40k Tournament Armies

[me_in_japan]

While not everyone here shares Danguinius' opinon of GW, i think most, maybe even all, of us dislike overly competitive lists. I think that's why, despite the complete lack of restrictions on army building at the last nagoyahammer ("no titans" is not a restriction... ) , nobody cheezed out. We exercised our own self restraint/moral philosophy, and built an army list that we each thought was appropriate to the situation. I didnt see anyone getting pissy about anybody else's list last time, so I reckon that we're all on about the same page. No need for list building rules if we aint breaking em anyway.

[Colonel Voss]

As many of you know, I`ve grown increasingly fed up with GW and 40K over the last 2 years or so. I really disliked how vehicles - especially trasports - came to dominate in 5th Edition. I tried to buck the trend at Nagoyahammer in 2010 with my Daemon army (no vehicles) and did pretty well - but it was an uphill battle. I tried again with a no-vehicle Blood Angel army this year and did very poorly. I just think GW has long since given up on game balance and instead has learned: #1. Selling a unit with a transport makes more cash than selling only a unit. AND #2. Selling the same cheezy unit three time makes more money than selling a balanced unit once.

I wanted to end the rant there...but one more point: This is also why GW takes so long to update their codices. It`s not that they can`t do it. It`s that they don`t want to do it. GW wants you to watch your army get weaker as a result of codex creep, get frustrated, give up, and then start a 2nd (3rd, 4th, etc.) army. That`s the best way for them to make cash long-term. Of course, this creates great imbalances in game play...but they don`t care. Compare this to WM/H where the armies are constantly updated at the same time and each new release is created with overall game balance in mind. Look at it this way, what in Wrath invalidated older models/rules. (Not only PP, but certainly the most prominent now...) Privateer Press seems to be wargames by gamers for gamers; GW seems to be wargames by shareholders for gamers/kids.

I just want to touch on this a little bit. I'm not going to completely disagree, but I do think it was a matter of lack of foresight on what the rule change from fourth to fifth would cause. After the flaw was discovered, instead of correcting, they just embraced it. Given that they use a fairly open system for army creation (compared to FoW with it's organization chart which I quickly found I preferred) and you have a recipe for disaster. Another thing I've noticed is the emphasis on sudden domination. Massed Imperial Guard artillery first thing out of the gate will hurt any army, fast moving blood angels and grey knights on the first turn will throw anyone on the back heel (my match vs the blood angels was a nightmare as he had the center first turn and I was left with almost no room to come down). Special characters that are must take (how many had dante and one had dante and memphiston) are also a sour point.

The second part, again I agree somewhat. To me though, it seems like GW focuses on their money making armies for 40k, throwing out new toys and new codexes often to keep the sales up and then throwing bones to the rest every now and then to get the hype up and a splurge on a new army.

I've recently realized that I won't be gaming often no matter how hard I try and that has caused a lifting of pressure for me. I don't have to worry about focusing on hype or lists or even if I will play with this army as much as just building the armies I am interested in to the points I like.

[Admiral-Badruck]

hummmmmm

Me finks dat da trans ports iz fine me finks yooz guys all 'ave good points but me also finkes dat every so called over powered tournament list is really just a Rock Paper Scissors list one may or may not have a very good day of gaming depending on what one faces... I faced a few Blood Angels armies with my Tau and while the games were fun my vehicles did not really get much done they helped out but I hate to think of what I would have done with out them... if I would have faced a foot guard list or a footdar list light or dark I would have had no problem I all could have hacked an ork meck list... any deamon army would have been a toss up but I ended up having a good game with against the nids getting crushed by a jump pack Blood angle army and nearly beating a footdar-light list...would have been an easy win but I lost because I could not hurt the Wraithlords... like MIJ said I do not think our tournament lists in Japan are Over powered or cheezy.. I mean I did not take 3 Battal wagons full of Nobs and Gaz Gul Thraka with Snickrot and a big mek with KFF but I could have...

[me_in_japan]

far be it from me to ever come to the defence of GW, but I feel I have to point out a small but important point that a lot of people seem to overlook.

40k is not, and has never been, about tournaments. GW do provide a certain amount of support for the tournament circuit (e.g. http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/conte ... eMode=true) but note the line "The circuit is made up predominantly of Independent Tournaments from around North America which are put on by gaming clubs or groups." i.e. not GW.

Any time I've ever heard the game designers talk about the 40k rules (at any point in the game's history) they have only ever been designing the game to be fun, and for folks to have a muck about with their mates, preferably with a bit of narrative thrown in. Competitive tourney balance is not something theyve ever been interested in, and i dont think its fair for people to criticize them when their games lack it.

I know some people like 40k, and also like competetive tourneys. Unfortunately the two are not mutually agreeable. Never have been. This is not GWs fault. Lots of people are trying to force 40k into a shape it was never intended to be. If it doesnt fit what you want it to be, go and find something else that does. Chess, for example. Personally, I rather like the fluffy narrative style of game.

[Primarch]

@ Badruck - Tau transports are overpriced compared to other armies. For 25 points less than 1 devilfish, guard can bring a Chimera which has 36" range guns compared to your 18", and that are either a higher strength or better AP. It also has 5 firepoints making it great for troops to fire out of. There is a reason they didnt do a lot in game. Devilfish are quite possibly the worst transport in the game being undergunned and overpriced. They are useful, but when Chimera became dirt cheap AND more effective (and with a better choice of contents) IG went from being the worst army in the game to being top tier. Likewise razorback heavy wolves/angels are hard to beat too.
You're right though, most cheesey armies are very rock paper scissors, but as Voss said, an army which can nail you on the first turn is hard to beat, which is what made the IG Leafblower so nasty. If the pie plates and autocannons hit on turn 1, then you had no way to stop the melta carrying veterans from cleaning you up on turn 2. Assuming you had lots of anti-tank guns (e.g. lances, rail guns etc) you had the 'paper' to the IG 'rock,' then you could beat it, but then your own list isn't take all comers and would get stomped hard by a fast foot army e.g. a 'Nid swarm.
Having tried a Leafblower-Lite army against M_i_J and Spevna (3 way game that very quickly became 2 vs 1), I'm sure they'll testify to it's effectiveness.
As I have said, I am not a fan of tourneys in general and I certainly dont want to play in any back home as spam lists aren't what I would have fun playing against. As Frans suggested, there are ways to fix that, but they generally involve adding a ton more rules (many of which are based on the TO's opinion).
NagoyaHammer wont have a soft scoring system, but next year anyone turning up with well over 400 points of named characters incurs a free kick in their 'soft bits' from any opponent they play against.

[frans]

I know some people like 40k, and also like competetive tourneys. Unfortunately the two are not mutually agreeable. Never have been.

From my experience there is not a big problem in making 40k tournament friendly, I would guess that I attend 4 and organize 2 every year. Why this tournaments negativity? First of all the amount of whining go on in the American forum (dakka dakka, bolter and chainsaw, BoLs lounge a.s.o.), stop reading them. From my experience the loudest are the one with the least amount of experience.

The friends that I started playing with in my home town have never been to a tournament but they "know" that it will be miserable, due to things that they have read in forum. If you really hate loosing then tournaments will probably be a painful experience. Do not forget that everyone attending a tournament is a miniature player just like you and me and they are there to play against new player and having a good time.

So how do I prove that 95% of tournament is not IG mech. The following is a link to all the list to a Swedish team tournament. As always "lag husbil" won for a fourth time (IG list without chimeras).
http://svenska40k.se/forum/download/file.php?id=501

There is a completely different discussion on what is good and not but the devilfish disruption pods is probably the best vehicle equipment in 40k.

[Primarch]

There is a completely different discussion on what is good and not but the devilfish disruption pods is probably the best vehicle equipment in 40k.

I'll agree with that. Disruption pods are great. If only you could put them on decent vehicles.

[Admiral-Badruck]

the post I quoted just said transports I I guess chimeras did not really come to mind because I have never seen more than three or of them on the table at a time.

[Primarch]

the post I quoted just said transports I I guess chimeras did not really come to mind because I have never seen more than three or of them on the table at a time.

In one of the pictures linked to in the first post there is an army containing 9 Chimeras, 79 Guardsmen, 3 Vendettas and 26 BS4 melta guns.

[Danguinius]

Ouch, that many BS 4 meltaguns will ruin anyone`s day!

Maybe this deserves another thread, because it`s drifting a bit from the original topic, but the only tournament we all play in is Nagoyahammer, so I think it`s relevant. More "soft scores" is just one option to keep the tourney friendly. Another idea is "highlander" where each army can only take one (max) of each army entry (i.e. no spamming). This could be extended to only one special character to prevent "unethical" choices for army lists : . Of course, exceptions could be made: Necrons only have one Troops choice, so if you want four scoring units, you need to make an exception here. But, even the Top Tier armies would be hamstrung quite a bit in a "highlander" tournament. It might also be a interesting and creative way for people to fill out their lists and play games with units that don`t usually see much table time.

I`m still in favor of the team-tournament, though . Two players, 1000 points each, would be a lot of fun.

Danguinius