're official Games Workshop rules, created by Games Workshop, endorsed by Games Workshop, and posted on the Games Workshop website. I don't buy your or Buffo's arguments that FAQs aren't RAW.

Oh you need not take my word for it. Read it for yourself.

Taken from here: http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?aId=3400019


What's the difference between Errata and FAQs?
As it is rather obvious from their name, these documents include two separate elements - the Errata and the FAQs. In case you were wondering, 'Errata' is a posh (Latin!) way to say 'Errors', and 'FAQs' stands for 'Frequently Asked Questions'. It is important to understand the distinction between the two, because they are very different.

The Errata are simply a list of the corrections we plan to make on the next reprint of the book to fix the mistakes that managed to slip into the text (no matter how many times you check a book, there are always some!). These are obviously errors, for example a model that has WS3 in the book's bestiary and WS4 in the book's army list. The Errata would say something like: 'Page 96. Replace WS3 with WS4 in the profile of the so-and-so model'.

The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material. They are 'hard' material. It is a good idea to read them and be aware of their existence, but luckily there are very few of them for each book.

The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player). However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules with your friends, that's fine. In fact we encourage you to shape the game around your needs and your taste. We firmly believe that wargaming is about two (or more!) people creating a gaming experience they are both going to enjoy. In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether and instead always apply the good old 'roll a dice' rule whenever you meet a problematic situation.


Also if you read the credits on the FAQs you will see that many of them are credited to Yakface and the Adepticon crew. That's who wrote most of them, it says so right at the bottom of a lot of them.

There was a time in the past (Andy Chambers days in early v3) when they were actually written by the designers. They weren't much good then either because the attitude about them was very poor. In fact even in those days when they were 'official' I saw Andy contradict himself regularly. Made for a rather useless FAQ in spots.

I wasn't joking about having my name in various official 40k books Melissia. Look in the heroes of the Imperium section in the back of the 40kv4 rules. Or look in the thank yous in the Battle Missions book that just came out. Or go back some years and read the two part 'Tactica Assault' from back in 2000. I know of what I speak.

[Nabterayl]

They're official Games Workshop rules, created by Games Workshop, endorsed by Games Workshop, and posted on the Games Workshop website. I don't buy your or Buffo's arguments that FAQs aren't RAW.
Out of curiosity, Mel ... would it be possible in your view for GW to publish their own unofficial house rules on their website, or otherwise communicate their own unofficial house rules to the public? If it is, how would they go about that in a way that made it clear to you that they were doing that and not publishing official rules?

[Melissia]

Which doesn't really change anything I said. The majority of people I've run across use FAQs as official, and indeed quite a few things need to be FAQed anyway (I seriously do not want to get into another argument about the Doom of Malan'tai and units in transports...)

Nabterayl: I would suggest that they put it in a section called "Suggested House Rules" or something like that, rather than the Errata/FAQ section.

[Senekal]

Out of curiosity, Mel ... would it be possible in your view for GW to publish their own unofficial house rules on their website, or otherwise communicate their own unofficial house rules to the public? If it is, how would they go about that in a way that made it clear to you that they were doing that and not publishing official rules?

Thankfully GW clarifies that nicely right on their own website. See above.

[Senekal]

Which doesn't really change anything I said.

Of course it does. It is okay to admit being wrong occasionally. Hell I am more than I'd like.


The majority of people I've run across use FAQs as official, and indeed quite a few things need to be FAQed anyway (I seriously do not want to get into another argument about the Doom of Malan'tai and units in transports...)

So if the majority of people start playing that every time a model gets removed from the table you smash it with a hammer you'll be good with that?


Nabterayl: I would suggest that they put it in a section called "Suggested House Rules" or something like that, rather than the Errata/FAQ section.

Umm - you realize that's what they did right?

Errata - hard rules changes.

FAQ - 'GW's House Rules'

Geez - they came right out and bloody said it! How much more clarity do you want?

[Melissia]

FAQ - 'GW's House Rules'

No, FAQs are "frequently asked questions", IE, clarifications on the rules that need it. That is why they are called FAQs, that's the entire purpose behind a FAQ, that's how it's used in all tournaments that have their private FAQs (even if I disagree with anywhere from just a few to many of their decisions in many cases, they at least try and make a consistent, clarified game). If they were "GW's house rules" they'd be called "GW's house rules", not FAQs.

[Senekal]

No, FAQs are "frequently asked questions", IE, clarifications on the rules that need it. That is why they are called FAQs, that's the entire purpose behind a FAQ, that's how it's used in all tournaments that have their private FAQs (even if I disagree with anywhere from just a few to many of their decisions in many cases, they at least try and make a consistent, clarified game). If they were "GW's house rules" they'd be called "GW's house rules", not FAQs.


So how YOU choose to define a term, despite flying in the face of what the people who wrote the thing SAID in plain English is more valid? Let me try quoting this for you once again.

The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'.

If that's not clear enough for you - well there's not much more I can really say as we're no longer communicating in the same language. Your mind is clearly made up, far be it for me to confuse you with facts or anything.

I believe I'm done here. Happy gaming.

[Melissia]

So how YOU choose to define a term

No, "frequently asked questions" is what FAQ stands for. Do you know what an acronym (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronym) is?

[Cossack]

Why are you arguing with Melissia? Try the 'Ignore User' option in the User CP! Done!

[blackjack]

"Now that's an interesting statement. So, umm, what items in the IA books are so 'wildly unbalanced?' Have you ever actually PLAYED games against those models? Run an event that allowed them? Which ones terrify you so that you would make such a claim"


I suppose I am speaking out of ignorance here, fair enough. I have heard of drop pods that allow you to assault the turn you come in for instance and that terrifies me.

I would certainly go to an Adeptacon if it were held here in Edmonton. (we only get 2 20+ person tournaments a year here).

How's the 40k turn out in Winnipeg?

[Nabterayl]

No, FAQs are "frequently asked questions", IE, clarifications on the rules that need it.
You know I respect you Mel, but I have to say, it seems odd to me to give more weight to the term than to its definition. I agree with you that the term FAQ suggests authority, but when it's subsequently defined as not authoritative, that seems like the definition should control. It's like if I were to draft a contract that said:


The term "authoritative answer", when used herein, shall mean a non-authoritative suggestion.

It would be ... odd to argue that in such a document the term authoritative answer referred to authoritative answers, because everybody knows that's what the words "authoritative answer" mean. That is what those words mean, but it doesn't change the fact that for purposes of my contract, authoritative answers would be non-authoritative suggestions.

It would be an odd word choice (and yes I can draft better than that), but it would also be totally clear.

[Melissia]

Which means that GW is sending mixed signals (nothing new there), but I'm tuned into one signal in particular as opposed to the other :P

[Cossack]

So Melissia can toss insults? Or did you edit those posts too?

[Melissia]

Yes, those posts were edited.

[Senekal]

I suppose I am speaking out of ignorance here, fair enough. I have heard of drop pods that allow you to assault the turn you come in for instance and that terrifies me.

Lucius pattern I believe, yes. I've yet to see one show up in a game although I hear tell that someone is making one for Winnipeg this year. We'll see if it's all talk or not (they are larger than regular pods). I believe they can only carry a single dreadnought and are unarmed.

Is that really any scarier than a group of BA Vanguards with Heroic Intervention and Descent of Angels though? I think I'd rather the one dreadnought. Lots of scary things out there.


I would certainly go to an Adeptacon if it were held here in Edmonton. (we only get 2 20+ person tournaments a year here).

How's the 40k turn out in Winnipeg?

It's Astronomi-con. Adepticon is in Chicago.

Winnipeg does okay. Usually around fifty-ish people. A fair number of out of towners. If you're in Edmonton Vancouver might be closer though.

[Senekal]

You know I respect you Mel, but I have to say, it seems odd to me to give more weight to the term than to its definition. I agree with you that the term FAQ suggests authority, but when it's subsequently defined as not authoritative, that seems like the definition should control. It's like if I were to draft a contract that said:


The term "authoritative answer", when used herein, shall mean a non-authoritative suggestion.

It would be ... odd to argue that in such a document the term authoritative answer referred to authoritative answers, because everybody knows that's what the words "authoritative answer" mean. That is what those words mean, but it doesn't change the fact that for purposes of my contract, authoritative answers would be non-authoritative suggestions.

It would be an odd word choice (and yes I can draft better than that), but it would also be totally clear.



Strange. Maybe it's just me but FAQ doesn't suggest authority at all. Just an offering of useful information which is not at all the same thing. Errata - now that suggests authority.

The other thing to keep in mind is that there ARE differences in usage assumptions between the way the UK uses terms and what we use here in North America. Assuming everything is taken exactly the same way is unwise as often it isn't. There were a number of things about that I had to be careful of back when I was writing for Mongoose.

By which I mean the term 'FAQ' may not have the same assumed weight across the pond - which would then explain why it was used with that follow on definition. Heck it doesn't seem to have the same assumed weight where I am right now and I'm only an hour's drive from the US border.

[blackjack]

"Is that really any scarier than a group of BA Vanguards with Heroic Intervention and Descent of Angels though"

Yes it is, BA vanguards can mess up by teleporting on the target instead of beside it. Vanguard vets with proper equipment cost x2 as much as a dread with a pod or more.


But Like I said I would be willing to give it a shot if it were in my neighborhood. (Vancouver is a bit far.)

[Nabterayl]

Strange. Maybe it's just me but FAQ doesn't suggest authority at all. Just an offering of useful information which is not at all the same thing.
Well, I say "suggest" advisedly. It may be that the difference boils down to the oft-discussed American vs. British understanding of the game. To my mind, FAQ suggests authority because it is the answer to a frequently asked question, and it is obvious to me that people are more likely to frequently ask a person what the rule is than they are to frequently ask a person how they personally play the rule. If that is not obvious to you, then perhaps we know why FAQ doesn't suggest authority to you.

[-=Lazuli=-]

Dude, I've been playing in tourneys since 1989. Probably longer than you've been walking. All I do is play outside my comfort zone in different events in different cities and countries. That doesn't matter though. I tire of this thread. Astro is a fun event, go or don't. Good luck with your future games and events.

P.S.: I play sisters too. 3 Exorcists is sweet. Guess I'm a fellow baby murderer!

I agree with you, it's a fun event, but US doesn't use alot of comp scores, I don't agree with comp score, but its a fun event so whatever.

[Old_Paladin]

I have to say that Mel has a point about GW sending mixed messages in regards to FAQ's.

"The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments."

I've put in bold the part everyone likes to ignore.

Mel makes a good point that GW sells these books, hosts a website about this game; and when a person associated with the company sends in suggestions about FAQ's they put it up on their website and tells us this is a really, really good idea. What kind of message is that? It means the company thinks we should play like this.

But everyone else is right that GW in the next line writes itself out of any responsibility (they are just trying to cover their butts, for the open-ended rulings that could be unpopular).


If they were actually commited to FAQ's not meaning much, they wouldn't put them up at all. They'd only have errata's and a sections saying, discuss aby problems in a mature fashion or have a dice-off. Even having them at all is strong proof that they think they are the right answers.

[Aldramelech]

I have to say that Mel has a point about GW sending mixed messages in regards to FAQ's.

"The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments."

I've put in bold the part everyone likes to ignore.

Mel makes a good point that GW sells these books, hosts a website about this game; and when a person associated with the company sends in suggestions about FAQ's they put it up on their website and tells us this is a really, really good idea. What kind of message is that? It means the company thinks we should play like this.

But everyone else is right that GW in the next line writes itself out of any responsibility (they are just trying to cover their butts, for the open-ended rulings that could be unpopular).


If they were actually commited to FAQ's not meaning much, they wouldn't put them up at all. They'd only have errata's and a sections saying, discuss aby problems in a mature fashion or have a dice-off. Even having them at all is strong proof that they think they are the right answers.

Agreed. Well put....

[DarkLink]

FAQs are very important for tournaments because they provide a neutral, 3rd party judgement on rules issues. I've had some friends screwed over in tournaments by heavily biased TOs before, enough that I prefer a neutral judgement on rules issues. Thus, FAQs.

[Nabterayl]

I'd like to point out that there is a middle ground between thinking of the GW FAQs as full-blown rules and thinking of them as mere suggestions. I prefer to think of them as commentary on how GW reads its own rules. They inform my interpretation by the principles they articulate (or more often suggest), but they don't dictate results the way errata do.

[DarkLink]

That's a good point. So the ruling that SW Counter Assault does not trigger Furious Charge would also apply to, say, IG blob squads, even though the FAQ does not specifically address the IG.

[Nabterayl]

That's a good point. So the ruling that SW Counter Assault does not trigger Furious Charge would also apply to, say, IG blob squads, even though the FAQ does not specifically address the IG.
That's the way I look at it, yeah - not because it's a "ruling" but because it's a clarification of how to interpret the rules. And similarly, the DA answer about wargear suggests to me that I should allow my GK and BT opponents the same latitude.

But at the same time, if I feel like the rationale given for an answer doesn't hold up, I have no problem disregarding it. I read FAQs for interpretive principles, not hard answers. That's what errata are for.

[Lerra]

GW isn't the ultimate authority on 40k; the players are. If we decide that the FAQs are official, then they are official regardless of what GW says.

Similarily, if GW released Codex: Ridiculous with terminators that cost 1 point and free land raiders, the player community would simply discard it and it would be considered an "unofficial" codex. Just look at GW's old game of Mordheim where several of the unbalanced warbands are widely considered unofficial by the player community, even through they were released by GW.

To me, it seems like the GW FAQs are official in most areas, but in some areas, they are not.

It's also up to the players to determine if Forgeworld/Imperial Armour rules are official.



"Now that's an interesting statement. So, umm, what items in the IA books are so 'wildly unbalanced?' Have you ever actually PLAYED games against those models? Run an event that allowed them? Which ones terrify you so that you would make such a claim"

I suppose I am speaking out of ignorance here, fair enough. I have heard of drop pods that allow you to assault the turn you come in for instance and that terrifies me.

The local tournaments around here have been allowing the Imperial Armour rules for over a year, and so far it seems balanced (if anything, most of the things from IA are overpriced). At first, we saw a lot of Lucius Pattern Dreadnought Drop Pods (the ones that allow you to assault after deep striking, but can only carry dreadnoughts), but their number has quickly dwindled as people have learned how to deal with them. The last 5-6 tournament winners did not use anything out of the IA books. The only people who still use IA rules tend to be ones with older codices, like Daemonhunters players who take the newest version of the chimera (55pts) rather than the outdated version in the daemonhunter codex (88 pts). Same thing for Sisters of Battle taking 35 point rhinos instead of 50 pt rhinos. I've seen Tau players take the alternate Piranha rules, too, that allow you to give up the gun drones on the piranha for a TL fusion at BS4 instead of the current version which is BS3. Basically, the overall effect of allowing IA rules in our local tournament is that it increased the competitiveness of older codices while keeping the newer codices at the same power level.

[DarkLink]

I do with, though, that GW had the guts to just flat out tell us what to do, rather than all this wishy-washy "oh, you can do this if you want, you don't really have to" stuff.

When a rules issue come up, GW should just put their foot down and clarify it. Not say "well, we play it this way".

[-=Lazuli=-]

The tournament talked about in this thread was played Saturday and yesterday. For all of you who dissed it, it was the best I've ever attended. The competiveness was lower, but the hobby was all there.

[BuFFo]

The tournament talked about in this thread was played Saturday and yesterday. For all of you who dissed it, it was the best I've ever attended. The competiveness was lower, but the hobby was all there.

What were the prizes like?

How did the use of 3rd edition VDR rules work? Were there any ridiculous vehicles?

Was the 75 bucks worth it? Have you been to other tourneys before?

[Cossack]

What were the prizes like?

How did the use of 3rd edition VDR rules work? Were there any ridiculous vehicles?

Was the 75 bucks worth it? Have you been to other tourneys before?

I'm biased because of the results, but it was without peer the most entertaining and fun tournament I've ever attended. Yes it was worth $75!

A couple of key things - there is a total of 200 points available and they come from a variety of areas: Army Composition, Scenario Victory Points, Army Appearance, the physical Army List that you turn in, opponents' grade of your sportsmanship, opponents' opinion of how much fun your army was to play against...I might forget something. It totals up to 200 points maximum.

They give out eight awards: Best Terrain, Best Single Miniature, Best Army (all three of those are voted on by the players), Best General, Best Appearance, Best Army List, Best Sportsmanship and Best Overall. Five of the prizes were ultra-cool data slates.

I have photos and my batreps at my website. (http://mysite.verizon.net/krista.smith/Astronomicon.htm)

And here's what the data slate trophy looks like.
http://mysite.verizon.net/krista.smith/Astronomicon143.JPG

[DarkLink]

Well, aside from the fact that comp scores are complete and utter #$^&%#$ in every conceivable way, shape and form, and there is absolutely no acceptable justification for including them whatsoever*, it sounds like the tournament as a whole turned out well.

That plaque also goes a ways to explaining the high entry cost. With prizes and awards like that, no wonder it costs so much.



*My Daemonhunters army, one of the weakest in the game, would score horribly on that comp system. Necrons would be even worse off, as they rely just as heavily on extra heavy and elite force org slots as Daemonhunters do. In fact, I have yet to see a comp system that would either give my Daemonhunters a good score, or even allow my army to function at all (some comp systems flat-out ban certain stuff). When you're nerfing one of the weakest armies in the game more than the strong, competitive codices, you know there's a problem.

And if you don't have a set system, and simply rely on a person (with subjective, rather than objective, judgement) to rate armies... well, that's bound to turn out poorly.

[Senekal]

Well, aside from the fact that comp scores are complete and utter #$^&%#$ in every conceivable way, shape and form, and there is absolutely no acceptable justification for including them whatsoever*, it sounds like the tournament as a whole turned out well.

That plaque also goes a ways to explaining the high entry cost. With prizes and awards like that, no wonder it costs so much.

As mentioned in the thread above, the trophy budget for a single event is roughly $800.00. That data slate is also huge, weighs more than a FW Thunderhawk and lights up.




*My Daemonhunters army, one of the weakest in the game, would score horribly on that comp system. Necrons would be even worse off, as they rely just as heavily on extra heavy and elite force org slots as Daemonhunters do. In fact, I have yet to see a comp system that would either give my Daemonhunters a good score, or even allow my army to function at all (some comp systems flat-out ban certain stuff). When you're nerfing one of the weakest armies in the game more than the strong, competitive codices, you know there's a problem.

And if you don't have a set system, and simply rely on a person (with subjective, rather than objective, judgement) to rate armies... well, that's bound to turn out poorly.

Care to post your Daemonhunters list?

BTW - a Daemonhunter army came in - I think it was third place for Best Overall. It won Best Appearance.

So clearly the Comp stuff can't have been too hard on it.

[Cossack]

There were three Grey Knights armies and Michael Sanford's won Best Appearance. He also came in three points behind me and if he'd have won that fight with my biker nob then he''d probably have the Best Overall trophy - it was that close.

One thing to remember is that the battles are SCENARIOS. You don't need the perfect army to defeat all comers, or rely on a specific unit to be competitive. You should have seen the look on my face when I realized I'd have to roll a dangerous terrain test for EVERY ONE OF MY ORKS! Yikes! I wonder how many dice I rolled in that game. Needless to say, what the Tyranids didn't kill I ran to death....

We were all happy, so that's what's important. No need for white knuckle gaming.

[DarkLink]

Care to post your Daemonhunters list?


Well, the details depend on the point level, but Grey Knights rely heavily on Land Raider and Terminator spam. Without several Land Raiders, you effectively cannot use Grey Knights, as they are too slow, are way too exposed to enemy fire, have no anti-tank, and in general will be completely at the enemy's mercy.

However, it's Necrons that can be really hurt by that comp setup. There are only a handful of ways to play Necrons, and most of them rely on filling up the elite and heavy support sections with



BTW - a Daemonhunter army came in - I think it was third place for Best Overall. It won Best Appearance.

So clearly the Comp stuff can't have been too hard on it

There's a couple of logical fallacies hidden in there:p

But anyways, winning Best Appearance and doing well on the Battle Points could easily put it in third, regardless of comp scores, as comp was a fairly small portion of the overall score. But that doesn't justify why there were comp scores in the first place.

I don't mind Sportsmanship scores (though I don't think they're necessary). I don't mind Painting scores (though they should be kept separate from battle point scores). But I hold comp scores in utter contempt. I have never seen a comp system that has both a good rational and a good execution.

Any comp system I've seen that isn't a purely subjective on behalf of the judges tends to either hurt the weaker armies more than the stronger armies (because the stronger armies have more flexibility in their powerful choices, meaning they can adapt easily and still have powerful lists, while the weaker armies are unavoidably hurt), or has a roughly equally nerfing effect on all armies. In which case, what's the point of having the comp score in the first place.

If comp scores are designed to give less competitive armies better odds, I've yet to see a comp system that accomplishes this (other than allowing different armies to use different points values, like they do in Fantasy. But that's because fantasy has huge balance issues that don't really exist in 40k, at least on that scale).

And if comp scales are designed to, say, make people take less powerful choices? Why? What if I don't own the models, because I don't usually use bad units? Why should the TO's be deciding what units you can take, and what you can't?




On a side note, it sounds like this was organized to separate out all the scores, with different prizes for each category. Which is a good thing. I like that part.

[Senekal]

Well, the details depend on the point level, but Grey Knights rely heavily on Land Raider and Terminator spam. Without several Land Raiders, you effectively cannot use Grey Knights, as they are too slow, are way too exposed to enemy fire, have no anti-tank, and in general will be completely at the enemy's mercy.

Really?

I wonder how Mike Sanford managed third overall (and only by a couple of points) with only a single Land Raider then? Honestly if you want to talk logical fallacies, well, you might want to find out the facts first, hmm?

What you describe may be the case at 'ordinary' tournaments. Astro isn't ordinary. "Ordinary" armies can sometimes perform well, as evidenced by the generalship scores of folks like Ray Nerpal's army - but he's also an excellent player and without that you'll never succeed as a general at Astro.


However, it's Necrons that can be really hurt by that comp setup. There are only a handful of ways to play Necrons, and most of them rely on filling up the elite and heavy support sections with

Really? I have fantastic success with my Necron army and it has no heavy support at all and only one elites choice (the much maligned pariahs, which I just love to death). I've won a number of tournaments with it and what's more gotten Best Sportsman at several despite the inclusion of the Deceiver.

The nastiest 'cron armies we've seen at Astro have usually been Troop spam but the only one that ever won was a balanced force played by a fellow named Todd some years ago.

I'm afraid your 'pronouncements' about how the game MUST be played simply aren't accurate - at least not in my experience which is clearly very different from yours. I would venture that it is probably also much more extensive given that Dallas was either the 21st or 22nd Astro I've run - I forget which. Oh, yes, before getting into that I was the Canadian National Champion at the GWGT. So I might know just a bit about how the game is played.




But anyways, winning Best Appearance and doing well on the Battle Points could easily put it in third, regardless of comp scores, as comp was a fairly small portion of the overall score. But that doesn't justify why there were comp scores in the first place.

No, actually it couldn't. Comp is worth only 20 points and is not subjective. It's actually really worth only about five or six points as even the worst armies seldom score less than a 14. So all you really get as an advantage is the difference. I don't think he had a perfect 20 either. The lowest comp army we've ever seen was an 11 (and that wasn't at the event he was playing at). His appearance score was pretty good and that would have helped. However his overall score was 165 points and out of that only about 25 were painting. So those particular factors would only have given him a leg up of around 30 of those 165 points against a completely UNPAINTED army which scored a zero - and there were only one or two of those.


I don't mind Sportsmanship scores (though I don't think they're necessary). I don't mind Painting scores (though they should be kept separate from battle point scores). But I hold comp scores in utter contempt. I have never seen a comp system that has both a good rational and a good execution.

Well, with such an attitude I'm certainly not going to convince you. You're welcome to your opinion, nonetheless we're very happy with our system and the results it generates. The overall impact on the final winners is usually very low - a couple of points mostly - and since the system is entirely transparent, the player has full control over that.


Any comp system I've seen that isn't a purely subjective on behalf of the judges tends to either hurt the weaker armies more than the stronger armies (because the stronger armies have more flexibility in their powerful choices, meaning they can adapt easily and still have powerful lists, while the weaker armies are unavoidably hurt), or has a roughly equally nerfing effect on all armies. In which case, what's the point of having the comp score in the first place.

<shrug> You're entitled to your opinion. In the close to 5000 games of 40k we've had at our events, we haven't found that to be the case at all.


If comp scores are designed to give less competitive armies better odds, I've yet to see a comp system that accomplishes this (other than allowing different armies to use different points values, like they do in Fantasy. But that's because fantasy has huge balance issues that don't really exist in 40k, at least on that scale).

And if comp scales are designed to, say, make people take less powerful choices? Why? What if I don't own the models, because I don't usually use bad units? Why should the TO's be deciding what units you can take, and what you can't?

We don't. You can take whatever you like. However if you load out your army with some kind of spam of one area of the force org, your army WILL be more effective. Therefore, it requires a slight handicap - mostly it just affects seeding for the first game and it means that if your army is more powerful you'll need to do slightly better on the table.

And if a player can't do a bit better on the table with an army that has three HS choices against an army that has only one - well that person is not a very good player.




On a side note, it sounds like this was organized to separate out all the scores, with different prizes for each category. Which is a good thing. I like that part.

There are eight in total, each rewarding a different aspect of the hobby.

However it sounds like an event like this may not be for you.

By the way, the event is 1500 points. Care to post your DH list for that point value?

[DarkLink]

Really?

I wonder how Mike Sanford managed third overall (and only by a couple of points) with only a single Land Raider then? Honestly if you want to talk logical fallacies, well, you might want to find out the facts first, hmm?

The logical fallacies thing was a joke. Hence the smiley;). I understood what you were saying, even though the way that particular sentence had some fallacies in it, it would have just taken a more thorough explanation to do away with them.

What's the rest of Mike's list look like? There are ways to get away without Land Raider spam, but in my experience they require lots of allies, and lots of creative tactics and unit choices. Incidentally, what was the point size of the tournament?


And my statement of reliance on Land Raider spam comes from my personal experience. Land Raiders, Dreadnoughts and allies/ISTs are the only source of anti-tank in the DH codex, really, and I don't have the models for lots of allies/IST (actually, I can get a lot of Sisters, but they don't have much long range AT), and so for mobility, protection and AT I rely heavily on Land Raiders. It might be the local meta, but I haven't had much luck with any list that had less than two Land Raiders personally.

Basically, in my experience, Grey Knights and Land Raiders go together like peanut butter and jelly.



What you describe may be the case at 'ordinary' tournaments. Astro isn't ordinary. "Ordinary" armies can sometimes perform well, as evidenced by the generalship scores of folks like Ray Nerpal's army - but he's also an excellent player and without that you'll never succeed as a general at Astro.

Well, having a significantly different meta for the tournament could explain the difference between my theory and your experience. Experience trumps theory any day. But I'm not sure how well those armies would fare against some of our local players. We've got a lot of tough, nasty CSM players I've got to play against, so that would probably offer an explanation.



Really? I have fantastic success with my Necron army and it has no heavy support at all and only one elites choice (the much maligned pariahs, which I just love to death). I've won a number of tournaments with it and what's more gotten Best Sportsman at several despite the inclusion of the Deceiver.

The nastiest 'cron armies we've seen at Astro have usually been Troop spam but the only one that ever won was a balanced force played by a fellow named Todd some years ago.


Well, I'm not a Necrons player. There are other ways to run the list, but from the best of my knowlege the most competitive lists rely pretty heavily on either troop spam, destroyer spam, monolith spam (which is a big gamble due to phase out), or some combination thereof. And our local Necron player swears by Immortals over Warriors, so...

But, like I said, I'm not a Necrons player, so I'm not an expert on the best ways to run them.



However, I stand by my statement that comp hurts weaker armies more than it hurts newer, more powerful armies.

[DarkLink]

Oh, and a 1500pt army would look something like this for me;

HQ
GK Hero w/ Terminator Retinue

Troops
GK squad
ISTs in Rhino

Allies Sisters of Battle squad in Rhino (or a unit of Seraphim, because Seraphim are awesome:D)

Heavy
2x Land Raiders
GK Dreadnought



Roughly. The exact details, like number of members in the GK squads, and the like would change up. But above about 1250pts, I'll probably always fill up all three heavy support slots, and at 1000pts I'll have 2 heavy units.

[Cossack]

He had a Grand Master with Termi retinue, in a Landraider....one Grey Knights squad. A couple of veteran squads (one in a Chimera), an Inquisitor and an Assassin.

That's in my batrep link above, if you missed it.

[DarkLink]

Ah, yeah, I didn't look at the battle reps.

By vets do you mean allied IG Vets? Taking lots and lots of them is indeed one of the best ways to play DH. I don't care for it simply because I like actually playing GK models, as compared to one or two GK units and everything else non-GK. Though if I owned more IG models I probably would play a similar list to that one, though I don't use Inquisitors or Assassins.

[Senekal]

What's the rest of Mike's list look like? There are ways to get away without Land Raider spam, but in my experience they require lots of allies, and lots of creative tactics and unit choices. Incidentally, what was the point size of the tournament?

All Astronomi-con events are 1500 points.

Clay details it elsewhere. He clearly didn't 'spam' anything though. His comp score would have been either an 18 or a 19 (depending on how he bought some units). Pretty good for a 'weak' list getting hammered by comp.



And my statement of reliance on Land Raider spam comes from my personal experience. Land Raiders, Dreadnoughts and allies/ISTs are the only source of anti-tank in the DH codex, really, and I don't have the models for lots of allies/IST (actually, I can get a lot of Sisters, but they don't have much long range AT), and so for mobility, protection and AT I rely heavily on Land Raiders. It might be the local meta, but I haven't had much luck with any list that had less than two Land Raiders personally.

Basically, in my experience, Grey Knights and Land Raiders go together like peanut butter and jelly.

I'm sure they work fine that way but I would say that's more the local meta. As a guard player I find I lose more vehicles to close in attacks (meltas and assaults) than I do to long range shooting. There are exceptions of course but it's mostly true. Those S6 GK weapons tear tanks a new one in assault.



Well, having a significantly different meta for the tournament could explain the difference between my theory and your experience. Experience trumps theory any day. But I'm not sure how well those armies would fare against some of our local players. We've got a lot of tough, nasty CSM players I've got to play against, so that would probably offer an explanation.

Absolutely impossible to say without context. We had a couple of nasty CSM players at the event just past in Dallas. One of them went home with Best General - but he was GOOD according to those who played him and eminently deserved his award. One of the others got knocked out of the running for a trophy by a non-mech marine force. Our meta is different from the 'usual' enough that armies that aren't considered to be viable in many conventional tournaments become a lot better.


Well, I'm not a Necrons player. There are other ways to run the list, but from the best of my knowlege the most competitive lists rely pretty heavily on either troop spam, destroyer spam, monolith spam (which is a big gamble due to phase out), or some combination thereof. And our local Necron player swears by Immortals over Warriors, so...

But, like I said, I'm not a Necrons player, so I'm not an expert on the best ways to run them.

There are a lot of 'conventional wisdom' approaches to Necrons. I've fought the Destroyer Spam with my Guard and splashed it pretty handily. Troop spam is harder but in v5 has a hard time with vehicles. I don't have any Immortals at all, although I like the models and will probably get some some day.

My 'cron list is:

Deceiver
Destroyer Lord with Res Orb, Warscythe, Gaze of Flame and Chronometron

3 Squads of 10 Warriors (no upgrades)

1 Squad of 3 Wraith

1 Squad of 5 Pariahs

1 Squad of 3 Destroyers

That's it.



However, I stand by my statement that comp hurts weaker armies more than it hurts newer, more powerful armies.

Only if they rely heavily on maxing out a single element of the list. At least for our system. If that's the only way tha tyou think the 'weaker' armies can win, well, the person who has won more Best General Awards at Astro than any other (I think he's at six right now) mostly plays Dark Eldar and his armies usually have quite high comp scores. So, at least for OUR Meta, that wouldn't seem to hold true.

Change the meta and yes, you'd get different results I expect. But our comp was designed for our Meta.

[Senekal]

Oh, and a 1500pt army would look something like this for me;

HQ
GK Hero w/ Terminator Retinue

Troops
GK squad
ISTs in Rhino

Allies Sisters of Battle squad in Rhino (or a unit of Seraphim, because Seraphim are awesome:D)

Heavy
2x Land Raiders
GK Dreadnought



Roughly. The exact details, like number of members in the GK squads, and the like would change up. But above about 1250pts, I'll probably always fill up all three heavy support slots, and at 1000pts I'll have 2 heavy units.

That army would score you in at a 17 Comp out of 20. 'Standard' armies are expected to score 16-18 so you'd be right in the groove.

The system is here: http://www.mts.net/~xian/astronomi-con/websiteV2/rules/composition.htm

The Guard army I was using for bye games scores in at a 19 Comp (2 HS choices) but it has a couple of very serious Achilles heels so that's pretty bang on. It won, or would have had they not been bye games, 3 games out of six, lost 2 and drew 1. However that's a better than you'd expect performance as we always put byes at the bottom of the swiss so that they don't impact the results. Against better players I would expect a more 2/2/2 ratio.

The comp score, by the way, is designed to reward players for taking 'a bit of everything'. That's intentional as that's how the Codices are designed to be used. Xian and I were GW playtesters for some years so yes - that was the stated intent of the designers, at least during that time. Loading up on one element of the chart is perfectly legal, but it makes the army more powerful/competitive and so creates a lower score. Not a lot lower, as you can see from your own score, but a bit lower as those armies are more powerful.

Also those kinds of armies work best with our scenarios (which were designed to reward that kind of play) so the Comp system also serves to communicate to players, subtly, which armies are likely to serve them best in our meta. My guard army, for instance, suffers from serious lack of mobility which can make some scenarios very challenging.

Regardless, we're very happy with it. It does what we want, is transparent and leaves the choices to the players while giving them a taste of what they are likely to expect. If you don't like it, hey that's fine. Like any comp system it does have some flaws etc. but we've been happy with it. YMMV of course.

[Cossack]

Those S6 GK weapons tear tanks a new one in assault.


They do a pretty fine job on Nob bikers too!

[DarkLink]

All Astronomi-con events are 1500 points.

Heh, I should have figured that out when you asked about my 1500pt list:rolleyes:.



He clearly didn't 'spam' anything though.

Just for the record, I don't see spam as anything negative. Its simply shorthand for "taking multiples of similar units", and is a convenient way of quickly describing lists. If someone says "lash and oblit spam", you know exactly what they're talking about in very few words.



I'm sure they work fine that way but I would say that's more the local meta. As a guard player I find I lose more vehicles to close in attacks (meltas and assaults) than I do to long range shooting. There are exceptions of course but it's mostly true. Those S6 GK weapons tear tanks a new one in assault.

The problem is, I face CSM a lot more than guard. Against Guard, assault is a great way of wiping out lots of vehicles. Against CSM and SMs, though, if you assault and blow up the transport with your GKs, the guys inside will shoot you to pieces, and finish you off in assault. You really have to open up Rhinos from a distance so that you can get the assault on what's inside. SM armies just have too many durable bodies with more than enough firepower to take apart GKs on foot, as soon as they get close.


Our meta is different from the 'usual' enough that armies that aren't considered to be viable in many conventional tournaments become a lot better.

Heh, out of our local 'ard Boyz, we had a Daemonhunters player (me), and a Dark Angels player qualify. So I know what you're talking about here. Unfortunately, it didn't work out like that at the Semi's:rolleyes:.



Only if they rely heavily on maxing out a single element of the list.

Then the comp system has little to no significant effect on any list.

I've seen two rationals for comp. One is to try and eliminate power builds and help out weaker armies. The other is to encourage players to take different units and choices from what they normally would. It seems you're going with the latter here.

Just for the sake of argument, however, I stand by my statement that a comp system will, at best, have no effect on the strength of lists, and at worst will hurt weaker armies more than it hurts strong armies in the former case.



The comp score, by the way, is designed to reward players for taking 'a bit of everything'. That's intentional as that's how the Codices are designed to be used.

I don't feel it's right for the TOs to try and dictate what the players bring. That should be up the player and the player alone. If they want to try out new units, that's cool. If they want to keep using the same units (which may be the only ones they own), they shouldn't be punished if they happen to have a list with a poor comp score.

So out of the two rationals for using a comp system, one of them doesn't work, and the second one I am ideologically opposed to. No wonder I don't like comp:rolleyes:.



There are a lot of 'conventional wisdom' approaches to Necrons. I've fought the Destroyer Spam with my Guard and splashed it pretty handily. Troop spam is harder but in v5 has a hard time with vehicles. I don't have any Immortals at all, although I like the models and will probably get some some day.

My 'cron list is:

Deceiver
Destroyer Lord with Res Orb, Warscythe, Gaze of Flame and Chronometron

3 Squads of 10 Warriors (no upgrades)

1 Squad of 3 Wraith

1 Squad of 5 Pariahs

1 Squad of 3 Destroyers

That's it.

We've got one player who has necrons, but usually plays his eldar or CSMs, and he swears by Immortals over troops. Our other player likes to take three monoliths, but he doesn't play often either. We have a new girl who started showing up just as I left for the summer, too, so I don't know what she plays.


They do a pretty fine job on Nob bikers too!

Especially if you've got a GM's force weapon and a Thunderhammer buried in there, too.

[sketchesofpayne]

This sounds like a 40k Calvin Ball tournament.