Tournament Regulations are up

[Drasnighta 26,832]

2 minutes ago, Chucknuckle said:

Some people just want to play.

 

They don’t want to build, paint, or do anything like that...

They just want to play.

 

... it’s Not unlike the desire to play assymertic or scenario based games instead of tournament games. 

Some just want to do that.

Right?

[Chucknuckle 2,811]

Just now, Drasnighta said:

Some people just want to play.

 

They don’t want to build, paint, or do anything like that...

They just want to play.

 

... it’s Not unlike the desire to play assymertic or scenario based games instead of tournament games. 

Some just want to do that.

Right?

Sure. But pushing bits of cardboard with [unit name] written on it around other bits of cardboard with [terrain type] written on it makes baby jesus cry.

Definitely not for me.

 

[Kodos 36]

9 hours ago, Chucknuckle said:

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

This depends on the local players and not if there are rules for tournaments

Never had it seen that it was a problem to play different in casual games for X-Wing. It would be more a problem to get those 40k players to play without the local tournaments restriction or use the rulebook scenarios instead, as they consider it unplayable. But the casual gamers in general don't care.

 

4 hours ago, Chucknuckle said:

It's still a travesty

the advantage of area terrain is that there is always enough on the table, while using only real 3D terrain gives us thise ugly and empty tables like on the picture

[Chucknuckle 2,811]

15 minutes ago, Kodos said:

the advantage of area terrain is that there is always enough on the table, while using only real 3D terrain gives us thise ugly and empty tables like on the picture

Ideally, even 'flat' area terrain like swamps or ponds should be modelled, IMO. As dire as those 40K tables were, I'd rather play on them than use 2D terrain.

[Kodos 36]

If the rules don't support 2D terrain it makes no difference if there is a modelled swamp or no swamp at all.

And no, I would never play on a table were the tactic is hidding behind los blocker until you see the chance to wipe out your opponent in a single turn. It just looks good but is not fun to play is not my kind of game

I have enough 3D terrain for X-WING, but the game is fine with the 2D terrain out of the core box

[Chucknuckle 2,811]

Just now, Kodos said:

If the rules don't support 2D terrain it makes no difference if there is a modelled swamp or no swamp at all.

And no, I would never play on a table were the tactic is hidding behind los blocker until you see the chance to wipe out your opponent in a single turn. It just looks good but is not fun to play is not my kind of game

I have enough 3D terrain for X-WING, but the game is fine with the 2D terrain out of the core box

Depends. Most games facilitate terrain which doesn't affect line of sight, but impedes movement.

And I agree that X Wing plays fine with the cardboard terrain, but how much better is it with 3D terrain!

[Ken on Cape 263]

1 hour ago, Chucknuckle said:

Depends. Most games facilitate terrain which doesn't affect line of sight, but impedes movement.

And I agree that X Wing plays fine with the cardboard terrain, but how much better is it with 3D terrain!

From what I seen of some of the 3D astroids, ect., X wing is a rare game where its better with the 2D terrain.    Because it matters if the base touches the terrain, not the ship model.  The 3D terrain will just be in the way, and the 3D terrain I've seen have a base thats not in the shape of the piece of terrain. 

[Chucknuckle 2,811]

The asteroids I've seen used for X Wing have bases the shape of the asteroid templates, and the stand-and-rock assembly either clips on or is magnetised. 

[Kodos 36]

I use Lava Stones that are smaller than the glued on cardboard (I have some on a clear flight stand that I place on the cardboard but they are a problem with some ships)

On 5/20/2018 at 10:45 AM, Chucknuckle said:

Depends. Most games facilitate terrain which doesn't affect line of sight, but impedes movement

there are not a lot games out there that use TLOS, and most games I know with 2D terrain have rules for area terrain that affect line of sight independent on how the terrain looks like (eg, a wood always blocks LOS for Infantry and Large Infantry sized models no matter how many trees are physically there on the table)

[Derrault 1,091]

On 5/19/2018 at 7:26 PM, 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.

Nobody has to follow the official rules for their ad how tournaments, but it would be absurd not to have ones for the tournaments that count. 

[Chucknuckle 2,811]

Just now, Derrault said:

Nobody has to follow the official rules for their ad how tournaments, but it would be absurd not to have ones for the tournaments that count. 

It’s absurd to have a distinction between ones that do and ones that don’t.

[Derrault 1,091]

Just now, Chucknuckle said:

It’s absurd to have a distinction between ones that do and ones that don’t.

Not at all. If participation credit counts towards the National FFG tournament then that counts. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t.

There’s nothing to be ashamed about enjoying games with no stakes, it doesn’t change the fact that they have no import. 

[Chucknuckle 2,811]

None of the games have any stakes. There’s no prize money! 

[Derrault 1,091]

9 minutes ago, Chucknuckle said:

None of the games have any stakes. There’s no prize money! 

Well, they do have FFG rewards.

[Chucknuckle 2,811]

And that has more 'import' than any other kind of prize support?

The only time it makes sense to use FFG tournament structure is when FFG are running the tournament. And it's important to emphasise that these games are NOT more important than other games, or that they're the only ones that count. For all other games, players should exercise their creative freedom. 

[Drasnighta 26,832]

1 hour ago, Chucknuckle said:

And that has more 'import' than any other kind of prize support?

The only time it makes sense to use FFG tournament structure is when FFG are running the tournament. And it's important to emphasise that these games are NOT more important than other games, or that they're the only ones that count. For all other games, players should exercise their creative freedom. 

No, but official FFG prize support is:

1) Relatively Cheap

2) Relatively Easy to Acquire

3) Relatively High in Desire

 

As a TO, knowing that I expect to run an 8-16 person Tournament, and basicakky only gave to outlay $20-30 for prizes (pre registration) is easy, affordable, and let’s me keep registration prices to a minimum.

OP guidelines are the price for that.

 

Its an “oddity” to have people who will play for no prizes, or prizes that are a percentage of entry fees in credit only (which in some places is legally restricted as ‘gambling by game of skill’...)...  as I’ve run into that before.