A discussion regarding the current state of the 40k tournament scene.

This topic has come up several times in the past few weeks both here and elsewhere and I feel like it deserves it's own topic. Specifically I feel there are problems in the tournament scene divorced from the current 40k rules set and tournament formats (NOVA, ITC, ATC, etc.) that need to be addressed. Now, I play competitively in the NOVA circuit myself, so a lot of this is as much from personal observation as it is from other people. Of course these are just my opinions.

The first issue with the tournament circuits is there is a select group of people who win almost every event, I'd say no more than a few dozen people who end up making up most of the top 8 of any given GT. They all know each other, they're all in the same clubs, they all know the TOs, they all know the judges. They're the ones swapping armies, getting drunk together, and coming up with cheesy BS lists, and there is a *lot* of nepotism. People who know all their opponents and throw games so a certain team can win for example. This happens time and time again.

The second issue is these tournaments are selectively exclusionary. If you don't have a meta list, you might as well not show up. Battle Company, Seer Star, Warp Spider spam, Wolfstar, Daemons, Riptide Wing, Pylon Star, those are most of the lists you will see time and time again. Any given event can have something like 30% of the players being Eldar in a game with over 20 factions! No one who doesn't play those meta armies is going to have any incentive to sign up for a tournament, and even Eldar or Space Marine players won't sign up if they run Guardians or Predator Tanks instead of grav drop pods and scatbikes.

The third reason is perception. The perception of competitive players is that they're cheese monkeys, that they're not fun to play against, or that they're just straight jerks. I wish I could say this was a lie but for every nice competitive player I've met I've met one other one who was a jerk. Most of them are alcoholics too and I'm not sure how much of a factor that is. Now, the nice players are great and I love seeing them at events and grabbing drinks and playing with them, but the jerks are always there too and you don't pick who you play against. I was extremely fortunate in that the first tournament I ever went to I played against 2 really nice guys who had no trouble helping me through the game, partly because they knew I'd lose anyway, but also because they were decent people who wanted to see me have a good time regardless. Since then I've played people who I wanted to kick the crap out of on and off the game table and dealing with them is enough to ruin an entire weekend.

To make the competitive games appealing to new players we need to attract a larger diversity of players, a greater diversity of armies, and a way to make sure no one feels like they're wasting their time and money signing up for an event with a non-meta army or list. Everyone needs to have a good time, even the guy in the lower end of the bracket, because without him and everyone like him, there is no event. Some people fly cross-country for these events. There is a substantial investment into them and that needs to be rewarded or at least considered. Simply handing out 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place prizes doesn't cut the mustard as that just rewards the same people over and over. I think tournaments need to be bracketed, much like boxing. A heavyweight isn't going to be in the ring with a featherweight, neither should a Pylonstar player with a double-digit ITC rank be playing an Orks player who happens to be local and wants to give the competitive scene a shot. He should be playing against Tyranids, Blood Angels, CSM, Dark Eldar, etc. and the winner of that bracket should get a prize the same as the people playing in highest bracket.

TeenageAngst wrote:

This topic has come up several times in the past few weeks both here and elsewhere and I feel like it deserves it's own topic. Specifically I feel there are problems in the tournament scene divorced from the current 40k rules set and tournament formats (NOVA, ITC, ATC, etc.) that need to be addressed. Now, I play competitively in the NOVA circuit myself, so a lot of this is as much from personal observation as it is from other people. Of course these are just my opinions.

The tournament scene ‘divorced from the current 40k sules set’? How so? Each part of the world will play it differently – speaking from my own experiences that’s certainly the case. The fact is there is no right or wrong way to play. Playing full RAW is a recipe for disaster and TO cater to what the majority of attendees want - its that simple.

TeenageAngst wrote:

The first issue with the tournament circuits is there is a select group of people who win almost every event, I'd say no more than a few dozen people who end up making up most of the top 8 of any given GT. They all know each other, they're all in the same clubs, they all know the TOs, they all know the judges. They're the ones swapping armies, getting drunk together, and coming up with cheesy BS lists, and there is a *lot* of nepotism. People who know all their opponents and throw games so a certain team can win for example. This happens time and time again.

Anecdotal evidence. I have never seen or heard of players throwing games to allow other to win events. Never – not in the 15 years of competitive play across the globe. Good players know each other more often than not because they like to play others of a similar skill. Similarly, these good players attend lots of events so get to know the judges. Good players also write good lists – no surprise there. Calling nepotism is essentially slander – you have no proof.

TeenageAngst wrote:

The second issue is these tournaments are selectively exclusionary. If you don't have a meta list, you might as well not show up. Battle Company, Seer Star, Warp Spider spam, Wolfstar, Daemons, Riptide Wing, Pylon Star, those are most of the lists you will see time and time again. Any given event can have something like 30% of the players being Eldar in a game with over 20 factions! No one who doesn't play those meta armies is going to have any incentive to sign up for a tournament, and even Eldar or Space Marine players won't sign up if they run Guardians or Predator Tanks instead of grav drop pods and scatbikes.

If you want to play your fluffy list at what are clearly competitive events – you are of course going to be disappointed. The fact you are claiming this as an issue is laughable. Of course people bring the best options they can to a competitive event. That’s like complaining Ferrari have the fastest car in F1 while you drive your Hyundai in the same race. You buy into an event knowing the same restrictions as everyone else – if you choose to not compete as hard as others in the same boat that’s your choice.

TeenageAngst wrote:

The third reason is perception. The perception of competitive players is that they're cheese monkeys, that they're not fun to play against, or that they're just straight jerks. I wish I could say this was a lie but for every nice competitive player I've met I've met one other one who was a jerk. Most of them are alcoholics too and I'm not sure how much of a factor that is. Now, the nice players are great and I love seeing them at events and grabbing drinks and playing with them, but the jerks are always there too and you don't pick who you play against. I was extremely fortunate in that the first tournament I ever went to I played against 2 really nice guys who had no trouble helping me through the game, partly because they knew I'd lose anyway, but also because they were decent people who wanted to see me have a good time regardless. Since then I've played people who I wanted to kick the crap out of on and off the game table and dealing with them is enough to ruin an entire weekend.

Wow – I am astounded by these comments…
I’ve played in the UK, Europe, USA and right across Australia at some of the most hardcore events and have, across 15 years and literally hundreds (maybe thousands) of games, encountered less than a handful of idiots I would consider WAAC jerks. The internet spreads the perceptions you are talking about. Try actually playing at events without your chip on the shoulder. Enjoying a beer or 2 while playing does not constitute being alcoholics either. The fact is these trips away with mates is a chance to let your hair down and relax – you sound very naive with this comment.

Perhaps your need to beat up opponents is something you need to work on – not them?

TeenageAngst wrote:

To make the competitive games appealing to new players we need to attract a larger diversity of players, a greater diversity of armies, and a way to make sure no one feels like they're wasting their time and money signing up for an event with a non-meta army or list. Everyone needs to have a good time, even the guy in the lower end of the bracket, because without him and everyone like him, there is no event. Some people fly cross-country for these events. There is a substantial investment into them and that needs to be rewarded or at least considered. Simply handing out 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place prizes doesn't cut the mustard as that just rewards the same people over and over. I think tournaments need to be bracketed, much like boxing. A heavyweight isn't going to be in the ring with a featherweight, neither should a Pylonstar player with a double-digit ITC rank be playing an Orks player who happens to be local and wants to give the competitive scene a shot. He should be playing against Tyranids, Blood Angels, CSM, Dark Eldar, etc. and the winner of that bracket should get a prize the same as the people playing in highest bracket.

You have never run an event have you? I say that because you seem to have no understanding of the logistics. Doing what you describe would be a nightmare and makes things even more open abuse from great players using lower tier lists.

Events that are more hobby focused (where you score soft points for painting and so on) exist already – it sounds like you would prefer these to the hard core competitions. These events mean it completely possible to bring whatever you like and place well as soft scores mean a well painted army will rank better. The problem with this is a great painter who is also a great player becomes all but impossible to beat.

Honestly – in the 10 events I run across the year locally (I have a 72 player event I am running on Sunday this week) – we almost NEVER give more than a token medal or trophy. No cash, no box sets, just the glory of winning the event. When you have more than the bragging rights on the line is when the worst of people come out I find.

Setting your expectations for an event is critical to you being able to look back and not be bitter at the outcome. When you take a fluffy list to the LVO and don't win - why are you upset? If you set the expectation that you wanted to play a bunch of games against a bunch of different people from all over I suspect you would be less upset. You need to set yourself a goal and expectation up front.

Quote :

The tournament scene ‘divorced from the current 40k sules set’? How so? Each part of the world will play it differently – speaking from my own experiences that’s certainly the case. The fact is there is no right or wrong way to play. Playing full RAW is a recipe for disaster and TO cater to what the majority of attendees want - its that simple.

I meant in terms of discussing the scene rather than the ITC or NOVA format rules. This has nothing to do with rules per se but is more the atmosphere surrounding the game. Also what spurred this topic was the fact I cannot find a partner for a doubles tournament coming up at my FLGS because everyone I play with regularly hates the competitive scene and these are reasons among others they mentioned. I just listed the ones I happened to agree with.

Quote :

Anecdotal evidence. I have never seen or heard of players throwing games to allow other to win events. Never – not in the 15 years of competitive play across the globe. Good players know each other more often than not because they like to play others of a similar skill. Similarly, these good players attend lots of events so get to know the judges. Good players also write good lists – no surprise there. Calling nepotism is essentially slander – you have no proof.

You can call it what you want but I've seen people throw games before at local events.

Quote :

If you want to play your fluffy list at what are clearly competitive events – you are of course going to be disappointed. The fact you are claiming this as an issue is laughable. Of course people bring the best options they can to a competitive event. That’s like complaining Ferrari have the fastest car in F1 while you drive your Hyundai in the same race. You buy into an event knowing the same restrictions as everyone else – if you choose to not compete as hard as others in the same boat that’s your choice.

Okay. But that doesn't address the problem. If you have a DE or an Orks or a Tyranids or a CSM army you may as well not bother going to a competitive event. This excludes an large swathe of any given playerbase immediately from ever wanting to compete. From a TO's standpoint this means lower turnouts, from a meta standpoint, lower list variety. And of course it creates a divide in the playerbase between the "tourney players" and the "fluffy players" simply by virtue of which army one uses. In my local meta anyone who plays Eldar or Necrons is a "tourney player" whether or not they've actually gone to a tournament or not because of the connotation. Non-meta armies and their players need an incentive to show up or they won't, and that's a problem.

Quote :

Wow – I am astounded by these comments…
I’ve played in the UK, Europe, USA and right across Australia at some of the most hardcore events and have, across 15 years and literally hundreds (maybe thousands) of games, encountered less than a handful of idiots I would consider WAAC jerks. The internet spreads the perceptions you are talking about. Try actually playing at events without your chip on the shoulder. Enjoying a beer or 2 while playing does not constitute being alcoholics either. The fact is these trips away with mates is a chance to let your hair down and relax – you sound very naive with this comment.

I have experienced these people first hand yo. And enjoying a beer or two does not constitute being an alcoholic. Being an alcoholic constitutes being an alcoholic. And that's fine if they want to drink that much, I do so myself at these events, but I also don't treat my opponent's models like garbage or laugh at their army comp or sincerely tell them they brought the wrong army to the game. Like I said, I'm not sure if there's an overlap, but it's worth mentioning.

Quote :

You have never run an event have you? I say that because you seem to have no understanding of the logistics. Doing what you describe would be a nightmare and makes things even more open abuse from great players using lower tier lists.

I haven't run an event, this was me throwing darts at a board as to how competitive 40k might be more inclusive. If you have better ideas please share them. As for the traditional hobby aspects, "best painted" usually just means "whoever dropped a solid grand on getting a commission painter to paint their army for them wins."

All false, cliché claims about competitive play aside, if you dont like competitive events, dont attend to them. Im sure you can run a great one day campaign in wich less competitive players can have a blast.

That's just it I love competitive events, but I can never convince my friends at the shop to partake in them because of these concerns. And I have to admit as I did here that there's a lot of issues with tournaments. You say my claims are false or cliche but I have seen them myself. Stereotypes are usually based in some truth.

.

What always bothered me were people who ran things like Eldar + Bare-bones Ork CAD, just so that they could grab best Orks player. Or, even worse, was the spate of people who ran CWE + Hero's Path (Primary Detachment) to nab best Harlequins player. That's what always got me. Being the only person who showed up with a pure DE army and losing Best DE player to a guy who ran majority CWE with a Corpsethief Claw was just mind-boggling.

Those people drive me mad because they're not trying to win, they're trying to snipe an esoteric award away from someone who probably deserves it more. Someone running a full Blood Angels army deserves to walk away with something more than the guy with a wolfstar with an allied Blood Angels detachment.

My sentiments exactly. My buddy TJ from one of the teams in the area decided to play Orks to win the best Ork prize, but he actually played a full Ork biker-Nobz list and built a competitive list. That takes effort and skill, the presence of people who take a netlist and just throw on an under-used faction as an ally and make that detachment primary just to win an award are symptoms, to me, of the underlying problems with the tournament scene from the standpoint of someone who doesn't have a lot of money and doesn't just run netlists to win.

I'm hoping to come back into the tournament scene this year, mostly because my usual trip to Dragon Con has been cancelled due to me not having the 2 grand needed to really enjoy the trip, and a trip to Washington D.C. area for NOVA would be much more feasible considering I have family in the area. But I go to tournaments to have fun and get games in more than anything else, but I still play to win, and prizes like those are how people like myself get chances to win at tournaments. When WAAC players take those slots it ruins the fun. Because it becomes clear that those lesser prizes designed for players such as myself aren't even achievable.

That's why I love my local TO Phil. He awarded me the DE best army because I brought a DE list, not a CWE list with DE allied.

TeenageAngst wrote:

That's why I love my local TO Phil. He awarded me the DE best army because I brought a DE list, not a CWE list with DE allied.

That all depends on what his stipulations were for best DE army. Giving it to you because you ran pure DE over someone who met the criteria but didn't run pure is a crappy call.

Transparency should be the number one thing about awards

Massaen wrote:

TeenageAngst wrote:

That's why I love my local TO Phil. He awarded me the DE best army because I brought a DE list, not a CWE list with DE allied.

That all depends on what his stipulations were for best DE army. Giving it to you because you ran pure DE over someone who met the criteria but didn't run pure is a crappy call.

Transparency should be the number one thing about awards

100% agree. TO's who break their own rules because they felt like someone else followed the "spirit" of the rule better are bad TO's.

As a TO, if you fail to properly write your houserules/requirements, and someone meets the minimum requirements as written, but that isn't what you meant, you should consider that a learning experience and write better rules next time. Never, under any circumstances should you instead rule against the person who followed all your rules but who you thought "cheesed it".

He awarded it to me because at registration when asked what army I had I said "Dark Eldar with an allied of Eldar" and he's like "Well what's the majority of your points?" and I was like "Dark Eldar." I think I had all of 350 points of Eldar. Someone else ran CWE with an allied of DE and said the exact opposite, so he awarded me the best Dark Eldar player since I was the only one there with the majority of their points in that army even though the other guy performed better in the tournament. It wasn't being biased, he just never told people what the rubric was for that particular award. Also I'm like 90% sure he didn't know he was going to even award best army for that particular event until the day of because the best army awards were all a bunch of handmade purity seals someone donated that he didn't know what to do with. So yeah your army was counted as wherever the majority of your points lay.

TeenageAngst wrote:

He awarded it to me because at registration when asked what army I had I said "Dark Eldar with an allied of Eldar" and he's like "Well what's the majority of your points?" and I was like "Dark Eldar." I think I had all of 350 points of Eldar. Someone else ran CWE with an allied of DE and said the exact opposite, so he awarded me the best Dark Eldar player since I was the only one there with the majority of their points in that army even though the other guy performed better in the tournament. It wasn't being biased, he just never told people what the rubric was for that particular award. Also I'm like 90% sure he didn't know he was going to even award best army for that particular event until the day of because the best army awards were all a bunch of handmade purity seals someone donated that he didn't know what to do with. So yeah your army was counted as wherever the majority of your points lay.

That's fine - but not what you implied above.

TeenageAngst wrote:

That's just it I love competitive events, but I can never convince my friends at the shop to partake in them because of these concerns. And I have to admit as I did here that there's a lot of issues with tournaments. You say my claims are false or cliche but I have seen them myself. Stereotypes are usually based in some truth.

So their concerns are based on reading the internet then since they have never attended an event? So 3rd hand information - and the internet blows stuff way out of proportion and out of context. Maybe they just don't want to play competitive but don't want to tell you? There are far less issues than you make out with tournaments if you set your expectations early and realistically.

While stereotypes are usually based in some truth - the fact is they are again wildly exaggerated and enhanced. Your own "I've seen them myself" comment is again nothing but anecdotal evidence, much like I claim the opposite. Clearly we have different experiences and that's ok but when you come and claim your experience is fact and true, you need to back it up with more than anecdotes.

I would postulate that if you are going to an event to claim a prize, the issue lies with you if you are unhappy with the results you achieve. Either you failed to read the pack for the event and use the guidelines provided to meet the requirements of the award (to claim the faction prize for example) or you failed on the tabletop to achieve the wins needed.

Essentially, you went in, trying to claim some kind of moral high ground by running a list that was not geared to do so like others who did. That's on you to reset your expectations.

I took pure corsairs to LVO this year. I wanted to do well (and by my own expectations 51st out of 400 is doing well!). Would I have loved a top 8 finish? Absolutely! The difference is I was under no illusions that that was a certainty. I COULD have managed the finals with some luck but by my own choice I took units in the list that were not as optimised as possible. I even missed out on best corsairs for the event because one of the top 8 spent just over 50% of his points on corsairs backed by eldar and so I wound up second in that regard. That's all on me.

If you are still getting upset at the results maybe take a look at what you are doing to meet the event expectations and adjust yours to suit. Taking the moral high ground of pure DE and then moaning when someone else beats you using the rules legal for the event just smacks of bitterness and a perceived moral superiority.

Quote :

So their concerns are based on reading the internet then since they have never attended an event? So 3rd hand information - and the internet blows stuff way out of proportion and out of context. Maybe they just don't want to play competitive but don't want to tell you? There are far less issues than you make out with tournaments if you set your expectations early and realistically.

While stereotypes are usually based in some truth - the fact is they are again wildly exaggerated and enhanced. Your own "I've seen them myself" comment is again nothing but anecdotal evidence, much like I claim the opposite. Clearly we have different experiences and that's ok but when you come and claim your experience is fact and true, you need to back it up with more than anecdotes.

I would postulate that if you are going to an event to claim a prize, the issue lies with you if you are unhappy with the results you achieve. Either you failed to read the pack for the event and use the guidelines provided to meet the requirements of the award (to claim the faction prize for example) or you failed on the tabletop to achieve the wins needed.

Essentially, you went in, trying to claim some kind of moral high ground by running a list that was not geared to do so like others who did. That's on you to reset your expectations.

I took pure corsairs to LVO this year. I wanted to do well (and by my own expectations 51st out of 400 is doing well!). Would I have loved a top 8 finish? Absolutely! The difference is I was under no illusions that that was a certainty. I COULD have managed the finals with some luck but by my own choice I took units in the list that were not as optimised as possible. I even missed out on best corsairs for the event because one of the top 8 spent just over 50% of his points on corsairs backed by eldar and so I wound up second in that regard. That's all on me.

If you are still getting upset at the results maybe take a look at what you are doing to meet the event expectations and adjust yours to suit. Taking the moral high ground of pure DE and then moaning when someone else beats you using the rules legal for the event just smacks of bitterness and a perceived moral superiority.

I disagree but thanks for your passive aggressive insinuations.

The problem when you use inclusion as part of a reward system, the rewards lose their value.
If you come home with a trophy from "Everyone gets a trophy day", even if you placed first, it means squat. If first place was the only trophy given at the same event with the same players, that trophy means something. The only difference is you are not watering down the rewards so Harry Hardluck does not go online and complain how broken it is.

If winning at tournaments is something a person wants to do, simply play better people, practice an army and not change every time a new netlist hits, and get better.
Tournaments really do not change, not from sport to sport, not from event to event. The winners never complain, and those that lose were cheated/biased against/played the way it was meant to/ ripped off or the ref was in the other teams pocket.
If you dont want to be one of those complaining, just go out and win. My $.02

Its not so much that, but when you only have one army and its not exactly capable of competing with WAAC lists, you don't shoot for the top, you shoot for best in the division, and having people who shouldn't be in that division be in that division, well, that's a problem. That would be like, for example, a major league baseball team competing for a minor league pennant.

TeenageAngst wrote:

I disagree but thanks for your passive aggressive insinuations.

WOW... you missed my point entirely - and nothing I said was passive aggressive.

Its ok to disagree but clearly you are not here to have a conversation but to complain about things.

With that knowledge I am out.

Enjoy your thread

Quote :

Its not so much that, but when you only have one army and its not exactly capable of competing with WAAC lists, you don't shoot for the top, you shoot for best in the division, and having people who shouldn't be in that division be in that division, well, that's a problem. That would be like, for example, a major league baseball team competing for a minor league pennant.

This. NOVA for instance had tournaments within the GT by means of the bracket system. You could lose the overall tournament but still get something for winning your bracket. It was a great system, rewarded people without handing out participation trophies, and encouraged people to keep playing all the rounds.

Quote :

WOW... you missed my point entirely - and nothing I said was passive aggressive.

Its ok to disagree but clearly you are not here to have a conversation but to complain about things.

You said I was taking the moral high ground by playing DE and then complaining when I lost. I'm not. I just don't think I should be expected to own 4+ armies to compete competitively. I think there should be an incentive for people to play competitively who don't own meta armies, otherwise it's just the same dozen lists copy and pasted over and over and that gets boring for everyone. And I am here to have a discussion with people who actually pay attention. I'm not upset because I'm losing, I lost HITNY with my Eldar and lost hands down because I played badly, I accept that 100%. I'm upset because I needed to use Eldar to stand a chance of winning at all in the first place.

Here for example is a guy who bothered to actually read what I posted and did a great job breaking it down with his own opinions:

https://youtu.be/8JHoqILxbAk?t=10m

TeenageAngst wrote:

You said I was taking the moral high ground by playing DE and then complaining when I lost. I'm not. I just don't think I should be expected to own 4+ armies to compete competitively. I think there should be an incentive for people to play competitively who don't own meta armies, otherwise it's just the same dozen lists copy and pasted over and over and that gets boring for everyone. And I am here to have a discussion with people who actually pay attention. I'm not upset because I'm losing, I lost HITNY with my Eldar and lost hands down because I played badly, I accept that 100%. I'm upset because I needed to use Eldar to stand a chance of winning at all in the first place.

Here for example is a guy who bothered to actually read what I posted and did a great job breaking it down with his own opinions:

https://youtu.be/8JHoqILxbAk?t=10m

So by this own admission - its your expectations that need to be addressed - like I said above. You don't think you should be expected to own multiple armies to compete. That's YOUR choice and YOUR call. The game, at least competitively, requires you to take this into account. If you chose not to then that's on you - and not on anyone else.

The best players don't play the 'meta' - look at the top LVO lists this year. Everyone who ran the scatpack/spiders/deathshroud skathach was a year to late. The game had moved on. Genuinely good players innovate lists and drive the meta, not sit within it.

Again, you say you are upset that you have to use eldar to compete. Like it or not, that's where the competitive game is for the DE. That's not the TO fault - the balance of power rests in GW hands. Yes TOs could enforce changes to rules (FLG already do this) to try and regain some balance but ultimately there will always be an imbalance of power even if players have to run mono codex forces.

I am not sure what you actually expect from TO's in terms of making changes to suit what you want? Saying players have to run mono codex to be in with a chance to claim the faction award?

What about the fluffy players who run combo lists? Say an Iyanden/Coven list using the story of the DE codex where they come to the aid of the Iyanden. A small CWE detachment with wraith units and a main DE raiding party coming to their aid. All painted fluffy and 'correct' colours. Should this player be penalised and ineligible for the DE prize when using their fluffy army?

While I respect you owning your loss and acknowledging it is on you (that's a tough thing for people to admit sometimes), I am still not sure what it is you actually want - given what you want out of an event might be different from what I want and both are different to the next guy.

Players attending events should be setting their own expectations early and being realistic about them. Reading the players pack to understand whats what and then taking them into account. I firmly believe all the angst (no pun intended) about events would be reduced if players where honest with themselves (like you have been about your loss) and then take that into account when they attend an event. Going to win is fine - but be honest with yourself about that goal. The choices you make going in will ultimately not only dictate your success at the event but also how you walk away feeling.

I thought you peaced out of this topic.

Quote :

I am not sure what you actually expect from TO's in terms of making changes to suit what you want? Saying players have to run mono codex to be in with a chance to claim the faction award?

Run more specialized tournaments or narrative events. Highlanders, doubles, escalation, new and original objectives, environmental factors like custom terrain or rules for weather conditions. I've seen all these things and more used to great effect and they make people switch it up from the standard listbuilding. Most of the time though my local tournaments are lame "practice for X big GT" RTTs. Also, provide incentives for people to show up besides winning the game. A CSM player or a DE player is not incentivized to sign up for an event when they know there's going to be Taudar and star lists. I would assume, unless I'm entirely off base, that event coordinators want people to sign up and play, yes? Even people who don't have the best meta armies? I assume they want fresh faces to show up? That they want people who didn't win to still have fun? Then maybe they should give them a reason to.

I think the problem here is 2 fold. But neither is really the fault of the TO I think.

1) 40k is a hugely unbalanced game. It sucks, I hate the fact, but unless TO will repoint everything correctly (practically impossible) this is not going to change.
2) You go to tournaments with other expectations then some others at that tournament.

The second part is a lot more difficult to adres. Here I think part of the problem is again that you want 40k to be balanced (everyone should have a fair chance no matter which army they play). And part is that there are some WAAC at tournaments. I have no experience with anything but local tournaments for 40k, why because those tournaments are often less competetive then the tournaments where people come from far and wide. Is this sometimes annoying, yes, since you will more often play the same people. But because the majority of people has some connection to the local meta it is possible to say bring a fluffy list and exept for a few outliers most will have a similar strength. But say bring a fluffy list to any random guy, and you get anything from tyranid list with no flyrants (since tyranids suck) to an eldar with 2 WK and a bunch of scatbikes (since he could have had 3 WK and gone ynnari) the tyranid player will still be hugely at a disadvantage and have little chance of winning the tournament. In a local comunity the chances that people agree on if a tyranid player should bring his best list and the eldar player takes 2 WK or if the eldar player should leave the WK at home and the tyranid player can take a pyrovore, it varies per community but it will be known. Which means tournament organisers cannot really account for this, unless they really check each list to see if it is the right power level but this will lead to a lot of disgruntled players as well because they cannot use their "own" list. This means that you usually end up with small local tournaments or more competitive tournaments were some armies stand little chance.

I now play in 2 local groups, my first game in the second group went horribly wrong because my expectations were of. I mentioned I just started again with 40k so wanted to do a small introduction battle again. The guy was really friendly and I had a good time, but I got totally wiped. Sure a large part of that was also because I did not knew all the rules, and played like a noob. But even had I not done so I would have lost since I had already lost in army composition. Did he have a nasty army, no not really, was his army a lot harder then mine, definitly. After the game he gave me some advise both on gameplay and army selection, because even for a fluffy army mine was way to weak. Most of my dark eldar were on foot, since I just took everything I had.

Massaen wrote:

Genuinely good players innovate lists and drive the meta, not sit within it.

I doubt he'll believe you. I've been telling him the same thing for months now.

|Meavar wrote:

But say bring a fluffy list to any random guy, and you get anything from tyranid list with no flyrants (since tyranids suck) to an eldar with 2 WK and a bunch of scatbikes

This is why no one should ever set up an event and utter the words "Bring a fluffy list". It's simply far too subjective. Almost any army combination can be "fluffy" if someone has the imagination to dream up a scenario that would bring their army together. As a TO, it's your job to come up with house rules that mold the tournament to what you want it to be. Even if you want it to be a fluffy event, the word "fluffy" should appear in your house rules a total of ZERO times(Except possibly in the name of your event at the top).

If someone doesn't have the skill to put together house rules that RESULT in fluffy lists(or to recognize and acquire staff that can), they shouldn't be a TO.

I agree partially with you betray.

A good TO should try not to just say fluffy and make some mold of house rules to make it so.
But I disagree that a good TO can make the rules to fit it.
There are so many options that you might take the worst options out, but still have huge differences. Thus effectively half the rules of most armies have to be rewritten or scrapped, this would lead to dozens of pages of rules. And the average joe who wants to play in a "fluffy" tournament is less dedicated than your average competetive tournament player, thus those massive rules packs will be a downfall and I think a lot of players will feel you are changing the game to much.
Also with that many changes there has to be extensive playtesting because the game will change completely, but this will be nearly impossible for the sake of one tournament.

So a few fixes for the worst offenders might be simple but this mostly just changes the meta instead of making it fluffy.

Not true. You can absolutely make rules to make things more fluffy. As for players thinking you're changing the game too much, that doesn't change the fact that as a TO, you CAN do that. And it's far better than alienating people by using the vague wording of "bring a fluffy list", then labeling someone "that guy" for not having the same idea of what is fluffy as you do.

I've never heard a group of "fluffy" players talk about a tournament where they didn't feel like it was OK to talk about people who brought better lists than them as if it was a character flaw. That is one of the biggest problems in the warhammer community today, in my opinion. "Fluffy" players think it is OK to speak poorly of competitive players, while competitive players don't come up with negative monikers for fluffy players. It's like an abusive relationship, and the abusers need to KNOW they're being abusive. Spread the word. Stop fluffy players from crap-talking competitive players all the time. You want "fluffy" games? Make rules that cause games to be fluffy. Here is a pretty good start:

1. No non-battle brothers allies allowed.
2. Max 1 LoW.
3. Max of 2 factions(with the exception of combi-factions as presented in Gathering Storm. If taking a faction from the gathering storm series, you may take it, but it counts as both of your faction choices.)
4. Max of 3 sources(detachments/formations). Meta-Detachments that include other formations(Such as the decurion or Reborn Warhost) count as all 3 sources.
5. No non-troops slot unit(other than dedicated transports) may be taken more than 3 times unless REQUIRED(ie, not optional) by a formation.
6. No troops slot unit(other than dedicated transports) may be taken more than 4 times unless REQUIRED(ie, not optional) by a formation.

Add these to a basic set of tournament house rules like the ITC and you're good to go.(I might modify the ITC ruling on ranged D-weapons though.)

Eliminating multiple LoWs, 3+ factions, multiple sources, and unit spam does quite a bit to cut down on non-fluffy lists. Suddenly eldar players have multiple types of aspect warriors and troops that aren't 100% jetbikes. You might need to tweak the numbers depending on the points you're playing at.

Also, some people might be inclined to limit specific units like scatterbikes. Do so or don't. Personally, I don't think scatterbikes are "non-fluffy" for eldar. Powerful? Yes. But also certainly fluffy. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Also a point: No matter what you do, no matter what rules you make, or if you do or don't say "bring a fluffy list", strategic, competitive players will always bring the most strategic, competitive list that fits within the rules you set out before them. They are therefor more likely to win in any given event than a "fluffy" player. That's just the way it is, and that is immutable. Similar to an NFL football player playing with average joe's. The NFL guy has made it his business knowing the game, and being very good at it. Subsequently ruling against them, or otherwise bashing them for being a strategic thinker/good player is morally and ethically wrong.