1 hour ago, Kodos said:

40k tournaments have changed a lot in the last years and it is not as relaxed as it was back in 5th, even in not so serious events.

It also has an official size now and it is hard to get people into playing anything else than the official 2k points in 2.5 hours with the problem that most games end turn 3 because they ran out of time.

You might be right, but at the same time the last tournament I played in was 1,850 points and that was only last year. Or the year before maybe? I forget.

I guess what drives home the difference for me is that if you cruise on over to a 40K forum and check some of the battle reports, there is more of a size bracket, than a uniform game size. Games seem to vary in size from 1,500 to 2,500, with some people playing bigger or smaller games. By contrast, practically EVERY battle report for X Wing or Armada or Legion adheres to the official FFG size limits. Some people buck the trend but you can usually count them on one hand.

Everyone seems to take the FFG tournament system as gospel, as if it were the only way to play the game, the only way to run a tournament, and it's just bizarre. I'm purely an observer, I have no interest in playing in a tournament, partly BECAUSE of the attitude FFG promotes with their tournaments (like, it's serious business) and the way that affects the players, turning X Wing into Combo Wing and making it into more of a card/dice game in which the miniatures were an afterthought. Hopefully with the reboot they can finally get some more Star Wars into their flagship game, but we'll see. And I don't play the 'tournament' version of any of FFG's games because I play them for the lore. Star Wars is what drew me in, not manipulating game mechanics to try and win tournaments. So when I play X Wing or Armada it's usually with odd sized games, often with off-the-wall missions, narrative style games, campaigns, whatever. So I don't really have any skin in the game on this one. It would just be nice to see more diversity from the players, and less strict adherence to the FFG way of play.

2 hours ago, Chucknuckle said:

You might be right, but at the same time the last tournament I played in was 1,850 points and that was only last year. Or the year before maybe? I forget.

I guess what drives home the difference for me is that if you cruise on over to a 40K forum and check some of the battle reports, there is more of a size bracket, than a uniform game size. Games seem to vary in size from 1,500 to 2,500, with some people playing bigger or smaller games. By contrast, practically EVERY battle report for X Wing or Armada or Legion adheres to the official FFG size limits. Some people buck the trend but you can usually count them on one hand.

Everyone seems to take the FFG tournament system as gospel, as if it were the only way to play the game, the only way to run a tournament, and it's just bizarre. I'm purely an observer, I have no interest in playing in a tournament, partly BECAUSE of the attitude FFG promotes with their tournaments (like, it's serious business) and the way that affects the players, turning X Wing into Combo Wing and making it into more of a card/dice game in which the miniatures were an afterthought. Hopefully with the reboot they can finally get some more Star Wars into their flagship game, but we'll see. And I don't play the 'tournament' version of any of FFG's games because I play them for the lore. Star Wars is what drew me in, not manipulating game mechanics to try and win tournaments. So when I play X Wing or Armada it's usually with odd sized games, often with off-the-wall missions, narrative style games, campaigns, whatever. So I don't really have any skin in the game on this one. It would just be nice to see more diversity from the players, and less strict adherence to the FFG way of play.

The difference is an official tournament support system on the part of FFG. GW quit supporting tournaments a decade ago (and has never returned to it afaik), so there is no central driving force to shape it in a certain direction. Hence you get whatever the local TO or players tends to want to run.

FFG provide organised support to events, so organisers and players are more likely to feel obliged to play the 'standard' way. Besides, sticking with the 'official' system is easier. Creating missions, narratives and campaigns take effort, especially in X-wing, which is designed as a relatively basic dogfighting game at it's core. Legion, as it's brand new, is even more likely to stick to the 'official' rules for initial tournaments, since no-one has had a chance to want to try much else yet.

6 minutes ago, DamianR said:

The difference is an official tournament support system on the part of FFG. GW quit supporting tournaments a decade ago (and has never returned to it afaik), so there is no central driving force to shape it in a certain direction. Hence you get whatever the local TO or players tends to want to run.

FFG provide organised support to events, so organisers and players are more likely to feel obliged to play the 'standard' way. Besides, sticking with the 'official' system is easier. Creating missions, narratives and campaigns take effort, especially in X-wing, which is designed as a relatively basic dogfighting game at it's core. Legion, as it's brand new, is even more likely to stick to the 'official' rules for initial tournaments, since no-one has had a chance to want to try much else yet.

GW has returned to supporting tournaments now.. and actually runs several. I don't play 40K as it's not my favorite sci-fi background setting, but I do play AoS (Fantasy player since early 90's) and GW has supported several tournaments including Adepticon. The change started happening as soon as Roundtree took over GW management and overall direction a couple years ago.. and they have been on fire with getting back into the community, deeper playtesting, and overall community involvement. *some* of there prices are even better than a few years ago.. still overpriced many will say, but that is a relative answer depending on the individual.

As much as that sounds like a GW fanboy response (yeah.. I do love my AoS), I am very excited for FFG and to see where this Legion ride takes us. I've been wanting a sci-fi game I can get myself into.. tried Infinity, 40K, Warzone, and a few others... but all had a few things that didn't appeal to me, enough that I didn't care to play them. Legion, so far, has all my wants that I've been looking for and now with (finally!) a direction in their tournament play, I can see myself hopping from event to event with this game, much like my love for AoS. Some of the best moments aren't even coming from the game.. it's coming from the onlookers when playing Legion as the terrain isn't like anything they've ever played on but has that familiar look, the cinematic captures their attention as they can see the stormtroopers moving in formations to capture objectives and the rebels fighting back. I can see a LOT more of that happening once FFG get's this into more conventions and critical mass will just take off from there (I hope!).

33 minutes ago, Lord Cedric said:

GW has returned to supporting tournaments now.

GW supports large events/cons, they also never stopped running events on their own (like campaign days in Warhammer World).

But only Shadespire (and soon Kill Team) has official Organised Play/Tournament support everything else has no official regulations/rules and is official not meant to be played in tournaments

1 hour ago, Kodos said:

GW supports large events/cons, they also never stopped running events on their own (like campaign days in Warhammer World).

But only Shadespire (and soon Kill Team) has official Organised Play/Tournament support everything else has no official regulations/rules and is official not meant to be played in tournaments

Support doesn't just mean having official rules for tournaments. They can be supported without having GW rules, however competitive play rules is designed for tournament and certain evet style. GW also knows well enough that their games will be played in tournaments, and has structure within their games to be played as such... meaning that their games are not meant "just" for one type of game, but for 3 types in open, narrative, and competitive. I cannot speak for 40K as I do not care about that game nor know enough about it to discuss.. but AoS I do. Shadespire is definitely designed from the ground-up with competitive tournament support, as you mentioned.. don't know about Kill Team but I can see that being 40K's shadepire-esque counterpart. I do see your point, however, in not having an actual TO pack and would be great if GW would design their own in that regard.. but for a company to support tournament play, an actual pack isn't absolute depending on other support given. Is it universal? No, and is why each GW event you attend will have variations which, to many, is refreshing and does not get stale, albeit at least familiar. But it's not a world-wide rules set and maybe that's what you are referring to?

That said, I much prefer a Tournament Organization pack and like how FFG does theirs. A part of me wishes that others do not copy FFG as I'd like to think of what they are doing are their own.

Out of curiosity and going with the topic of this thread.. what do you think of the Legion TO rules? Any changes you'd like to see right off from print?

5 minutes ago, Lord Cedric said:

No, and is why each GW event you attend will have variations which, to many, is refreshing and does not get stale, albeit at least familiar. But it's not a world-wide rules set and maybe that's what you are referring to?

Something like that
But the rules for different tournaments are different in a "refreshing but familiar" sense but different in "different unit restrictions and scenarios". A top tier ETC list will have no chance in ITC, and an ITC list can be illegal for ETC (no ForgeWorld allowed) while some tournaments have their own rules.

It maybe interesting for some people that the same list cannot be played at 2 different tournaments but if I have a list I like I don't want to constantly change it

11 minutes ago, Lord Cedric said:

but for 3 types in open, narrative, and competitive. I cannot speak for 40K

40k has open, narrative and matched play, open as bring anything you want, narrative as play a specific scenario and matched play with a pre set point level.
there is nothing official for competitive (with the ITC being close as they have direct contact to GW and make the playtesting for them)

21 minutes ago, Lord Cedric said:

Support doesn't just mean having official rules for tournaments

of course they could support them in another way, but except for big cons in the USA they don't care about them (the is something like a World Championship for 40k done without any kind of support from GW)
So even if I have my problems with the FFG rules in some details, there is actually support for competitive events which is a big advantage

10 minutes ago, Kodos said:

Something like that
But the rules for different tournaments are different in a "refreshing but familiar" sense but different in "different unit restrictions and scenarios". A top tier ETC list will have no chance in ITC, and an ITC list can be illegal for ETC (no ForgeWorld allowed) while some tournaments have their own rules.

It maybe interesting for some people that the same list cannot be played at 2 different tournaments but if I have a list I like I don't want to constantly change it

40k has open, narrative and matched play, open as bring anything you want, narrative as play a specific scenario and matched play with a pre set point level.
there is nothing official for competitive (with the ITC being close as they have direct contact to GW and make the playtesting for them)

of course they could support them in another way, but except for big cons in the USA they don't care about them (the is something like a World Championship for 40k done without any kind of support from GW)
So even if I have my problems with the FFG rules in some details, there is actually support for competitive events which is a big advantage

Ah. Yep, I get where you are coming from and can see that side of it. For me, I really dislike using the exact same list every time. It's boring and not enough variety from tourney to tourney which is why I like different set of "refreshing but familiar" each event I attend. But that's a personal statement and not meant as "this is how it should be". The great thing about GW events is that you can find ones that have your style of playing and not conform to play in those you don't like. Events that have a standard TO pack like ITC, FFG, etc has a certain level of expectation as each game/tourney you know what the rules will be (for the most part) and that is a comfort to those who would rather focus on their same army and not have to alter it nor have to memorize a new set of rules or regulations.

FFG does have a decent TO pack for OP. While SoS and MoV are controversal in fairness, the rest is pretty good in my opinion. What I like most is, for example X-Wing, is that there is a plethora of list possibilities. Meta will decide which of those lists will be seen the most, but there should be some differences as the number of players and the number of possible lists is staggering (balance aside.. meaning I like the IDEA and ruleset of it... balancing could be better for more broad range of tourney lists.. hoping 2.0 helps with that). Legion is so new that even the core set units are not yet stale overall.. we just need more units (I know, be patient, they are coming. hehe) for even more varying lists - in my opinion.

Finally had some time to read the T. Regs a little closer and, for the most part, think they are fine.

I would have liked to see a Setup similar to Runewars with the TO determining the Objective, Deployment, and Condition for all players each round, based on the legal cards for that Season. I think it would have added the ability to use Victory Points as a tie-breaker, either straight VP or as a MoV mechanic. I believe they didn't go with this method because the devs or OP staff feel that the Battle Card selection mechanic is an integral part of the game. I do find that part of the game interesting, personally.

I think my biggest issue with Tournament Points is that a victory by eliminating your opponents units is equal to one based on Victory Points scored. This feels like it flies in the face of all the statements made by FFG that Legion is "an objective based game", which was one of the selling points that I found appealing, as did most of the players in my local area.

We don't really know how prevalent victories by opponent elimination will be yet and it may be a moot point. I know I haven't "tabled" an opponent, nor have I been tabled, in the dozen or so games I've played...yet.

16 minutes ago, NeonWolf said:

Finally had some time to read the T. Regs a little closer and, for the most part, think they are fine.

I would have liked to see a Setup similar to Runewars with the TO determining the Objective, Deployment, and Condition for all players each round, based on the legal cards for that Season. I think it would have added the ability to use Victory Points as a tie-breaker, either straight VP or as a MoV mechanic. I believe they didn't go with this method because the devs or OP staff feel that the Battle Card selection mechanic is an integral part of the game. I do find that part of the game interesting, personally.

I think my biggest issue with Tournament Points is that a victory by eliminating your opponents units is equal to one based on Victory Points scored. This feels like it flies in the face of all the statements made by FFG that Legion is "an objective based game", which was one of the selling points that I found appealing, as did most of the players in my local area.

We don't really know how prevalent victories by opponent elimination will be yet and it may be a moot point. I know I haven't "tabled" an opponent, nor have I been tabled, in the dozen or so games I've played...yet.

Yeah, I'm trying to figure out how you match up the strength of a win when one scenario (Key positions) can give you 3 points where another (intercept the transmissions) can give you 12 points.

Personally I think that it's going to be harder to "table" an opponent if they're playing the objectives and you're out to just kill them. The objectives are spread out enough that the person playing the objectives and avoid you while you have to concentrate your forces. At leas that's been my experience. Whenever my opponent loses sight of the objectives and states trying to rack up kills I win every time.

11 hours ago, DerBaer said:

You should not hand out participation prizes to someone, who did not participate in ALL rounds of swiss. After all, that participation prize is there for actually participating in a tournament, not for participating in one or two rounds of a tournament. 

If they pay the cover fee, they get a participation prize. If they want to leave early, they're more than welcome to. I'm not going to force someone to stay to stay, you don't grow a community that way.

4 hours ago, Kodos said:

So even if I have my problems with the FFG rules in some details, there is actually support for competitive events which is a big advantage

The reason I first mentioned FFG vs GW in this regard is because I don't consider FFG's support for competitive play to be an advantage. If anything, I consider it to be a significant DISadvantage.

4 hours ago, Lord Cedric said:

The great thing about GW events is that you can find ones that have your style of playing and not conform to play in those you don't like.

The more important thing is how the tournament scene affects casual play. Well, more important for me because I'm a casual player.

Now, I'm lucky with my gaming group that we're all really chill. We'll just has happily play 300 points of Armada as we will 800, and we love things like Heroes of the Aturi Cluster or The Correllian Conflict. But, if I venture outside my gaming group for a game of Armada, the suggestion that we play anything other than a 400 point tournament style game is met with shock, confusion and resistance. The same for X Wing. All casual games of X Wing are played at 100 points with precisely six rocks. Hence the descriptor 100/6.

Now while that does mean you can always take the same list to X Wing events and never have to worry about the specifics of that event (where some GW events have specific limitations) it's also stifling. Playing the same scenario, with the same sized list and the same terrain, over and over for the rest of eternity? My god, kill me now. Armada and Legion add a little longevity to their "this game is boring now" timeline by adding in the objective cards instead of insisting on a single deathmatch scenario like X Wing does, but even then playing the game at the same size, using the same pool of objectives, and never ever changing it makes me groan just at the thought of it.

Because players, even those who have never and will never attend a tournament, like to do things the 'official' way. Like they COULD attend a tournament. So, given that there is no single official way to play 40K, there is no standard in the casual scene. There's a lot more variety, and players are a lot more open to discussion when it comes to scenarios and game size. That freedom doesn't always get utilised, but it's nice to know I can suggest to a player that we use 1,000 points, or 1,500, or 2,000, or whatever, and their reaction isn't "but y tho?" and then you have to explain yourself. But as soon as you say "there is only one way to play this game in official events" then that's how everyone plays. Even the casuals. And trying to use the rules to do anything else, even as simple as changing the points limit for the game, meets a lot of resistance.

That's why, with Legion as a new game, I would LOVE to see an alternative tournament system spring up. Even something as simple as saying "hey, we're going to keep all the FFG rules but we're going to use a different scoring system". Just something to show people that it's ok to not use the official play standards in every game. Ideally I'd love to see the 40K tournament scene mirrored in Legion: Different events with different scoring rules, different scenarios, different game sizes, etc. To really get that diversity happening.

The problem is, you as a TO go to arrange something different, and you get derision.

I know because I TRY.

...

There is a prevelation of thought that basically goes “the game is designed this way”. And doing something else is —inherently biasing— the game in one direction or not.

Snd unroll all design elements are known, people won’t jnow or will just assume on what elements there are, and it introduces a feeling of unfairness.

Unfairness in “pick up”, “meet up” or “random” games is generally unacceptable - it’s not on the most part considered fun for both players.

If you want different and assymetrucal scenarios - plan them ahead of time with a group of people who understand .

The rest of us will have to rely on a solidly designed and inherently fair and balanced game and tournament system.

Selling “unfairness” is... hard. Even when it’s only implied and not explicit

I mean, I set up a 500pt Armada Tournament here, because people specifically asked for the chance to try CC style lists in a competitive environment without having to play through 8 weeks of CC to do so.

Interest has been... muted.

Im actually going to lose money on it, despite assurances.

22 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

The problem is, you as a TO go to arrange something different, and you get derision.

I know because I TRY.

...

There is a prevelation of thought that basically goes “the game is designed this way”. And doing something else is —inherently biasing— the game in one direction or not.

Snd unroll all design elements are known, people won’t jnow or will just assume on what elements there are, and it introduces a feeling of unfairness.

Unfairness in “pick up”, “meet up” or “random” games is generally unacceptable - it’s not on the most part considered fun for both players.

If you want different and assymetrucal scenarios - plan them ahead of time with a group of people who understand .

The rest of us will have to rely on a solidly designed and inherently fair and balanced game and tournament system.

Selling “unfairness” is... hard. Even when it’s only implied and not explicit

I mean, I set up a 500pt Armada Tournament here, because people specifically asked for the chance to try CC style lists in a competitive environment without having to play through 8 weeks of CC to do so.

Interest has been... muted.

Im actually going to lose money on it, despite assurances.

And this is exactly why I don't like the tournament scene for FFG games. Once they declare that there is only one way to run a tournament version of their games, then anything that deviates from that is seen as wrong or unfair. Which of course it isn't, but people still don't like doing it. I would vastly prefer if they had never released tournament guidelines at all, and restricted their support of the tournament scene to prize packs only.

14 minutes ago, Chucknuckle said:

And this is exactly why I don't like the tournament scene for FFG games. Once they declare that there is only one way to run a tournament version of their games, then anything that deviates from that is seen as wrong or unfair. Which of course it isn't, but people still don't like doing it. I would vastly prefer if they had never released tournament guidelines at all, and restricted their support of the tournament scene to prize packs only.

Prize packs without structure don’t... usually get used ascorize packs then. At least in histories of games that have tried it.’

Tgat was a cited reason behind the OP system in specific when it was created... it had to support the stores wijtouth just being a product.

Packs that are just packs without framework, when it is left to retailers, are generally just bought, split and eBay’d, unless there is done framework that encourages - and supports - support.

On terrain and 40K Comparison.

A group I am in just posted a picture of some of the 40K Tables at the London GT.

That's insane!!

No, not that the terrain is rubbish, but that it is table number 163!!

I don't know if it is Table 163 of Warhammer40k, or Table 163 for the entire event.

As someone pointed out, if its Table 163 of 40k, then that means 326 players, and 16,300GBP in Entrance Fees paid.

I mean, its not significantly larger than the biggest tournaments I've helped run in Australia (224 players)... And given that its not only Northern Hemi, but the home of 40K sort of thing... It would make sense.

That terrain is pretty rubbish, but at the same time when you've got to come up with that much terrain you pretty much take what you can get.

10 minutes ago, Chucknuckle said:

That terrain is pretty rubbish, but at the same time when you've got to come up with that much terrain you pretty much take what you can get.

Or you don't oversell a Tournament to the point where you need to scrape that bottom of the barrel.

At least, with the profits involved, the next year should be... Different.

Yeah, it's a pretty poor show from a GT. At least it's not as bad as the 2D terrain you see in Warmachine tournaments *shudders*

11 minutes ago, Chucknuckle said:

Yeah, it's a pretty poor show from a GT. At least it's not as bad as the 2D terrain you see in Warmachine tournaments *shudders*

At least their rules are built and written around such a thing... IE, its not only allowed, but encouraged and has rules support for it.

Just now, Drasnighta said:

At least their rules are built and written around such a thing... IE, its not only allowed, but encouraged and has rules support for it.

It's still a travesty. They might as well be pushing around empty bases with 'warjack' written on them.

2 minutes ago, Chucknuckle said:

It's still a travesty. They might as well be pushing around empty bases with 'warjack' written on them.

Some do.

The rules can deal with that.

I would love to see FFG come up with some Star Wars terrain construction kits that are versatile enough so that players can buy lots of them and build lots of “official” stuff. (things like hexagon, platformer, cyber clicks, from Pegasus and Tehnolog)

40 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Some do.

The rules can deal with that.