Which army do you use at tournaments and why?

[Ointagru]

26 minutes ago, Deepkin said:

Why did you choose Age of Sigmar as your competitive outlet as compared to something more skill-based like chess?

It's easier to win a tournament and to pretend to be a serious player when you can just buy an army that has a competitive edge over the others. This kind of posturing is not possible in chess.

[DerZauberer]

2 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

whose goal is to win tournaments

Offtopic and in danger of derailing this discussion, but would you consider yourself as "WAAC"?
This term gets used in a very negative way and i insist on stating i dont want to be rude and i dont want to judge, like @Deepkin or @Kramer im just curious.

I would call myself quite informed on competetive AoS, but i lack the time (in form of practice) and skill to really attend any tournaments (successfully). I'm one of those people that sigh on e.g. HoS tournament wins, but cheer any "non-meta" list in the top 10 and remember the names of the people. 

I would accept that tournaments with big prize pools is dominated by meta and gatekeeper lists, because theres money on the lists and people love prizes and turn rampant for that. But on regular tournaments, with e.g. SC Boxes as prizes, if you edge out your chances by taking superior meta lists, doesn't it steal something from your victories? E.g. people thinking "yeah, congratz, easy thing with {insert broken list here}".

It would  pain me to get reduced on my list and choice of broken stuff, allthough there is much more to it (i would never win an event, even with the most broken stuff out there).

Edited December 10, 2019 by DerZauberer
Spelling!

[relic456]

30 minutes ago, DerZauberer said:

But on regular tournaments, with e.g. SC Boxes as prizes, if you edge out your chances by taking superior meta lists, doesn't it steal something from your victories?

I can't speak for @Dead Scribe or others but for me definitely not. If I'm in any Matched Play competitive tournament, my main goal is to win (legally of course). How I get there doesn't really matter. Plus how cool is it seeing two fully painted armies, regardless of meta status, crash in to each other? Tournaments are probably one of the best ways to see your army battle a wide variety of other armies on the field.

30 minutes ago, DerZauberer said:

E.g. people thinking "yeah, congratz, easy thing with {insert broken list here}".

That's entirely a problem for the person who thinks that, not me. They're projecting their feelings about the game on my performance. Plus you get used to it, people always hate on the "netdecking" equivalent.

30 minutes ago, DerZauberer said:

It would  pain me to get reduced on my list and choice of broken stuff, allthough there is much more to it (i would never win an event, even with the most broken stuff out there).

I too would probably go 2-3 with a top tier Slaanesh list, I'm a garbage player but trying to stay focused on constantly improving and getting better than worrying how people judge my performance.

I think it's relatively on topic since we're asking about WHY people bring the lists they do. A lot of different people have a million different reasons, even in something as "narrow" as tournament play. The old Magic paradigm of Spike, Timmy, and Johnny is alive and well in AoS and almost every other game. And as is often the case, most people are a combination of these characterizations.

Edited December 10, 2019 by relic456

[Kramer]

3 hours ago, Ointagru said:

It's easier to win a tournament and to pretend to be a serious player when you can just buy an army that has a competitive edge over the others. This kind of posturing is not possible in chess.

Why do you assume it’s about an outside motivator? Bad experience? Or is that what you would do? 
because all the competitive players I know don’t brag about it, don’t do it for external motivators. It’s because they like the challenge of it. 
and the comparison with chess is just wrong. Why would it be less of an achievement merely because chess is stagnant and warhammer is always changing? Seems to me you could make the argument it’s harder because you need to adapt. 
 

sorry for the tone. Just something about your comment really annoys me for some reason. 

[Deepkin]

4 minutes ago, Kramer said:

Why do you assume it’s about an outside motivator? Bad experience? Or is that what you would do? 
because all the competitive players I know don’t brag about it, don’t do it for external motivators. It’s because they like the challenge of it. 
and the comparison with chess is just wrong. Why would it be less of an achievement merely because chess is stagnant and warhammer is always changing? Seems to me you could make the argument it’s harder because you need to adapt. 
 

sorry for the tone. Just something about your comment really annoys me for some reason. 

Not the poster you quoted, but I alluded to chess, so let me explain. If your stated goal is pure competition, in my experience as a very competitive person, you'd want a reasonably fair and balanced outlet, with a large competitive community, and deep, engaging play. Chess checks all those bases and takes the form of "my army fights your army," albeit highly abstracted. Warhammer has a lot of other advantages, as both a hobby and a setting and so on, but in terms of competitive gameplay, its both very unbalanced (you can essentially "buy ELO" by purchasing a meta army because, all other things being equal, someone with an optimal HoS list versus an optimal BoC or KO list has an unmistakeable advantage) and has less competitive depth (less players, less history of the game, and more likely to encounter essentially noncompetitive players even in comp environments). 

So from my perspective, playing Warhammer as a purely competitive and abstracted wargame in tournaments only seems odd. As a competitor, it sounds unfulfilling to me. But that is why Im curious, because clearly people spend a lot of time and money treating the game as pure competition, and so I'd like to know their perspective and why they specifically chose Warhammer when there are, from my perspective, better options for this sort of competition elsewhere.

Note: I don't judge anyone for competing in Warhammer, or bringing certain lists or whatever. If youre at a tournament, you know why youre there, and its to win. Cheating is not okay, and neither is being a tool, but building an optimal list is just the competitive norm and I dont view it as a negative.

[Overread]

MOD NOTICE 

Just a friendly notice to cool off a little and keep an eye how we are phrasing things here. 

There is NO shame, nor is it cheating to choose effective models and armies in a competitive environment and I don't think we want to go down that path.  This hobby is different things to different people. Some love the lore, some models, some to compete, some the social, some love it all. In the end provided that you and your opponent have fun and no one is abusing or cheating then its all good.

 

From people who go to tournaments for the fun of it; through to those who army flip every time there's a new powerful-meta. 

[Kramer]

1 hour ago, Deepkin said:

Not the poster you quoted, but I alluded to chess, so let me explain. If your stated goal is pure competition, in my experience as a very competitive person, you'd want a reasonably fair and balanced outlet, with a large competitive community, and deep, engaging play. Chess checks all those bases and takes the form of "my army fights your army," albeit highly abstracted. Warhammer has a lot of other advantages, as both a hobby and a setting and so on, but in terms of competitive gameplay, its both very unbalanced (you can essentially "buy ELO" by purchasing a meta army because, all other things being equal, someone with an optimal HoS list versus an optimal BoC or KO list has an unmistakeable advantage) and has less competitive depth (less players, less history of the game, and more likely to encounter essentially noncompetitive players even in comp environments). 

So from my perspective, playing Warhammer as a purely competitive and abstracted wargame in tournaments only seems odd. As a competitor, it sounds unfulfilling to me. But that is why Im curious, because clearly people spend a lot of time and money treating the game as pure competition, and so I'd like to know their perspective and why they specifically chose Warhammer when there are, from my perspective, better options for this sort of competition elsewhere.

Note: I don't judge anyone for competing in Warhammer, or bringing certain lists or whatever. If youre at a tournament, you know why youre there, and its to win. Cheating is not okay, and neither is being a tool, but building an optimal list is just the competitive norm and I dont view it as a negative.

That’s why I didn’t respond to you  your comment was fine. 

[Hannibal]

I go to tournaments with lists / armies I like due to a certain aspect. This might be theme or nicely painted models or background stories or...

Once there, I like to give my best and try to finish as high as possible.

 

If I was a tounament player who plays to win tournaments, I would go that exact same route as posted somewhere above: I´d buy a meta dominating army and pay for it to be painted. Simply because there is no other reason to get that army but winning games. There is nothing that would interest me besides the models are needed to play the game. I did this playing Warmachine/Hordes.

HTG

[AidenNicol]

Personally I attend events to learn more and improve. I started off playing in my country's first ever matched play event back in 2016 and I've played nearly every event within 200km for Age of Sigmar since. When I started out I was losing every single game, then I slowly started to win. Now I never lose more than 2 games, and the goal for 2020 is to make that 1 or less. My 2019 goal was to be the top player in all 3 armies I played (Skaven Pestilens pre-Skaventide, Slaanesh and Legion of Grief) which i achieved.

I hear a lot of negativity about the tournament scene oversees, but I have a feeling these are preconceived notions and not based on (repeat) experiences.

[Chikout]

My purpose in starting this thread was to see which armies people chose and why, not to attack players whose reason is a desire to win. There wouldn't be much point in having tournaments if nobody wanted to win them. I am actually surprised there has only been one person so far who has said they chase the meta. 

 

 

Edited December 10, 2019 by Chikout

[123lac]

10 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

Its not really work.  It depends on your goals.  If you are playing AOS to drink beer and throw dice I could see how that might be more work than someone might want to put in.  I am 100% a tournament gamer whose goal is to win tournaments, so I have to make sure that I have the most mathematically optimal force that I can bring to give me the best chances of doing that.

You do you, my dude.

I'm impressed that you're able to do this without significant cost. Do you have a regular artist that you commission to do the painting or just whoever is available?

[Scythian]

My Gloomspite Gitz Rockgut Troggoth army.  I just want to smash things and throw rocks. 

[Dead Scribe]

23 hours ago, Deepkin said:

Why did you choose Age of Sigmar as your competitive outlet as compared to something more skill-based like chess? Im not judging, just curious. If you dont enjoy the hobby aspect or form an attachment to any army  and its lore, then Im kinda confused as to why someone would even play these games when there are far superior competitive outlets (IMO).

I admit I am biased, as I havent played Warhammer competitively in a long time and my own competitive outlet is a variety of combat sports, and my wargaming is essentially all skirmish campaign games like Mordheim and Necromunda, or coop games like Rangers of Shadow Deep.

Because I like fantasy gaming and chess is not fantasy gaming.  Its a board game.  There are not far superior competitive outlets.  There are a lot of games out there that hardly anyone plays.  I play AOS because its fantasy gaming and because its population is the largest in the world in terms of a fantasy game, which makes tournaments large, and makes the possibility to push into an esports venue more likely.

I play magic competitively for the same reasons.

It excites me to see Magic played on cable and people winning six figure prizes, and I want to see the same thing in the tabletop world.

Quote

Offtopic and in danger of derailing this discussion, but would you consider yourself as "WAAC"?

Thats can be pretty insulting.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that was not your intent, but that word gets used way too much to describe people that just want to win, which in and of itself is most certainly not a bad thing any more than someone just wanting to paint their dollies is CAAC or whatever word people like to use.

WAAC insinuates cheating to get to the end goal.  Just because I am competitive and play strictly to win does not mean I will cheat or do anything underhanded like cheating to win.  I play 100% within the confines of the rules.  I know my rules.  I expect my opponents to know their rules.  If they don't know their rules thats not on me to help them know their rules.  But I don't break rules to win.

Quote

But on regular tournaments, with e.g. SC Boxes as prizes, if you edge out your chances by taking superior meta lists, doesn't it steal something from your victories?

No more than the New England Patriots should feel bad for winning six super bowls because their team is stacked and the rest of the league are bad at building teams.  Everyone has access to all models and all lists.  Its up to you to decide if you are going to handicap yourself or not.  I choose not to handicap myself and bring the strongest list possible.

It would be even better if the balance gulf that exists in the game was addressed by the designers but they choose not to do it so I will continue to play in their environment that they endorse.

Quote

I'm impressed that you're able to do this without significant cost. Do you have a regular artist that you commission to do the painting or just whoever is available?

My best friend is also a competition level painter that enters stuff in Golden Demon and has been doing comission painting for many years.  Hes also into magic so I can pay him with money or magic cards that are worth something.

There was a significant cost for me to get into the gaming overall.  I have spent a lot of money on magic cards that I use to sell to get money back out for tabletop gaming, but players will pay a lot of money for a nicely painted army so long as they themselves don't have to paint or assemble it and I use that to my advantage if they are willing to pay that price, I am willing to unload a weaker army to them for that price.

Edited December 11, 2019 by Dead Scribe

[Gilboy]

A lot of pre-conceived notions of tournament players from non-tournament players going on here...   

Some opening statements.

1. Age of Sigmar is ultimately a game of you versus your opponent.  The goal of a game of you versus an opponent is to win.  If you are not trying to win then you are doing a disservice to your opponent (and what the hell are you doing?  Running away from objectives?).  The conversations on these forums always seem to stray close to "winning is bad"
2. Age of Sigmar is a fun game.  Playing and figuring out how to beat your opponent is fun.
3. Winning is fun in-and-of-itself (sure people don't necessarily want to win if it doesn't give their opponent a good game but all other things being equal >80% of you would pick "win" over "lose")
4. List building is a part of Age of Sigmar, a part that requires skill, and list building to win games is as valid a way to try and win as is improving your tabletop play
5. No one has a 100% win rate, no matter what army they bring (or how many Keepers of Secrets they have).  There seems to be a default assumption on this board that bringing a top tier army is an auto-win (and a lower tier army is an auto-lose).  This is categorically not the case.   The worst armies are still on ~40% win rates (i.e. 2 games out of 5 are wins on average).  The best are on 60-80% (i.e. 3-4 wins out of 5 on average)

Why do people go to tournaments? 

1. You get 5 back-to-back games of Age of Sigmar in a row.  If you like to play this game (I assume you do if you are on this site) then this is something I imagine you enjoy too
2. The best games are between equally matched opponents where both have a chance to win
3. Aside from the first game in a tournament, you are pretty much guaranteed 4-5 games versus opponents of a similar skill level to you (and over the course of just one weekend) given how tournaments match players (i.e. if you are not a "competitive" player then you will pretty quickly be facing "non-competitive" players too and have good games)

Given this, how do people pick armies for a tournament?  Obviously generalising but I suggest people fit into multiple buckets

1. The number 1 reason anyone picks an army is because they like how it plays.  End of.  People with top tier armies that have a playstyle they do not like playing do not win.   That said, additional reasons are below:
2. People who pick S-tier armies (Slaanesh, old Gristlegore, 2018 DoK): they want top table games against the best Age of Sigmar players and they want a good chance to win.  Also remember that list building is a part of the game too and these armies squeeze the most out of your list.  If they are already a top-tier gamer then they want to win the entire tournament (e.g. see James Tinsdale with Slaanesh in 2019, Ben Savva with DoK in 2018).  This is good.  There is nothing wrong with aiming to win five games in a row against top opponents. 
3. People who pick top tier armies (Deepkin, Fyreslayers etc.): they want a chance to win against any opponent.  This is a good guarantee of having 5-6 good fun games.  You can also win the tournament if you play well so there isn't a "cap" on your potential success
4. People who pick lower tier armies either:
   • Want to test themselves and see how far they can push their own abilities.  Achieving 3-2 with these armies is a testament to a player who is very good at this game
   • Like their models/ army/ want to play similar people with similar mindset and have multiple games against different armies

I've been mostly playing Deepkin this year as they are my first proper AoS army and I like how they play (hence why I bring them to tournaments).  Being able to compete against anything across the table is great (maybe not Slaanesh).  Next year I am planning Bonesplitterz to try a completely different playstyle as well as have a chance to face off against anything across the table.

Edited December 11, 2019 by Gilboy

[Pennydude]

My first (and only complete) army is Sylvaneth and I'm looking to participate in more tournaments next year.  I've gone 1-2 in my only individuals tournament and then 3-0 in a doubles tournament this year and I've had a lot of fun playing.  I got the army because my wife and I really loved the models in that line so that's why I play trees.  I also enjoy how they play with summoning terrain and teleporting.  

I do have some Tzeentch daemons and I'll be slowly expanding that army when the new book drops because I like the concept of endless spells and want to use them more.  I have to expand into that army slowly because I'm also getting into 40K for the first time with Adepta Sororitas.

Love my trees.  You hate trees?  Get off my lawn.    

[drkrash]

43 minutes ago, Pennydude said:

My first (and only complete) army is Sylvaneth and I'm looking to participate in more tournaments next year.  I've gone 1-2 in my only individuals tournament and then 3-0 in a doubles tournament this year and I've had a lot of fun playing.  I got the army because my wife and I really loved the models in that line so that's why I play trees.  I also enjoy how they play with summoning terrain and teleporting.  

I do have some Tzeentch daemons and I'll be slowly expanding that army when the new book drops because I like the concept of endless spells and want to use them more.  I have to expand into that army slowly because I'm also getting into 40K for the first time with Adepta Sororitas.

Love my trees.  You hate trees?  Get off my lawn.    

I hate trees...but only because I lose to them all.  The. Time.

My friend's Sylvaneth army went 3-2 at NOVA this year.  My Khorne army went 1-4.

[Marrlfox]

My local meta is pretty casual but I bring a bunch of different armies based on how I'm feeling. I'm known locally for constantly changing my list and army. 

If I'm busy that week I bring FEC or BCR: low model count.

If I'm going for fun I bring Nurgle or SCE: both fun but struggle in some matchups

If I want to win I bring Skaven or Khorne: a mix of net building and my own flair. 

And my Sylvaneth stay in their box because they make me sad. I wish I had fun with them but pretty to look at.

[Maier666]

I went to some WHFB Tournaments. Didnt enjoy to play those power gamers but when we went for a beer (or probably more) I met some some really nice guys, had fun and then saw them ah few months later on another tournament. 
So I enjoyed the social part and them playing on the lower tables.

But I respect that some people go there to when (probably even a better reason then mine if im honest).

With the new Slaves book I see myself going to some AoS tournaments for the first time. But where Im from (Austria) we barely get 40 people to events.

Possibly flying or drivin out to some next year

[Karazla]

I play the fun army of the month. Over the last couple of months if have build a 100% kitbashed converterd cos tempest eye army. I will be bring it to a tournament next sunday. Totally for fun. I go with four friends have a beer enjoy a lot of games and give my self one objective a game.

[Lord Krungharr]

I have been using Legion of Azgorh because I like to try out armies that few people use, and because I got a really good price on a bunch of the old big-hat Chaos Dwarves and I liked those models!  And while I did get trounced the first few goes, they revealed their strengths eventually, and I got 3 major wins/1 minor win/1 major loss at the 2019 Adepticon Champs.

I go to tournaments mainly because I can get at least 3 games in a weekend for that, and regular weekly games are tough to come by for me.   Winning is always great, and I do try my hardest, but I don't chase the meta, as they often just don't please my aesthetics, or wallet.

Now I'm onto the Gloomspite Gitz with Spiderfang.  Primary reason I'm onto that now is 1) I read they can be decently competitive, so when learned, they can perform and not make a sad panda sell off stuff,  2) cool models and good deals found on them, 3) I am liking faster armies and more magic now, and mortal wound output in other than the hero phase, and Spiderfang has some of that.....and I really won't need CPs for anything but battleshock immunity.

[Scythian]

Gloomspite Gitz have one of the most versatile lists in the game. You will love them; I do! 

[Kadeton]

I play my Beastclaw Raiders at tournaments, because:

• They're effective without being complex. You drive your Stonehorns up and smash them into the enemy's face until either there aren't any enemies left, or they all die. That's a battle plan which works just as well at the end of a long day of several games (and ideally a few beers) as it is when you're fresh, and I really notice how much less tired I am than when I play an army with lots of intricate mechanics.
• Win or lose, they make for fun, entertaining and short games. I often wrap things up with half an hour to an hour to spare in the round, which gives me time to relax and unwind before the next game, watch other games in progress to get a sense of how my opponents play, get something to eat or drink, or just take a nap.
• They're really easy to transport, deploy, and pack away. And relatively quick to paint!

Nowadays I tend to focus on "quality of life" at tournaments rather than standings. I love getting to play several games in a day, but I'm not in my twenties any more - I'm no longer willing to do things that make me feel physically and mentally wrecked at the end of the day. I'm after fun, chilled-out games where I can roll dice and have a good time, and I'm not that concerned about winning and losing. Beastclaws are perfect for me. :)

[Sonnenspeer]

On ‎12‎/‎5‎/‎2019 at 5:54 PM, Acid_Nine said:

First ever out of LGS tournament, so I am going to bring my idoneth deepkin. It's lacking the 18 spear eels of most armies, in fact it is playing two of the Garbage tier units out of the book (turtle and shark)  in a pretty crappy battalion, but I like it, and I'm excited to see how it does in an actual tournament. I want to try and see how I could make the list work and see how my army can fit in with tactics rather than bringing a face stomping list.

I do the same this weekend

[overtninja]

I play Sylvaneth for big monster mash and dirty tree tactics, and Cities of Sigmar to field my cool elf dudesmen and their pals. They are the two armies I own and I enjoy them both. I honestly run the CoS army more often because I consider the trees to be a bit too ruthless in my local meta - shutting down LoS spells and teleporting, as well as effectively blocking movement for key large models that many people enjoy fielding, makes the army a lot less fun for my opponents to play against if I'm playing in a tournament (i.e. trying my best to place highly.)

[DerZauberer]

22 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

Thats can be pretty insulting.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that was not your intent, but that word gets used way too much to describe people that just want to win

In my next sentence i decribed exactly that its often used in a very negative way and that i dont meant it that way. This was really important to me and i'm sorry if you've felt attacked.

22 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

WAAC insinuates cheating to get to the end goal

This is exactly what i did not mean. This was a unbiased question after you've said your only goal is to win games.

@Gilboy, i try to explain my oppinion and would like to discuss them:

Fun:

22 hours ago, Gilboy said:

Age of Sigmar is a fun game.  Playing and figuring out how to beat your opponent is fun.

22 hours ago, Gilboy said:

The best games are between equally matched opponents where both have a chance to win

While i agree that the best games are between even matched opponents, lists have a huge influence on overall strength (overall strength = player + list).
You say winning is overall fun, but starting in an uneven game due to list strength, you start figuring out how to beat your opponent, which should be fun, right? A proper uphill battle to test your skill! 
But in Round 1 or 2 you figured out, there is no way to win, e.g. your playing nurgle against slaanesh. You figure out your summon mechanic is so much worse then HoS, you never get to hit and you feed so much depravity to him. Thats just frustating. Tournaments will bring those HoS lists, because people like @Dead Scribe don't want to handicap themself when competing with other players. Plenty of people switch to meta stuff, about ~7% in the meta is HoS allthough being a relative new book.

List building:

22 hours ago, Gilboy said:

List building is a part of Age of Sigmar, a part that requires skill

22 hours ago, Gilboy said:

Also remember that list building is a part of the game too

This is something which is not necessery true and I've seen/noticed to much examples to agree with that. Netlisting is a big thing and if you compare the podium lists you certainly see 3 KoS, Shootcast, 120 Gitz with 4+ Endless Spells, Big Waagh Ardfists... those are all stuff which were on a podium once and people copy them. There is ofcourse an aspect of "countering" those netlists, which is a great and skill-heavy thing to do and come up with gatekeepers, but those lists usually loose to anything else they are not designed to counter (thats why they're called gatekeeper lists). If you compare factions, it's easy to proove with math which unit is better as other units, same for allegiance, battalions and rules. Thats how netlists are created. Just look around TGA in the factions topics, which are all about getting the smallest edge out of certain units and rules, discussing 150+ pages with sheets and stats which is the best unit or combo to take. The small differences we see in lists are primarly personal preferences, but all resolve around certain cores, which are "auto includes", and having "auto includes" is no skill. 

 

Win Percent:

22 hours ago, Gilboy said:

No one has a 100% win rate, no matter what army they bring (or how many Keepers of Secrets they have).

This is too easy to state. No faction has 100% win rate, but they can be inbalanced. From a mathematical viewpoint, luck evens out due to Laplace. Playerskill is nothing measurable, so we have to use relative terms, e.g. the best placed is the best player and the worst placed is the lowest skilled player. But players can have all factions, so all factions can be played by all levels of skill. When luck evens out and player skill can be brought to any faction, the only real variable here is external faction balance. We've got a sample size of about 12400 games, thats statisticly a very low count. Now run an infinite amount of games in the current meta, with the current players... which regarding the current sample 67% of games HoS wins... you end up on 99.99% win percent, as HoS grows the fastest.

This is all very thereotical, but 100% win rate is also.

I don't want to convince or talk people into saying tournaments are bad or unfun or stuff, i actually think they are great and make the hobby complete, i would be thrilled for more online coverage and i love netlisting. But i think you should be aware before stepping into the competetive ring. 

Edited December 12, 2019 by DerZauberer