Automatically Appended Next Post: Hey guys, I know some of you were still looking for a place to stay. I just talked to the Hotel, and they will offer some suites for the double rate ($60 a night plus tax) if you call and reserve now.
Ok, just finished the 6 Crypteks I need for the Narrative Event and I'm ready to rock the house and slaughter the pitiful forces of the Corpse Emperor.
Yakkface and Jan with Tau / Nids!!!! Amazing!!!
2nd place was a Mexican guy and his Amigo.
3rd place was DaveFay and Warboss Russ.
4th place (first people to not get stuff) Team 3forint (Dok and Myself)
"Here's a shout out to the players and organizers at the BAO. We at ... heck, do we qualify as actually having a name, Bob&Fred? Oh, yeah, it's 'Quitting DPsTM.' Anyway, from us, to all those cats in the Bay Area, we hope your games are going great and the event is running smoothly. I say this, 'cause, you know, we're not there."
. . . "Well, say something, dude. Good luck or . . . I dunno. " "This episode doesn't have a punch line does it?" . . .
"Naw, man. It's just, you know, a show of solidarity for the 40k community." "Woah. That's like heart-felt, man. Bein' off Nurgle duty has given you some outward sentimentality." "I wish sixth edition and a new Chaos Marine codex were hurry up and get released, damnit." "Would this be a good time to plug FrontlineGames and Team Zero Comp?" "You can, Fred. Nurgle demons aren't known for sucking up."
Janthkin lost to blackmoor, who lost an incredibly close game to christianA.
Now, after 4 rounds of play, there are only 2 players who are 4-0, christianA from team zero comp playing imperial guard, and josh dearth playing nids! We'll see who's in the lead after 5 games.
There are a host of 3-0-1 players still in the hunt, including goatboy, so tomorrow will be quite interesting!
Da Bully Boyz are also 3-0-1! WAAAGH!!! =) Awesome games today. This so far is the best event I have ever gone to! =) everyone should have a BAO under their belt.
What a great event, it went very well with only some minor logistical hiccups due to growing pains this year.
In the end, it came down to Goatboy (5-0-1) vs. ChristianA (6-0) from our team for all the marbles.
When the dust settld, they tied! But, since Christian had a better record, he won it all with his Hydra spam IG!
Josh Rosenstein won Fantasy with his Skaven against a very tough field.
We'll have all the data up on Tuesday, we're wiped out right now and need a day to just do nothing.
Thanks to everyone who came out! We had a great time and everyone that came said they had a blast and couldn't wait for next year, which is great for us.
Thanks again for everyone that showed up, hope you guys all make it out next year for an even bigger/ better time. We worked hard to make this event what it is today, and hope it continues to grow in the following years.
Christian started the event the same way he finished his win at Comic-kaze in LA....
In round 1 he stole the initiative and proceeded to destroy my Manticore, 1 Hydra, and my Vendetta before they ever got a shot off. My Medusa killed 1 of his 6 hydras (3 squads of 2) then he promptly killed the Medusa and the remaining Hydra.
After that it was an easy game for him to blow up Chimeras, watch a bunch of guys die in the explosion, then pick off the survivors with either ranged Hydra-fire or close in melta shots as he started moving his Chimera/Vets onto objectives.
ph34r wrote:Any chance of army lists for the finalists?
Goatboy's is on his blog. Christian had mech guard with 6 hydras as his heavy support.
I went 6-1 and my only loss was to Christian. In our game I was winning turn #5, I was winning turn #6 and then in turn number #7 he flew his vendetta over to contest my capture and control objective that had no lascannons left on it because I shot the heck out of it the whole game but could not kill it, or immobilize it.
From what i recall of Christian's army (I'm at work after a nice 6.5 hour drive back to San Diego on sunday night and his list is at home) He had 5 Vet Squads (mixed between melta-vets and plasma-vets) in Chimeras, CCS in a Chimera, 3 Vendettas, and 6 Hydra's in 3 squads of 2.
And a lucky horseshoe in his butt.
He's also very aggressive with his chimeras and will usually push forward rather than sit back and shoot. It also helps he rolls an inordinate number of sixes to steal the initiative.
I had a great time and played 7 great opponents. Went 4-2-1 bu missed out getting best DA player. Best thing, I only had to play GK once, in my last game (for a draw no less).
Thanks for the event reece. I went 4-1-2 tieing the last game in an epic mirror match with Warboss Russ for best Ork player knocking each other out and letting Dugg slide past us for the spot (was a 4 way tie between the former and Blood Lord Soldono from 3for Int). I think I feel a trip to San Diego coming up
Ozymandias wrote:He's also very aggressive with his chimeras and will usually push forward rather than sit back and shoot. It also helps he rolls an inordinate number of sixes to steal the initiative.
I had a great time and played 7 great opponents. Went 4-2-1 bu missed out getting best DA player. Best thing, I only had to play GK once, in my last game (for a draw no less).
Ozymandias, did you play me turn one, the Speed Freak player?
Awesome event although I would REALLY love to see expansion into the adjacent hall to spread out the players more. It got really hot and loud towards the end and think that contributes to tensions running high.
Californiagamer wrote:Awesome event although I would REALLY love to see expansion into the adjacent hall to spread out the players more. It got really hot and loud towards the end and think that contributes to tensions running high.
Overall A+ from me though.
See you next year.
Some people did not like the venue and would welcome a change.
1st time at bay area open. Had a great time and did well with my IG 5-1-1. Had some epic moments with Marbo, but was unable to top the time at socal slaughter when playing csm against Reece's IG I charged marbo with an unwounded summoned greater deamon and Marbo curbstomped it.
Amazing event from Team Zero Comp. I had such a blast. I am still amazed that I went seven games most of which I think were in the competitive range for the tournament and did not get a single douche bag opponent.
My Tyranids went 5-0-2 and I can honestly say that my game against Christian round 5 was a truly amazing game. I still am having a hard time believing how close it was.
@Christian: I look forward to the next time we get the chance to hit the table again. That was an awesome game.
@Blackmoor: Great game man. That was a brutal tooth and nail fight all the way. Thanks again.
Thanks again to Team Zero Comp and I can't wait til next year.
For context: I played Tyranids throughout the weekend, starting with the Team Tournament on Friday. Yakface & I paired up to form team TnT (Tyranids 'n Tau, or Tau 'n Tyranids, depending on your orientation). We went undefeated, and our combined paint & theme scores were just enough to edge the other undefeated teams to claim the big prize. The Tau lost 2 units all day, safely cradled in the Hive Mind's embrace.
Turns out all Tau need to be really nasty are some Tervigons. Go figure.
I went 5-2 in the singles tournament, losing to Blackmoor's Draigowing and Dugg from Tablewar's Battlewagon Orks. I suspect the pairing software of having a twisted sense of humor, as it paired me against Blackmoor in round 3 and Yakface in round 6 for some lovely Dakka Detachment One in-fighting.
Side note: Yakface, playing a Kan Wall, and myself, with a Tyranid horde, were able to finish our game to the bottom of turn 7. It can be done!
Random Thoughts:
Logistics : the event ran very smoothly. Initial check-in was a little laggy, but we stayed pretty much on-schedule after that. While I still couldn't hear a damn thing that was being announced during the rounds, most of the time announcements were also distributed on a more personal level via circulating staff. The single projector onto a bare wall is a poor solution for showing pairings, though - it has a very poor viewing angle (as the wall isn't anything like a reflective projector screen). Best possible solution involves texting table assignments to players (there is software to mass text in this manner), or emailing it, or even just posting it on your website. Otherwise, print some paper copies & post them.
Terrain: Much improved from last year! It's obvious the team put some good effort in here (terrain is a never-ending project, I know). But those can towers shouldn't be confused with LOS-blocking terrain. Blackmoor demonstrated quite clearly that it was impossible to hide even a single Hive Guard from more than a 30-degree arc behind those cans. And given that "Table 1" relied primarily on can towers for middle-of-the-board terrain, the dominance Christian was able to obtain with a massed Hydra list is understandable. Not to diminish his victory - he's a damn good player - but when there is literally nowhere to hide from massed IG firepower, cover saves aren't going to be enough.
Organization: just one bit of constructive criticism here, directly related to that last thought. Please RANDOMIZE YOUR TABLE ASSIGNMENTS. Terrain was distributed in clumps, such that the top 14 tables or so all relied on can tower-themed terrain, then some snow tables, a cool volcano table, and some other neat things that I never got to see. Mix it up! Don't make Christian play on the same table over and over again. Make Blackmoor have to move his Strike Squad to get LoS once in a while. Give the poor DE player someplace to hide from a Hydra.
The BAO mission is an interesting experience. After a number of games with it, it seems to encourage defensive play - you want to protect your KPs and your Capture & Control objective, and you can probably defend a nearby Seize Ground objective at the same time. I hope they stick with the mission concept (6e allowing), as I'm curious to see how the BAO metagame will adapt to the scenario in the future. There are ways to build lists that would better play to the mission than most of us were using this year (myself definitely included).
Venue: I'm trying to find something nice to say about the venue. I guess it was cheap? But this will be the last time I attend an event at the Contra Costa Fairgrounds. The concrete floors suck for 3 days of continuous standing. The acoustics are miserable - it's hard to hear your opponent across the table from you, much less any announcements from the organizers. The amenities are poor: there is no on-site potable water, and the restrooms are old, smelly, and quickly disgusting. The location is bad, both on a local level (there is no food close enough to run out and grab during the short breaks), and on a more general level (Antioch is obnoxious for travelers to get to, and has very few options in the way of hotels). There is no climate control worth mentioning, and you are at the mercy of the sun's position relative to the windows for the first round of the day.
I have literally nothing good to say about the recommended hotel. Our experience was actually worse than last year - we tried one of the Days' Inn "suites," which turned out to be a normal room, from which they remove the second bed and replace it with an incredibly bad sleeper loveseat, plus add an extra sink to the fridge & microwave. As a bonus, our loveseat was broken.
At this point in my life, time & comfort are more precious than a few dollars; I'd rather travel to an comfortable event in SoCal, Vegas, Chicago, or Texas for the weekend than an uncomfortable event 1.5 hours from home.
Overall, the organizers ran a very tight event for a very large crowd, and deserve tremendous praise for their work. A big "Congratulations!" to all the various winners, and a huge "Thank you!" to everyone involved in preparing for and running the event.
Ozymandias wrote:He's also very aggressive with his chimeras and will usually push forward rather than sit back and shoot. It also helps he rolls an inordinate number of sixes to steal the initiative.
I had a great time and played 7 great opponents. Went 4-2-1 bu missed out getting best DA player. Best thing, I only had to play GK once, in my last game (for a draw no less).
Ozymandias, did you play me turn one, the Speed Freak player?
No, I played Daemons first round. My DW were all terminators with 2 speeders.
Terrain: Much improved from last year! It's obvious the team put some good effort in here (terrain is a never-ending project, I know). But those can towers shouldn't be confused with LOS-blocking terrain. Blackmoor demonstrated quite clearly that it was impossible to hide even a single Hive Guard from more than a 30-degree arc behind those cans. And given that "Table 1" relied primarily on can towers for middle-of-the-board terrain, the dominance Christian was able to obtain with a massed Hydra list is understandable. Not to diminish his victory - he's a damn good player - but when there is literally nowhere to hide from massed IG firepower, cover saves aren't going to be enough.
Organization: just one bit of constructive criticism here, directly related to that last thought. Please RANDOMIZE YOUR TABLE ASSIGNMENTS. Terrain was distributed in clumps, such that the top 14 tables or so all relied on can tower-themed terrain, then some snow tables, a cool volcano table, and some other neat things that I never got to see. Mix it up! Don't make Christian play on the same table over and over again. Make Blackmoor have to move his Strike Squad to get LoS once in a while. Give the poor DE player someplace to hide from a Hydra.
I liked the cans, and can understand the logistics of how and why so many tables had very similar terrain, but more variety would have been nice. The easiest fix I would see would be to ask some of the teams traveling in to volunteer to bring in some terrain and set up a few tables. The TO could maintain quality control by having the teams email him pictures ahead of time of the terrain fully set up on a gaming table. It would probably generate a lot of awesome themed tables. People would also need to be understanding if the TO said no to an emailed terrain set up that the TO thinks could cause a rules debate. Managing a 100 table event is very difficult task made a lot easier if there are no questions about terrain.
As far as players staying on the same tables randomizing tables would be an easy software fix, but would completely abandon the concept of the top tables being for the top players. IMO that concept should be abandoned. It serves no purpose in leveling the playing field (some might debate it give a minor advantage to be on the same table more than 1 time), and more importantly most players would think a greater variety in tables would be fun.
I also think traditional table arrangements is not the most efficient. Example below...
1 6 11
2 7 12
3 8 13
4 9 14
5 10 15
An alpha numeric system would make it a lot more efficient to find a table and get to it fast. Example below.
A1 B1 C1
A2 B2 C2
A3 B3 C3
A4 B4 C4
A5 B5 C5
Also if out of town teams help set up terrain and tables they could do blocks such as C1 to C4, and with random table generation people would get a greater variety in terrain.
What a BLAST! I had such a great time. Thanks so much Team Zero Comp for running this Event and I can't wait until next year.
It was great meeting up with everyone again and meeting some of you for the first time in person. I wish I had more time between games and after to meet more of the crowd but this was a busy and fast paced Event.
I hope Everyone enjoyed their TableWar Swag and Prizes. I look forward to sponsoring the next Team Zero Comp Event. I know next year will be even bigger after experiencing how awesome this Event was.
Congratulations again to the Winners of all the Events!
Outside of one negative game, I got four very competitive good games of fantasy, playing the L2 guys, which was my goal in the first place. Seth ran a tight ship and kept people on time the whole weekend, plus the quality of the San Fran players made the entire trip worth it.
Couple notes on the Fantasy side, some things that did not affect me personally, but seemed to create issues for other people:
1) Blood and Glory- Don't use this scenario in its basic book form. Its not as bad as watchtower, but it dorks over some armies and people just all around loath it.
2) Scoring- It was hard to tell how pairings were being done, but it some of them seemed off, probably because of quirks in the software being used combained with a pure win loss structure. Either toss in some bonus points (preferably obtainable by someone losing) or use some form of degree of victory to stratify things a little more.
3) Slow Play- I am not accusing anyone of stalling, but in a straight win loss format certain armies are always going to win if the game never makes it past turn 4. Using degree of difficulty for scoring can make these guys play more agressively and faster, but that may not mesh with your philosophy. Something should be done to ensure that games play to completion more often, though. Its really a shame that the table one game that decided everything never made it past turn three and the two armies had barely fought to that point. I would have Seth talk to Hengle or some other TOs about brainstorming something that works and that everyone can agree to.
3) Administration- I know you guys are not made of money, but a seperate projector with the pairings in the back of the room would ease a lot of crowding in the room, perhaps even having two score tables, at least for registration. This is a minor critique, really, but it was the only bog down in what was an otherwise smooth running event.
4) Terrain- There needs to be a little more LOS blocking terrain on the fantasy tables and glancing at the 40k side, some of those looked a little like shooting galery places too. This is something that gets corrected when you add more terrain to your collection every year, but its worth noting.
5) Ringer Army- There needs to be one for each game and it needs to be there both days. No one should pay for a ticket (especially if they travelled a good ways) and end up sitting a game out. If a guy is still playing while in the losing end of the room, then thats a guy you want to keep so give him a game. I recommend Orcs for fantasy ringer and old fashioned vanilla marines for 40k.
Again, these are minor things that I picked up on from observing and talking to people. For being only the second year, you guys are doing a really amazing job and I hope to drag some of my crew up next time. As long as the L2 guys keep coming, so will I.
Automatically Appended Next Post: ps- I actually liked the hotel room, but I had a suite to myself all weekend and had no issues getting my room booked.
i had an excellent time with my Ogres for Fantesy.
5 great games against excellent opponents. 15th isn't bad for my first time.
I have some reccomendations for Fantesy though.
1) Either more games or increase the point limit. I finished my games at least 45 minutes early and as I drove down with a 40k player had to wait around a long time for things to wrap up.
I think 5 3k point games or 6 2.5k games would be quite doable. I understand having an even number of games can have issues with final scores so maybe just the point increase would be better.
2) More variety in the scenerios and use some of the different terrain in the book(like Mysterious Forests)
3) Bonus points for different scenerios. I find that Bonus objectives like these add some variety to the games and can make the game feel more fluffy while also being competitive. Things which encourage risky moves by players and such.
I'm pretty good at creating scenerios. i would be happy to help(although I'd still want to play in the tournament )
@ Grimgob - and by Mirror you truelly mean mirror. You guys had the same model count and same Force Org down the list, with only a slight troop load out difference, correct? Not surprising 2 Great Ork Players with the same lists got a Draw off each other.
Btw Grimgob, i dont slide, I'm like Snikrot I Sneak. ;-)
So.... what were the top 5 lists. Goatboy posted his on his site and I thought it was very interesting especially his single drop pod and lack of long fangs. How about the others though?
I can't disagree with the comments on the venue, but aside from the last games of the day it wasn't too terrible. Fortunately, my opponent round 4 was happy to take a smoke break mid-game, which made him almost tabling me a little more bearable. I'm particularly interested to see the army representation- it seemed like there were an inordinate number of Grey Knight players (go figure I suppose), but watching the top tables I saw Tyranids, Eldar, Space Wolves, Orks, and even my poor Thousand Sons vying for spots throughout the day. My suspicion is that the mission helped- my army, being entirely slow and purposeful, has NO chance of winning capture and control, but I can focus on winning kill points and contesting the other two, which gave me a chance versus some of the other, more competitive builds. On the plus side, my final record was 3 wins, 3 draws, and 1 loss... Not too bad for someone who entered the tournament with a purely fluff list expecting to be crushed at every turn.
I also hope that Reece (or someone else with the presence of mind to have taken them) can post some pictures of the candidates for best paint for 40k- there were some BEAUTIFUL armies out there, and in particular I wasn't able to examine the 2nd place army (I believe it was Dark Eldar?) nearly as much as it deserved. The top army was an incredible Forge World Ork masterpiece who I believe was local? with Squiggoths for trukks, gargantuan battlewagons, and the coolest Dreadknight conversion I've seen yet.
In any event, I hope all you out-of-state'ers enjoyed yourselves in our sunny state (the poor guy from Ohio I played comes to mind... how many inches of snow are awaiting your return?) and I look forward to seeing you all next year. Except Goatboy, that guy is a jerk. =P
Living Still wrote:So.... what were the top 5 lists. Goatboy posted his on his site and I thought it was very interesting especially his single drop pod and lack of long fangs. How about the others though?
~Casey
I didn't see any popular net lists on the top tables. Most of them would be scorned by the net community as soft lists, and many of them were shockingly different like Goatboy's.
Phazael wrote:Something should be done to ensure that games play to completion more often, though. Its really a shame that the table one game that decided everything never made it past turn three and the two armies had barely fought to that point. I would have Seth talk to Hengle or some other TOs about brainstorming something that works and that everyone can agree to.
Wasn't one of the comp criteria for a thumbs down (or the like) not getting to the 4th turn of a game? Or perhaps that was just on the 40k side. Seems like that would be decent motivation, given the consequences (up to the forfeiture of the game, I believe).
RE: Grey Knights. I joked with Reece when I checked in what my chances were of playing all 7 games vs. GK's and he said, "50/50." In the end I only played one and actually had a nice spread of opponents. In order I played: Daemons, Black Templars (Dave Fay), Orks (Dugg), Necrons, Space Marines, Orks, and finally Grey Knights. Overall, not too shabby!
Ozymandias wrote:RE: Grey Knights. I joked with Reece when I checked in what my chances were of playing all 7 games vs. GK's and he said, "50/50." In the end I only played one and actually had a nice spread of opponents. In order I played: Daemons, Black Templars (Dave Fay), Orks (Dugg), Necrons, Space Marines, Orks, and finally Grey Knights. Overall, not too shabby!
Man, the fact that I didn't have ONE Grey Knight opponent really messed with me!
Ozymandias wrote:RE: Grey Knights. I joked with Reece when I checked in what my chances were of playing all 7 games vs. GK's and he said, "50/50." In the end I only played one and actually had a nice spread of opponents. In order I played: Daemons, Black Templars (Dave Fay), Orks (Dugg), Necrons, Space Marines, Orks, and finally Grey Knights. Overall, not too shabby!
Yeah, I'm shocked I only went up vs 1 GK player as well. My game with James (GK), lasts years IG Winner, was much like our game except I was on the receiving end vs his rough GK list.
I had 1 ork 2 GK ,1 DE,1necron ,2 Nids the 2 GK i was expecting but the 2 nids i was not . I had 6 good games and one game against a douche which is pretty good for the amount of people that were there .
I used my GKs.
I played:
rd1 Eldar
rd2 Eldar
rd3 Eldar
rd4 Space Wolves
rd5 Dark Eldar
rd6 Grey Knights
rd7 Imperial Guard
I played all but 2 of the Eldar players in the field on day 1... I hate playing against Eldar so i guess it was karmic. I finished 3-3-1 not my best showing but I was tired of playing Space Wolves.
Hückleberry wrote:I luckily avoided the douche factor this year.
What about me? I used my now classic Stratigy of keeping my paladins in reserve until the end of turn 5, and then coming on and claiming the objectives and then having the game end for the win!
@Christian: Thats right...I think it was the SW player that got the steal from me. Sorry I could not make our game at least a challenge for ya.
I ended up 4-3 against:
IG (loss)
Tau (win)
Bugs (loss)
Deamons (win)
SW LongFang/Las-Plas-back Spam (loss)
GK Triple Dreadknight (win)
DE Lance Heavy (win)
Well, if a 700 point unit used that way gets you the win then the cost and strategy is worth it.
A full day of sitting on my butt later and I'm still freakin tired. 3 days of warhammer was exhausting as hell! Not to mention I had to play Dave Fay 2 out of the three of those days. Also, James beat my ass again (my only loss), so I guess it just wasn't meant to be, haha. Maybe next year I wont get paired up with him.
Was the best event I have gone to in my 40k gaming exp. There were quite a few awesome painted armies there and I was able to take the 1st place best painted! The only thing that was odd, was playing on a jungle table that had fantasy houses on it, lol. The barn/hangar actually had climate control, it was the big ork generator in the back blowing heat (was cold as $%#@ in the am). Also loved that every table had a chair for the players, most events the chairs are shotty or don't exist. Oh and ....
Overall an awsome event. I'm not going to mention any names but 2 games barely went to turn 4, with time being called. I was fortunate enough that the TO allowed me to play my turn since only a few things needed to be done.
. One opponent i lost to was from out of town so had to keep reminding him it was his turn as he was snapping photos of the event. He didn't intentionally slow play was just a very cautious tyranids player. he would've won either way but I would liked our game to go to turn 5.
My other opponent was an ork player i beat who slow played but didn't seem intentional again as it was his downfall.. When he deployed from his trucks he only used one hand to take models individually from his carrying case and when deploying 36 boyz that way it definitely added up. Can't really complain tho since his slow playing was why I ended up winning instead of tieing.
I had a great time at the event with my weird wolves. I wish I had stuck with one Plasma squad as I needed it to hurt Meph.
Basic Load out of my games - I skipped GK for some reason as my buddies got paired up with them a few times.
RD 1 - IG - fun list - Win
RD 2 - BA - Meph and Sang - Great guy from Phoenix - Draw - I can't kill both of those fatties
RD 3 - 9 Dread BA list - Won this one - Stole the Iniative!
RD 4 - Necrons - Demetri who is a local and a great guy. He had a nutty death squad. I won this one after he passed I think 12 JaWs rolls. He had to reroll one a round but still!
I won this one.
RD 5 - Daemons - I got to fight Tasty Taste who put us up for the weekend. I won this one. I won this one by one.
RD 6 - Dark Eldar - Won this one - one of those bad games where I just blew everything up I shot at. Stole the Iniative and just went to town after that.
RD 7 - Christian with his IG. I barely pulled a draw even though I couldn't blow things up. Lucky me.
I came 3rd overall as I think I lost out based on Strength of Schedule. It was a fun event and the cost to get out there stays nice and cheap I will most likely go again. Thanks again to Nick (TastyTaste) for putting up with some jackasses from Texas.
Better report will come soon as I go into each game. My list was an odd one and I think it is almost there for these type of events where you have to push to win all 3 mission types.
Hückleberry wrote:I luckily avoided the douche factor this year.
What about me? I used my now classic Stratigy of keeping my paladins in reserve until the end of turn 5, and then coming on and claiming the objectives and then having the game end for the win!
Haha if thats considered douchie than grey knights in general would be douchie...I actually enjoyed playing against you. I actually did better than I thought I was going to. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if the game hadn't ended there.
Iwould love to see some of the tyraninds players list as i'm about the only person in seattle area that takes them to a tourney. i see that 2 player where 5 -2.
In this format the Bugs have a unique advantage.
The big guys continue to advance (even deep striking Trygons) to keep your opponent backing away while firing. In the meantime your Tervigons are cr@pping out more scoring units every turn and swarming around the home Objective and 2 of 3 Battle field Objectives. If you shoot the little guys the big guys get in your face and tear you apart.
If you shoot the big guys you may end up winning the KP section of the match , but he holds the Battle Objectives and needs only contest your home objective for the win; 2 VPs to 1.
Hückleberry wrote:I luckily avoided the douche factor this year.
What about me? I used my now classic Stratigy of keeping my paladins in reserve until the end of turn 5, and then coming on and claiming the objectives and then having the game end for the win!
That sounds really familiar, for some reason.
Anyway, sounds like a great event! I agree with Janthkin. Move the venue.
You guys bagging on the venue fail to realize how expensive some venues are. Slaughter ran in the hole the year we were at the Ontario site and mathematically could not have ever been profitable based on the cost per space ratio. It was a little hot and loud in there, but we were able to pound booze and swear like sailors all weekend long without any interferance, which is a major plus. Parking was somewhat goofy, with us getting sort of locked in there Saturday night, but you were never more than 100 feet from your car at the event, which was really convenient for a variety of reasons. The restrooms were the only objectionable part of the venue, really.
We got locked in friday night as well. We were some of the last people to wander out of there and all of the gates were locked. Luckily reece and them were just heading out as we made our way back to the venue or I would've never found that back woods way.
I loved the location. Fresh air, brought an ice chest n' beer, took lots of "safety meetings" between matches at the car. Can't do that in a hotel ballroom.
Best tournament EVER! Thanks so much to the Frontline guys for putting on another amazing event. I got almost exactly the same as I did last year... 4-1-2 vs 5-2 last time. It was really awesome getting games in against Dok and Bloodlord in the doubles (good lord that list was mean), Grimgob for the EPIC ork mirror in round 7 (Dugg really IS a sneaky git, isn't he?) and my good friend and chauffeur DaveFay, who I stole against and STILL barely managed to draw.
Also, I managed to dodge Grey Knights ALL WEEKEND! That's a win right off the bat!
Phazael wrote:You guys bagging on the venue fail to realize how expensive some venues are. Slaughter ran in the hole the year we were at the Ontario site and mathematically could not have ever been profitable based on the cost per space ratio.
You do me an injustice, Q. I know exactly how expensive these venues can be.
I'll put it this way: I would cheerfully pay double the entry fees for the BAO, if it were in a nicer venue. I wouldn't go back to the same venue if it cost me nothing. I'm likely in the minority, which is fine - I'm not insisting that they change anything for my benefit, merely providing my feedback.
Grimgob wrote:I loved the location. Fresh air, brought an ice chest n' beer, took lots of "safety meetings" between matches at the car. Can't do that in a hotel ballroom.
Awsome, safety meetings rule, if everyones at the bar getting drunk no one can get hurt at work =o]
Then again it would of been american beer....so maybe I would of stayed at work
Sounds like everyone had a great time and in the end that is all that really matters.
warboss_Russ! wrote:Best tournament EVER! Thanks so much to the Frontline guys for putting on another amazing event. I got almost exactly the same as I did last year... 4-1-2 vs 5-2 last time. It was really awesome getting games in against Dok and Bloodlord in the doubles (good lord that list was mean), Grimgob for the EPIC ork mirror in round 7 (Dugg really IS a sneaky git, isn't he?) and my good friend and chauffeur DaveFay, who I stole against and STILL barely managed to draw.
Also, I managed to dodge Grey Knights ALL WEEKEND! That's a win right off the bat!
That third mission was allll about who went first. And all about who talked about their tactics in front of the other team more, haha. I would've liked to play against you in the regular event, since everyone i know had the same score for pretty much the whole thing! But at least I got to watch Daves dice beat up on him while I rolled mine Sorry bout that Dave, we'll rematch when I come down to SD next month!
Phazael wrote:You guys bagging on the venue fail to realize how expensive some venues are. Slaughter ran in the hole the year we were at the Ontario site and mathematically could not have ever been profitable based on the cost per space ratio.
You do me an injustice, Q. I know exactly how expensive these venues can be.
I'll put it this way: I would cheerfully pay double the entry fees for the BAO, if it were in a nicer venue. I wouldn't go back to the same venue if it cost me nothing. I'm likely in the minority, which is fine - I'm not insisting that they change anything for my benefit, merely providing my feedback.
Not everyone in the hobby has as much disposable income as you or I. The 40k crowd, in particular, with college age players and 17 model armies, tends to have less scratch kicking around. As a fat bastard, I uncerstand your dislike for the lack of climate control and concrete floors, but as someone who footed the difference for the Ontario Slaughter in Space, I can appreciate the need to keep things affordable for everyone; organizers and players alike. When in doubt, I am a firm believer in erring on the side of being inclusionary.
What I payed to come up would have kept most of the crowd from going, but the negatives were far outstripped by the positive aspects of the event and I really wanted to hang out with the L2 guys when one or the other of us was not busy being an organizer. I felt the venue was adequite, but I was paying for the crowd that Reece would bring in.
Hückleberry wrote:I luckily avoided the douche factor this year.
What about me? I used my now classic Stratigy of keeping my paladins in reserve until the end of turn 5, and then coming on and claiming the objectives and then having the game end for the win!
Haha if thats considered douchie than grey knights in general would be douchie...I actually enjoyed playing against you. I actually did better than I thought I was going to. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if the game hadn't ended there.
Grey Knights are the Epitome of Douchie. Was that ever in doubt? That said, if the Player running them owns up to the fact they are running the Douchie Army, I do not think the Player is a Douche by default, but on the other hand, if they are running them and they keep trying to convince you they aren't running a Douchie Army well.... DOUCHE haha
Tailgating at a wargaming tourny. Awesome. Bummed I couldn't get things in order to be able to come down, sounds like a great time.
Curious if anyone had any more thoughts on the mission setup. Been chatting about this style a bit with friends and was curious what folks who played through it thought. Was any one victory condition a stronger decider of winning then another? Did it get boring after 3 games?
Looks like results are up http://www.frontlinegaming.org/bay-area-open-2012-results/ 10th overall for me, worse than last year, but pretty good for the number of people there and the caliber of player that showed up. Grats to everybody that played and won!
Just going down the names of both GTs thats an insane calibre of player in both events, probably the best players on the enite west coast were there. Going down the lists, just names I recognize, practically half of the fantasy players were former GT Overall/Best General winners and it was pretty damn close to that on the 40k side. Thats about as glowing an endorsement for your event as you could hope to get, Reece.
We had a blast, totally and completely drained, but such fun. We only had 3 people not come day two out of ALL of our events combined, that is really, really cool to us. That means everyone was enjoying themselves, which is our number one goal.
I wanted to give a huge thanks to the crew. It's not just Frankie, Will and myself that make these things happen, we had a ton of help and I wanted to give a huge thanks to everyone who helped us out.
Speaking of which, we NEED more staff next year, hahaha. We were overloaded on work this year due to growth and it showed in minor logistical hiccups, but on the whole, things went well.
Food got a bit screwed up since the party that said the would cater the event dropped the ball 2 days before the event. Oh well, we got everyone fed.
We're really happy everyone liked the format and enjoyed themselves. We had a great time drinking beer and hanging out with everyone.
We hear you guys on the venue and plan on going to a hotel at some point. The Fairgrounds is pretty ghetto, no doubt, but it is cheap and it allowed us to provide awesome prize support for a low ticket price. Plus, as others said, you can bar-b-que and drink beer there and it;s all good. Can't really do that at a hotel. We'll look into our options for next year and see what else we can do.
On the whole though, we are just so pleased with how things came out. Fantasy sold out! Next year we expect more, and the players were all cool and having a good time.
Flames of War had small attendance, but we made big headway into the community and they all were very impressed with the event, and have told the crew that they plan on helping this to become the major West Coast FoW event, which is music to our ears.
Warmachine was a hit, we had a lot of people playing, I think about 50 over the weekend, and we hope to see more next year.
The narrative event sounded like a blast, everyone was cheering and laughing the entire time, which is always a good sign!
The 40K team tournament went over really well. We had a little confusion on the structure (sorry Dok, and Blood Lord SOldado) and next year we will make sure that everything is crystal clear so everyone knows what they need to do to win.
The 40K Singles event was a blast, and we had some incredibly good players! It went smoothly and was super fun. We are very proud to see our teammate ChristianA take the top spot in a crazy, crazy close game against Goatboy for all the marbles. Well done Christian, do us proud if you go to the ETC!
We're already planning next year's event, and we are going to do everything we can to make it bigger and better!
Thanks again to everyone for coming out, and please let us hear all of your feedback, negative and positive and we use both to improve.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and Goatboy and Blackmoor, we flipped your final scores on accident during announcements as we were in a rush to get everyone out of there. Blackmoor got 3rd, Goatboy got 4th, really sorry about that, next year we already have plans in place to make sure that doesn't happen.
Thanks again to everyone for coming and making this such a great event!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, if I missed anyone's handle and they want me to add it to the spreadsheet, just let me know!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, hahaha, and one more last thing, we're working on a table randomizer!
Goatboy wrote:RD 3 - 9 Dread BA list - Won this one - Stole the Iniative!
Oh man, can you describe his list? I have been really wanting to run this! However, at 1750 it seems to get 9 dreads, he would've had to have 15 Death Company, and probably very little in the way of scoring units. I've figured out how to swing 8 dreads in a 2K list with 20 scoring bodies, which seems decent. Oh, and 11 pods = 6 dreads coming down turn 1
Anyway, would be very curious hearing about that army / list if you can remember anything!
Reece, what are the chances of Team Zero Comp taking over Warhammer at Kublacon? Otherwise, I'm thinking of getting a refund and of playing at the Slaughter in Space.
I'm still wiped out; we got in at just about 1am Sunday and I was up until 5 telling the wife all about the weekend, so I probably need a couple straight days of sleep to make all that time up!
Looking forward to next year. Maybe I'll shoot for a painting prize in 2013...
Goatboy wrote:RD 3 - 9 Dread BA list - Won this one - Stole the Iniative!
Oh man, can you describe his list? I have been really wanting to run this! However, at 1750 it seems to get 9 dreads, he would've had to have 15 Death Company, and probably very little in the way of scoring units. I've figured out how to swing 8 dreads in a 2K list with 20 scoring bodies, which seems decent. Oh, and 11 pods = 6 dreads coming down turn 1
Anyway, would be very curious hearing about that army / list if you can remember anything!
I think yakface played him with his kan wall (hot dread on dread action!).
Phazael wrote:Just going down the names of both GTs thats an insane calibre of player in both events, probably the best players on the enite west coast were there. Going down the lists, just names I recognize, practically half of the fantasy players were former GT Overall/Best General winners and it was pretty damn close to that on the 40k side. Thats about as glowing an endorsement for your event as you could hope to get, Reece.
Hats off to you.
Well, they are missing a couple of top-notch players. It's too bad Reece, Frankie and Will didn't get to play in the tournament, but then hey, someone's got to run the damn thing.
Oh, and not to toot my own horn, but I didn't give Team 0 Comp the chance to get revenge on me this time, but I will next year.
Reecius wrote:
The 40K team tournament went over really well. We had a little confusion on the structure (sorry Dok, and Blood Lord SOldado) and next year we will make sure that everything is crystal clear so everyone knows what they need to do to win.
Dude, it's not your fault we can't read. That's why we call our site 3 for int. We're dumb as bricks! It was just a super bummer to think we were a shoowin and then have our hopes crushed as yakface and janthkin took home the prize. Damn you Yakface!!!
But next time, I'll make sure that mofo actually paints his stuff for an event that requires painting to score!
Congrats to Blackmoor then. It most likely was super close as we all had the same sort of score all the way through. Glad I got best Space Wolf player with an odd list.
The Dread list was 15 DC, 3 DC dreads with Talons, 3 Furioso Dreads with Talons, 1 5 Man scoring squad, and 3 TWL Lascannon/ML dreads.
Hückleberry wrote:I luckily avoided the douche factor this year.
What about me? I used my now classic Stratigy of keeping my paladins in reserve until the end of turn 5, and then coming on and claiming the objectives and then having the game end for the win!
Haha if thats considered douchie than grey knights in general would be douchie...I actually enjoyed playing against you. I actually did better than I thought I was going to. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if the game hadn't ended there.
Grey Knights are the Epitome of Douchie. Was that ever in doubt? That said, if the Player running them owns up to the fact they are running the Douchie Army, I do not think the Player is a Douche by default, but on the other hand, if they are running them and they keep trying to convince you they aren't running a Douchie Army well.... DOUCHE haha
If I brought my GKs I might feel insulted. As a veteran from the DH days I feel I deserve immunity from the hate.
Hückleberry wrote:I luckily avoided the douche factor this year.
What about me? I used my now classic Stratigy of keeping my paladins in reserve until the end of turn 5, and then coming on and claiming the objectives and then having the game end for the win!
Haha if thats considered douchie than grey knights in general would be douchie...I actually enjoyed playing against you. I actually did better than I thought I was going to. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if the game hadn't ended there.
Grey Knights are the Epitome of Douchie. Was that ever in doubt? That said, if the Player running them owns up to the fact they are running the Douchie Army, I do not think the Player is a Douche by default, but on the other hand, if they are running them and they keep trying to convince you they aren't running a Douchie Army well.... DOUCHE haha
If I brought my GKs I might feel insulted. As a veteran from the DH days I feel I deserve immunity from the hate.
Course I don't run Draigo-wing or Henchmen spam.
Meh. GK are just an army. I had a player look at my list and ask if it was cool if he didn't play and we just hang out and watch Goatboys game because he didn't want to play GK again. I don't think this was because my list was particularly heinous I think it was more a reflection of the GK saturation in the field, he played 2 GK players in a row end of day 1, one of whom provided a pretty bad game, and didn't want to play them again. I can respect that, I played Eldar 3 turns in a row day 1 and if I had drawn them a 4th might have let Reece have it! Kidding of course Reece but I understood how frustrating it was to play the same army multiple times in a row and at least I only lost 1 of those Eldar games. The GK hate is a bit ridiculous, they didn't win the event and the majority of GK players seemed to be near the middle of the pack with me rather than up at the top, James, Dok and Blackmoor excepted of course.
Great event Reece, I look forward to next year. Maybe get someone to come Bar B Que next year as food, that way all the different games can be provided with super fresh food, and your team won't be responsible for providing and selling it. I bet a good BBQ caterer would see there was a good profit to be made and sign up. I like the venue, it is different and allows for a very relaxed atmosphere, the area hotels leave a bit to be desired. I stayed at the Days Inn last year and the Ramada this year neither was impressive neither was terrible. I look forward to next year, my goal is to get adequate practice for once and actually place in the top 20 rather than just the top half. I still can't believe how different 2 day 7 round events are from single day 3-4 round events.
Well GK are a very strong army, but I went 3-0 vs them the past weekend and 0-3 vs battle wagon orks. I'll let you guess what list my eldar think is unfair.... Overall it was a great time. This really showed me that as a whole, the extreme stories you hear about truly are not the norm. All of us cen cal commanders had a great time and didn't have a bad opponent all weekend. Next year I'm taking best eldar general!!
Fantastic event. I really cant say enough good things about this years BAO, as both a player and as a tournament organizer - things went smoothly, the breaks between rounds were reasonable, there was always a judge nearby if necessary, I had 7 fun games against smart opponents, the weather was beautiful, all in all a great time. I will definitely be back next year and will be rounding up the gang from Sacramento to make the short drive. I say keep the location, most of the complaints I heard would apply to any venue - being squeezed for space or the hall getting a little stuffy is normal with 90+ people and I agree with Phazael that being inclusive and easily accessible to all is important.
I have a break down of day 1 on my blog and will be posting Day 2 highlights and a similar update on the Secret Weapon blog as well. I was lucky enough to be on table 1 in round 6 against ChristianA, and although I felt his army was less about maneuver and tactics and more about throwing buckets of dice at me he definitely knows how to use it and is on the ball when it comes to prioritizing targets and making the best use of his units. Hats off to a good guy, I will be gunning for you next time around!
Again, congrats and thanks to Reece, Will, and Frankie. Great job guys!
I had a blast and having the BoLS guys out was really cool. I like the venue just not the location-- too far! I think everyone would like the idea of it being walking distance from a Bart/Hotel that way anyone flying-in can just go direct to the site.
Other than that was about two KPs over two games away from being a contender sooo close! I will take my tie for 20th place and best Demon though =)
Brought my Tau .. 2 wins, ouch, guess it takes more than pony objectives to win, not that all the other tau players were in the top tiers. But what a lot of fun it was anyway, great event, thanks for putting it on team 0 comp!
Personally I like the venue, I think next year will be even better if the guys do get a second hall. That would allow for things to be a bit more spread out and less claustrophobic. I really felt for the Imperial players in the narrative event they were crammed in pretty tight against that wall.
The other bonus would be less inadvertent butt rubbing! (not that there is anything wrong with that if it is your thing)
Damn 83/92 place. I tried going pure wraithspam but it seems only jy2 has the skill to pull it off. I'll have my originally planned list next year hopefully the spyders will be available for getting revenge on those damn dark angels!
He literally made all of his regular armor saves. I think I took out 2 squads only because of some lucky rending wounds.
Really gotta step my game up this weekend. Do all figures have to be wysiwyg at the Battle bunker tourney? Still working on my spyders and seriously lacking scarabs
The venues location is not very good. Problems like:
Poor airport access.
Driving from the south it is a pain to get too.
The hotels in the area sucks.
So if you are local you tend to have a different opinion of the venue than those that are traveling.
Defeatmyarmy wrote:Damn 83/92 place. I tried going pure wraithspam but it seems only jy2 has the skill to pull it off. I'll have my originally planned list next year hopefully the spyders will be available for getting revenge on those damn dark angels!
He literally made all of his regular armor saves. I think I took out 2 squads only because of some lucky rending wounds.
Really gotta step my game up this weekend. Do all figures have to be wysiwyg at the Battle bunker tourney? Still working on my spyders and seriously lacking scarabs
If you were the one with 15 wraiths in your army, then we've met. I was a spectator briefly in your thrashing of the Tau player. When it comes to wraithwing, poor Tau.
Defeatmyarmy wrote:Damn 83/92 place. I tried going pure wraithspam but it seems only jy2 has the skill to pull it off. I'll have my originally planned list next year hopefully the spyders will be available for getting revenge on those damn dark angels!
He literally made all of his regular armor saves. I think I took out 2 squads only because of some lucky rending wounds.
Really gotta step my game up this weekend. Do all figures have to be wysiwyg at the Battle bunker tourney? Still working on my spyders and seriously lacking scarabs
Yeah, that was me. My dice that game were trying to make up for all the ones in the game previous. Our game was pretty close and I'm lucky that it ended when it did. One more turn and you would have destroyed me!
Glad to see all the positive feedback. Just proof that events without opponent scored sports and comp can work with great results!
I second Blackmoor's sentiments about the location. If it had been closer to the airport, I'd definitely have made it, though I understand the difficulty of finding a reasonably priced venue.
Glad to see some good west coast events doing well. Nice job!
If you were the one with 15 wraiths in your army, then we've met. I was a spectator briefly in your thrashing of the Tau player. When it comes to wraithwing, poor Tau.
then we've also met, I was the poor tau player. I was thinking of what i could've done differently, maybe extremely aggressive tactics, focusing all fire on everything non wraith and just leaving the wraiths to kill me as fast as they can hopefully my speedbumps first. It'd be a Killy race though I think Id still lose
"then we've also met, I was the poor tau player. I was thinking of what i could've done differently, maybe extremely aggressive tactics, focusing all fire on everything non wraith and just leaving the wraiths to kill me as fast as they can hopefully my speedbumps first. It'd be a Killy race though I think Id still lose
"
I think you definitely had a chance to beat me, although tau really lack assault units. In that game your best bet might have been castling your entire army in a corner pray imotekh fails lightning and focus fire on each wraith squad until the whip coils wraiths died. Once they lose initiative they actually die fast if you get enough wounds. Remember they are only T4. Have your kroot in back ready to counter charge and bait me with fire warriors 3" behind the piranas.
I really liked your army build, but IMO even though I don't play tau I think you need more fire warriors maybe in transports. If you could rapid fire my wraiths it might have been a different game but because of their speed wraiths cannot be rapid fired so easily before assaulting.
"then we've also met, I was the poor tau player. I was thinking of what i could've done differently, maybe extremely aggressive tactics, focusing all fire on everything non wraith and just leaving the wraiths to kill me as fast as they can hopefully my speedbumps first. It'd be a Killy race though I think Id still lose
"
I think you definitely had a chance to beat me, although tau really lack assault units. In that game your best bet might have been castling your entire army in a corner pray imotekh fails lightning and focus fire on each wraith squad until the whip coils wraiths died. Once they lose initiative they actually die fast if you get enough wounds. Remember they are only T4. Have your kroot in back ready to counter charge and bait me with fire warriors 3" behind the piranas.
I really liked your army build, but IMO even though I don't play tau I think you need more fire warriors maybe in transports. If you could rapid fire my wraiths it might have been a different game but because of their speed wraiths cannot be rapid fired so easily before assaulting.
Well nobody plays lists with lots of tau troops because they are terrible. I had four choices simply because the three objective format kinda requires it. I remember shooting 3 groups of suits including my command team plus the kroot into your 5 man group and then getting assaulted, then still having to pour more fire into that one unit to bring it down after it ate my kroot. There's just not that much firepower to be had with three units of wraiths. Bunching up means more double charges or triple, which is an even faster way to die. your suggestion of larger kroot squads would probably work but that's just list tailoring, no way would that be a good idea in most situations, five dead kroot to shooting a 20 man squad means I probably just lost that unit.
I'll just bring a competitive army next time
I don't think my results were entered correctly. I went 4-2-1 with all three objectives in the four games that I won, but ended up placing lower than people who went 3-3-1.
Shoot us an email with the details, we'll get it fixed.
@thread
A number of folks have asked us if we would look into running a 40K event at KublaCon, but it is the same weekend as the Slaughter in Space, one of our favorite tournaments to go to and actually play in. Unless something changes, the whole team plans on making the trip to LA for SiS.
It was super fun and our lists turned out to be super tough on the field. Too bad Soldado's army looked like a butt! I think the trays we bought at Ross the night before must've been good luck!
Goatboy wrote:RD 3 - 9 Dread BA list - Won this one - Stole the Iniative!
Oh man, can you describe his list? I have been really wanting to run this! However, at 1750 it seems to get 9 dreads, he would've had to have 15 Death Company, and probably very little in the way of scoring units. I've figured out how to swing 8 dreads in a 2K list with 20 scoring bodies, which seems decent. Oh, and 11 pods = 6 dreads coming down turn 1
Anyway, would be very curious hearing about that army / list if you can remember anything!
Yep, I played him. I believe coming into the game we were both 2-1-1, so he obviously crushed a couple of people before getting to me to be able to win with only a single scoring unit (of like 5 Assault Marines).
He had 15 Death Company with a Chaplain attached, 5 Assault Marines, 3 Lascannon/Missile Launcher Dreads, 3 Death Company Dreads w/ Blood Talons & 3 Furioso Dreads also w/ Blood Talons.
All his Blood Talons had Meltas on them, but obviously not having any Dread CCWs put him at a severe disadvantage against my Dreads & Kans. Although he did a great job of killing off my only Loota squad on the flank across from his Heavy Dreads, it was only a matter of time before my Dreads & Kans walked their way through his all his Blood Talon dreads.
Even so, it was pretty awesome to see all those Dreads in action against each other! If he had even a few DCCWs it would have been an absolutely epic match.
Phazael wrote:
3) Slow Play- I am not accusing anyone of stalling, but in a straight win loss format certain armies are always going to win if the game never makes it past turn 4. Using degree of difficulty for scoring can make these guys play more agressively and faster, but that may not mesh with your philosophy. Something should be done to ensure that games play to completion more often, though. Its really a shame that the table one game that decided everything never made it past turn three and the two armies had barely fought to that point. I would have Seth talk to Hengle or some other TOs about brainstorming something that works and that everyone can agree to.
I think the solution is the same one I've been touting for quite a while. Start putting on the results sheet for people to put what turn their game ended on (and whether or not they finished their game on a 'natural' random game length roll).
Doing this not only allows you to figure out whether or not your round times should be adjusted (either up or down) but also will start to highlight those people who consistently aren't finishing their games, regardless of what opponents and what armies they are playing against. Once you identify those people and have several years worth of data to show to them you can actually warn them at the beginning of the tournament and have judges standing by their games watching them on purpose to make sure they are speeding things along.
winterman wrote:
Curious if anyone had any more thoughts on the mission setup. Been chatting about this style a bit with friends and was curious what folks who played through it thought. Was any one victory condition a stronger decider of winning then another? Did it get boring after 3 games?
Here's what I would say about the mission: Since in every game the mission is a known factor, you can completely build your army and strategies around completing certain parts of the mission while shutting out your opponent from completing the other parts of the objectives. The stated goal of this mission was to remove that 'oh crap there's no way I can complete this mission against this army' feeling that you often get in tournaments, and in that regards it was an absolute smashing success.
You know what your army can do and you know what you have to do to win before you even start the game...its just about executing that plan against a different opposing army and deployment rules.
Now, the negative side-effect of this is I think that it means most people will play their army generally the same way in every game because if they're smart they've designed their army to work in a certain way for this mission. So if you have an army that gives up a ton of kill points, you know that every mission you're going to need to go balls-to-the-wall and take both the capture & control AND the seize ground objectives in order to win. Conversely, if you've brought an army that gives up few kill points you're probably going to always try to play conservatively and draw on the capture & control and either look to draw or win the seize ground with your kill points as the ace in your back pocket.
So I think that does tend to make games feel a bit the same, especially after playing 7 of them in the tournament. My Kan wall, for example, doesn't tend to give up many Kill Points and has big durable scoring units, but is very slow. That meant my goals were always to try to win on Kill Points, draw on Capture & Control and at least draw on Seize Ground. And that meant I pretty much executed the same style of plan in every one of my games.
Although it is quite hard for my army to normally accomplish a Capture & Control win in tournaments, especially in missions with Dawn of War or Spearhead deployment, I can safely say that in those games the all out push I make to try to capture or contest my enemy's objective creates a very different 'feel' in the game...countered by the very defensive nature of a pure Kill Point mission game. I guess it really comes down to what you're looking for: if you like consistency and balance, then this mission is perfect. If you're looking for unique gameplay and occasionally difficult challenges to overcome created by missions, then this mission really doesn't do it.
The other interesting thing about this mission I think, is that it allows players to bring armies that have some serious weaknesses normally, and players can effectively take those weaknesses into consideration and build the rest of their army to compensate. So again, with my Kan wall, the lack of speed is normally a pretty big disadvantage to me in tournaments where I'm playing a wide array of mission types, many of which require quite a bit of movement to accomplish.
With this mission, I am able to ignore the one objective type that really requires a lot of movement (capture and control) and just focus on trying to win the other two. Although my record this year was worse than last year, I had two really, really close games (one loss & one draw) that could have gone the other way really easily and perhaps allowed me to go 6-1 (although of course anytime you change a game result you change who you get matched up against, so its not really an accurate way to look at things).
J_Dearth wrote:
-666- wrote:
Congrats !! What was your Nid list if you don't mind me asking?
It was 3 Tervigons
1 Tyrant with a single guard
two venomthropes
2 hive guard
Doom in a pod
20 Termagaunts
2 dakka-fexes
That was pretty much the list. Nothing fancy really. Just got lucky I guess.
I just thought I'd point out a few more interesting details about the list for those who are interested in how this army list could be effective...and for the record, he totally destroyed my Kan Wall in round 1 (as I pretty much expected as Tyranids are a pretty bad matchup for a Kan Wall in general):
The Dakkafexes for those not well versed in Tyranids are Carnifexes with x2 twin-linked Devourers. These guys pump out 12 twin-linked S6 shots a turn. While these shots are AP-, they can still be pretty effective at stun-locking enemy vehicles besides Grey Knights. I believe his Tyrant also had at least one set of twin-linked Devourers as well (although he can correct me if I'm wrong)...definitely some sort of ranged weapon.
Two of his Tervigons were Troops (one being a HQ choice) and I think two of them had the 'Onslaught' power which allows him to run and still shoot a unit. This was interesting to me as I hadn't seen it used before, but with his army it allowed him to run and shoot either some Toxic Termagants spawned by his Tervigons or to run and shoot one of his Carnifexes, which helps to overcome the fairly short 18" range of Devourers.
His Tyrant has Hive Commander which gets The Doom on the board sooner and allows him to outflank one of the Troops Tervigons. So between the Doom dropping in and an outflanking Tervigon he has the ability to threaten the backfield of the opponent a bit.
The other really surprising thing (to me at least) was that he had Regeneration on all of his big beasties. That comes out to 160 points spent on regeneration if I'm adding it up correctly, which is obviously a pretty sizeable investment in upgrading models as opposed to just buying more of them (that's almost the cost of a Mawloc right there!).
Goatboy wrote:The Dread list was 15 DC, 3 DC dreads with Talons, 3 Furioso Dreads with Talons, 1 5 Man scoring squad, and 3 TWL Lascannon/ML dreads.
yakface wrote:Yep, I played him. I believe coming into the game we were both 2-1-1, so he obviously crushed a couple of people before getting to me to be able to win with only a single scoring unit (of like 5 Assault Marines).
He had 15 Death Company with a Chaplain attached, 5 Assault Marines, 3 Lascannon/Missile Launcher Dreads, 3 Death Company Dreads w/ Blood Talons & 3 Furioso Dreads also w/ Blood Talons.
All his Blood Talons had Meltas on them, but obviously not having any Dread CCWs put him at a severe disadvantage against my Dreads & Kans. Although he did a great job of killing off my only Loota squad on the flank across from his Heavy Dreads, it was only a matter of time before my Dreads & Kans walked their way through his all his Blood Talon dreads.
Even so, it was pretty awesome to see all those Dreads in action against each other! If he had even a few DCCWs it would have been an absolutely epic match.
Thanks for sharing that, guys! Yeah, I figured it would be best to mix DCCW and Blood Talons.
Any thoughts on an army like that in drop pods (even the ranged dreads, probably giving them just a multi-melta and keeping a DCCW)? I could fit in 8 dreads in pods, with 5 coming down turn 1, in a list this size. Unfortunately, only 1-2 small scoring units, but that's the limitation of this list (at 2K I can fit in 20 scoring bodies).
Thanks for the feedback and good to see it was at least somewhat viable!
@BAO guys, congrats on establishing what looks to be the premier must attend event on the west coast. Already making plans to make this next year and hope to get other up in the Northwest interested as well.
@yakface -- Thanks for the excellent response to my question. I like the mission style and play it and use it as a single mission in a tournament but was curious how it worked in a 7 game event.
Nice SWAG too.
Last year we got custom GF-9 gaming templates. This year we got a nice turn-counter (and some sample bases from Secret Weapon, a 25mm stowage tray from Tablewar, and some wound markers from DGDesigns(I think that was the companies name?).
Cant wait to see next years SWAG.
Custom Scatter dice? A custom single model (like the old school Gamesday era)? A free landraider/battlewagon/Trygon/Damon Prince/ etc to match your Army?
Good job to Reece and the guys. It went real smooth and I had a great time playing guys I normally never get to play.
And MOST important:
6 hours and 27 minutes from Antioch to my front door in San Diego...a new record for me!!!!
BOO-YA
winterman wrote:@BAO guys, congrats on establishing what looks to be the premier must attend event on the west coast. Already making plans to make this next year and hope to get other up in the Northwest interested as well.
@yakface -- Thanks for the excellent response to my question. I like the mission style and play it and use it as a single mission in a tournament but was curious how it worked in a 7 game event.
Yeah, as much as I enjoy not really having to deal so much with the speed deficit a Kan Wall army is stuck with with this mission, I would be pretty bummed if this mission became some sort of tournament standard that every tournie started using all the time...while I had fantastic, fun, amazing games, they did all have a very similar 'feel' in the way that I personally played my army (very defensive).
So as with all things, I think this mission is great to use in some tournaments, but I hope there will always be people that keep using different mission types, battle point tournaments, etc.
Variety is the spice of life, and 40k is no different IMHO.
winterman wrote:@BAO guys, congrats on establishing what looks to be the premier must attend event on the west coast. Already making plans to make this next year and hope to get other up in the Northwest interested as well.
@yakface -- Thanks for the excellent response to my question. I like the mission style and play it and use it as a single mission in a tournament but was curious how it worked in a 7 game event.
Yeah, as much as I enjoy not really having to deal so much with the speed deficit a Kan Wall army is stuck with with this mission, I would be pretty bummed if this mission became some sort of tournament standard that every tournie started using all the time...while I had fantastic, fun, amazing games, they did all have a very similar 'feel' in the way that I personally played my army (very defensive).
So as with all things, I think this mission is great to use in some tournaments, but I hope there will always be people that keep using different mission types, battle point tournaments, etc.
Variety is the spice of life, and 40k is no different IMHO.
It does look like a lot of tournies are going this way though. I think once you have the mission figured out for your army, you are pretty much playing the same game every time. I liked the wackiness of the missions in the team tourney, but if you design your lists with them in mind, it was kind of easy to have a large advantage. And the last mission was 100% about who won the roll to go first. At least on our table.
I fully support an evolution of the BAO mission though. GE san diego is doing it a little different and I think a little better for their GT. Perhaps further evolving it to where one of the missions drops out after the 2nd turn would add a little spice to it. But it may cause even more draws than the mission does as is.
Actually, that's something I wanted to bring up. Reece, how many draws were there overall? Way more than last year? It just seems like the mission is very easy to draw. I think a tie breaker within the match might do something to alleviate this, but it might end up being too much bookkeeping for the players and the TO's.
winterman wrote:@BAO guys, congrats on establishing what looks to be the premier must attend event on the west coast. Already making plans to make this next year and hope to get other up in the Northwest interested as well.
@yakface -- Thanks for the excellent response to my question. I like the mission style and play it and use it as a single mission in a tournament but was curious how it worked in a 7 game event.
Yeah, as much as I enjoy not really having to deal so much with the speed deficit a Kan Wall army is stuck with with this mission, I would be pretty bummed if this mission became some sort of tournament standard that every tournie started using all the time...while I had fantastic, fun, amazing games, they did all have a very similar 'feel' in the way that I personally played my army (very defensive).
So as with all things, I think this mission is great to use in some tournaments, but I hope there will always be people that keep using different mission types, battle point tournaments, etc.
Variety is the spice of life, and 40k is no different IMHO.
It does look like a lot of tournies are going this way though. I think once you have the mission figured out for your army, you are pretty much playing the same game every time. I liked the wackiness of the missions in the team tourney, but if you design your lists with them in mind, it was kind of easy to have a large advantage. And the last mission was 100% about who won the roll to go first. At least on our table.
I fully support an evolution of the BAO mission though. GE san diego is doing it a little different and I think a little better for their GT. Perhaps further evolving it to where one of the missions drops out after the 2nd turn would add a little spice to it. But it may cause even more draws than the mission does as is.
Actually, that's something I wanted to bring up. Reece, how many draws were there overall? Way more than last year? It just seems like the mission is very easy to draw. I think a tie breaker within the match might do something to alleviate this, but it might end up being too much bookkeeping for the players and the TO's.
I like the idea of having tie breakers like in Warmachine/Hordes tournaments. That way no game has an actual tie, there is always a winner.
OverwatchCNC wrote:
I like the idea of having tie breakers like in Warmachine/Hordes tournaments. That way no game has an actual tie, there is always a winner.
The thing is, we are fundamentally playing a wargame, and that concept has traditionally carried with it the core concepts associated with war that the game is attempting to represent.
In war, obviously wiping an opponent from the battlefield is a whole lot different than barely squeaking out a win. Similarly, a draw has always represented neither side accomplishing a strategic advantage leading to both sides pulling back simultaneously.
That is precisely why wargames have traditionally used battle points to help represent that a slaughter is more important than a close win and include the possibilities of a draw.
Recently, many people seem to wish to turn wargaming into more of a 'sport' than a game representing 'war' and thus battle points have started to go away as have draws in some cases.
However, while I can see the need to remove battle points from tournament scoring in some cases, I don't really see the similar need to remove draws. Honestly, when a game is going to a 2nd or 3rd tiebreaker criteria (as some games have), you are talking about awarding a 'win' to a player who has just barely defeated their opponent by the slimmest of margins. Especially when you have 7 rounds of play in a tournament (as you do in the BAO) there is simply nothing wrong with having draws IMHO.
I think that is an advantage of a scoring system that doesn't use straight up Win/Draw/Loss. You only lose convienience, which gets lost when things like ties come up.
I think Massacre/Major Victory/Minor Victory/Draw/Minor loss/Major loss/Massacred is still simple enough to use while almost eliminating the chance of a straight up tie.
Alternativly, you could use Victory Points to break ties.
In our leagues in San Diego we use the same mission but in battle point form where each "objective" is worth 4 points for a total of 12 battle points. (tied objective worth 2 points)
Works out really well when we combine it with sportsmanship and painting in a 60%Battle point 20%paint 20%sport split for top 3 overall.
the Massacre/Major Victory/Minor Victory system hurts armies that can win the mission but cant remove the opponent from the table .My main problem is you can win 3 games with minors (39pt) and still lose to someone who got 2 massacres and a lose.(40pts)
The other problem with the massacre system is if someone gets 3 favorable matchups or new players and wipes their opponents off the field then they get an advantage over people who played hard fought games against skilled opponents and barely eeked out a win.
@yakface; I see your point with draws and stalemates being a part of war, but in a tournament you want clearcut results one way or the other imo. Like I said though, the more stuff you add to the bookkeeping for players and TO's, it becomes that much more of a headache for everyone.
Well said Yakface. Draw conditions in my opinion are a fundamental aspect of the hobby and exercise of wargaming. Removing them changes the exercise and the game.
a tournament you want clearcut results one way or the other imo
@Dok - Why you don't need clear cut results in chess which has 5 draw conditions? Those tournament events function just fine.
Here is a dirty little secret about removing draws from games I don't see discussed. Removing the draw condition from the meta and possible outcome does clearly do one thing. It makes it significantly easier for the "better" players to win games because they do not have to account for a draw condition or draw strategy by an opponent whose either "not as good", suffers from an unlucky result early in the game, has a bad scenario, a bad army matchup, or just wants to ruin your day. The better player only has to execute his tried and true strategy for the victory conditions of the mission.
Now that said. The best players, still win games more often than not with or without a draw condition. So draw conditions really help determine whose wearing big boy pants and separate the men from the boys. : )
@Reecius (and anyone else who was at AdeptiCon 2011):
Having been present at both events, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the two. How they differ, how they are the same. What sort of impact did boiling it down to just book missions have (as opposed to the oddball third objective at AdeptiCon 2011)? Overall they look similar, and while I suppose terrain and other factors easily alter the overall experience - I think any lessons gleamed from the BAO would be beneficial as we put the final touches on the AdeptiCon 2012 event.
How did removing Victory Points as a tiebreaker impact the overall number of draws?
Draws under the AdeptiCon 2011 system were designed to possible, but minimized. 7.8125% over 512 games on Friday last year (there were no draws on Sunday). That said, I am in total agreement that they are essential to the art of wargaming.
Feel free to PM me if this is going to derail the topic.
The draw argument is an ongoing one in a number of sports and activities. From my own p.o.v., the # of rounds and style of game directly impacts the degree to which draws muddy the water of determining a "best" player for the weekend, especially if draws are easier to attain.
The notion nof a draw providing a player with a bad match-up, lower skill or unlucky first turn allowing him to claw his way back in and "tie it up" at the end presents a potentially epic and fun experience, and it's one I firmly support for pick-up games and league play.
In a tournament, however, the general goal - while fun is certainly important ALWAYS - for the evaluative side of things (best general wise) is determining the best general for the weekend. Draws, like margin of victory, CAN muddy the water there. This is made more the case by the limited # of rounds you inherently are able to have in our hobby - you don't have a lot of time to break through the muddying caused by ties and determine clear winners, and can often end up using metrics that are [arguably] also highly unfair to determine your "best" in categories like general when and if the use of draws forces you to pare out players with identical records from things like final brackets (we struggle with how to place 3-1's into the top bracket at NOVA each year), or select one Best General from among several players with identical records.
Taking out ties does not have to have a meaningful impact on appropriately hobby-centric Best Overall scores, but it helps ensure your Best General evaluation is fair and clear-cut ... perceivable consequences and all.
I think draw conditions are definitely a part of baseline 40k - to remove draws from pick-up games would seem to be in opposition to the spirit of it all. That said, the game does include a tie-breaking option in the core rules, so I think it's not a far stretch in certain tournament formats and settings to see it as the RIGHT thing to do to remove them.
Just as it's also the RIGHT thing to do ... to keep them ... in other settings/formats.
One of the great things about our hobby is the variability to which TO's have freedom to pursue their own style of tournament, and in that variety they find their passion to run it.
Judging by the small # of guys I know put in the majority of work for BAO, and the rousing success it had in just its second year, naught but a bravo and more grist for the mill of "ties or not, it's all about meshing your choices in smoothly with your stated format and goals."
OverwatchCNC wrote:
I like the idea of having tie breakers like in Warmachine/Hordes tournaments. That way no game has an actual tie, there is always a winner.
The thing is, we are fundamentally playing a wargame, and that concept has traditionally carried with it the core concepts associated with war that the game is attempting to represent.
In war, obviously wiping an opponent from the battlefield is a whole lot different than barely squeaking out a win. Similarly, a draw has always represented neither side accomplishing a strategic advantage leading to both sides pulling back simultaneously.
That is precisely why wargames have traditionally used battle points to help represent that a slaughter is more important than a close win and include the possibilities of a draw.
Recently, many people seem to wish to turn wargaming into more of a 'sport' than a game representing 'war' and thus battle points have started to go away as have draws in some cases.
However, while I can see the need to remove battle points from tournament scoring in some cases, I don't really see the similar need to remove draws. Honestly, when a game is going to a 2nd or 3rd tiebreaker criteria (as some games have), you are talking about awarding a 'win' to a player who has just barely defeated their opponent by the slimmest of margins. Especially when you have 7 rounds of play in a tournament (as you do in the BAO) there is simply nothing wrong with having draws IMHO.
A lot of people prefer to see someone win who has gone undefeated. The three objective format for missions eliminates bad matchups. Nothing is perfect but I prefer this to battlepoints.
The reason the win or go home tournament style sort of works at Adepticon for the singles is that there are tons of other things to do there and most people come for the Team Tournament.
If the team tournament was run on the 'win or why bother' style of tournament then I expect there would be a dramatic decline in participation an effort that people put into their armies and displays.
I believe that Draws are a part of the spirit of 40k - even at the tournament level.
I think there's a lot of "loss" of visibility that happens, here, BA. AdeptiCon's 40kGT winner isn't win or go home. Neither is NOVA's, and ... I don't know for sure but I don't think it's BAO's either. At AdeptiCon and NOVA the Best Overall involves soft scores, and losses can be recovered from by maximizing your objectives/goals, and by bringing a well-painted army. Only Best General (which is one of numerous awards and categories) is Win or Go Home .... and I always wonder if that's really all that different in terms of # of people who wish it wasn't that than "hope for good match-ups to max points" or "well I lost to a good player but oh well I can crush these dudes to get back in it." Six and half dozen.
FUN and a laid back attitude IMO are the spirit of 40k. At the tournament level (which the game is not inherently designed for), the spirit of the event is the passion of its organizers ... at which point any format passionately pursued and designed is quite in the spirit of the event. Ties or not, battle points or not, comp or not, etc.
$.02 of course, but I think that freedom and passion are a big part of why events like BAO are such big hits - the love for event that the TO's pursue it with filters down to attendees across the board. Sort of the long hard fought lesson learned when you move from conceptualizing your own particular "brilliant" format to actually executing it, is that value statements placed upon a TO's choices for their particular style are, themselves, perhaps less in the spirit of the game. Sorta like how hobbyists and "competitive" players always go at each other for pursuing their hobby the "wrong" way.
Speaking to just a single event, not an entire convention:
I think it comes down to how you personally perceive 40K and how the different subsets of the general public plays 40K.
I see it as there being four main motivating factors you need to consider when putting together an event. Combining two or three of these factors can sort of show you where those perceptions and motivations lie. There is no right combination, nor is each motivation necessarily separated by that much distance.
Enjoyment should always be the main motivating factor in any event. You do not have a choice when it comes to choosing your first motivation. Overshadowing it with anything else will only serve to diminish the impact of everything placed above it. Enjoyment also has a symbiotic relationship with all the other motivations. If someone wants to play 40K as a Sport, then they will derive amplified enjoyment from an event that treats it as so.
The remaining three motivations as I see them are: The Wargame, The Tournament and The Sport. In reality you can only focus on a maximum of two. That doesn't mean someone cannot play in a style not represented, they will just not have their overall enjoyment of the event amplified.
The BAO strikes me as an event that focused on The Wargame first and The Tournament second, with only a minor gap separating the two. This is how most events have been for many years, the gap between the two being much larger under the Battle Points system.
The goal in designing the AdeptiCon 2011 40K Championships format was to focus on those two factors and reduce the distance between them to a minimum (by comparison, this gap is purposely greater in an event like the Team Tournament). Easy to understand missions, easy to understand/record scoring, missions that were adaptable, results that were definitive and within the spirit of 40K as written. And without question, it was partially influenced by a system that I would consider places The Sport among their motivations, just as that event was previously influenced by older Battle Point systems and the AdeptiCon P/S/T system which placed The Wargame above all.
So while definitive motivations might form any one particular event, those events themselves become a sort of motivations for the community at large and begin an entirely new process of forming and informing events to come. This is turns leaves us with a myriad of events with differing degrees of motivations, allowing all player types to find the event(s) that speak to their own perceptions and playstyle. It keeps the community active and the inspiration flowing. All extremely essential - just like draws!!!
You are confusing the spirit of the game with the culture that you want to breed and enforce at your own particular event. They are totally different things. Saying that - I do not think it is wrong of you to want to foster whatever culture that floats your boat in your own house
Tournaments that include draws and the ability to recover from a loss in a game - for whatever the reason is - attract more and a better quality of participant than those that do not. That is my experience. That is the experience of many of my peers. If this changes then that's awesome - I just don't see it happening any time soon.
For anyone reading this and assuming that I am not a serious competitor you are mistaken
I definitely hear you guys when you say that getting beat up on the first turn and then clawing your way back to a draw can be a fun and awesome game. And those games definitely have a place in tournaments. But there should be a way to minimize drawing in a tournament setting. The answer to the problem isn't easy or obvious or it would be in place already. But, I definitely think it should be something that TO's strive to handle when creating their tournaments.
Some people will play for a draw rather than go for the win - less risk - some people will agree to draw and split points. W/L eliminates these antics.
It also eliminates what should be an available outcome to the game - neither side is able to win decisively.
I've played in a LOT of tournament games. I've never seen collusion to draw. I have seen plenty of pure win/loss games end early, when one player feels they've lost the opportunity to overcome an early deficit & achieve a victory; in a scenario that allows for a draw, that game is more likely to continue, to the enjoyment of both players, as they both still have something to play for.
-666- wrote:Some people will play for a draw rather than go for the win - less risk - some people will agree to draw and split points. W/L eliminates these antics.
This is ancient, Battle Points paranoia and has no bearing in the W/L/D format.
1. Playing for a draw is a viable tactic when you are losing. I don't see this as an antic. Playing for draw when you are winning is just illogical.
2. Draw collusion is a myth is this format. Neither player benefits from a draw, so it serves no one. There are no "points" to split.
Some great discussion gong on here, thanks for all the feedback, guys.
@Mathias
As you and I spoke about missions while we were gearing up for the BAO, and I really appreciated your input, I'm happy to give you mine.
The mission was play-tested extensively in our own group and in RTTs with a lot of feedback.
Our design philosophy is and always will be KISS (keep it simple stupid). Our goal is to build missions that are in the background of the game, allowing the players to focus on winning, not figuring out what's going on.
We were largely influenced by the Adepticon missions (our tournament was in general influenced by Adepticon, the Sprue Posse GT and NOVA) but simplified.
We love 40K the way it is, and felt that keeping the game as close to "normal" as possible, while complicating it enough to reward smart play and get around auto-loss match-ups, would result in the best tournament mission.
It was a bit of a risk to have only 1 scenario, but we felt it allowed us to eliminate the variable of bad mission match-ups. We wanted to eliminate luck as much as possible, and make it about skill. We think we succeeded, largely.
The mission is complex enough that it is a different experience each time, it is super easy for players to wrap their heads around as it is normal 40K for the most part. And, it allows multiple paths to victory, which is what a good mission should do, in our opinions.
As for draws, you all have covered that already, and in great depth.
For us, we feel that a draw is a part of the game. As others have said, it allows people to play through a bad match-up, and it allows you to mitigate a loss. You draw, you can still win the event. That is fun and it keeps people engaged in the event.
As said though, there are a million different ways to organize an event based on what you want your tournament to be. We wanted ours to be simple, fun, and to reward smart play. We think we accomplished that.
Lastly, in comparison to having a "wacky" mission objective, that is subjective. Personally, I don't like wacky as it tends to unfairly favor certain armies which takes the game away from being a contest of skill. But, that is just our opinion.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Winterman
Awesome, we'd love to have you! It will be the same time next year.
@Doc
VC's were only used for bracketing purposes, but were 1 point each. So, you could get 21 total.
We put in a win as 100pts, and a draw as 50pts, that way in our spreadsheet it would collate the results sequentially. What really matters was your W/L/D record.
Reecius wrote:Some great discussion gong on here, thanks for all the feedback, guys.
@Mathias
As you and I spoke about missions while we were gearing up for the BAO, and I really appreciated your input, I'm happy to give you mine.
The mission was play-tested extensively in our own group and in RTTs with a lot of feedback.
Our design philosophy is and always will be KISS (keep it simple stupid). Our goal is to build missions that are in the background of the game, allowing the players to focus on winning, not figuring out what's going on.
We were largely influenced by the Adepticon missions (our tournament was in general influenced by Adepticon and NOVA) but simplified.
We love 40K the way it is, and felt that keeping the game as close to "normal" as possible, while complicating it enough to reward smart play and get around auto-loss match-ups, would result in the best tournament mission.
It was a bit of a risk to have only 1 scenario, but we felt it allowed us to eliminate the variable of bad mission match-ups. We wanted to eliminate luck as much as possible, and make it about skill. We think we succeeded, largely.
The mission is complex enough that it is a different experience each time, it is super easy for players to wrap their heads around as it is normal 40K for the most part. And, it allows multiple paths to victory, which is what a good mission should do, in our opinions.
As for draws, you all have covered that already, and in great depth.
For us, we feel that a draw is a part of the game. As others have said, it allows people to play through a bad match-up, and it allows you to mitigate a loss. You draw, you can still win the event. That is fun and it keeps people engaged in the event.
As said though, there are a million different ways to organize an event based on what you want your tournament to be. We wanted ours to be simple, fun, and to reward smart play. We think we accomplished that.
Lastly, in comparison to having a "wacky" mission objective, that is subjective. Personally, I don't like wacky as it tends to unfairly favor certain armies which takes the game away from being a contest of skill. But, that is just our opinion.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Winterman
Awesome, we'd love to have you! It will be the same time next year.
@Doc
VC's were only used for bracketing purposes, but were 1 point each. So, you could get 21 total.
We put in a win as 100pts, and a draw as 50pts, that way in our spreadsheet it would collate the results sequentially. What really matters was your W/L/D record.
Second tie breaker was strength of schedule.
I had alot of fun, despite facing 3 grey knight players out of 7 games.
On the topic of mission design, we are working on something similar for Wargamescon. I thought the missions were on the one hand, boring after awhile because there was no change game after game but also on the other hand they were not complicated were you had to study the missions in advance just to know what your goals were.
I think ties are cool because you don't feel like you lost and gives you something to work towards if things start to go bad. Or if you just have a bad match up and try to pull out a draw knowing if you dove into the game headlong you would lose. SORRY YAKFACE! That was a fun game.
If you keep Kill Points and the seize ground missions the same and just take out the Capture and Draw mission it would be great. Add something different in that third slot and the games will probably be alot more one sided because the main issue with that one is it is SO easy to draw on and there is only 3 missions meaning you will almost always draw C&C, lose one and win one, forcing the draw often enough.
Thanks for the event reece, see you at Adepticon and Austin soon!
Having never played in a "win or lose only" style event, I am interested to do so. However, it does seem like it could be discouraging to be in a game and not have it matter if you come back for a draw.
That said, it also might be nice to be in an event where I don't have to kill every single model of my opponent viciously after they're clearly beaten (something I don't get/have to do often, but also don't enjoy very much). Being able to just "win" and call it at that would be nice.
A last point with that, though, is that it seems it might change the style of list being brought- from those that can wipe out an opponent / get max VPs most of the time (at the risk of losing big) to those that can balance out and claim all the primary/secondary/tertiary objectives, and win consistently, if by a squeaker.
Very interested in trying W/L only, as I said (since I couldn't make Nova the past few years, despite it being so close). But I think it intimidates me a little more and makes me wonder if I'll have something to play for after day 1, as a more "casual" tournament player without a fantastically painted army (i.e. I usually go around 50-50, and am not rocking the soft scores).
I know having a "best player with your record" helps with this, but the overall "Win/Loss only" has intimidated me more, and thus made me not sign up... but I do really want to try it and might revise my opinion after giving it a go
-666- wrote:Some people will play for a draw rather than go for the win - less risk - some people will agree to draw and split points. W/L eliminates these antics.
This is ancient, Battle Points paranoia and has no bearing in the W/L/D format.
1. Playing for a draw is a viable tactic when you are losing. I don't see this as an antic. Playing for draw when you are winning is just illogical.
2. Draw collusion is a myth is this format. Neither player benefits from a draw, so it serves no one. There are no "points" to split.
1. Sure no one who is winning will play for a draw... of course of course. On the other hand they might be encouraged to dig down deeper and take some chances to pull off a win if the only other choice is to lose - thus a more competitively played game which in my opinion is the point.
Frankie finally decided to grace us with his presence after a date (that must have gone pretty well!) and he pulled up the W/L/D data and I put it up on the site.
@Caldera
We were worried that the mission would get stale, but you are the only person that said it was boring, so far.
The problem is adding variety without throwing off the balance.
We'll listen to all feedback and see what everyone has to say.
-666- wrote:1. Sure no one who is winning will play for a draw... of course of course. On the other hand they might be encouraged to dig down deeper and take some chances to pull off a win if the only other choice is to lose - thus a more competitively played game which in my opinion is the point.
2. I have seen it more than once.
1. If a Draw is as good as a Loss, then they will still take those chances. The absence of Draws does not automatically make an event more competitive. Some will argue it is more evaluative, and that has a few merits, but the results of event do not define its competitive bearing.
2. Perhaps under the traditional Battle Point system this occurred. I don't doubt that, but having run around 5000 rounds of 40K games over 10 years, most under the older BP system, I can honestly say I have had this brought up two or three times tops (several years apart and long before the rise of the W/L/D system that we've seen the past couple of years). It isn't something that is as widespread as proponents of the W/L claim. There are no 'points' in the W/L or the W/L/D system and therefore, there is nothing to split. If these events are at full capacity than a Draw significantly reduces your chance to win the event and more than one Draw knocks you out completely. There is absolutely zero benefit in Draw collusion under this system.
Let me also amend this by explaining the system we run at AdeptiCon as it differs in more major way from other events. We run a W/L/D system that uses three simultaneous objectives. The player that accomplishes more objectives wins the game. If the players are drawn on number of objectives, then Victory Points are used as a secondary win condition/tiebreaker (with a 185 point margin per the 40K rulebook, pg 300). Only if the Victory Point total is within 185 points, is the game scored as a draw. As stated above, the system was designed to make Draws possible, but minimized. 7.8125% over 512 games on Friday last year in the qualifier rounds, or 40 total draws.
Victory Points would solve multiple problems, one reason I like Fantesy so much.
I was in a small tournament that used the general missions but also had people keep track of Victory Points to break ties.
Say I get 1400 VPs in game 1, 2025 in game 2, and 750 in game 3.
I'm tied with another player for something. So we compare our total Victory points to break the tie. I have 4175, he has 3850. I win the tie by Victory points.
The actual missions are those from the book, but the Victory points are held as a secondary tie breaker. Its a good one because it shows how much stuff your army has killed and is a good benchmark of performance.
With regard to and in support of Matthias' comment on competitiveness, it's often mistakenly used.
An event with Kobe Bryant and Michael Jordan competing in a field of children for a 1-on-1 street basketball tournament ... where there are 128 attendees and 3 rounds, and Jordan/Kobe never play each other ... and where one of them is given the win based on total # of baskets scored ... the event may be EXTREMELY competitive, but completely NOT evaluative.
Wha?
Posit that the children are all roughly of similar athletic capability, experience at the game, and size.
96.875% of the games will have been between peers, meaning 90+% of the games will likely be extremely close, and therefore extremely competitive. Only 6 (3.125%) of the games will be NOT competitive, the 6 in which Kobe or MJ played up against a child in a 1-on-1 game of basketball.
The event is NOT, however, evaluative - that's to say, the results are meaningless, b/c they are based on an arbitrary figure (# of baskets scored), and the people capable of winning were competing against children despite being the pinnacle of skill in their sport.
When we look at Warhammer/40kGT's, competitiveness is proportional to the average skill variance between attendees. The EVALUATIVENESS of an event is (and yeah it's not a word, sue me) a totally different factor, and it's the one TO's are generally concerned with when designing their formats - what do they want to evaluate, and what do they care about evaluating.
So, all this ... argument about ties or no ties, battle points or no battle points, having some bearing on competitiveness ... is silly. You could argue events like Feast of Blades or the NOVA Invitational or the Final 16 at AdeptiCon are the "real" hyper competitive events, b/c every game is going to be between highly skilled peers within the hobby ... OR you could argue that the open fields at WarGamesCon and NOVA and AdeptiCon are, with over 200 attendees you have to wade through, dozens upon dozens of which will be highly ranked national contenders. ALL of these would just be arguments, however, because it's not a professionalized hobby ... and focusing too much on trying to be competitive is a little silly.
All of our events, whether we know it when we plan it or not, are simply focused on trying to evaluate what each TO places emphasis on ... and for those who step back and try not to make it partisan, most of the big events are actually evaluating EVERYTHING. "Best Overall" is drifting further and further from "Best General" in terms of what metrics are used to determine each, ensuring that all of the big events more and more are fairly (in their own way) evaluating both the Best General on a hardcore gameplay angle for their event and format ... and evaluating the Best Overall with a much heavier soft score contribution for their format/event.
As I mature and grow up, more and more I realize the bile that we toss back and forth trying to claim one system is better or not is wasted, especially in comment about competitiveness and sportsmanship and "fun." 85% of NOVA's attendees reported the sportsmanship they experienced was equal to or higher than what they'd encountered at other events; 90% rated the event a 4 or 5 out of 5. I'll bet the same kinds of results would be shown from attendees at Bay Area, AdeptiCon, etc. It's not really about the format at all - it's about the energy, enthusiasm, crowd and fun time ... getting together with your peers and rolling dice and having fun.
IN a sense, format is the domain of the TO; we do what we do b/c of what we care about ... whether that's playing the game our way, or forming a format based upon playtest and feedback. Either way, the best thing I think we can all do is bravo people like Reece, and ... maybe worry less about completely unprovable (but highly divisive) claims of "competitiveness" and the like.
Reecius wrote:Our design philosophy is and always will be KISS (keep it simple stupid). Our goal is to build missions that are in the background of the game, allowing the players to focus on winning, not figuring out what's going on.
Sounds like you had a lot of success here.
Reecius wrote:We love 40K the way it is, and felt that keeping the game as close to "normal" as possible, while complicating it enough to reward smart play and get around auto-loss match-ups, would result in the best tournament mission.
It was a bit of a risk to have only 1 scenario, but we felt it allowed us to eliminate the variable of bad mission match-ups. We wanted to eliminate luck as much as possible, and make it about skill. We think we succeeded, largely.
The mission is complex enough that it is a different experience each time, it is super easy for players to wrap their heads around as it is normal 40K for the most part. And, it allows multiple paths to victory, which is what a good mission should do, in our opinions.
IMO, having played the mission a couple of times and reading Yak's comments on it, I think you've run into a conflict here. Having only one mission is inherently contradictory to "keeping the game as close to "normal" as possible". The normal missions don't allow you to build an army which will (for example) always be able to write off Capture & Control and settle for always going for the Draw on that goal. I do think it seems like once you know how your army handles this one mission, you're going to have the same basic plan for it every game (albeit obviously with some variation based on the opponent, deployment and table).
Reecius wrote:Lastly, in comparison to having a "wacky" mission objective, that is subjective. Personally, I don't like wacky as it tends to unfairly favor certain armies which takes the game away from being a contest of skill. But, that is just our opinion.
I think you've got a legitimate concern that some missions are too "wacky", and genuinely screw up the game. I played in a tournament recently where the primary goal of one mission was to kill the enemy HQ while keeping yours alive, and you each had to move your designated HQ directly toward the enemy HQ each turn as fast as possible. That's a broken/unbalanced mission goal. But I don't think you can reasonably say that all new mission goals are broken. The adepticon guys put a bunch of work into designing balanced ones, and I have no doubt that you could so as well.
Sure; I think people are right to be cautious about "wacky" missions/objectives, though, as some homebrew missions (and some of GW's) are legitimately wacky in the sense of seeming silly and not very well thought through.
Rotate the emphasis of the types from game to game, award 6 for main, 3 for secondary, and 1 for teriary. It eliminates the problem of draws, let's someone stay in the running with a narrow loss, and does not require completely tabling the other person to get wins. It would also stratify things a bit for late round pairings. Now if your the kind of person who thinks that five narrow wins is worth mo than four massacres and a narrow loss, then you might not care for this sort of thing. But if you don't want the tournament to be over for someone after one loss and want to avoid soft scores, I think something like that is the best bet and changes the feel from game to game.
Yeah, "wacky" may have been the wrong term. Wacky makes me think of missions like gravity well from 3d ed. What an idiot mission that was.
Adepticon missions are great. The only issue with specialized victory conditions is that they inherently favor certain armies over others. In a game where all the armies are designed to be very different from one another, it is difficult to find something that applies to them all equally.
Is the BAO mission a fix-all? Nope. I don't think there is a magic bullet mission that works all the time. I think the BAO mission woks for now. Gamers game systems. Surrprise. In time, our system will be gamed too, and we will have to evolve to stay fresh.
Until 6th ed though, I think we will have a winner, as much as can be.
Like MVBrandt said, the point is to gave fun. In our minds, a fun system allows everyone to come, have fun, and not worry about losing a game because of bad tournament design. That just isn't fun.
As much as I would like to see, from a purely competitive stand point, a totally standardized national tournament format, with a player ranking system akin to Chess, it would kill a lot of what makes our hobby so cool. Sacrificing some of our ability to quantify results in order to keep things Grim Dark is a fair exchange, in my mind. Going to different events and playing in different formats is fun. There is room for all kinds of hobby goodness.
-666- wrote:Some people will play for a draw rather than go for the win - less risk - some people will agree to draw and split points. W/L eliminates these antics.
Some people wear tinfoil hats, too. Failures of judging can occur in any tournament, and agreeing to a draw and splitting the points would be an example of failure from the judges. It's just as easy to accuse people of buying wins in W/L, or throwing games to improve the odds of their club member getting a weak opponent in future rounds. The only way to prevent antics is to actively pay attention to what is happening on the tables - that is to have good and observant officials. Changing from BP to W/L (or vice versa) has no impact on the ability of players to collude, just the types of collusion that you might be on the lookout for.
The other way to mitigate the "danger" of splitting points for Draws is to make it less beneficial. If you're doing Battle Points, make it so that a Win is worth an odd number of points, but Drawing it gets the points rounded down. I've seen tournaments, for example, use three-tiered missions where (for example) the Primary objective was worth 15, secondary 9, and tertiary 5, but Drawing on them gave each person 7, 4, or 2pts, respectively.
There is no perfect system, and as others said, smart players can find ways to abuse the system, that is just the way of it. The smart play, IMO, is to come up with a system that enables people to have as much fun as possible, with a clear path to victory, and then to officiate the event well.
Was there more than one game that had a concession before dice were thrown because one of the players didn't want to play against GK? Obviously the only one I know of is the game my opponent conceded because he didn't want to play GK again. I wasn't aware there were more and your article made it seem there was more than one instance of this.
-666- wrote:making them have to play each other the first round is not cool.
Why?
Why not?
There is no precedent. It is a strong book with a lot of players, don't cry about it. I played Eldar the first 3 rounds at the BAO and while I don't personally enjoy playing against Eldar I didn't refuse to play nor did I suggest that all Eldar players should play each other first round because I don't enjoy playing against Eldar. I also don't enjoy playing against Leaf Blower style IG lists, doesn't mean I want all the IG players to face each other in the first round. Having them all play each other first round doesn't do anything except insure all the GK whiners out there get a guaranteed round off from playing GKs.
Not to mention that by weeding out half of the GK players (normally the worse or unluckier half) it only ensures that the GK players people do play in later rounds are more likely to punch them in the face. Further creating a divide on how "OP" the GK codex is.
Hulksmash wrote:Not to mention that by weeding out half of the GK players (normally the worse or unluckier half) it only ensures that the GK players people do play in later rounds are more likely to punch them in the face. Further creating a divide on how "OP" the GK codex is.
In addition, making Grey Knights play each other in the first round sounds a lot like "I can't beat them so make someone else play them"
Hulksmash wrote:Not to mention that by weeding out half of the GK players (normally the worse or unluckier half) it only ensures that the GK players people do play in later rounds are more likely to punch them in the face. Further creating a divide on how "OP" the GK codex is.
Hulksmash wrote:Not to mention that by weeding out half of the GK players (normally the worse or unluckier half) it only ensures that the GK players people do play in later rounds are more likely to punch them in the face. Further creating a divide on how "OP" the GK codex is.
In addition, making Grey Knights play each other in the first round sounds a lot like "I can't beat them so make someone else play them"
Personally, I wouldn't feel as good about winning (or even doing particularly well) at a tournament where a significant number of the players started with that kind of handicap.
Hulksmash wrote:Not to mention that by weeding out half of the GK players (normally the worse or unluckier half) it only ensures that the GK players people do play in later rounds are more likely to punch them in the face. Further creating a divide on how "OP" the GK codex is.
In addition, making Grey Knights play each other in the first round sounds a lot like "I can't beat them so make someone else play them"
Personally, I wouldn't feel as good about winning (or even doing particularly well) at a tournament where a significant number of the players started with that kind of handicap.
That's just it, though - what's the handicap? If every codex is balanced, then there is nothing imbalanced about pairing each codex against itself for the first round, right?
Hulk, in the winner's bracket, you should already expect every opponent to be progressively more likely to punch you in the face.
I'm serious, as I've thought about structuring a tournament in almost exactly this way. It will have the interesting effect of spreading out the various armies across the brackets, but is just as evaluative as a random pairing in a single-elimination structure can be.
Janthkin wrote:That's just it, though - what's the handicap? If every codex is balanced, then there is nothing imbalanced about pairing each codex against itself for the first round, right?
Who said the books are balanced? I certainly didn't.
Some books are better than others. Has it not always been this way?
Janthkin wrote:That's just it, though - what's the handicap? If every codex is balanced, then there is nothing imbalanced about pairing each codex against itself for the first round, right?
I see nothing wrong if every codex is paired against each other in first round.
However, it would have to be every codex.
Not just a few certain codexes to handicap them.
I am sure Necron players everywhere would rejoice if they got to skip Tyranids in the first round.
and what happens if there are an odd number of players for that army?
Random pairings are the most fair overall. and if there are more of a certain codex then the chance of that codex facing itself are already fairly high so there will already be a fair number of blue vs blue games first round anyway.
and what happens if there are an odd number of players for that army?
Random pairings are the most fair overall. and if there are more of a certain codex then the chance of that codex facing itself are already fairly high so there will already be a fair number of blue vs blue games first round anyway.
Quoted for accuracy
Please don't spam the forum. It's against our rules. Thanks. ~Manchu
and what happens if there are an odd number of players for that army?
Random pairings are the most fair overall. and if there are more of a certain codex then the chance of that codex facing itself are already fairly high so there will already be a fair number of blue vs blue games first round anyway.
Exactly. If you are going to pair all the GK players together round 1 than the only fair thing would be to pair all other codices together round 1 as well. It isn't the fault of the GK book that it is well written with a host of options for different builds that do well. Most of the GKOP hate comes from the fact that other players want a book that is equally as capable of building numerous good lists with good options. Calling out a single dex and forcing all it's players to play each other in the first round with out that same restriction on the other books is just silly.
Also, as already stated, random pairings continue to be the best way to pair. If you want a 100% balanced event then make your tournaments Mirror Match events where everyone plays the same list, otherwise I think TOs and the community as a whole need to get over it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
-666- wrote:What would be too funny is all the GK players colluded and drew the first round.
Grey Templar wrote:Random pairings are the most fair overall.
Can you define "fair" in this context? They're certainly the most random. But in a single-elimination Swiss-pairing structure like the BAO (and particularly one where the mission is always the same and/or the terrain doesn't fluctuate significantly between tables), the initial pairings could only be unfair if they changed the outcome of the event, right?
In addition, Christian who played IG this year, played Grey knights last year and did not win. James, who won with IG last year and played grey knights this year did not win.
Seems like more than a coincidence to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ridiculous, baseless assertions ftw!
The main point I was making about GK round 1 face off is to think about the average players experience and having a deterrent too many people taking the same codex. Variety is the spice of life right?
As a player I am particular not scared of Grey Knights myself, but many people have a rational and or irrational hatred against them and forcing them to right away have a bad experience at an event I think should be avoided.
My solution is a very simple one and you can change it to something like no player can play against the same codex three times unless they are on the top 10 tables or something like that.
I also said that this can be applied to whatever flavor of the month codex is out. I am sure when CSM comes out good or not we will see the numbers shift. Regardless good players will rise to the top no matter what army they are playing. I am just thinking about ways to stop codex band wagoners.
tastytaste wrote:The main point I was making about GK round 1 face off is to think about the average players experience and having a deterrent too many people taking the same codex. Variety is the spice of life right?
As a player I am particular not scared of Grey Knights myself, but many people have a rational and or irrational hatred against them and forcing them to right away have a bad experience at an event I think should be avoided.
My solution is a very simple one and you can change it to something like no player can play against the same codex three times unless they are on the top 10 tables or something like that.
I also said that this can be applied to whatever flavor of the month codex is out. I am sure when CSM comes out good or not we will see the numbers shift. Regardless good players will rise to the top no matter what army they are playing. I am just thinking about ways to stop codex band wagoners.
Why? People can't enjoy their hobby the way they want? If someone wants to go out and spend a bunch of money to play whatever the new hotness is who are we to say they shouldn't or to discourage it? They earned the money let them do with it as they please, not to mention many band wagoners are generally not the top notch players. I would never be behind a system that limits the personal freedoms of the participants to play the army they wish. We have the US Congress to limit our freedoms let's not extend that to our hobby as well .
I figured that one line would get a rise out of someone hehe.
Ask yourself this. Would you be less likely to play in an event if you played against your the same codex in the first round, if it meant that the most players had a better overall experience knowing they didn't have to face the same codex 2 or 3 times in one event?
I am not saying no one can play the bandwagon army of the month and this is not even a comp ding against them, it is just an idea for the other players attending an event don't have to face the same thing over and over.
OverwatchCNC wrote:
tastytaste wrote:The main point I was making about GK round 1 face off is to think about the average players experience and having a deterrent too many people taking the same codex. Variety is the spice of life right?
As a player I am particular not scared of Grey Knights myself, but many people have a rational and or irrational hatred against them and forcing them to right away have a bad experience at an event I think should be avoided.
My solution is a very simple one and you can change it to something like no player can play against the same codex three times unless they are on the top 10 tables or something like that.
I also said that this can be applied to whatever flavor of the month codex is out. I am sure when CSM comes out good or not we will see the numbers shift. Regardless good players will rise to the top no matter what army they are playing. I am just thinking about ways to stop codex band wagoners.
Why? People can't enjoy their hobby the way they want? If someone wants to go out and spend a bunch of money to play whatever the new hotness is who are we to say they shouldn't or to discourage it? They earned the money let them do with it as they please, not to mention many band wagoners are generally not the top notch players. I would never be behind a system that limits the personal freedoms of the participants to play the army they wish. We have the US Congress to limit our freedoms let's not extend that to our hobby as well .
I am not in favor or forced pairings as suggested above. Nor am I in favor of trying to seed pairing based on perceived player skill or even past performance. We have been down that route in the past with the AdeptiCon Warhammer 40K Invitational/Circuit Championships in 2008/2009. Too much opinion and not enough reliable data.
We did try something different this year for the Warhammer 40K Friendly at AdeptiCon.
We simply limited the number of tickets available to each codex in the tournament. The event has 40 players and we only took 5 of any one codex. After that the option was no longer available. While I wouldn't necessary advocate this for every style of event, I do think this works well for casual/smaller events. Even further, we also designed it so the filed was split down the middle resulting in 20 Imperial players and 20 of everything else which plays into some of the factional awards and team-based achievements.
tastytaste wrote:I figured that one line would get a rise out of someone hehe.
Ask yourself this. Would you be less likely to play in an event if you played against your the same codex in the first round, if it meant that the most players had a better overall experience knowing they didn't have to face the same codex 2 or 3 times in one event?
Of course I would be less likely to attend. That means that I would be going up against Grey Knights in the first round and I would not want to face the most over powered codex that that GW has put out in 10 years!
Monster Rain wrote:If pairing GK on GK for the first round doesn't change the outcome of the event what's the point of doing it?
It could change the experiences of the individual players in the event (how many times they had to play against the same codex) without necessarily impacting the overall result. If that means no one winds up playing against the same codex three times, that'd be a worthwhile outcome.
I could see doing this with whatever the current flavor of the month army is, if said army passed a certain threshold where it really was making up a huge proportion of the tournament. Maybe say if a given book makes up 25%, or 30% of the total armies present, you do the "round one you all play each other" thing?
The idea has some merit, but we as TOs would never influence pairings or even have the appearance of influencing pairings as it opens a can of worms that creates more problems than it solves.
The only exceptions to not messing with pairings is in not having friends/club mates play each other round 1, and we occasionally will match up grudge matches (if both players desire it) if they have the same record and their won't impact the top tables. For example, this year, in the last game, two Ork players requested that they play each other to see who would win best Ork player as they have the same record. That was awesome and we had no problem with that.
Monster Rain wrote:If pairing GK on GK for the first round doesn't change the outcome of the event what's the point of doing it?
It could change the experiences of the individual players in the event (how many times they had to play against the same codex) without necessarily impacting the overall result. If that means no one winds up playing against the same codex three times, that'd be a worthwhile outcome.
Oh, no argument here. If the main drive for this was to keep me from playing GKs three times at an event (I only lost one. Damn you, Dok! ) I'd be all over it. Sell it from that perspective and I'd get behind it.
What I don't agree with is doing it because the army is too strong. I'd rather do my best against what may be a stronger codex than have the pairings manipulated to make it easier for other armies to win.
Mannahnin wrote:I could see doing this with whatever the current flavor of the month army is, if said army passed a certain threshold where it really was making up a huge proportion of the tournament. Maybe say if a given book makes up 25%, or 30% of the total armies present, you do the "round one you all play each other" thing?
No! As boring as it can be sometimes, I count on the inexperience of bandwagon-hoppers with their FOTM armies for most of my tournament wins!
Seriously though, from a perspective of pure enjoyment of a tournament I could actually support this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Reecius wrote: For example, this year, in the last game, two Ork players requested that they play each other to see who would win best Ork player as they have the same record. That was awesome and we had no problem with that.
That is, if you will forgive the expression, extremely "orky".
Reecius wrote: For example, this year, in the last game, two Ork players requested that they play each other to see who would win best Ork player as they have the same record. That was awesome and we had no problem with that.
So thats how I got that mirror match in the final round against Russ I had no idea it was a request, that makes that match even more awsome!
Monster Rain wrote:If pairing GK on GK for the first round doesn't change the outcome of the event what's the point of doing it?
It could change the experiences of the individual players in the event (how many times they had to play against the same codex) without necessarily impacting the overall result. If that means no one winds up playing against the same codex three times, that'd be a worthwhile outcome.
I could see doing this with whatever the current flavor of the month army is, if said army passed a certain threshold where it really was making up a huge proportion of the tournament. Maybe say if a given book makes up 25%, or 30% of the total armies present, you do the "round one you all play each other" thing?
I agree with the idea of forced pairings for over-represented armies but your 25% threshold is probably too high. GK accounted for 1/6 of the armies at the BAO which was about 3x the average showing for all armies, so somewhere between 2x and 3x the average would probably be a good cutoff.
The people who look at this as a "nerf" are missing the point. It's not to make sure that the players with the top army have to play each other. If it's really the top army, odds are that they're playing each other already on the top tables. The point is to make sure that the other players don't face the same army over and over and the benefit of a forced matchup is two-fold. First, it guarantees a round where no one has to play the over-represented army and second, it spreads that army across the field for subsequent rounds (or at least the second round).
@dkellyj - Handed? I guess next time I can just hang out with Reece, Will & Franky drinking beers and not waste my time going 5-2 if I'm just going to get "handed" best Ork at the end, right? Drinks are on me ZeroComp!
The legend of Duggs cunningness to let the other guys do the eavy liftin while hes rullin da roost grows wif every post! I thought I wuz "Grimgob da kunning one" but I now know who da real boss iz
-666- wrote:making them have to play each other the first round is not cool.
Why?
Because:
1) It messes with the validity of the tournament results
2) It punishes players for playing an army that they use for a variety of reasons (IE, not every GK player is a bandwagon player)
3) There are a variety of GK lists, some powerful, some not
4) You just gave the entire tournament field pre-knowledge of their first round pairings
4) It's biased and unethical, I don't remember something this outlandish being suggested during the 3-4 years of nothing-but-Nidzilla 40k experienced, or the hayday of Lash
5) It's divisive to the hobby
I could go on, but I think it's safe to say "I think it's a terrible idea"
It would probably alter the top tables pretty dramatically, as the only way to guarantee a first-round win (so a shot at actually winning the tournament) would be to build the best anti-GKGK list or anti-IG leafblower or whatever and then hope that list works out well enough against the majority of the other books' ''anti-eldar eldar'' type of armies.
What's to stop people from still playing them 3-4 other times over the weekend though? The number of players still hasn't dropped and since a lot of the big tournies are 6-7 rounds now do you really think it would have an impact?
Basically I think the idea of the first round same-codex pairings is ridiculous. People didn't do it with Chaos 3.5, IG, or Space Wolves so why with GK?
Plus until GK actually starts winning some of these uncomped events, instead of SW and IG, GK whining is nothing more than internet nerd rage. Tasty's suggestion would be like saying "I don't want to play Reece of Blackmoor because I always lose to them, so they should have to play each other.", which is just pure butthurt, nothing more or less.
What's to stop people from still playing them 3-4 other times over the weekend though? The number of players still hasn't dropped and since a lot of the big tournies are 6-7 rounds now do you really think it would have an impact?
Basically I think the idea of the first round same-codex pairings is ridiculous. People didn't do it with Chaos 3.5, IG, or Space Wolves so why with GK?
Exactly. Those GK players are still present in the tournament field, and now you've guaranteed that 50% of the GK players are in the lower bracket going into round 2.
What's to stop people from still playing them 3-4 other times over the weekend though? The number of players still hasn't dropped and since a lot of the big tournies are 6-7 rounds now do you really think it would have an impact?
Basically I think the idea of the first round same-codex pairings is ridiculous. People didn't do it with Chaos 3.5, IG, or Space Wolves so why with GK?
It really just boils down to some people can't stand that the GK codex has so many legitimate builds and options so building your list to fight, say Draigowing, won't necessarily net you the same effect against Coteaz henchman lists, or Psyback spam, or foot slogging psycannon spam. With Wolves you can reliably build a list that will do well against all the various SW lists, GK is just too much of a swiss army book for people to handle so they want to knee cap it.
Claiming fixed first round pairings are unbiased is just naive. I agree with Hulk on this one, it will only provide a one round knee cap to the "dominant" codex. We should be careful the slippery slope we are treading down with this one lest we return to the days of 40k comp or have a Fantasy style comp system
OverwatchCNC wrote:
With Wolves you can reliably build a list that will do well against all the various SW lists, GK is just too much of a swiss army book for people to handle so they want to knee cap it.
I'm not sold on this either. There are several legitimate builds that come out of the SW codex and are generally pretty different. The top 4 being Razorspam MSU, TWC Heavy, Loganwing, and a balanced approach with a metric ton of Grey Hunters. The tools to deal with these lists are pretty varied.
But that's about the only thing you said that I disagree with
You and Russ just got paired together, we didn't influence that! It just happened to work out that all the Ork player played each other in some hot Ork on Ork action!
@Thread
While I will be the first to admit that I think the Grey Knight Codex is poorly written by an incompetent rules writer (Mr. Ward) I don't think any TO should influence pairings to punish players. That would be bad for the event, and would only upset people unnecessarily.
The smart play, IMO, is to build a list that can beat GKs if you really want to fight the trend.
Grimgob wrote:The legend of Duggs cunningness to let the other guys do the eavy liftin while hes rullin da roost grows wif every post! I thought I wuz "Grimgob da kunning one" but I now know who da real boss iz
I AM the WAAAGH delegator!!!
Dugg .... aka "Da Old 'n' Wise Zuggwort"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grimgob wrote:Thanks for the nice words Dugg, ya sneaky git
Get ready for some more Grimgob!!
Did everyone see Grimgobs Ork Table? That table was SO awesome! Besides being an awesome tribute to Orks, the Rulers of the Universe, it's design/function was top-notch! I'll try to post some photos of my game on it later.
the only awesome part about there being so many Grey Knight players is that people don't seem to be playing Space wolves as much. Get outta here Space wolves!
In regards to fixed first round pairings, that just sounds childish. Using BAO as an example, The players that finished at the top this year were almost the exact same as the players that finished on top last year. Unless you also were able to pair the GK players by skill, the same people would most likely be in the same place. It sounds like you're saying that them using the GK codex is 100% responsible for their results. So blackmoor has never placed in a tournament without GK? Christain played GK last year and did worse.
I am just getting into playing in the larger events, so who knows what I would've done, haha. But I also play Dreadknights which the internet says are terrible... So, I would've dominated everyone's face off if I played an internet cookie cutter build? And lost my ass if I played a crappier codex?
Dok wrote:the only awesome part about there being so many Grey Knight players is that people don't seem to be playing Space wolves as much. Get outta here Space wolves!
In regards to fixed first round pairings, that just sounds childish. Using BAO as an example, The players that finished at the top this year were almost the exact same as the players that finished on top last year. Unless you also were able to pair the GK players by skill, the same people would most likely be in the same place. It sounds like you're saying that them using the GK codex is 100% responsible for their results. So blackmoor has never placed in a tournament without GK? Christain played GK last year and did worse.
I am just getting into playing in the larger events, so who knows what I would've done, haha. But I also play Dreadknights which the internet says are terrible... So, I would've dominated everyone's face off if I played an internet cookie cutter build? And lost my ass if I played a crappier codex?
Yes on all accounts
The best part about the larger events Dok is that you never get matched up against me!
Top 5 was 2ig 2gk 1 sw with very few ig or sw players at the event. GK has multiple compeititve builds, and given the numbers of gk at the event + the large number of gk players at the middle and bottom of the pack the codex as a whole underperformed. What I thik would make an interesting stastic would be to average the scores of every codex to figure out which one did best overall. My guess is it would be nids.
Another thing codex on same codex match ups would only feed tough players like blackmore an easy win. If large numbers of newer players field gk to stay competitive odds are that experienced players using gk would be fed a newbie on round 1.
By the way...I did play Grey Knights in the first round (oddly enough)
This is how are game started with Dawn of War
This is how our game ended.
So really I do not see what is accomplished by having GK on GK action. The good players will win and move on, and the others will not.
Where I see it hurting people is what happens when you only have a few players of a codex and they are both very good. Then you could have J. Dearth and Janthkin going at each other and that will not accomplish anything. Or what would happen when you have the few Deathwing players knocking half of themselves out.
There is also the fact that pairing them up first round isn't going to have a huge effect on a tournament with as many games in it as the BAO.
If the GK codex is indeed overpowered then all it does is shove 50% of the Gks into the losers bracket to beat the snot out of the other armies there and get back into the fight, so you have the GK players who won round one at the very top and you have those who lost round 1 slightly below them.
with as many games as this tournament had the effect of any one game, particularly the very first one, is diluted by the time the final round rolls up.
In regards to fixed first round pairings, that just sounds childish.
Where I see it hurting people is what happens when you only have a few players of a codex and they are both very good. Then you could have J. Dearth and Janthkin going at each other and that will not accomplish anything. Or what would happen when you have the few Deathwing players knocking half of themselves out.
Most of the last page of posts seems to be missing the point of the suggestion.
A) That it's not meant as a handicap, it's just meant to help prevent people from having to face one single book for the majority of their games.
B) That it would only be considered if one army was showing up in huge numbers.
Doing it in the first round logistically would work better than building a cap into the pairings software, as you don't want to mess with the pairings late in the tournament and give mismatches.
I'm really not sure how this is a worse idea than preventing teammates/friends from playing in round 1, or allowing round 1 grudge matches. All of those things mess around with the pure randomness of round 1 pairings, but they all increase player fun without particularly impacting the overall results.
Hulksmash wrote:Basically I think the idea of the first round same-codex pairings is ridiculous. People didn't do it with Chaos 3.5, IG, or Space Wolves so why with GK?
They could have done it with those books in some events. Might as well ask "Why didn't anyone use the Bay Area Open scenario before the Bay Area Open?" Maybe because nobody thought of it?
Anyway, it's just an idea. If the immediate reaction of GK players is to think it's handicapping them and protest, then clearly it's not going to increase player fun after all. Especially if GK are making up 1/6th of the players in attendance.
I think capping the number of entries from any particular codex is a reasonable solution, if there is even a problem that needs to be addressed. One book has come out since GK and I think that GK numbers will diminish once another couple come out. It seems like no one has really picked up the necron book and given it a serious look through in the competitive sense. Whether that be because everyone picked up a GK army and they don't want to invest in a new one or because the necron book is not competitive, I'm not sure.
As an aside, from looking through the book and playing a couple games with them, it looks as if they are entirely too luck reliant to go through a 7 game GT.
Necrons are amazing. Maybe not as point & click as GK (though several lists, particulaly Scarab swarm and Wraithwing can play very point & click against players who haven't faced them before), and not as cheap to build, but they are kicking the crap out of people. Both the Onslaught GT and St. Valentine's Day Massacre were won by them in February.
Necrons are amazing. Maybe not as point & click as GK (though several lists, particulaly Scarab swarm and Wraithwing can play very point & click against players who haven't faced them before), and not as cheap to build, but they are kicking the crap out of people. Both the Onslaught GT and St. Valentine's Day Massacre were won by them in February.
Based on that info we clearly need to have all Necrons pitted against one another in the first round.
I still don't buy the argument that arranging the first round pairings, in anyway, is anything other than a handicap, or knee cap. If you want to bring back comp to mitigate a certain books power than just say so, we shouldn't try to invent a new awkward comp system using first round pairings. The suggestions is really just a comp system in disguise.
Necrons are amazing. Maybe not as point & click as GK (though several lists, particulaly Scarab swarm and Wraithwing can play very point & click against players who haven't faced them before), and not as cheap to build, but they are kicking the crap out of people. Both the Onslaught GT and St. Valentine's Day Massacre were won by them in February.
2 wins only makes a trend when it comes to GK
Automatically Appended Next Post:
OverwatchCNC wrote:
Based on that info we clearly need to have all Necrons pitted against one another in the first round.
I still don't buy the argument that arranging the first round pairings, in anyway, is anything other than a handicap, or knee cap. If you want to bring back comp to mitigate a certain books power than just say so, we shouldn't try to invent a new awkward comp system using first round pairings. The suggestions is really just a comp system in disguise.
The Grey knight bias would kick in, and anyone playing the codex would really never win. While people playing squadrons of vendettas, hydras, and veterans would get middle of the road scores because "hey, at least it's not Grey Knights". You know, screw this noise. I'm going to go steal Reece's SW army and just never lose again, haha
Necrons are amazing. Maybe not as point & click as GK (though several lists, particulaly Scarab swarm and Wraithwing can play very point & click against players who haven't faced them before), and not as cheap to build, but they are kicking the crap out of people. Both the Onslaught GT and St. Valentine's Day Massacre were won by them in February.
Necrons are amazing. Maybe not as point & click as GK (though several lists, particulaly Scarab swarm and Wraithwing can play very point & click against players who haven't faced them before), and not as cheap to build, but they are kicking the crap out of people. Both the Onslaught GT and St. Valentine's Day Massacre were won by them in February.
2 wins only makes a trend when it comes to GK
Automatically Appended Next Post:
OverwatchCNC wrote:
Based on that info we clearly need to have all Necrons pitted against one another in the first round.
I still don't buy the argument that arranging the first round pairings, in anyway, is anything other than a handicap, or knee cap. If you want to bring back comp to mitigate a certain books power than just say so, we shouldn't try to invent a new awkward comp system using first round pairings. The suggestions is really just a comp system in disguise.
The Grey knight bias would kick in, and anyone playing the codex would really never win. While people playing squadrons of vendettas, hydras, and veterans would get middle of the road scores because "hey, at least it's not Grey Knights". You know, screw this noise. I'm going to go steal Reece's SW army and just never lose again, haha
I already play that Bjorn list and you couldn't beat it! Come to think of it, I probably should have just taken that to the BAO this year
A) That it's not meant as a handicap, it's just meant to help prevent people from having to face one single book for the majority of their games.
B) That it would only be considered if one army was showing up in huge numbers.
I think you sometimes play a lot of armies and it is just luck of the draw. At GW's LA GT in 2005 my last 3 opponents were all Necrons (in only 5 rounds) and there were only 5 at the GT total. Sometimes you just get what you get. Sure, I was sick of Necrons after that, but that is just the way it is. At Wargames Con a couple of years ago 4 out of my 7 games were against Blood Angels.
There is always going to be a flavor-of-the-month codex and it will be overrepresented.
Not facing an army for only the first round seems to be pretty pointless especially since a lot of GTs are going into 7+ games. You will have to deal with them sooner or later.
On the west coast is has not been much of a problem because I think there were not that many of any one army running around. Grey Knights at around 14 players is not that many in a 100 man field. Now it might be different on the East Coast because I hear there are a lot more GK and IG players and they are making up a lot more of the % of players. I think at the BAO most people played only 1 GK (I played only one), and Caldera just got unlucky getting 3. There were a lot of Orks and Tyranids on the top tables (I played twice as many Tyranids as I did GKs).
OverwatchCNC wrote:I still don't buy the argument that arranging the first round pairings, in anyway, is anything other than a handicap, or knee cap. If you want to bring back comp to mitigate a certain books power than just say so, we shouldn't try to invent a new awkward comp system using first round pairings. The suggestions is really just a comp system in disguise.
Mannahnin wrote:Anyway, it's just an idea. If the immediate reaction of GK players is to think it's handicapping them and protest, then clearly it's not going to increase player fun after all. Especially if GK are making up 1/6th of the players in attendance.
Target wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Both the Onslaught GT and St. Valentine's Day Massacre were won by them in February.
And templecon!
The Onslaught GT is the one at Templecon. Templecon is a convention with a great deal of other stuff going on. The 40kGT is a tiny part of it.
Blackmoor wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:A) That it's not meant as a handicap, it's just meant to help prevent people from having to face one single book for the majority of their games.
B) That it would only be considered if one army was showing up in huge numbers.
I think you sometimes play a lot of armies and it is just luck of the draw. At GW's LA GT in 2005 my last 3 opponents were all Necrons (in only 5 rounds) and there were only 5 at the GT total. Sometimes you just get what you get. Sure, I was sick of Necrons after that, but that is just the way it is. At Wargames Con a couple of years ago 4 out of my 7 games were against Blood Angels.
There is always going to be a flavor-of-the-month codex and it will be overrepresented.
Allan, I know if you think about it for two minutes you'll realize that this is a silly argument. You're saying that because something has always been a problem, it will always be a problem, and we shouldn't try to do anything about it? You realize that's an argument saying people shouldn't have glasses, right? Or dental care.
What I am saying is that if you have over represented codexes even if you have them play each other they are still going to be spread throughout the tournament in rounds 2+. Half of them in the losers bracket and half in the winners and you are still going to face all of them in rounds 2-7.
So I just don't see what the point is in not facing them in round #1.
And for the record, I hate matches against the same army that I am playing no matter what codex I am using.
If I have a five round tournament, and one army which is overrepresented, and I remove (or almost entirely remove, if there's an odd number of them) the chance of other players facing that army in R1, I do think that mathematically reduces the chances of any given player of any other army facing the overrepresented army 3 or more times.
But perhaps my estimation is incorrect.
I've been in a number of tournaments where the majority of armies I faced were Space Wolves. Haven't had it happen yet with GK, but I can definitely say that more variety makes for more fun, even though I do have a high win percentage against the Wolves.
You guys complaining about having to face the same book over and over must never have played as a Xenos during 3rd and 4th. During that long 5 year stretch your likely opponents were going to be Space Marines and Spike Space Marines, never seeing anything that was not T4/3+ until you met another poor slob playing xenos in the losers bracket.
I don't know what you're talking about buddy. Those were the golden years of knowing that building a list to kill SM's meant you won if you played Xenos! Nowadays if I build to kill marines with any army I'm all to likely to run into 3-4 xenos armies....makes me sad but I find this is the most diverse edition on the tournament scene to date.
I think that any pairing in the first round of a tournament that is not random is a bad thing. If people are so concerned about one codex, to the point that possibly facing it in the first round is alarming to them, or will somehow ruin their tournament experience, they probably should not be playing in a tournament.
@Hulk-
Yeah I took advantage of it, to be sure. The result was all of my skimmers, wraithlords, and star cannons being nerfed into the turf. I just find it funny that people are bemoaning a lack of diversity when the last couple years have seen arguably the most varied amount of armies and builds in tournament play. I mean, just walking around the BAO, I scarecely saw two armies that looked alike, even if they were from the same book.
All it takes is tracking the actual lists winning events, and/or perhaps more importantly placing in the top 20, over the past several years. The promulgation of events like BAO/AdeptiCon that have "bare-win" generalship tracks combined with traditional overall tracks, and [accidental or intentional] generalized balance improvements to 40k as a whole has really helped the overall feel of the circuit. There are more army lists and codices that can win, and more ways to "win" at tournaments than ever before.
The other thing is, most GT winners are not competing and winning - and never really have - with MSU netlists that you see promulgated in "store hammer" and "web hammer." They're winning with their own flavors, as they always have, but think about back in the day ... when Nidzilla and Tri-monolith lists won repeated tournaments while also being oft-seen netlists ... and compare it to people winning with full-size GH squads instead of razorspam wolves ... or with outflanking close assault guard instead of leafblower ... or with all manner of GK list (yea, yeah, I know) instead of "just" hench-psy-razorback spam and psyfle-dread spam ... etc.
The environment is pretty diverse and radical right now on the actual circuit.
. I enjoy free Red Bull.
My dice that game were trying to make up for all the ones in the game previous. Our game was pretty close and I'm lucky that it ended when it did. One more turn and you would have destroyed me!
That was a fun game.
I had no idea it was a request, that makes that match even more awsome!
