Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So, I've got 50+ high quality tables and enough terrain to cover them for a fantasy tournament, so it's not too much of a stretch to build enough to handle a 40k tournament (ok, a ton of work to be sure, but doable).

So if I did do it, the cap would be ~100 players, with 5 rounds over 2 days. I'd use the same venue that we use for the colonial GT (The Clarion in Cherry Hill NJ, which is more than big enough to house all the players, doesn't mind if we drink during the tournament, and has a very good bar as well)

So what would interest level be like? When would be good timing for this? Any other suggestions? I've run lots of smaller 40k tournaments, and helped with fantasy tournaments of this size, but never a 40k tournament this big.

Pretty good population of gamers in CNY would be game. I'm guessing 10-20 from our area. (Syracuse-Rochester)

With the GTs all being pushed back to fall, anytime in the summer seems wide open for big events around here.

If the time is right (not Spring). I'd be interested in going from Chicago.

I'd be up for it the Hotels in central jersey are very affordable and near food!

Cherry Hill is technically South Jersey.

The location is 15 minutes, door to door, from Old City Philadelphia. But to be honest, most people never leave the hotel all weekend except for dinner because the hall is open as late as we want, so there's gaming, drinking, poker, and general hanging out until 1 or 2 in the morning Friday and Saturday night.

What points level you thinking? And good call on basically replicating the Colonial for 40k.

- Salvage

If I had the organizational skills, I'd like to do the same thing in Houston. We have Lone Wolf (Dallas), Bayou Battles (Houston) and The Alamo (San Antonio); but those are all WFB. Not knocking those by any means, and am trying to play the last two this year. I'd just like to see at least one 40K Indy GT in the state. There's a guy here in Houston, and I think that he and his club could pull it off so maybe I'll put a note in the suggestion box.

I'd have to think the interest would be pretty solid, especially with the GTs probably not coming back to Philly ever again. I agree you should probably keep it away from the fall GTs.

gorgon wrote:I'd have to think the interest would be pretty solid, especially with the GTs probably not coming back to Philly ever again. I agree you should probably keep it away from the fall GTs.

Well, start spreading the word.

I'm so far removed from actually playing 40k competitively that I have no idea what makes for a fun tournament anymore. But 5th ed is coming out soon, so I'll be on equal footing with everyone else I think.

The Colonial is such a great weekend, as opposed to simply a great tournament, that I think it would go over pretty well.

One issue I do worry about is that the fantasy community is very different than the 40k community.

I'd suggest you contact Dave Taylor at GW. He talked at Adepticon, and is really trying to support the indy tournies.

I think one thing that always makes a good Indy tournament is some sort of special slant that makes your tournament a little different from regular GTs and/or other indy GTs.

For example, Adepticon has the team tournament, the gladiator tournament and allows forgeworld rules. All of these are things you generally don't find in regular GTs and therefore are reasons to attend that particular tournament.

Inclusion of at least some FW/IA rules is a great incentive IMHO, since regular GTs don't allow those rules it gives players a chance to use those models they don't normally get to use.

Even some sort of "Mauleed-style" comp, sportsmanship and/or general tournament rules could be a distinction to help draw people.


Of course, if you need any help and/or advice with 40K rules/FAQ issues I'd be willing to help out with whatever I can.

I think I'd just use your FAQ (though I'm worried about how it'll interact with the new rules, but I'm sure you'll address that).

I'm thinking late January is probably a workable time, though snow is a concern.

As for a special slant, I'm going to wait out the 5th ed rules before I look at it too hard. But I'm actually thinking no special rules in terms of what can be fielded (just what's in your book), but rather something special in terms of how bonus points are done. In a 100 person 40k tournament there will probably be several people who are undefeated, so how bonus battle points are done is important. So if I can I might shift away from the usual system where the mission just dictates how to get bonus points and if you have the right army for it you get them, and if you don't you don't, to a system where you get to have input on what your bonus points will be (perhaps via scenario cards that affect only bonus points, not rules or who wins or loses). That way the collection of bonus points becomes another measure of tactical skill and not 'did you show up with the right style of army'.

For comp, as much as I'm inclined to ignore it all together, I think people would be happier if it were included somehow. So I'd probably split people into hard/med/soft categories for the pairings of the first two rounds (but still swiss), but have comp scores based on a very simple system:

1. Normal comp
2. This guy should be specifically rewarded above other players for bringing this list.
3. This guy should be specifically penalized above other players for bringing this list.

....but it would only be worth a total of half a game in either direction if you got all 2's or 3's

For sports, I'm inclined for it to be exactly one checkbox:

1. This guy should be penalized for his sportsmanship.

and that would result in a negative point value worth half a win. (so people with negatives on their final totals would know that they had definitely been slammed).

But I would add to your total for favorite opponent votes (not sure of value). So people who were extra good opponents would still see some benefit, but for the most part sports would be irrelevant.

The Adepticon Warhammer events had similar comp to that- before the game you rated your opponent 0 (abusive and unfun), 3 = normal hard army, 5= fluffy bunny, and after the game marked +1, 0 adjustment, or -1 for it being harder or softer than it looked.

I'm not clear on how your Sports works- if any penalty is worth half a game, that's darn serious. Or did you mean you only take the penalty if the majorty of your opponents check the box? Or something else?

No, I mean that the penalty is worth half a game...each round.

So if you want to dock someone, you're really docking them. No BS shades of grey for sportsmanship.

It's strictly binary sports. You either are a good sport, or you are not.

mauleed wrote:I think I'd just use your FAQ (though I'm worried about how it'll interact with the new rules, but I'm sure you'll address that).

I'm thinking late January is probably a workable time, though snow is a concern.

As for a special slant, I'm going to wait out the 5th ed rules before I look at it too hard. But I'm actually thinking no special rules in terms of what can be fielded (just what's in your book), but rather something special in terms of how bonus points are done. In a 100 person 40k tournament there will probably be several people who are undefeated, so how bonus battle points are done is important. So if I can I might shift away from the usual system where the mission just dictates how to get bonus points and if you have the right army for it you get them, and if you don't you don't, to a system where you get to have input on what your bonus points will be (perhaps via scenario cards that affect only bonus points, not rules or who wins or loses). That way the collection of bonus points becomes another measure of tactical skill and not 'did you show up with the right style of army'.

For comp, as much as I'm inclined to ignore it all together, I think people would be happier if it were included somehow. So I'd probably split people into hard/med/soft categories for the pairings of the first two rounds (but still swiss), but have comp scores based on a very simple system:

1. Normal comp
2. This guy should be specifically rewarded above other players for bringing this list.
3. This guy should be specifically penalized above other players for bringing this list.

....but it would only be worth a total of half a game in either direction if you got all 2's or 3's

For sports, I'm inclined for it to be exactly one checkbox:

1. This guy should be penalized for his sportsmanship.

and that would result in a negative point value worth half a win. (so people with negatives on their final totals would know that they had definitely been slammed).

But I would add to your total for favorite opponent votes (not sure of value). So people who were extra good opponents would still see some benefit, but for the most part sports would be irrelevant.

Comp scores have been slowly drifting out of most tournaments I've seen, so I don't think it would be too big a shock to players if your tournament didn't feature it.

I like the: 'this guy displayed poor sportsmanship' check box idea but I really think you should consider making the sportsmanship penalty exponentially larger depending on how many poor sportsmanship votes a player gets.

It isn't too hard to understand how a player can get a 'poor sportsmanship' vote from one player in a tournament. It can just be a conflict of differing personalities, a poor army match-up that leaves one player with a bad taste in their mouth or even a purposeful 'chipmunking' of an opposing player.

I think you could disregard a single 'poor sportsmanship' vote in the tournament, but make two votes a fairly severe points penalty. Three 'poor sports' votes should be twice as bad as two votes and four votes should be twice as bad as the penalty for three votes.


As for my FAQ, I'm just waiting for the new edition to put out a revision, so once it comes out I will indeed get something else out within a few months.

I really like the exponential idea when you’re doing binary sports. Anyone can have a bad game. 2/5 is a bad sign, and worth a bit of a hit. 3 or more is almost guaranteed to be TFG.

I really like the idea of this event. The Colonial is too cool for school, and while I don't know if we can get the same feel with a 40k crowd (which will necessarily be a lot of different people), I expect it'll still rock out with its socks out.

While I agree that one 'bad sport' is entirely possible to be normal, I don't want to give people no reason to behave in round 5 if they know they haven't been dinged. So every ding should hurt. But it should clearly be a ding. To check the box you have to talk to a judge and explain the situation, so it should be very rare.

I want it to be a big deal not just to have it checked on you, but for you to check it on someone. You should be of the mindset that 'yes, I indeed want this guy to know I think he's a slimeball', with all that entails.

I'm even contemptating it be open, but I realize not everyone is as comfortable with confrontation as I am.

But I do like that it be on a sliding scale, so one is a hit, two is bigger, three is crippling.

@Ragnar: I don't think it'll be quite as awesome as the Colonial, because the Fantasy community is smaller, more mature, and generally just better sports. But I still think it'll be another awesome weekend. And maybe these sorts of events (ones that stress the weekend as much as the tournament) will go a long way toward making the 40k community like the fantasy community.

Having to explain to the judge why you are dinging should be required, and 'I didn't like the army he brought' should not be a valid reason.

I'm thinking late January is probably a workable time, though snow is a concern.

Event Insurance.

Covers the costs of the event, in the case of snow or something else causing it to be cancelled or substantially reduced. Not sure about the cost. I know of several people who went bankrupt because they ran winter events without it, and moaned afterwards.
You won't have nearly the costs of most events, but still substantial to eat them.

We shall talk next time I'm in Mr. Clark. Snow is indeed my biggest worry.

I'd be interested in it, if I'm in the country. As we close toward the season in question, I shall look forward to this. Oh, can we blow comp completely out the window? Pretty please with sprinkles?

Don't make me beg, it's not pretty.

I might be too, assuming I am still on the East Coast.

A few years ago, the Adepticon RTT had you rank your opponents on Sports and Painting at the end. So, you had to give out a first, second, and third. I really liked it, and the organizer's point was that the games are competitive, so it made the soft scores competitive too. I forget if Judges had any effect on the scores (they should on the painting since someone could get all first place votes by default not because it's an OMG level).

I'd consider doing a two part sportsmanship: He's a slimeball; or He was fine. Then do a favorite opponent vote at the end.

The other suggestion I would make is to not require painted armies. I think it's appropriate to tell people that unpainted armies will be penalized/not get any painting points/etc.

mauleed wrote:So, I've got 50+ high quality tables and enough terrain to cover them for a fantasy tournament, so it's not too much of a stretch to build enough to handle a 40k tournament (ok, a ton of work to be sure, but doable).

Why do you have 50+ tables?!

We have 2 clubs in the DC/VA/MD area, I can see what level of interest there is within the BIGGunz and the Iron Fist League.

Stelek wrote:Why do you have 50+ tables?!

What serious gamer doesn't?

(I have them, or more specifically access to them, from the colonial GT, a fantasy GT that's been running for several years)

I don't know how I feel about this.

On one hand, I'm around the corner from the hotel where it'll take place.

On the other hand, I'm probably going to get roped into making some of the terrain for the event if it does happen.

Personally I think January/Feb is a good time for it. The only concern is that it's right after XMas/New Years and as such budgets may be tighter from the holidays for a trip, but the costs are pretty low to come in so its probably not much of a concern.

dietrich wrote:A few years ago, the Adepticon RTT had you rank your opponents on Sports and Painting at the end. So, you had to give out a first, second, and third. I really liked it, and the organizer's point was that the games are competitive, so it made the soft scores competitive too. I forget if Judges had any effect on the scores (they should on the painting since someone could get all first place votes by default not because it's an OMG level).

This definitely has the virtue of forcing differentiation, but grading on a curve has always seemed fundamentally unfair. I prefer to reward people for their own behavior. If I get two really nice opponents or two jerks in a tournament, it stinks to have to give one of them an average score. You might note that Adepticon no longer uses this system, which is not an accident.

dietrich wrote:I'd consider doing a two part sportsmanship: He's a slimeball; or He was fine. Then do a favorite opponent vote at the end.

Yeah, adding the favorite opponent votes at the end is a nice little bump.

dietrich wrote:The other suggestion I would make is to not require painted armies. I think it's appropriate to tell people that unpainted armies will be penalized/not get any painting points/etc.

It's not a bad idea for small local events, but if people are going to pay and travel substantial distances, facing an unpainted force when they get there will make them think your event sucks. And be right. The one terribly-painted force I faced in a GT this year substantially impacted my enjoyment. It was the one significant flaw in an otherwise great event.

If it didn’t require painted armies I would not bother to attend. Thankfully Ed wouldn’t make that mistake.

Well at least you only faced one terribly painted force, right? lol try both unpainteds and a 'tres black' on for size.

Ugh. Was that for a GT (or other large event of the kind one travels for), or a local event? In a local tournament I can see allowing ugly or unpainted stuff, but in any big event unpainted is exceptionally lame, and ugly stuff is a disappointment.

Last year I played in two fantasy GTs, a 40k GT, and at Adepticon. The breakdown in terms of appearance was roughly WH: 3 below average, 5 average, 3 very nice armies and 2 “wow”. 40k: 1 cruddy, 2 below, 3 average, 3 nice ones, and 3 wows. This year so far I’ve only had one Warhammer GT and Adepticon for big events. For 2008 so far it’s WH: 1 crap, 1 below, 3 average, 2 nice ones, and a wow. 40k: 1 below, 2 average, and 4 nice-looking ones.