Millennium & Daboyz GT Comp question

[chumbalaya]

If Da Boyz is all about promoting the hobby in all its aspects, as you say, then why discourage any one aspect (playing the game)? You say it's all about fun, but only if it's your version of fun, right? I enjoy playing a challenging game against a strong list. I don't like being told that my way is wrong. The hobby encompasses everything, right? People who like to paint more can have their skill recognized, people who just like cutting loose and being mr. personality get rewarded for it, but people who like playing the game get called names? One of these things is not like the other.

I'm not saying drop comp, sports, or painting. All I want is a reason to come to the GT. I want to be welcome. I want to be part of the community. I understand people like playing fluffy, compy armies, which is why you can factor comp into overall or have prizes for theme. I can respect that, it's just not my preferred focus area.

Competitive play isn't about rules exploits, cheating, poor sportsmanship, or stomping on noobs. That's WAAC asshattery and terrible for the hobby. I'm talking about putting up your best and getting it in return. You don't sharpen a sword with pillows, you've got to throw it into the fire and smack it with a hammer until you get it how you like! To me, the game isn't about the win, it's about earning it. I'd much rather lose a close competitive game than roflstomp some noob. Crushing somebody's fluffy bunny list isn't any fun for me, nor is it for them. I love a competitive game, more than most anything else in the hobby really. That's why I'm so vocal on the issue.

'Ard Boyz is only once a year and even that isn't even close to ideal for competitive play. How much would it suck for you painters out there if every event didn't require painting, and if you asked to have it included you get told to wait for Golden Daemon?

I'd like an event where everybody is encouraged to enjoy the hobby their way, mix it up with new people, see fresh perspectives, and learn things. Instead, I'm just doing it wrong. You don't lose anything by encouraging competitive play, you may even find that all your ridiculous stereotypes are totally off-base.

You say the rules are unbalanced? You think you know better than GW? What is so ludicrously powerful that it's worth restricting? Nothing is. You may have a case for Fantasy, but 40k is in the best shape it's ever been as far as competition and balance is concerned. Not everybody has the same views as you, which is why subjective comp has no place in a real competitive event. The guys you play with, the guys who understand your views will have a much better time gaming your system than somebody unfamiliar with it (new players, out of towners, the injured and decrepit who can barely stand let alone throw dice ). It's bias. I'm not knocking on you cuz there's nothing you can really do about it. Everybody has their own perspectives and beliefs, and when you bring that into a competition you can run into problems.

The problem you get from getting coddled with comp is the same you get from wearing crutches for a while after, say, knee surgey (I am not looking forward to that ). Atrophy. Without getting challenged, you don't have to think critically about that new codex or supposed uber build. Rather than play, practice, learn and adapt, you just nuke it with comp and keep on your merry way. That way breeds stagnation. When I see that uber list, I don't cry for mommy to come save me, I'll analyze it, test it, use it myself, experiment and go until I've got it beat. That mental exercise is the best, keeps folks on their toes and helps that old noodle keep on going.

So, like I've said before, I really do appreciate y'all putting forth all this effort to get such a big time event running here. All I'm asking is why there can't be enough room at the table for all of us?

[Ranger Dude]

I think some of the misunderstanding result from a mis-phrasing on many of our parts. It's not just that we promote all aspects of the hobby here. It's that we promote well rounded hobbyists here. We like to see people who can do ALL aspects of the hobby at the same time. We want people to paint there armies, play friendly, still be competitive, and try to build well rounded lists, not cut and paste. We are NOT trying to run a tourney that appeals to everyone. Won't happen. We are trying to run a tourney that fits our idea of what's fun, and around here, the popular consensus is for well rounded players. Doesn't mean you have to be great at all aspects. But you do need to at least make an effort at all aspects.

Just my .02

[MajorSoB]

Why am I not surprised???

Let me rephrase...ummm, boo freaking hoo if you don't play like I want you to play and run your event like I want you to run it I guess I will just stay home again. I don't agree with you and I want the world to cave into me so that I can take my tooled out list and crush noobs so I can sleep soundly at night knowing I am now better than the bullies who used to steal my lunch money and give me swirlies. So did I miss anything?

To clarify for you, no, we do not discourage any aspect of the hobby but seek to balance them out so that one part does not overpower any others. I am not looking for anyone's agreement or approval, I am mearly stating the reasons behind comp in the tournament just like the initial poster of this thread requested.

If you are so inclined to only play in non comp tourneys, again let me direct your attention to the 'Ard Boyz tourney in May and next year's Adepticon event. I wish you the best of luck in both, however I am certain I already know your fate better than you do.

As for there being room at the table for everyone, in case you missed it, we are trying to encourage everyone to attend our event. We are also trying to put in place limits so that everyone has a chance to compete. With this said, we know ( and many of the players who attend also know) not everyone will be successful. We have gone to great lengths to reward effort as well as success, along with raffling off more prizes than many events have just to random players as a thank you for their attendance and participation.

If these reasons are not enough for you to attend, again feel free to stay at home just like you did last year. If you feel you have enough skill to adapt to a new way of thinking that is foreign to you and win with a "gimped" list, then feel free to challenge yourself at our event. If not, staying home is always an option too.

Tommy, do your thing and lock this thread down! I think I am remembering why I went so long without posting...

[chumbalaya]

Before you fly off the handle, you might try and read what I wrote. I don't want to stomp on noobs and poor army lists, that's no challenge and as a result no fun for either side. If you let people actually compete and face these so-called power armies, they can have a good time learning how to play and beat them. The type of army you run doesn't determine how fun a game's gonna be, it's up to the players to determine that. Not everybody shares your views, but they still want to come out to this big event. What do you stand to lose by encouraging everyone to attend?

I don't want to change the entire make up of the tournament, I don't want to take anything away from anybody. All I want is a justification to give you money and take off work to play toy soldiers. I'm not knocking on you or the tournament, I'm trying to get a dialog started without the usual rhetoric and strawmanning rearing its ugly head.

'Ard Boyz is a joke as far as competition is concerned. Scenarios range from unbalanced to outright stupid and 2500 points really breaks down for a lot of armies, particularly older ones. Plus, the way the event itself is run allows for lots of shady behavior, cheating by players and organizers, hence the drama that always surrounds it.

Adepticon is not Warhammer 40k. They play their own house rules and have a large degree of subjective soft scoring as well. Gladiator uses IA units, which totally breaks the game. It looks like a fun event, but I really don't have much reason to attend.

I'll ask again, what is so overpowered that you have to break the game to correct it? I trust GW a lot more than I trust any amateur game designer with his own biases and preconceptions. It's nothing personal, really, I just like playing 40k, not somebody's house rules.

I stayed home last year because I went to go get money for my entrance fee and my bank account was in the negative. I spent that weekend finding out where 400 dollars went. Sorry, but toy soldiers wasn't high on my list of priorities at the moment. If I hadn't had that problem, I would have loved to attend. I want to go this year too, but after listening to this since then I don't feel that it would be worth my time. I guess if you don't want money then you can just ignore me. I figure that the folks running an event would like to hear some constructive criticism to help make the best event possible.

[Horst]

chumbalaya, I understand your position... I really do.

But tell me, if someone brings a mech guard list, with 16+ chimera chassis vehicles, all loaded with melta guns, and a few hydras in there for long range fire, is it REALLY fun for anyone to play against it? Its not that its even a challenge anymore. I like to think I brought a fairly balanced marine army last year... I would be utterly crushed by this list, I just didn't have the ability to deal with firepower of that magnitude.

You said you planned on bringing dark angels ravenwing and deathwing combination to the GT? Or something similar? Well guess what... even if you take a minor hit on comp for bringing such a list, Your score won't be bad. The powers that be aren't trying to discourage your dark angels list... their trying to discourage chimera spam guard lists, 2x seer council lists, 2x nob biker lists, vulkan melta spam lists, wolf cav lists, things like that.

[Wolf Lord Snorville]

The sad part is that once a player finally sees that the net build crap is not the only way to build an army list, and that they don't need to take all the most powerful stuff to win games is when the game becomes more fun... And they become a better player.

Sure you can take all the all-round best stuff, push them forward and win games.

It's when you explore the rest of a codex that you learn that the other things in an army list have a purpose too.

We don't hate the power gamer as much as we pity them.

Too many times we have watched new players come in with the nastiest list they can bring only to get destroyed when they face a well built all round list without all the cut and paste crap.

It's when you face a rock paper scissors army that the fun is taken out of the game. Nothing is worse than sitting down for a game, and knowing that not only are you going to lose the game, but you can't really build an army with the codex your playing that would have a reasonable chance to win.

[Wolf Lord Snorville]

Apr 17, 2010 10:25:19 GMT -5 Horst said:

I just didn't have the ability to deal with firepower of that magnitude.

[glow=red,2,300]It's a trap![/glow]

[evil_red_orks]

Last DaBoyz GT, i was on the recieving end of the chimera list. Game was over by turn 2, although I kept playing neway.

That was one of the most miserable games I ever played, along with my 13th company charging headlong into Rons iron warriors...Thanks Ron, that was one of my first tourneys here in rochester. Your a thingy.

[Iron Warrior]

LOL Sorry Terry, that games was bad, it seemed like I couldnt miss and everything went wrong for you.


But to make a little point, Between that Chimera List and My Iron Warriors (last codex).

which army did you think was more compful/fluffy/Theme?

Which army would you like to play against again?

[chumbalaya]

Thanks for actually addressing my points, yay for discussion

16 Chimera list? Sure, bring it on. DW/RW is my fluffy fun army, but if I had a reason to bring something more solid I'd probably go for something like my Loganwing/TWC dealy. Logan, WG as Troops with cyclones, TWC, and either Log Fangs or more TWC, something like that. Chimeras en masse can be tough, but consider that individually each Chimera isn't putting out all that much fire (ooh, multi-laser!) and they have to get close to get any mileage out of their meltas or stay static if it's infantry inside. I can sit back from range to avoid getting melta'd or go on the offensive with TWC multi-charging and ripping up Chimeras. Squadrons make life even easier for me.

The same could be said for any list out there. Bring a well balanced, competitive army and you can beat anything out there will skill and maybe some luck. Rock, Paper, Scissors style army building is planning to fail. You bring a rock, hope it can crush whoever you're facing, and lose to your paper. That's why I encourage balanced armies, something that can take on anything and pull out a win.

So long as you build a balanced list that can take all comers, all you need is a little work to take care of one-dimensional armies. Every Codex can compete, some just have a harder time of it. Wailing about OP this and unfun that isn't gonna help you much

Netlists are really a framework. I don't see anybody but newer players or folks just tarting the army using them. It gives them a good, fairly balanced foundation to start learning, and once they get experience they explore different options and start making it their own. On paper they may look scary, but approach it critically and you'd be surprised how much experience counts over just list copying. You can't just throw a list down and expect to win against anything but newbies and poor lists, you have to understand how the army works, why it's put together, and how to use it against a variety of opponents. When you don't have to have that critical eye; all you need to do is comp nuke it and call it done.

[shilekjalan]

Apr 17, 2010 1:57:02 GMT -5 chumbalaya said:

If Da Boyz is all about promoting the hobby in all its aspects, as you say, then why discourage any one aspect (playing the game)? You say it's all about fun, but only if it's your version of fun, right? I enjoy playing a challenging game against a strong list. I don't like being told that my way is wrong. The hobby encompasses everything, right? People who like to paint more can have their skill recognized, people who just like cutting loose and being mr. personality get rewarded for it, but people who like playing the game get called names? One of these things is not like the other.

I'm not saying drop comp, sports, or painting. All I want is a reason to come to the GT. I want to be welcome. I want to be part of the community. I understand people like playing fluffy, compy armies, which is why you can factor comp into overall or have prizes for theme. I can respect that, it's just not my preferred focus area.

Competitive play isn't about rules exploits, cheating, poor sportsmanship, or stomping on noobs. That's WAAC asshattery and terrible for the hobby. I'm talking about putting up your best and getting it in return. You don't sharpen a sword with pillows, you've got to throw it into the fire and smack it with a hammer until you get it how you like! To me, the game isn't about the win, it's about earning it. I'd much rather lose a close competitive game than roflstomp some noob. Crushing somebody's fluffy bunny list isn't any fun for me, nor is it for them. I love a competitive game, more than most anything else in the hobby really. That's why I'm so vocal on the issue.

'Ard Boyz is only once a year and even that isn't even close to ideal for competitive play. How much would it suck for you painters out there if every event didn't require painting, and if you asked to have it included you get told to wait for Golden Daemon?

I'd like an event where everybody is encouraged to enjoy the hobby their way, mix it up with new people, see fresh perspectives, and learn things. Instead, I'm just doing it wrong. You don't lose anything by encouraging competitive play, you may even find that all your ridiculous stereotypes are totally off-base.

You say the rules are unbalanced? You think you know better than GW? What is so ludicrously powerful that it's worth restricting? Nothing is. You may have a case for Fantasy, but 40k is in the best shape it's ever been as far as competition and balance is concerned. Not everybody has the same views as you, which is why subjective comp has no place in a real competitive event. The guys you play with, the guys who understand your views will have a much better time gaming your system than somebody unfamiliar with it (new players, out of towners, the injured and decrepit who can barely stand let alone throw dice ). It's bias. I'm not knocking on you cuz there's nothing you can really do about it. Everybody has their own perspectives and beliefs, and when you bring that into a competition you can run into problems.

The problem you get from getting coddled with comp is the same you get from wearing crutches for a while after, say, knee surgey (I am not looking forward to that ). Atrophy. Without getting challenged, you don't have to think critically about that new codex or supposed uber build. Rather than play, practice, learn and adapt, you just nuke it with comp and keep on your merry way. That way breeds stagnation. When I see that uber list, I don't cry for mommy to come save me, I'll analyze it, test it, use it myself, experiment and go until I've got it beat. That mental exercise is the best, keeps folks on their toes and helps that old noodle keep on going.

So, like I've said before, I really do appreciate y'all putting forth all this effort to get such a big time event running here. All I'm asking is why there can't be enough room at the table for all of us?

.....wow, really? lol. Sorry, I just have to say lol.

oh and also, go talk to Boldo and ask him about competitve games with a reference to composition. He will thouroughly explain this quite well, I am sure.


.......oh and the best generals are the ones who do not need super pumped out armies to win. Such as hmmm.....the old school veterans at Rochester who could probably beat powered up gamers with their eyes closed, while doing jumping jacks.




that is a pretty interesting image, I can almost picture it.


okay wow lol, I just had to interject because I was starting to crack up from reading some of these essays on "competitive" playing. everyone have a nice day though! :-)


Courage and Honour,
Ave Imperator

[shilekjalan]

Greetings,

One more thing. The Major explained that comp is staying here, but I just wanted to give my support for the comp crowd. ;D. I can play cheddar like anyone else, but I love to know there is at least one place in the state that uses comp still. Great job guys, keep it up. I will stop ranting now.


Courage and Honour,
Ave Imperator

[chumbalaya]

Apr 17, 2010 17:17:20 GMT -5 @shilekjalan said:

.....wow, really? lol. Sorry, I just have to say lol.

oh and also, go talk to Boldo and ask him about competitve games with a reference to composition. He will thouroughly explain this quite well, I am sure.


.......oh and the best generals are the ones who do not need super pumped out armies to win. Such as hmmm.....the old school veterans at Rochester who could probably beat powered up gamers with their eyes closed, while doing jumping jacks.




that is a pretty interesting image, I can almost picture it.


okay wow lol, I just had to interject because I was starting to crack up from reading some of these essays on "competitive" playing. everyone have a nice day though! :-)


Courage and Honour,
Ave Imperator

Laughter is the best medicine, that'll be $50,000 dollars please (man, I sure do love the health care industry :

I'd love to see the rationale for composition. Not being sarcastic or anything, I'm just curious. I can see Fantasy comp has a case for the next 3 months or so, but why 40k? Nothing's unbeatable, really. Take a little trip out of your comfort zone and you might be surprised.

The best generals are the ones who understand the rules and Codices, how they interact between the various armies, and how to use this knowledge and the options available to build the best army that fits their style of play. Or, to put it simply, the ones who win consistently Take away the comp crutch and you introduce a whole lot of factors you aren't used to. It can be intimidating at first, but experience counts for lots more than just having a good list on paper.

So, do you have anything constructive to add? I'm all about getting new perspectives on the issue. I see a lot of folks feel strongly about comp, but I haven't seen much argument for it beyond "40k is b0rken" with no proof, "we emphasize all aspects of the hobby...that agree with our limited views" and "that's just how it is, go away criticism." I'll be the first to admit I'm far from impartial on the whole thing or some kind of expert, but it would be nice to get some actual arguments here.

[skyth]

This may be a radical suggestion, but what about instead of having a comp score, having an ETC style list building limits.

As an example:
No tripplicate Heavy/Elite/Fast
Only 5 melta guns total allowed in an army
Guard has a limit of 6 vehicles on a Chimera Chassis
Tyranids have a limit of 4 monstrous creatures

Etc etc etc. (Note, these aren't suggestions for the actual limits...I'm out of the loop as far as 40k, and the actual limits have to be tailored to the individual group's taste and the points level of the tournament).

The actual limits would have to be made for each army, and you can include a veto option if the judges feel the submitted list is trying to find a loophole as long as you allow pre-submittal of the lists for a possible veto.

This would also involve putting scoring for 'Theme' in the appearance category.

[Ranger Dude]

Apr 18, 2010 13:57:34 GMT -5 chumbalaya said:

I'd love to see the rationale for composition. Not being sarcastic or anything, I'm just curious. I can see Fantasy comp has a case for the next 3 months or so, but why 40k? Nothing's unbeatable, really. Take a little trip out of your comfort zone and you might be surprised.

The best generals are the ones who understand the rules and Codices, how they interact between the various armies, and how to use this knowledge and the options available to build the best army that fits their style of play. Or, to put it simply, the ones who win consistently Take away the comp crutch and you introduce a whole lot of factors you aren't used to. It can be intimidating at first, but experience counts for lots more than just having a good list on paper.

So, do you have anything constructive to add? I'm all about getting new perspectives on the issue. I see a lot of folks feel strongly about comp, but I haven't seen much argument for it beyond "40k is b0rken" with no proof, "we emphasize all aspects of the hobby...that agree with our limited views" and "that's just how it is, go away criticism." I'll be the first to admit I'm far from impartial on the whole thing or some kind of expert, but it would be nice to get some actual arguments here.

First off, I have seen you repeatedly say "Get out of your comfort zone" and yet here you are arguing so you can stay in yours. Hypocrisy? Maybe.

Constructive. How about we like to see if you can still be a good general using what you refer to as "sub-par" lists. We want to see if you can still win without using the same three units over and over again. We find that if we discourage excessive duplication, and encourage using more than just a few pages of the codex, then we see more diverse armies. Most of us do not like going to a tourney and seeing nearly the same army for 2/3 or 3/5 rounds.

Also, as we like to encourage people of all skill levels at our tourneys, it is nice to limit the "tool" lists. Being a new player, and running into a list you stand no chance against can ruin your day, and possibly even drive you away. I've seen it happen. Experienced players have this problem too, but we can usually chalk it up to our own mistakes. I know I ran into this last year at the GT. I ran into a Chaos army that wrecked me. I know what mistake I made, and will not make it again. But if I had been new at this, I probably would have been extremely discouraged.

The best Generals are the ones who make the most out of what they have. The best stories from history come from armies taking sub-optimal units or conditions and pulling victory anyway. Are you so insecure in your ability that you can't take a handicap? I see your point of view about comp being a crutch. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. Now try to see ours. We want to challenge ourselves (and others) by seeing how well we can do while not using only the best.

Constructive enough for you?