What do you want?

[Admiral-Badruck]

that is why you give them a comp score...

[Admiral-Badruck]

any way i will just chalk this up to people not even trying to open their minds to the possibility of friendly competition... no one listened to me in the past why should any of them start now...

[me_in_japan]

I dunno - when I play a game of 40k Im always trying to win. I mean, Im never trying to lose. Whatd be the point?

The difference (in my head) between a competitive game and a casual one is

a) how much actual thought I put in to my army and tactics, which leads to : what list I bring
b) how likely Iam to quibble about my opponent sneaking half inches when they move and calling dodgy "thats a cover save" and stuff like that.

Isnt that what everyone does? I dont get the concept of non-competitive tournament. The whole point of a multiple game tourney is to prove (in theory) who the best player in the group is. If you introduce all kinds of wierd and wobbly rules like terrain rules and comp and (particularly) small points values, at the end of the day it doesnt prove diddly, just that the "winner" was the luckiest person on the day.

Whats the point in that? Why not just roll a dice each, and say that whoever gets the highest number wins the game?

I'm not against games designed purely for fun. in fact, thats what I voted for. However, such a thing is not, and should not be labelled as, "a tournament".

dats wot I reckon, anyway...

[Spevna]

I dunno - when I play a game of 40k Im always trying to win. I mean, Im never trying to lose. Whatd be the point?

The difference (in my head) between a competitive game and a casual one is

a) how much actual thought I put in to my army and tactics, which leads to : what list I bring
b) how likely Iam to quibble about my opponent sneaking half inches when they move and calling dodgy "thats a cover save" and stuff like that.

Isnt that what everyone does? I dont get the concept of non-competitive tournament. The whole point of a multiple game tourney is to prove (in theory) who the best player in the group is. If you introduce all kinds of wierd and wobbly rules like terrain rules and comp and (particularly) small points values, at the end of the day it doesnt prove diddly, just that the "winner" was the luckiest person on the day.

Whats the point in that? Why not just roll a dice each, and say that whoever gets the highest number wins the game?

I'm not against games designed purely for fun. in fact, thats what I voted for. However, such a thing is not, and should not be labelled as, "a tournament".

dats wot I reckon, anyway...

People should be following the rules regardless of what or who they are playing. There should never be any intentional "inch grabbing".

The big difference is what you bring to the table. Most of us know how to fill our armies with the nastiest stuff we can. If Prim and the Admiral wanted, Im sure they could lay down the nastiest Guard and Ork armies possible as they have enough minis to do so. There is a time and a place for such lists, and it is a tourny.

If you are playing more for "fun" you would bring an army based around a theme. My Ork army will have very few actual infantry but as many whacky weapons as possible. Anyone and anything that can take a shock attack gun will. Any unit that can take a Mek, must. Sure my army may blow itself up but that is in keeping with the character of the army.

That is the difference as I see it.

[me_in_japan]

People should be following the rules regardless of what or who they are playing. There should never be any intentional "inch grabbing".

true, but what should be and what is are two rather different things, unfortunately. The fact that this happens is the biggest black mark against tournaments in my book. Generally, however, its pretty rare. I dont think people do it on purpose, theyre just more inclined to push their luck in a competetive environment.

If you are playing more for "fun" you would bring an army based around a theme. My Ork army will have very few actual infantry but as many whacky weapons as possible. Anyone and anything that can take a shock attack gun will. Any unit that can take a Mek, must. Sure my army may blow itself up but that is in keeping with the character of the army.

That is the difference as I see it.

agreed - my eldar (eldrad, war walkers, falcons with DAVU, etc.) are a pretty winny army.
my nurgle, otoh, are, frankly, not. For those who say my nurglies are hard to kill, bear in mind it could be worse - there could also be max oblits and double lash princes in there. The fact its not a tourney army is what allows me to play it fluffy.

Looking forward to playing your orks, btw Its the wierd shooty stuff that attracts me to the ork army, actually. That, and the bikes.

[Spevna]

It should be pretty shooty/whacky by the time it is done. Maybe not too effective but it will either blow up in my face or blow up half your army.

[Admiral-Badruck]

If I bring a fluffy army or a filthy army I am still going to play to win....

If the comp is built in a way that filthy "power gamer" lists are going to be sent packing and crazy wacky lists are going to be played because they are fun and theme based...that would be the best.

I would like to see missions that are more interesting than objectives or kill points...

tournament style insures that more games are played and time constraints are met.

When it comes to the Power gaming that pops up the only way to take care of that is with strict Comp.

I am going to Take Tau or Daemons to the next big game.. My Orks are my filthy army and really only come out when I want to feel better about myself by crushing someones meager hopes at a win. As Spevna said I could always take an army with 200 or so boys to every game and basically thrash most of the people I play... but there is not a lot of fun in that.

If there is one thing that makes me what to move back to the west it is the lack of good tournaments here in Japan. Once a year will never be enough for me... and the lack of 2 day tournaments means that there just are not enough games to really know who is "the best"(what the heck does that even mean) its not like anyone really cares that much about it...

"Tournaments" are just ways to get people together and enjoy the game.
win or lose you should be more worried about having a good time. The Hallowar was a great little tournament I know I gave Mike a bit of hell for bringing a cheezy list.... but the truth was I showed up not to win but just to show that I support the hobby... in our little game circle we can hardly say one of us is the best... when we are all good players if we have put in the time. and for the guys that have not put in the time to be very good.. it is not really that much fun to get kicked around. it is up to good players to tone it down so that the guys out there that do not have good tournament armies can have a good time. Who knows that if they win a few game they might just like the game enough to try and get good at it.

Small points game are funner than large points for guys that do not have vast armies... If I have to give my guys next to useless war gear just to make up for a lack of painted models then to play in a 2000 point army I am going to get rocked by the guy who has 4000 points of models and has to squeeze in lots of good stuff into a 2000 point list.

Summary if we want the hobby to grow the Vets have to make it fun for the Noobz... we all need to take The a lesson from Ikeda San and make fun lists out of our vast armies. And be happy to win or lose as long as we have fun.

[me_in_japan]

Summary if we want the hobby to grow the Vets have to make it fun for the Noobz... we all need to take The a lesson from Ikeda San and make fun lists out of our vast armies. And be happy to win or lose as long as we have fun.

absolutely agreed. However, a tournament is not the place to do so.

incidentally, Badruck - I'm impressed! That was possibly the longest post youve ever made! And it was completely comprehensible, too I have a sneaking suspicion that that was because this is a topic close to your heart, so I just wanted to mention that Im not disagreeing with you just to wind you up - I totally get your point about needing to keep things on a level playing field so as not to squash new players. I also agree that smaller points values are far easier to achieve for said newbs. (I use "newbs" here as a typing shorthand for "new players". I mean no disrespect to anyone.)

I think the biggest point of non-agreement between our respective positions is that you seem keen to have competitive games with externaly enforced rules of "fairness" to level the playing field. I think that if you have to introduce rules to stop better players beating inexperienced players, then its not a competition.

For example, I'm a very inexperienced Warmachine and Malifaux player. When I play, I generally lose (except against Prim, but then, he's a newb, too). I expect to lose. If I won every game I played, or even had close run games every time, as a newbie, I would feel aggrieved that my opponent didnt consider me worth trying to beat. You don't learn much when you win. You learn much more when you lose. As long as you can look at you game and say "ah, I shouldn'ta done that." then you are growing as a gamer.

I think the same applies to 40k. Newbies need to be able to try their armies without getting crushed, sure, but such games should be clearly labelled up front as "pratice" games. As and when a player feels ready to play a genuinely competitive game, he should say so. If he wants this to be his first game, then fair do's, but whenever the game is played he should go into it knowing that his opponent is trying to beat him. That way, if our newb wins, he can feel he has actually achieved something, and not just been handed a victory out of pity. If he loses, then fair enough - move on, and learn from it.

Based off what youve said, I think you mostly agree with what Ive just written. The point of contention is the whole "tourney" thing. A tourney is defined as a competion. Everyone should enjoy it, but that doesnt mean everyone should win. It is perfectly possible to lose and still have a good time.

Not every gathering of gamers needs to be (or should be) labelled as a tourney. The Nagoyahammer event this year was ace because it wasnt a tourney. People brought fun armies, and the games were sometimes unbalanced. Nobody got their knickers in a twist because the competition aspect wasnt the main point of the event. Games were varied in terms of points and teams and special rules, and I think everyone was happy with em.

To summarise: I think we agree on most everything except

a) the use of the word "tourney".
b) comp: I hate it. We need a separate thread to discuss this - it's a right can of worms...
c) I don't think lowering points values makes for fair games. It affects different armies in very different ways

[Admiral-Badruck]

I guess the clarification on comp needs to be given... There is a Comp requirement for games like Combat Patrol 4ed rule set. this cuts out a lot of the power gaming, and really limits the way some armies get absolutely boned... Combat Patrol does crush Necrons but there are ways to fix that... by adding a special rule or two. specifically for them

Low points for games in Japan will increase the sheer amount of players who will attend. If I am told I must have a painted 1500 - 2000 point army painted ready for war months before an event and I only have 1000 points worth of stuff I may think to myself." time not the game for me" Tournament or not. the buck stops there.

but If I have the Black reach box set done and painted clocking in at a round 500 points I just might think to myself " get me a land speeder and a drop pod" and I am good to go.

Same is true for the vets.. I have old armies that I could play but for a little shock and awe I will bring something that no one has seen me play.. and throw them through a loop.. let's get that new Space wolf army I have been eyeing for the last few months..

Tournaments asure and A game from everyone the also make people play with the game rules and add and element of interest campaigns do about the same thing... but are just not as big of a draw for folks coming from out of town..

I know would not make a trip to Tokyo for a day of gaming that was not competitive but I would go there if there was tournament. As far as I know the guys that game from Kobe were treating every game last year as if it were a tournament so it did not matter that is was a campaign of not. Some people had fun and some could not seem to have much fun...

The way I see it is we need to have an event that is approachable for the folks that travel a long way... I think small points do that because they do not have to carry as much. they do not have to have as much and they can bring stuff that is more fun because the tournament is does not have money/Model prizes for the winners.

[Primarch]

Another point to consider is this:
At the 1st day of Nagoyahammer we had 20+ people, 2 of which had only played a couple of games before hand and were relatively inexperienced.
At the dedicated 1 day 40k tournament we had 6 players.
NH was 2 days which helped with the people coming a long way for example, but:

...I know would not make a trip to Tokyo for a day of gaming that was not competitive but I would go there if there was tournament...

Apparantly most other people dont feel that way.

...There is a Comp requirement for games like Combat Patrol 4ed rule set. this cuts out a lot of the power gaming, and really limits the way some armies get absolutely boned... Combat Patrol does crush Necrons but there are ways to fix that... by adding a special rule or two. specifically for them...

So basically we should use comp but give some armies special rules to help them? Thats not a great idea. I like the idea of comp, generally speaking, but only in a "Dont try and bring 2 monoliths to a 500 point game" kind of way. Its probably worth noting that I had to talk Badruck out of doing that before the last NH event.
Either this IS a tournament, or it ISNT a tournament. So far the results are showing (just for non-competitive play).