Tournaments are broken?

The place to discuss all that was! Visit the AdeptiCon website (www.adepticon.org) for past coverage, event results and photos!

Are Tournaments Broken?

Yes--Curse you Flying Circus and Nidzilla! Something must be done!
15
35%
Yes--But you can't fix it, so don't even try.
5
12%
No--Weep Additional Tears, Novice
23
53%
 
Total votes : 43

Tournaments are broken?

Postby biztheclown » Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:51 pm

From mkerr at BOLS:

http://belloflostsouls.tumblr.com/post/32203083

http://belloflostsouls.tumblr.com/post/32362114

The gist of this? Here's the proposed rule:

“Except for the Troop category, no army list may contain duplicates of any Unit Type in a single Force Organization category.”

To me, this is really two questions. Are tournaments broken? And is this a good solution?

I have read reports that the Invitational tournament was 40% triple falcon, 40% Nidzilla and 20% everything else. Is this true? We don't have the data. But we could. Here are the names of everyone who played.

http://www.adepticon.org/modules.php?na ... e&artid=79

If you are on here, or know someone who is and what they played in the Invitational would you post a quick note here saying what the list was like?

And what does everyone here think of what mkerr has to say?

Personally, I would like to see a lot more data released about tournaments. Not just total scores, but matchups, lists, and per round battle points. Any data hounds have a technological solution here? Would people object to this? Or is it just too much work for (understandably) exhausted organizers? If the sheets still exist, it would be a treasure trove of who beats who kind of data. I don't have the skills to present this data meaningfully, but I might just volunteer to learn them...
User avatar
biztheclown
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 7:05 pm

Postby Brian » Mon Apr 21, 2008 10:29 pm

I think it's only a valid argument until this summer when the "Big Gray Book" becomes the "Big Red Book."

When that happens we'll see the following:

1. Lots of tournament players screaming about how 5th edition broke their power-list

2. Lots of 4th edition power lists on eBay

And then 5th edition will either spawn new power lists or (hopefully) tighten up the tournament scene by weighting games toward tactics as opposed to list building. I have a gut feeling that the tactical aspect will get a boost because ultimately GW's goal is to increase the sales figures for units that sell poorly. If a broader spectrum of units are viable we might expect to see a healthy variation in the lists at a tournament.
User avatar
Brian
 
Posts: 499
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: Chicago (Logan Square)

Postby Lord Alakinsky » Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:00 pm

I think there is a bunch of whining going on at most tournaments because people's egos get bruised and they can't deal with it. Is every tournament won by a Nidzilla or Triple Falcon army? I have a friend who is a really good player, knows his tactics, etc. Everytime I would complain about his army list he would switch armies with me, he playing my list/army and me using his army. He would still win and I would tell him it's because I'm not familiar with the list he's playing. When I finally got over myself and reallized that he was better at anticipating what was going to happen 2 or 3 (sometimes even 4) turns later, was better at applying the necessary force where appropriate, was better at set up/deployment, and was a better strategist. I could have quit and whined about him and his damn broken armies. Instead I learned what I needed to do to handle what he threw at me, to adapt to different events in the game, and to move on from there. There were a lot of people over the years who just got pissed off and left. Other people learned, adapted, and became better players than they were before.

I really don't think the problem is in the lists. I think the problem is in the players who have too much of their ego wrapped up in whether they win or lose and then are too immature to learn from a defeat and instead blame everything and anyone else they can. Lists don't win tournaments, players do.

I understand that some lists match up poorly against others (Deathwing vs. MEchanized anything, for example) but a good player will know how to maximize their strengths against any list while minimizing their weaknesses as much as possible. To me, the fact that different lists win just about every major tournament is more evidence that it's not lists that determine wins and losses. When I see the same people's names winning tournament after tournament, that tells me that those guys know how to play and know their stuff.

For example, the 2006 TT was won by SoCal GW with Drop pod marines. They took the same exact army in 2007. Why didn't they win? If the list is so good that it got them the win in '06, why didn't they win in '07?

Has the same army list ever won back-to-back major tournaments? Has the same army even won back-to-back tournaments? It's not the lists, people, it's the man (or woman) accross the table from you. There are people in life who are just better than you are. Deal with it. Either learn and move on or stagnate and become extinct.
Lord Alakinsky
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 7:35 pm

Postby warprat13 » Tue Apr 22, 2008 12:49 am

AHMEN!
Like I said before play the same list you did this year at adepticon for any 40 k tourny next year at adepticon please! if you manage to win I'll buy you a beer pop or whatever! ( no small feat at 450 a bottle!):P Rules are gonna change! I for one am looking forward to the fresh air.

Warprat13
User avatar
warprat13
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 2:50 am

Postby Papa_Nurgle » Tue Apr 22, 2008 6:57 am

No.

And why do you go to a tournament?

I go because I enjoy getting together with 20-300 of my closest, smelliest friends, rolling dice, and drinking beer.

I don't care if I play against Mech Eldar, Nidzille, or 210 grots. I'm going to have a good time.

Also, the only reason those armies win is that people can't make the paradigm adjustment to build armies meant to take on Nidzilla.

5th edition will solve a lot of that by making troops scoring units only and then you'll see the return of Marines and Chaos.

The game continues to change and evolve. If you look at the armies, it is easy to make conclusions based off of what is played. However, you also have to take into account who is playing the lists.

For example. I would imagine that Dark Eldar in tournaments have a much greater win ratio than just 50%. Does that mean the list is broken or that more experienced players play with them?

Nidzilla wins a lot, sure. but take a look at who plays them. Much like the poster above, swap lists with a Mehrstedt or Fortman and see if you can beat them with their own list. I would imagine that they would probably grind your bones to glue. Why? They're good player who take something out of the norm and use it well.

Anyway, I don't think tournaments are broken - unless you're going to win. Me, I just like to play the game.
Team TnA Founding Member.
WHABSAB!
Every Time you use the word "fluff," a kitten dies.

Purple ticket owner.
Papa_Nurgle
 
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 7:38 am

Postby getupandgo » Tue Apr 22, 2008 9:44 am

Brian wrote:I think it's only a valid argument until this summer when the "Big Gray Book" becomes the "Big Red Book."


40k is going commie?
getupandgo
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:37 am

Postby langstraad » Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:36 pm

Fixing tournies is easy. Allow only Infantry troops choices to claim objectives AND if one players Troop choices are all dead and his opponent still has one unbroken troop model on the board, the opponent wins.

Look 'nidzilla with 4 units of six genestealers, meet my 3 Whirlwinds. 18 pie plates later my five man tactical squad hidden in a corner wins.

Troops in transports become a must. Model counts go up.

It would be so spicy!
"We are going to play this game the way Erik Lange would, vicious and cruel, even the women and children must die" - Barry

"You ask the stupidest questions on AWC" -Turtle
langstraad
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:35 am
Location: Behind You!

Postby Carrick » Tue Apr 22, 2008 10:58 pm

langstraad wrote:Fixing tournies is easy. Allow only...
...It would be so spicy!


I have never said this before - LMFAO
Adepticon '08 - Sixth Worst 40k Sportsman.
Adepticon '09 - Ninth Worst 40k Sportsman.
User avatar
Carrick
 
Posts: 608
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:28 am
Location: Ravenswood, Chicago

Postby langstraad » Wed Apr 23, 2008 7:20 am

Nothing like the smell of free association in the morning!
"We are going to play this game the way Erik Lange would, vicious and cruel, even the women and children must die" - Barry

"You ask the stupidest questions on AWC" -Turtle
langstraad
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:35 am
Location: Behind You!

Postby knitemare » Wed Apr 23, 2008 8:40 am

Why isn't there a voting option for "Yes, but you CAN fix them"?
It's only about painting now.
User avatar
knitemare
 
Posts: 2670
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 6:46 am
Location: Aurora

Postby Timber » Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:36 pm

Papa_Nurgle wrote:No.
Anyway, I don't think tournaments are broken - unless you're going to win.
Papa preaches da troof.

Under the current rules set, yes Nidzilla and Flying Circus lists are pretty darned broken. Flying Circus is probably the worse offender IMO, but those tactics of spending 4 turns with 3 shaken Falcons and having them all zoom 24" of cheesy goodness and claim objectives are soon over.

So we'll see how creative players can break the system under a new set of rules. It'll be neat to watch.

Incidentally, I find much more interesting matchups in the Gladiator. When you start telling folks, "Sure haul out the big stuff!" you find the diversity of the games shoots through the roof. And I grumble a lot less when a stompa or a titan sets up across from me than when it's the same broken army I've seen a dozen times before that always makes up 25-40% of the armies at every tourney.

Broken? - yes.
Does this fix it? - It targets the worst offenders, but I don't know if it fixes anything. Heck, though, I really like the rule because I'd like to see many more varied units/models on the tables.

Does any of this matter? - Very Little, and only for the next few months.
Timber
 
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 4:01 pm
Location: Chicago

Postby mkerr » Wed Apr 23, 2008 8:14 pm

Timber wrote:Broken? - yes.
Does this fix it? - It targets the worst offenders, but I don't know if it fixes anything. Heck, though, I really like the rule because I'd like to see many more varied units/models on the tables.


Exactly. I'd love a rule that shapes up army composition.

Timber wrote:Does any of this matter? - Very Little, and only for the next few months.


We'll see. I have the feeling that with Big Bugs in particular, 5E isn't going to do much to change the current power lists. Yeah, grav tanks are going to crappier, but they still have holofields.

Less unit spam would help any version of the game.
mkerr
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 11:30 am
Location: Austin, Texas

Postby Centurian99 » Wed Apr 23, 2008 9:43 pm

Timber wrote:Incidentally, I find much more interesting matchups in the Gladiator. When you start telling folks, "Sure haul out the big stuff!" you find the diversity of the games shoots through the roof. And I grumble a lot less when a stompa or a titan sets up across from me than when it's the same broken army I've seen a dozen times before that always makes up 25-40% of the armies at every tourney.


You know, I've played in every Gladiator tournament except the first (when I didn't go to AdeptiCon) and I can honestly say that, win or lose, I never had a game where there was poor sportsmanship or anything like that. Win or lose, the games are just fun, because of the #1 Gladiator rule.

Heck, I think I had the most fun when I deliberately took an army that I knew was almost certainly going to get smoked. (which it did, twice). Both times I won the Gladiator, all my opponents were great and they were great games. But the times when I didn't win (all of which, I was out of contention after round 1) were even more fun, because there was no longer any pressure to perform, and I could just enjoy the game against some wacked out armies.

Back On Topic...I hate the proposed rule. It unnecessarilly screws a bunch of army builds just to deal with some particularly egregious army builds. And all you're doing is making the Stealer Shock, Ork horde, or Mech Tau the pre-eminent list, instead of the Insane Clown Posse, Flying Circus, or Nidzilla.

What it comes down to is just this: almost every army has units that when spammed become ridiculously effective. If you really want to impose some sort of balance, then just put an arbitrary 0-2 rating on all non-troop choices. But if you make all non-troop choices 0-1, what you're doing is tilting the balance towards those armies that have extremely strong troop choices, like Nids, Orks, or Tau.
Centurian99
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 6:59 pm

Postby GregSwanson » Wed Apr 23, 2008 10:57 pm

Actually what I would like to see is some diversity as well. I don't know if anyone ever played starfleet battles (man what a long game) but they had a good rule. For each of the same ship you took after the first you had to pay extra points for it. For example the first falcon costs x. The second falcon costs x + (a quarter of x) the third faclon costs x + (hakf of x) This would still allow people to play their list but would put points at a premium. Which you really want that third dakka fex at 170 points? Or that third facon at 345 points. Maybe the multipliers need to be adjusted but is just a thought.

Greg
That crazy fireman!
I am not smart but I can lift heavy things!
In the grim darkness of the future, there is only war. There are not massive army costume parties and campy parade floats. - xNickBaranx
User avatar
GregSwanson
 
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:23 pm
Location: Chicago

Postby Turtle » Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:46 am

I actually take great offense to people telling me what I can and can't bring in an army list.

As I see it if its in the codex its legal and you can bring whatever you want in how many numbers you want. I'll play against anything, and if its a tougher list like 3 falcons then it becomes a test of my generalship to win. Especially with 5th edition around the corner, where troops are your only scoring units, if you want to bring one third of more of your army in non scoring units i'm all for it. 5th will bring about that tactical diversity everybody wants so badly, and with a bunch of units that were previously thought to be no good being viable again I can't possibly imagine that a tournament will be broken (like those that think it is)
"Here have a beer, Marines play better with beer: Rhysk
Turtle
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:38 pm
Location: just outside of mil-town

Next

Return to AdeptiCon 2008

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 1 guest

cron