Was on another board when someone asked the question : Why is it that most players have no problem fielding a unit/combo/rules glitch/playstyle in a tournement without a second thought that they would never use in a friendly game? More precisely, why do people choose to keep a different line drawn in the sand for tourney play vs all other play?

There were a few people interested in discussing it, but too many with the simple answer "it's a tourney, it's competition, so whatever I can do is okay" even though they admit to not playing this way in all other games.

What are your personal experiences with this, have you giggled at the thought of taking 8 MCs to a tourney but knew you'd be beaten and tarred and feathered by friends if you tried it at your LGS?

Do you feel that all things are a go in a tourney, because it is somehow a different game than at other times?

Just wondering, thanks

P.S. This isn't a thread on cheese, what constitutes it nor if it exists, the MC was an example that pops up but has no relavant place besides it being an example of an army some may find objectionable in friendly games.

Personally, I've always tried to play a more fair game, even in tournaments. I play the game for fun, and while some choose to take it more seriously, I get enough stress from work and preparing for the Bar exam that I'd much rather have a good time playing than make an unpleasant, terse, experience for myself and my opponents. That being said, I do play to win, and don't roll over just to have a good time playing.

Tekore

Was on another board when someone asked the question : Why is it that most players have no problem fielding a unit/combo/rules glitch/playstyle in a tournement without a second thought that they would never use in a friendly game? More precisely, why do people choose to keep a different line drawn in the sand for tourney play vs all other play?

I would say because other people in tourneys usually do it, so in order to compete in most cases you have to do it too if you want to win.
Friendly games are about having a good time. Some of these units, combos, etc are effective, but not that fun because it tends to disrupt the game's balance. Also you can afford to use your fluffy armies or more unusual units in friendly games since your opponent probably won't be fielding an army intended to utterly annihilate all of its foes.

From a personal standpoint, I had trouble for a long time expressing why exactly I wanted to keep casual and tourney play separate. Then it hit me - I typically like to win but only if I felt that my opponent had an equal chance of doing the same. Slaughtering people in casual play strikes me not only as unsportsmanlike but very boring as well. In a competition, however, it would make sense to give yourself an equal chance of winning considering that everyone else will be attempting to abuse their preferred armies to the greatest exent. If only this weren't the case, but that's the way that tournaments seem to pan out. They are tournaments after all.

That being said, I can sort of understand why people would want to play to win all the time, even in friendy games. It can actually be beneficial and force players to improve themselves in order to catch up with the power curve, however, this also assumes that the local attitude towards such things is favorable. Where I play, people don't generally approve of playing to win All The Time. At the very least, it's nice to inform someone if you're going to be playing a list that is quite nasty so that perhaps they can prepare accordingly, or it will cushion the blow when they get smacked around.

If you're playing to win, you take a competitive army. Quite often you'll only being playing a person at a tournament once, and you won't know them so well (thus mitigating the emotional impact of grinding some poor sod into the dirt). While the people on the top tables might be more familiar with each other, they're the sort of people who are so competitive that they know what to expect (particularly as they'll be taking something similar), and just get on with it.

In a club's environment (with the same people each week), it's a different social setting. Nothing is getting recorded and the environment is more relaxed. You turn up with some uber power super lean army of the apocalypse when the guy across from you just wants a way to unwind, then he's going to be a bit narked at having his army steamrollered - he's the wargaming equivalent of a punching bag.

Personally, my armies do not vary between club and tournament. I build strong armies, but not the point that they're horrendously overpowered. I tend to take the units I like and see what I can do with them. The club play informs the tournament play, except that I'm even more ruthless in a tournament ;) (particularly if my opponent is a powergaming loon, in which case he gets no mercy from me at all).

Well, for me, I am just around for the fun and there's definately some fun in competitive tournaments.

I like friendly games for the possibility of experimentation. Trying new tactics, new unit combinations with my main armies, or using those silly units that nobody gives a second thought. Like the new Chaos Spawn. Fortunately, the guys I play with are really cool with using lots of proxy models.

I havn't been in that many tournaments to give a good answer to this, but I would agree with the mentality that in tournaments you expect to field very competetive armies and thus you have to bring one of your own to stay on an equal level.
Casual gaming is, for me, an occasion to do something that me and my friends enjoy and have a good time doing it. I don't make 'bad' lists just to have a very equal game if my opponent is less experienced than me, I just try to keep the atmosphere at a casual level and make sure both enjoys it. Some times though, I have to battle some real gits. Then it is no-holds, all-out beatings that I deliver (or at least try too!). :D

Personally, my armies do not vary between club and tournament. I build strong armies, but not the point that they're horrendously overpowered. I tend to take the units I like and see what I can do with them.

Rork speaks ze truth! I played him last July, and while his army certainly was powerful it didn't feel overpowered or 'cheesy'. I had a great game while he plowed through my forces (although his Dire Avengers were wussies).

In our minds, it all boils down to one simple concept.

Those that I play against in friendly environment are the same people that I talk to on a regular basis, have dinner with, joke about random movies, and pretty much call my buddies. They're the people that I get to see, and they're the ones that will remember that I brought Cheesy Army #15 to game night and made a good attempt at ruining their fun. These are the people that I strive to give a good game too, because good games are the best ones to talk about afterwards.

Tournaments, however, are different. Joe Schmoe across the table is someone that I've never met and probably won't ever see again, unless it just happens to be at another tournament down the line. It's cut throat, because the people you're playing are just nameless faces; people in your way, there to be slaughtered on your way to victory. It's war, people, and war is a bloody business.

The lines get muddier when you go to war against your friends, but even in those cases, I'm more likely to think of an unsanctioned club tournament another set of games between friends, and I treat it accordingly.

Granted I have yet to participate in an "official" tourney, I have seen a difference in players' attitudes among other venues. Back when the Halo LAN parties were all the rage, sportsmanship and the like were observed at our own events, even though we played to win. But I was shocked and appalled by the behavior on display at tournaments and/or when money was on the line. Really, the attitudes were disgusting; sportsmanship went out the window.Pure stress and tension. I always made it a point afterwards to distance myself from people who put money on videogames.

Granted, videogames are an extreme example of this. I am very glad to have joined the ranks of 40k players, where even the biggest douchebags can still be pretty civil.

Most people who enter tournaments understand that it is a competion and they are there to compete. The answer to this question is contained within the definitions of the words.

Competition is essentially striving for something for which someone else is also striving for. Now, would one truely be striving if they did not do everything that they could, within the rules, in order to reach their goal?

No (although it was rhetoric, I felt compeled to reinforce this).

This would indeed include, so called, cheesing out an army, exploiting non-sensicle rules and gramatical loop holes for which GW are so famous for.

A tournament is a competative platform for wargaming and a friendly game is just that.
It is possible to enter a tournament for fun, but this is not competing and that is not why the majority of people are there.

I've never really understood people's tournament attitudes. If I ever take a cheesy list or abuse the rules at a tournament I get tarred, feathered and disqualified (Australian tourneys are like that). However if I did it to my friends they'd all just strive harder to beat me and tailor lists to kill me. Or if we're playing a free for all they all just gang up on me. It would all still be for fun though as its fun arguing with each other over rules like that and figuring out how to beat cheesy lists.

Come tourney time though my 1st priority is always 'will this list annoy people? its not cheesy but many people will have misconceptions and think its cheese?'
If so I alter my list to try and make it as balanced as possible and leave things like harlequins and holo-fields at home that people hate whether they're overpowered or not.

I don't actually play to win in tourneys... well... I do... I just haven't mastered it yet...

See, tourney play is different to playing just normal games against your mates because... well its all been said by everyone already.. your playing people who you don't know.
It's also different because winning doesn't just mean having a good list or tactics... its how you act too. In order to win at tourneys, to get to the top tables, you pretty much have to put your friendly style of play away in a box for a while. You have to be able to have the balls to say to other players who you know might be bending the rules, or pushing those extra few mm for charge range, "Oi, don't do that."

Most people don't like confrontation with other people, and its the same in anything you do, even wargaming. You don't want to get into fights or arguements with your oppoents over a game thats supposed to be fun right?
Thats where top table tourney play differs to friendly play. The attitude and the style of play.

And by attitude, I don't mean being a **** either. I mean just having back bone to stand up for your chances of furthering yourself in the tourney.
Its easy for people who haven't played in GTs to say that tourney play is all cheesy and the players are all evil... but sometimes I think people can forget that tourney players have to pay for their entry tickets... and if its a GW tourney... they aren't cheap either.
If I spend £55 on a GT ticket I WANT to be able to do the best I can. (Of course not at the expense of fun... but then, thats my problem in tourney play, and its why I wont get to the top tables anytime soon... I'm too nice.)

Hmmm, I don't ever feel that I have a tournament army and a casual army, I built my lists to what I like and to what I think will be effective. Which is not always the case. My most recent army list, Is hardish but not over powering.

So I say people should build lists on what they like.

Thanks guys! Love the comments and experiences. Someone said in the other thread "The point of the game is to win, the purpose of the game is to have fun".

Some of what I hear speaks to exactly what I'm talking about, and I thank you for staying on topic or addressing the post.

While I know that tourney's are by their very nature competative, it just seems that some people undergo a metamorphosis like a werewolf under the full moon, and become slavering, drooling, obsessed beasts out for blood and gloating rights, when at all other times they are enjoyable gents to play, that don't try and steal the fun out of it for everyone.

I have no problem myself playing against competative people, I really don't think many people choose to play less than their best in friendly games. You may or may not be more willing to let certain things slide (do overs?), or take a less optimal list, but I'm sure you still go for the throat if you get the chance. So why is it that competition does this to most, if not all of us?

The way i see it mate, it isnt about cheese, all gamers have a Jeckle and Hyde personai. And of course we all want to win right? You have put it in a very well stated opninion. For example would one just want to play with a shooty Tau army in a tourney or bring in a $2,000 iyanden ghost army. Your tournament style of play will have a great difference from your local game store options.

I play my army the same weather I'm in a tourny or not. When I'm just playing a pickup game at Gw I tend to help my opponent if they're new, and it's a little laxer than usual. I'll stop for a smoke or a soda. In a tourny I play to win, no freebies, take no prisoners.

For me it's easy, when i play with friends, i play because of the game and i'm loose with the rules because i want the game to last longer = i'm having fun.

On a tournament i play to win, not just for the prize or the honour, but because it's a challenge to myself, i want to do as good as possible, completly wipe my opponent form the table! ;Y

I don't play differently in friendly games or in tournaments nor do i build my lists differently. I build my lists to win and so does everyone that i play against we all have a good time with it. I think we have so much fun because we all play to win after all winning is the point of the game.

I've only played in one small local combat patrol tournament, and I didn't feel any want or need to change how I field my armies or try to optimize the list (I fielded a vindicare assassin within the 400 pt limit). In 2 out of the 3 battles, I saved my opponent from doing rather stupid things, but they were pretty new I think. I always try to tell my opponent when they can get an advantage, or say stuff like "you know, those bolters won't touch my front armor on my chimera, but move your unit off to one side, and you can glance my sides on a roll of 6". So I'd say I probably try to defeat myself as much as my opponent does, but I'm there for fun only, so what do I care? I'd rather take on fighting an informed opponent who knows what I expect him to know and ask rather than roll right through laughing meniacally (I can't laugh meniacally anyways).

on a side note: I still ended with 2 wins and a tie, which is amazing for me and my daemonhunters

I do change my play in tournaments from regular play, but it's not so much in army lists or trying to win/have fun (I TRY to do both in every game I play) but rather in tightness of game play.

What I mean by that is not taking any liberties with the rules, speed of play, and clear marking of what I declare and phases. If playing my nids in a friendly game, when a unit is no where near my opponent, I'll often move once, rolling the fleet distance and then just moving to save time and effort. In a tourney I keep to strict movement phase/shooting phase for it. If I forget to move a unit and go on to the shooting phase it's my bad luck. If I move some troops up, but didn't leave quite enough room to fit a vehicle through the two squads, my vehicle is stuck back there, I don't bump the troops out of the way. I ensure that none of my troops move more then their allotted movement, including the ones trailing off in the back. Not moving 1/2 of a gaunt unit, the moving the ravager blocked in the center, then moving the rest of the gaunts. Etc etc etc.

I guess for me tournament play is more about playing tightly, discussing rules in advance with organizers/opponents (for example shadow in the warp vs runes of witnessing) and good play etiquette.

I fid it very frustrating when people take little advantages in the game. 6.1 inches of movement. 1 model in a squad on a larger base to get more distance when disembarking. Moving through your own models to get a shot that you couldn't get if you moved around. Because these things irritate me, I try my best to make sure I don't do them or similar thing myself.

In a normal game I really don't care if people want to move a unit they forgot, take back something they just did once they realize it was silly, or shoot that unit they missed last turn because it was behind a hill from their table side.

I'm gonna have to say it.
I've been playing 40k for like 7 years now, only in the past 6 months have I really gotten involved with the hobby though, since then I've won like 2 games (one of which was by about 70 points), and lost a heap.

I play the game because it's fun, I don't care if I win, I just wanna blow stuff up.
If I win, I get to laugh maniacally at my enemy, because it's such a rare occurrence, but I still just have fun.

Recently I've started creating fluff, and building armies around that, just because It's interesting, and supplies harsh limitations to what the force can and cannot field (for me).

A game isn't fun if you can't lose.

I've never really understood people's tournament attitudes. If I ever take a cheesy list or abuse the rules at a tournament I get tarred, feathered and disqualified (Australian tourneys are like that). However if I did it to my friends they'd all just strive harder to beat me and tailor lists to kill me. Or if we're playing a free for all they all just gang up on me. It would all still be for fun though as its fun arguing with each other over rules like that and figuring out how to beat cheesy lists.

Come tourney time though my 1st priority is always 'will this list annoy people? its not cheesy but many people will have misconceptions and think its cheese?'
If so I alter my list to try and make it as balanced as possible and leave things like harlequins and holo-fields at home that people hate whether they're overpowered or not.

This is my experience as well. For tournaments I will generally have a "softer" army than I would against my mates. Composition scores can be a big killer in Tournaments and your better off having a less strong army.

For example would one just want to play with a shooty Tau army in a tourney

Is there another kind of Tau list?

i kid.


I guess the answer comes down to this: a competition, like a tournament, is a change to see how you rank up to ALL of the gamers in one day, not just your friends over a month. This is a defining moment for many gamers. Are they going to be better than the pack, or worse. Can they win a game of strategy on such a scale? Well, if they want to, which most people naturally do, then they will try their hardest to win. If their strategy relies on not getting assaulted by that death squad, or even those gundrones, and those drones or squad may be just out of assault range, then they will try to ensure their position by not allowing you an advantage that he could strategically take away. Of course, if you are honestly in assault range, per example, and the player still objects, then he is trying to expand his game to include manipulation of rules in order to win.

The first is holding you to the strictest of rules, and beat you using their movement, luck, and strategy. The second is them trying to beat you using their movement, luck, strategy, occasional intimidation (YOU DARE QUESTION ME!?) and rules manipulation. Basically, these people, cheaters, are not realizing the limits of the game. Everyone could cheat, or attempt to cheat, if they wanted to. But by playing the game in an official setting, you are agreeing to a set of limitations. To use these limitations to your advantage is expected, but to ignore them is abhorred. It is a fine line we walk, and not all of us can walk it.

--Shells for the Shell Throne! ---See sig.

heh isnt tau only played to outgun your opponent anywho? i'm glad you saw the humor in that. the way i see it a list can be broken down and watered down into a finely tuned list. for example i played a game against tau not to long ago and was just shot to death with fusion.


what i'm trying to say each army can be tuned into a tourney list, and then you have your casual lists for friendly banter.

I have been playing the game for about 10 years now....but i would say that I have been seriouse for the past year. I have learned in that year that I....am a bad loser. I want to win. I am that way with just about anything I play: basketball, football, Halo, pool, drinking:drinking:(lol i dont always win at that for sure) BUT!!!!!! I have fun TONS of fun in the mean time. I

I do hate to lose but I want to learn from it. What did I do wrong? What can I change?

Secondly, whether I am playing in a tourney or with friends I really strive to field a balanced army. I like the challenge of making a list that performs against any and all opponents. That is fun to me!

Lastly, I honestly hate it, and every city has this guy, that goes out of his way to exploit every rule that he can to obliterate everyone. The guy that fields an unbalaced army against a new player and the brags about beating him really bad. Oh man gets on my nerves.