I get what you are saying Redbeard, but I'd also argue that segregation of player types has its own pitfalls. If you recall we did this for a couple of years with the Warhammer 40K Invitational. Simultaneous tracks require more resources and do not guarantee an absence of one type of player in either event. Cutthroats will sign up for the relaxed track as they might see it as a means to an easier victory and a 128-player casual track will sell out in less than a day, leaving only the 'Ard Boyz track for those players that still want to play 40K (unless you are suggesting we run 2 256 person events...something we do not have the staff, terrain or space to do).

All that said, I hope it was clearly obvious this year that our goal was to place the focus back on the Team Tournament event, highlight the hard work Teams put into that event and relax the schedule to allow for a more social atmosphere. Bonus being, no one had to get up at 5:30 on Sunday...although, maybe that is proper punishment for these competitive types!!!

spaguatyrine wrote:
Matthias you ran a masterful event. Everyone will not be happy as we are human and like to complain. But there is something for every type of player.

Please do not confuse constructive criticism for complaining. Also, I don't believe there is something for everyone, as I feel like I'm one of the players that has no where to go to find what I want in an event.

Our culture wants a winner. We don't have ties in the superbowl. If a player just wants to have fun and not win then it doesn't matter and there's nothing to discuss. But what I am hearing is that 'some' people want a fun event but not to play hardcore lists but still want to win. That is counter intuitive and doesn't really make sense in a tournament where people pay alot of $$ to come to Adepticon.

It is not counter-intuitive at all. Some of us read the fluff. Some of us look at the new chaos books as ridiculous because Nurgle and Tzeentch shouldn't be running around together. It has little to do with not wanting to play hardcore lists, and more to do with wanting to play in a diverse field that's based on people's creativity, not their ability to read the internet and figure out what unit is undercosted in each codex. Sure, I want to win, but that's not the sole goal. If I wanted to, I too could run an army of the month and play with winning as the only thing that mattered, but that holds little appeal for me. And, in the past, there were events for people like me. At one point, there was the GT system and the 'ard boyz system running alongside each other. The GTs rewarded good play, but they also rewarded creativity, and artistry and the other things that make this hobby fun. And 'ard boyz was there for people who wanted to win games with beatsticks.

It's just as insulting for you to tell me, and other like me, that our approach to the game is invalid, or doesn't make sense, as it would be for me to call those looking for the competitive side of the game WAAC players. We both know that's not true, they're just different ways to approach the game, and both have a base of players who enjoy their way. The issue is that when you mix the two, those who write fluff-based lists end up being marginalized.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matthias wrote:
I get what you are saying Redbeard, but I'd also argue that segregation of player types has its own pitfalls.

Certainly, not saying it is not without challenges, but I'd feel bad for not at least trying to propose a solution.

... and a 128-player casual track will sell out in less than a day, leaving only the 'Ard Boyz track for those players that still want to play 40K (unless you are suggesting we run 2 256 person events...something we do not have the staff, terrain or space to do).

An interesting comment, as it certainly implies that there are more players interested in the casual approach than in the hardcore approach. A possible solution to that would be to have 256 slots, and let people self-segregate. The casual players don't need day two, and can function just fine without a power-of-two total, and if there really are fewer players interested in the hardcore event, day two could be a shorter affair to determine the ultimate winner. If people were allowed to pick what approach they wanted, I'd be really curious to see what the distribution between hardcore and casual was.

And I'm sure that a few people would try to slip through into what they perceive as the easier route to victory, but that may be tempered by the fact that they'd not be qualified for the day 2 event, so would receive little accolades for their win (as suggested by the number of people who congratulated Nick compared to the number who congratulated Eric).

 Redbeard wrote:

spaguatyrine wrote:
Matthias you ran a masterful event. Everyone will not be happy as we are human and like to complain. But there is something for every type of player.

Please do not confuse constructive criticism for complaining. Also, I don't believe there is something for everyone, as I feel like I'm one of the players that has no where to go to find what I want in an event.

Too bad you aren't in the PNW, Redbeard. We have a really large event that sounds like is a lot closer to what you are looking for.

Teams, with each 'round' having both captains pair up team members for best game, an emphasis on fun games in list building with pre-event review by a list-review council, focus on appearance and sports, etc. It also has a competitive face punchy event on Friday and Saturday. It certainly has its flaws as any event does but has a completely different focus than most events.

 Hulksmash wrote:


@Gorgon

I know how you feel on the paint scoring. I felt this year having a single person judge it wasn't going to work out. I brought an army that has been the second highest paint score to two GT's (60+ person) in the last 2 months and got a lower score than I expected. It came down to how you sold it and who you got to judge which was a little annoying.

@Hulksmash -- First off, congrats! Great job, man!

And yeah, my score initially *floored* me, but in retrospect there was ample opportunity for judging breakdowns.

My comment about a pass/fail system for painting at the Championships wasn't meant to be a snarky criticism -- it was a serious suggestion. Maybe it would be more honest, transparent, and easier on staffing if they dumped it as a scored category for the Championships. I do paint judging, and I know it's hard to do it well. Spending even 2 minutes with each army at a GT even half the size of Adepticon means a *huge* amount of work squeezed into the breaks.

I'm a strong believer that the tournament circuit is healthiest when it has 31 flavors of GTs. So maybe there's a way to redeploy resources so that they can focus on making the Championships the best chocolate it can be, and establish the Friendly as the best mint chocolate chip it can be. Just throwing it out there for something to chew on.

ALSO, I'm very sorry that I didn't say in my earlier post how great it was to see old friends and make some new ones at the event. That's what really makes these things worthwhile. The flight situation on Wednesday was rough (my plane made it after six hours of delays, but many others didn't), and I was really glad I even made it.

I had *great* seminars with Justin from Secret Weapon Miniatures and Victoria Lamb. Justin showed me just how bad my current batch of weathering powders really are (LOL), and Victoria helped me learn the process for doing object source lighting. I understood it at a conceptual level, but I think I just needed the help of the expert to figure out the right process. Big thanks to Justin and Victoria and to the Adepticon staff.

Interesting discussion. It really comes down to the reason yiu travel to GT's. I travel because I enjoy new challenges and new opponents as well as testing my skills against other players.

@Redbeard

As for eric winning on Thursday I say congrats. However, when soft scores are involved it is hard to argue he is the one who deserved it the most. Not saying he didn't earn it or deserve it. Merely stating that the vast inconsistency in the scoring can cause a flux in the scoring.

As for not finding a place to fit in at an event as big as adepticon it might not be the event. In the end the person who controls how much fun you have is you. You can forge a narrative in any game. There is always a back story that can be thought up with just a little imagination.

Lastly, people that build competitive list are also hobbyist. Some of the nicest painted armies I have seen. They do exist. So to make a broad statement saying they are either competitive or in seperate category is a little silly to me because a large majority of the people in this hobby are both. Just my 2 cents. Sorry your army was poorly evaluated it does look pretty awesome. That just strengthens my point about the issue with soft scoring lacking consistency.

Redbeard's on to something. Let people sign up for the championships and self select thier field. Ard Boyz or Fluiff based. Run the two events simultaneously. Ard Boyz players who try to move into the Fluff tourney will get hammered on Composition scores enough that they won't finish at top even going undefeated. It will defeat the purpose of them joining the fluff side to just win.

The numbers shouldn't mean to much. I mean the fluff side doesn't demand a sole undefeated player and the Ard boyz side has a day 2 experience to get down to one. Who knows you might not even need much of a day two if, as some have guessed, the Fluff side has more players.

The rules and missions can all be the same, but just the scoring is different and a Composition element can be added like the old GT's.

 gorgon wrote:

 skkipper wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:
Sadly Adepticon used to factor in theme and soft scores more heavily in the final results. Unfortunantly it has turned into a massive 'Ard Boyz tourney, with a painting requirement. People we ridiculously rude and the quality of the armies on display were way down hardly anyone displayed their armies for players choice awards. There were several armies painted at the bare minimum 3 color standard. Something virtually unheard of in Adepticon championships of the past. This was my last championship event. 'Ard Boyz tournaments have their place and I appreciated and enjoyed them for what they were, however you have certain expectations going to an event like that and that was not my experience in a previous championship event.

sadly you are wrong. Adepticon has always had people who brought the lowest quality attempts to just get by. For every Redbeard, there are ten people with barely meets qualifactions painting.
I have been to 4 Adepticons, 3 there in lombard and 1 in schaumberg. I missed out this year because work has me overseas. it is an event that has no qualifactions other then getting a ticket before they sell out. The painting and soft score took a dump value because most armies got similar paint scores. the difference between winning and 2nd became how heavy handed you opponent in game 1 was with sportsmanship score. There is no good or fair way to judge sportsmanship and putting high value on painting gets sketch if you have gone with subtle hilights. The 40k Friendly might have been more you speed.

It's very interesting to me that appearance is a topic of conversation.

My Genestealer Cult (pics and links in my sig) scored a 24 for painting per the results they posted on Thursday. I was completely shocked by that. I guess the judge felt how he felt -- and checklist scoring can certainly create distortions -- but I think a much higher score was a reasonable expectation based both on my application of their checklist and the army's pedigree as a Best Appearance winner at Baltimore and other awards and recognition.

Now, I thought there was a chance I was gonna get hosed on appearance a little when the clearly rushed judge took maybe 40 seconds to look at my army -- while I was only partway done setting it up on my display -- and never picked up a single model. If that's the kind of judging that we can expect, then maybe it's time to go to some sort of pass/fail painting system for the Championships. At least it'd be honest.

Ultimately, it is what it is and I certainly don't need validation from Adepticon about the army. The kind comments from Dakkaites and everyone out there mean much more to me, and I have awards on my shelf already. The GCult is a poor competitive army that loses a lot of games (LOL) but I wanted to share it since I haven't played it much publicly in recent years, and I'm glad that I could do that.

But I will say this -- if I was going to participate in the Championships again, I would bring a gak painted army instead of dragging a top shelf army onto a plane. I could score a 24 again with a few slapdash weeks of work instead of years of time and care.

-Chris Showers

after seeing the final results I know the painting scores were way off or in error in some way.

I get where Redbeard is coming from and I feel the same way...which is one of the many reasons I've stopped attending. The paint quality of armies has been on a steady decline over the last 5 years. Adepticon used to be the pinnacle of hordes of really top notch painted armies. Now? Not so much. There is a lot more average painted armies now and I think that's just a trend in how scoring is occurring in these large events. Now, the only place where you'll see maximum effort is in the TT, but even then, I've seen a dip in the quality of armies in terms of theme, presentation, painting, etc. It just seems that it's become less and less of a focus by the players themselves. That being said, Adepticon still has more top level painted armies than all the other events. But I have noticed a drop over the last 5 years for sure. Just look at their past coverage for comparison and you'll see it.

@Gorgon: I can definitely sympathize with your army getting a lower paint score than expected. I've had similar issues like that in the past as well. All you can do is either deal with it, or move on. For me, I simply moved on. It's frustrating when you've slaved over an army and it gets overlooked. Especially when you know the amount of $$, time, etc. it took to bring it there. :shrug: waddya do?

I love Adepticon, the staff, and everything it stands for, but I genuinely believe that it's gotten too big and as such, lost some of it's sparkle on what made it great for me. Because of that, I cannot justify the costs in time and $$ it took to get me to attend every year...and I attended 6 of 10. I hope that someday I can attend again if my feelings change on the matter, but I doubt that will happen.

I want to chime in here but I'd like to preface my statement that I fully understand and appreciate the amazing effort that goes into putting on Adepticon. Please don't feel the comments are just "bitching"... they're my observations based on this year. For context, this was my 3rd Adepticon.

I also know full well that nothing will change based on my feedback. With the events filling up in the first hour after registration opens, Adepticon is bullet proof and doesn't need to respond to anything. I'm cool with that... it's your show.


I liked the pace of the two-day team tournament, but the fact that it ran two days means I didn't get to do anything else. I snuck in a little shopping. Team went out to dinner and lunch a couple of times. And that was it. No demos, no exploring, no pick-up gaming... none of that. Really a major let-down after last year which for me was so much about exploring new things and connecting to a community. I could come down an exta day... at a cost of a couple of hundred extra bucks and more vacation time off... not so easy to come by.

I did not really have fun in the team tournament for the same reason mentioned in earlier posts. There is such a tremendous disparity is army power and builds now that if you aren't building to the tournament meta... you get crushed... over and over. Our team has, for the last 3 years... relished our opportunity to play a very fluff filled, theme army. I think we've put a good product forward and it's been fun to do. And we aren't fielding crap... it's just not "the latest dex" maximized and abused. And we get crushed. I don't mind losing... but I do like to feel like I'm at least IN the game for a bit. The only games we did well in were against armies that looked pretty much like ours. Anything else wiped us off the table. Simply no fun. Our team has talked about solving this problem by abandoning the theme aspect nearly entirely and just fielding the most broken lists we can. At least our chances of enjoying the outcomes of the games would improve.

By the time the painting judges got to our table... they didn't give a gak and in fact... stated as much directly. When we tried to explain how and why we scratch built, customized and painted our armies the way we did... the answer was... "We don't care, that's "Theme". They did ask if the shoulder pad designed meant anything... boy, that was insightful. They mostly talked to themselves about some other subject & wandered away after about 45 seconds. They certainly didn't hang around long enough to examine any of the models closely enough to determine if they were well painted or highly modified in construction. I'm not complaining about our score, because I have no idea what our score was. But is was about as piss-poor job of paint judging I'd ever seen in the last place I expected to see it.


My suggestions for improvement:

1) Make the team tournament more like the championship and have the "qualifier" on day one with with top teams fighting it out on day two. Theme awards can be given out at the end of day one... battle point and overall awards can be given out on day two. That would free the rest of we casual gamers up to enjoy other events and enter other tournaments on following days.

2) This is GW's problem... part of the corporate money-grab that has become the mantra of the company. Use the newest dex... buy the latest super-units, etc. Perhaps Adepticon could find some way to add in additional, separate 1-day events that are focused on folks who are more interested in the hobby aspects but still like to play other people in a tournament format. Probably too much to ask, but since it's clear that both the team and championships are moving towards the Aard Boyz model, it would be nice to have something else to do.

3) If you're going to have "Painting" be a part of the judging, then do it right. Get enough judges who actually have enough interest and intelligence to understand what they're looking at, ask good questions and do their best to give a solid assessment. And have enough of them that they have the time to do things right. The horse-gak, half-assed attitude shown by at least some of this year's judges calls the validity of the whole process in question (and we were far from the only one's who'd had this experience). Otherwise, just go to a 3 color minimum and let the transformation to an Aard Boyz style tournament be complete so everyone knows what they're getting into.

Had this been my first experience at Adepticon, I wouldn't go back. It's not... and I have an abiding commitment to my friends and teammates, so I will go back. But, I must admit... I won't I'll be willing to put as much work into it from now on. Just not worth the trouble.

Tomb King wrote:
@Redbeard
As for not finding a place to fit in at an event as big as adepticon it might not be the event. In the end the person who controls how much fun you have is you. You can forge a narrative in any game. There is always a back story that can be thought up with just a little imagination.

Perhaps you're missing the point. Sure, I can "forge a narrative" in any game. That's not at issue. Playing against a tri-helldrake army three games in a row, however, isn't fun for most people. It's not even the 'playing against a tri-helldrake' aspect of the sentence that's the biggest issue, it's the "three games in a row". (And feel free to replace tri-helldrake with whatever the flavor of the month happens to be, I'm not looking to go down a tangent on what's good or not.)

Look at the top 16 who qualified for this year's finals, and you see more than half the armies using necrons in some way, and a grand total of only 8 primary codexes represented, 10 if you include allies. Compare this to the 2006 championships (the most recent one on the Adepticon site that shows armies played, pre-2 day scoring), and they had 10 different armies in the top 16 (without allies), 13 if you count sub-armies (i.e. Emperor's Children is not the same as Night Lords) and no codex was represented more than three times (including sub-armies).

The shift to emphasizing wins over all other considerations means that variety is lost. There's a lot of repetition and if the goal is a hardcore event, that's probably a good thing. But I don't think you'd see "these three guys are running the same list" type comments in an old-style GT - it wouldn't occur to people.

Lastly, people that build competitive list are also hobbyist. Some of the nicest painted armies I have seen. They do exist. So to make a broad statement saying they are either competitive or in seperate category is a little silly to me because a large majority of the people in this hobby are both. Just my 2 cents.

I never said they weren't good hobbyists, and my belief that there are two types of tournament player, the hardcore and the casual, makes no statement as to the quality of their models, simply what they're looking to get out of the event. Some hardcore players are also great with the softscores, and some casual players aren't the most talented artists.

Sorry your army was poorly evaluated it does look pretty awesome. That just strengthens my point about the issue with soft scoring lacking consistency.

You're confusing responses - I didn't play in the championships this year.

 Tomb King wrote:
CONGRATS to They Shall Know Fear for winning the team tournament again this year.

Brad Tonwnsend
Nick Nanavati
Aaron Aleong
Andrew Gonyo

Imperial Team GK x 3 IG x 1

Wow, that's awesome!!! Congrats guys

I want to see pics of Hulk's painted Dreamforge walker (not used for the TT, for the Gladiator I guess?).

 Gitsplitta wrote:
Had this been my first experience at Adepticon, I wouldn't go back. It's not... and I have an abiding commitment to my friends and teammates, so I will go back. But, I must admit... I don't I'll be willing to put as much work into it from now on. Just not worth it.

It actually was my first time there, which surprises even me given that I've been around the hobby for so long. I *would* go back...but I'd do things differently.

I know now that the Championships would be a terrible place to unveil one of the new army projects I have percolating. Which I really do believe is *fine*. Again, 31 flavors, and the Championships just aren't the right flavor for something like that. The Friendly, OTOH, might be. If I'm feeling competitive and want to enter the Championships, I'll throw together something more beatstick, and do a super quick airbrushed scheme that "pops." And that really is fine too.

After some real WTF emotions on Thursday night, I realized on Friday morning that it was my first time there, and that I now understand the respective formats better.

I guess that's kind of where I'm getting to gorgon. There's a LOT about Adepticon to love. But there's less and less to love about the big 40k games unless you're a big-time competitive gamer.

Chancetragedy wrote:

Relic07 wrote:

Chancetragedy wrote:
What? Kopach used Vanilla marines with 2 guard blobs. So I don't think you know what your talking about ;p

The early reports I saw showed Space Wolves + IG. If he used Vanilla, I stand corrected (and would be very surprised).

His list was
Khan
Libby
2xtacticals
3x storm talons
3xthunderfires

Commissar
2xPCS
50 man blob
40 man blob

That was what I know of, there may have been more.

I stand corrected. Looks like vanilla marines it is.

What a pain though. Moving around 120 models each game..... That would drive me nuts in back to back games.

 Gitsplitta wrote:
I guess that's kind of where I'm getting to gorgon. There's a LOT about Adepticon to love. But there's less and less to love about the big 40k games unless you're a big-time competitive gamer.

Couldn't agree more!

If I make it out in 2014, I'll look more for a "Friendly 40K" game, and spend the rest of my time wandering around trying to hang out in Real Life with people I spend way to much time talking to on The Internet!

 Redbeard wrote:

Tomb King wrote:
@Redbeard
As for not finding a place to fit in at an event as big as adepticon it might not be the event. In the end the person who controls how much fun you have is you. You can forge a narrative in any game. There is always a back story that can be thought up with just a little imagination.

Perhaps you're missing the point. Sure, I can "forge a narrative" in any game. That's not at issue. Playing against a tri-helldrake army three games in a row, however, isn't fun for most people. It's not even the 'playing against a tri-helldrake' aspect of the sentence that's the biggest issue, it's the "three games in a row". (And feel free to replace tri-helldrake with whatever the flavor of the month happens to be, I'm not looking to go down a tangent on what's good or not.)

Look at the top 16 who qualified for this year's finals, and you see more than half the armies using necrons in some way, and a grand total of only 8 primary codexes represented, 10 if you include allies. Compare this to the 2006 championships (the most recent one on the Adepticon site that shows armies played, pre-2 day scoring), and they had 10 different armies in the top 16 (without allies), 13 if you count sub-armies (i.e. Emperor's Children is not the same as Night Lords) and no codex was represented more than three times (including sub-armies).

The shift to emphasizing wins over all other considerations means that variety is lost. There's a lot of repetition and if the goal is a hardcore event, that's probably a good thing. But I don't think you'd see "these three guys are running the same list" type comments in an old-style GT - it wouldn't occur to people.

Lastly, people that build competitive list are also hobbyist. Some of the nicest painted armies I have seen. They do exist. So to make a broad statement saying they are either competitive or in seperate category is a little silly to me because a large majority of the people in this hobby are both. Just my 2 cents.

I never said they weren't good hobbyists, and my belief that there are two types of tournament player, the hardcore and the casual, makes no statement as to the quality of their models, simply what they're looking to get out of the event. Some hardcore players are also great with the softscores, and some casual players aren't the most talented artists.

Sorry your army was poorly evaluated it does look pretty awesome. That just strengthens my point about the issue with soft scoring lacking consistency.

You're confusing responses - I didn't play in the championships this year.

I'll say this - I love Adepticon, it is by far my favorite event every year, but (and just talking on the hypothetical you proposed), if they split tracks for the Championships, i would 100% not play. I'm a competitive player, I like designing tough lists and figuring out how to beat my opponent, but I also put a ton of effort into my models and want t have the opportunity to be recognized for it if I play well and paint well enough to be considered best overall. If you split the tracks, I now (and others as well), have to decide: do I want to come and play under some fluff/theme system with unchallenging games and have someone evaluate more my painting and adherence to the 40k narrative, or do I want to play solely competitive games, and know that all the work I put into painting my army is meaningless to the event?

As it stands now, I get to do both, and I really enjoy that. I'm not saying their system is perfect (it isn't), but I do enjoy it. I would like to see best overall revised however, as paint scores this year felt very inconsistent/haphazard at times, and by the way best overall is composed, it's next to impossible for a non 4-0 to win it, which strikes me as a big flaw. I think the paint rubric would do well to be re-evaluated, and possibly the judging staff talked to/organized a bit better, and then to reweight the scores, making it so that 3-1's have a legitmate chance of winning best overall (ie, good paint/sports can make up for a loss) and possibly even a 2-2 with wondiferous paint and no one above them near their level of paint.

Just some thoughts on your comments/how I felt about the system in place this year . I'll clearly be back to Adepticon for the camradarie and Team Tourney with "They Shall Know Fear" to defend our title again! Heck, my travel time was 15 hours from Washington DC airport to Chicago airport this year and I still managed to fight through it and go - it's got to be a hell of an event for someone to do that!

I think the championships are great as-is. It's a competitive event, and there are lots of other events for folks who don't want to participate in that. No problems as far as I'm concerned (although I only attended last year, not this time, hoping to return in 2014).

Target wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:

Tomb King wrote:
@Redbeard
As for not finding a place to fit in at an event as big as adepticon it might not be the event. In the end the person who controls how much fun you have is you. You can forge a narrative in any game. There is always a back story that can be thought up with just a little imagination.

Perhaps you're missing the point. Sure, I can "forge a narrative" in any game. That's not at issue. Playing against a tri-helldrake army three games in a row, however, isn't fun for most people. It's not even the 'playing against a tri-helldrake' aspect of the sentence that's the biggest issue, it's the "three games in a row". (And feel free to replace tri-helldrake with whatever the flavor of the month happens to be, I'm not looking to go down a tangent on what's good or not.)

Look at the top 16 who qualified for this year's finals, and you see more than half the armies using necrons in some way, and a grand total of only 8 primary codexes represented, 10 if you include allies. Compare this to the 2006 championships (the most recent one on the Adepticon site that shows armies played, pre-2 day scoring), and they had 10 different armies in the top 16 (without allies), 13 if you count sub-armies (i.e. Emperor's Children is not the same as Night Lords) and no codex was represented more than three times (including sub-armies).

The shift to emphasizing wins over all other considerations means that variety is lost. There's a lot of repetition and if the goal is a hardcore event, that's probably a good thing. But I don't think you'd see "these three guys are running the same list" type comments in an old-style GT - it wouldn't occur to people.

Lastly, people that build competitive list are also hobbyist. Some of the nicest painted armies I have seen. They do exist. So to make a broad statement saying they are either competitive or in seperate category is a little silly to me because a large majority of the people in this hobby are both. Just my 2 cents.

I never said they weren't good hobbyists, and my belief that there are two types of tournament player, the hardcore and the casual, makes no statement as to the quality of their models, simply what they're looking to get out of the event. Some hardcore players are also great with the softscores, and some casual players aren't the most talented artists.

Sorry your army was poorly evaluated it does look pretty awesome. That just strengthens my point about the issue with soft scoring lacking consistency.

You're confusing responses - I didn't play in the championships this year.

I'll say this - I love Adepticon, it is by far my favorite event every year, but (and just talking on the hypothetical you proposed), if they split tracks for the Championships, i would 100% not play. I'm a competitive player, I like designing tough lists and figuring out how to beat my opponent, but I also put a ton of effort into my models and want t have the opportunity to be recognized for it if I play well and paint well enough to be considered best overall. If you split the tracks, I now (and others as well), have to decide: do I want to come and play under some fluff/theme system with unchallenging games and have someone evaluate more my painting and adherence to the 40k narrative, or do I want to play solely competitive games, and know that all the work I put into painting my army is meaningless to the event?

As it stands now, I get to do both, and I really enjoy that. I'm not saying their system is perfect (it isn't), but I do enjoy it. I would like to see best overall revised however, as paint scores this year felt very inconsistent/haphazard at times, and by the way best overall is composed, it's next to impossible for a non 4-0 to win it, which strikes me as a big flaw. I think the paint rubric would do well to be re-evaluated, and possibly the judging staff talked to/organized a bit better, and then to reweight the scores, making it so that 3-1's have a legitmate chance of winning best overall (ie, good paint/sports can make up for a loss) and possibly even a 2-2 with wondiferous paint and no one above them near their level of paint.

Just some thoughts on your comments/how I felt about the system in place this year . I'll clearly be back to Adepticon for the camradarie and Team Tourney with "They Shall Know Fear" to defend our title again! Heck, my travel time was 15 hours from Washington DC airport to Chicago airport this year and I still managed to fight through it and go - it's got to be a hell of an event for someone to do that!

QFT! This is kind of what I was going for with my post. Was hard to type it all up on the phone.


For the masses:
Warhammer 40K Events at Adepticon

Warhammer 40K Championships
Horus Heresy - Betrayal
Warhammer 40K Gladiator
Warhammer 40K Combat Patrol
Zone Mortalis: The Sin of Alacrity - Boarding Action
Warhammer 40K Warzone Tournament
Warhammer 40K: The Friendly 2013 (It's One Louder)
Warhammer 40K Team Tournament
Warhammer 40K Youngbloods Tournament
Warhammer 40K 54mm Skirmish: Gunfight at Peris


If a certain format doesn't fit you they offer several alternatives. With so many variables in armies, tactics, and peoples general approach to the hobby it is impossible for them to make it work for everyone. However, what I see listed above is an attempt to satisfy as many people as possible with the various formats. It is on you to pick an event that you think you would enjoy the most.

As for the comment about the team tournament. Don't they offer various prizes that aren't included with the best overall. Example: Best Themed Army, Best Painted, Best Sports, etc..../

Yep, they do . Last year we won best hybrid team, which was theme/painting/display only, no battle points. Imo that event is well balanced, encouraging painting, theme, and competitive builds for the different award categories.

The Team Tournament has done a great job of encouraging the diversity. Kudos to the Adepticon team for that.

Do they have the same kind of diversity awards for the Championships?

Respectfully to all the name of the Grand Tournament is the championships. That means that you have to crown a champion. I understand soft scores and wanting to put theme into an event. I can see increasing the painting percentage for the best overall. But trying to split a competitive and noncompetitive player event is nearly impossible.

Had a great time with everyone....well except one guy from...nevermind.

I am proud of our team Hulksmash, Target, Nick aka (the brown kid), for winning the team tournanent again! Tough fight and hats off to The Sons of Shatner for a tough final game. They were true gentlemen.

It totally escaped me that Nick was also on that team. So he won both the individual championship and as a part of the team championship this year. Good work, guys

Nice to have you posting here too, spaguatyrine! That means you all are on Dakka . But I believe Nick is in my area (MD/DC/NoVA), so you guys must not be able to practice together...

I've heard of the team Sons of Shatner before, they've won the TT previously, right? Amazing how the top teams are able to consistently do well!

 Alpharius wrote:

 Gitsplitta wrote:
I guess that's kind of where I'm getting to gorgon. There's a LOT about Adepticon to love. But there's less and less to love about the big 40k games unless you're a big-time competitive gamer.

Couldn't agree more!

If I make it out in 2014, I'll look more for a "Friendly 40K" game, and spend the rest of my time wandering around trying to hang out in Real Life with people I spend way to much time talking to on The Internet!

I totally agree. After the Championships and the TT (plus warmachine hardcore), I learned two things:
1) I actually like playing 40k
2) I don't like playing 40k "competitively" anymore

@Rtides

I'll get a photo up. Its still a work in progress. Didn't play in the gladiator to shop and hang out on friday

 Hulksmash wrote:
@Rtides

I'll get a photo up. Its still a work in progress. Didn't play in the gladiator to shop and hang out on friday

The question now becomes... did I see you/give you a demo...

 Hulksmash wrote:
@Rtides

I'll get a photo up. Its still a work in progress. Didn't play in the gladiator to shop and hang out on friday

Sounds great Hulk! Team photo also acceptable

 Alpharius wrote:
If I make it out in 2014, I'll look more for a "Friendly 40K" game, and spend the rest of my time wandering around trying to hang out in Real Life with people I spend way to much time talking to on The Internet!

Well, we do need to have an Alpha Legion/Platuan 4th Mechanized Infantry "grudge" match. I'm thinking more and more that casual gaming at Adepticon is the way to go(and maybe some of the smaller, one-day/less than a day events like Blood Bowl). I'm also not against a group of us "appropriating" some tables for a Dakkaiju Big Batteru!

Soooooo...

Last year there were lots of complaints about GK being over represented... This year the new flavor is Necrons. Every year it will be the same. You can't blame people for bringing what they believe to be the most competitive.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Last year there were lots of complaints about GK being over represented... This year the new flavor is Necrons. Every year it will be the same. You can't blame people for bringing what they believe to be the most competitive.

Oddly enough, I dodged heldrakes completely in the Championships.

I did, however, play GK 3 times in a row and then Necron Wraithwing in Game 4. Everybody else was playing 6th edition all day but I was stuck in 5th!

 whitedragon wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Last year there were lots of complaints about GK being over represented... This year the new flavor is Necrons. Every year it will be the same. You can't blame people for bringing what they believe to be the most competitive.

Oddly enough, I dodged heldrakes completely in the Championships.

I did, however, play GK 3 times in a row and then Necron Wraithwing in Game 4. Everybody else was playing 6th edition all day but I was stuck in 5th!

I lol'd! Some of us missed 5th edition. I know I do. All these psychic powers, flyers, PRE-MEASURING, and hero-hammer kind of get to me.

It would be fun to see a tournament play with no pre-measuring allowed. Man peoples minds would be blown having to plan in advance and think a couple moves ahead.

Those things are still there with pre-measuring. It's just "safer" as you KNOW for sure when you're in or out of range most of the time. But then random charge range and other rules help keep things in the realm of calculated risk rather than guarantees a lot of the time. What I've come to love about premeasuring (after hating it for many years) is how many arguments it eliminates. "Hey, let's just check the distance before you move, so we know and agree on what the charge range will be", etc. It's huge, and IMO does (despite all my original misgivings) enhance the game more than the loss of the estimating aspect detracts from it.

 RiTides wrote:
It totally escaped me that Nick was also on that team. So he won both the individual championship and as a part of the team championship this year. Good work, guys

Nice to have you posting here too, spaguatyrine! That means you all are on Dakka . But I believe Nick is in my area (MD/DC/NoVA), so you guys must not be able to practice together...

I've heard of the team Sons of Shatner before, they've won the TT previously, right? Amazing how the top teams are able to consistently do well!

You may be thinking of me - i'm Andrew from They Shall Know Fear, i live in northern va/beltway area - Nick is in NJ but does make it down. Me and nick have known each other for probably 4-5 years and the team itself met at tournaments (NOVA really) and got to be friends and decided to do the team at Brad's urging/idea. In two years of team tourney we actually havent practiced together, but all of us independently have some experience with lists at least similar to what we play at the team tourney.

And yup - sons of shatner won in 2010 i think, many of the top teams going into the last round were previous champs

Pre measurements gets rid of so many arguments. Psychic powers and 2+ cover saves it what I don't like about sixth edition.

This was an amazing year; in some ways moreso with the insane weather and the drama back home in Boston (which caused us to lose a teammate on one of our teams, as he couldn't get out of Boston Friday, so we had to have another guy fill in). IMO the two day schedule for the TT is WAY better than the old one day. Far less stressful and hurried. I felt physically and mentally much less wiped out and was able to really socialize and enjoy Saturday night.

It was great meet Alfndrate , Eiluj the Farseer, Whalemusic, and other folks I hadn't met before, and cool seeing known faces once again. Sorry I didn't get to meet Gym or WarOne or anyone else I missed. Cyporian and the On the Lamb crew, thanks for Jacques; he really is a sweet model. Empchild, thanks so much for hooking me up with the pinning kit Wednesday night so I could build a back banner pole to replace the one I left at home. I love how the model came out.

Brian, Gits, I was really sad that your team's display didn't get more recognition. It was awesome. Gorgon, I remember when that Genestealer Cult won Best Appearance in Baltimore and how blown away I was playing against it. It was a wonderful blast from the past to see it again, and I'm also stunned that it scored so low. From what I could tell the paint judging in the Championships was pretty harsh across the board, but overall IMO there were certainly some missteps and slips in the handling of and standards for painting and modeling in the team tourney and at the event in general. Adepticon is still the biggest and the best event there is, I love the folks who run it, and I know they're working their butts off to provide an extraordinary event for us all, but I do think there's some room for improvement and will be providing some (respectful) constructive feedback.

Sunday night poker was fun and boardgaming next door looked fun and was very active, but I had to get up at 5:45 so after I got knocked out an hour into poker, I headed upstairs to socialize with Hank and the Swedes and some of the other amazing friends I only get to see once a year. Finally crashed at around 2:15am, and am working on about 3.5hrs of sleep, but still feeling buzzed after the event.

Overall the weekend was incredible again, and the extra day felt well worth it, given the time and expense invested in the trip anyway. I played some extraordinary and fun people, got to judge at the Championship Final and Gladiator (and had some very kind words from the folks I judged), and had the privilege of captaining my team to a very pleasing 10th* place finish. I also managed 9th overall (counting soft scores) in the Championship Qualifier, just being denied my back-to-back-to-back third Best Heretical by Goatboy, in a very crowded field of Chaos and Daemon players, so felt really proud of that too.

(*probably around 6th, aside from an unfortunate but well-intentioned judging error)

Big congratulations to Eric for his Overall Win, to Brad, Andrew, Nick and Aaron for their incredible repeat, and to Nick for his Best General win. A TRIP TO MEXICO, DUDE! ARE YOU SERIOUS? As Brad said, "that little brown kid is blessed. Thanks to my opponents for some outstanding games, and especially to the ones who clearly put time and love into their armies.

Massive props and thanks to Matthias, Hank (Muwhe), Crash, Chris, Greg Sparks, Bill (Centurian99), Jon (the elusive Yakface), Kevin (Janthkin) and the rest of the organizers and staff for all their hard work, blood, sweat and tears to put on the Greatest Miniatures Show on Earth. It's really appreciated. I get pretty fired up and impassioned at and for this event, and every year I am reminded of exactly why I do, and why all the time, money, and emotional investment is well worth it.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Pre measurements gets rid of so many arguments. Psychic powers and 2+ cover saves it what I don't like about sixth edition.

And all the 'not-so-clever' cheating techniques around measuring. I don't miss that stuff!

Oh, a quick note on Sean's army list- I did talk to him about it at the weekend, and he was really surprised and embarassed. He just started using a Venom or two recently in his foot DE list, and has previously just taken one with a small double Splinter Trueborn squad. The DE codex specifies the size cap in the Dedicated Transport rules, but not in the squad entries or under the Venom entry. He just totally missed it. He did say that he would have just substituted the two Venoms for a single Venom and the Trueborn, which is much the same thing. The judges did check every list AGAIN Friday morning and somehow we missed it. I THINK I would have spotted it, as I play the army, but I didn't check his list (I checked a couple of the other players')- I stayed away from his table in general as we're teammates, and I'd rather make sure there's no question about a judge's neutrality.

nkelsch wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Pre measurements gets rid of so many arguments. Psychic powers and 2+ cover saves it what I don't like about sixth edition.

And all the 'not-so-clever' cheating techniques around measuring. I don't miss that stuff!

There will always be disputes about range. Pre-measure or no pre-measure. I think it just added to the game being able to accurately predict how far you need to go to get something done.

As an aside, if anyone found a tin of d6 like the ones pictured here, please PM me:

What format did the team tournament take?

 Gitsplitta wrote:
I guess that's kind of where I'm getting to gorgon. There's a LOT about Adepticon to love. But there's less and less to love about the big 40k games unless you're a big-time competitive gamer.

That's why they have an event called the "Friendly"

Target wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
It totally escaped me that Nick was also on that team. So he won both the individual championship and as a part of the team championship this year. Good work, guys

Nice to have you posting here too, spaguatyrine! That means you all are on Dakka . But I believe Nick is in my area (MD/DC/NoVA), so you guys must not be able to practice together...

I've heard of the team Sons of Shatner before, they've won the TT previously, right? Amazing how the top teams are able to consistently do well!

You may be thinking of me - i'm Andrew from They Shall Know Fear, i live in northern va/beltway area - Nick is in NJ but does make it down. Me and nick have known each other for probably 4-5 years and the team itself met at tournaments (NOVA really) and got to be friends and decided to do the team at Brad's urging/idea. In two years of team tourney we actually havent practiced together, but all of us independently have some experience with lists at least similar to what we play at the team tourney.

And yup - sons of shatner won in 2010 i think, many of the top teams going into the last round were previous champs

Ah, I thought he was from closer! I saw him at Battle for Blobs Park and last year's Nova Open, so I guess I just assumed he was closer! I knew you were local, but I think have yet to meet/see you (or at least, know it was you) although I believe I have never interacted with him online and see you posting here much more frequently.

Anyway, awesome to have folks from "around here" represent so convincingly although it makes the closer tournies still seem quite daunting, knowing who will likely be competing!

nolzur wrote:

 Gitsplitta wrote:
I guess that's kind of where I'm getting to gorgon. There's a LOT about Adepticon to love. But there's less and less to love about the big 40k games unless you're a big-time competitive gamer.

That's why they have an event called the "Friendly"

Except, it's not. Well, it was friendly, but it wasn't really 40k. An example of this was in the mission special rules. Game three was the relic, except every unit within 18" of the relic got +1 to all non-Leadership rolls, as well as Counter-charge, Furious Charge, Feel No Pain and Rending... In my game, that meant my unit of plague drones, in cover, was getting a 2+ cover followed by a 4+ FNP save, against my opponent's 50 or so conscripts who were hitting them on 4+ and wounding them on 5+. 200 dice rolls later and one whole wound was inflicted.

Point is, if you're looking for a more casual 40k tournament, the Friendly isn't it. If you're looking for a wacky, anything goes type event, then you're in the right place.

40k Team tournament results are up. It would be nice to know what the teams consisted with, or a break down of armies.

 Hulksmash wrote:


@theHod and Tombking

Thanks for the congrats. We wanted to try to back to back the TT since it had never been done before and we were nervous wrecks the entire award ceremony everytime they announced something we could have won that would have kept us out of Overall. But it was a great event with great opponents for us.

I call shenanigans! It was fixed! fixed like Kennedy's election

Nah I kid. You have some pretty talented players on your team and well deserved win with a special congrats on repeating a TT win.

Quick question what is the explanation of the team awards for:

Opportunists
Aggressors

 thehod wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:


@theHod and Tombking

Thanks for the congrats. We wanted to try to back to back the TT since it had never been done before and we were nervous wrecks the entire award ceremony everytime they announced something we could have won that would have kept us out of Overall. But it was a great event with great opponents for us.

I call shenanigans! It was fixed! fixed like Kennedy's election

Nah I kid. You have some pretty talented players on your team and well deserved win with a special congrats on repeating a TT win.

Quick question what is the explanation of the team awards for:

Opportunists
Aggressors

Aggressors was most linebreakers, opportunists is most first bloods

This year was my third year at Adepticon. I had a lot of fun this year and I really enjoyed the two-day TT format. I still had plenty of time between games and meal breaks to go and shop around. And I still had the opportunity to play in other events.

If you can't find something to do at Adepticon besides 40k tournaments, it's not on the fault of the organizers. There is plenty of stuff to go around, man

 gorgon wrote:


It's very interesting to me that appearance is a topic of conversation.

My Genestealer Cult (pics and links in my sig) scored a 24 for painting per the results they posted on Thursday. I was completely shocked by that. I guess the judge felt how he felt -- and checklist scoring can certainly create distortions -- but I think a much higher score was a reasonable expectation based both on my application of their checklist and the army's pedigree as a Best Appearance winner at Baltimore and other awards and recognition.

Now, I thought there was a chance I was gonna get hosed on appearance a little when the clearly rushed judge took maybe 40 seconds to look at my army -- while I was only partway done setting it up on my display -- and never picked up a single model. If that's the kind of judging that we can expect, then maybe it's time to go to some sort of pass/fail painting system for the Championships. At least it'd be honest.

Ultimately, it is what it is and I certainly don't need validation from Adepticon about the army. The kind comments from Dakkaites and everyone out there mean much more to me, and I have awards on my shelf already. The GCult is a poor competitive army that loses a lot of games (LOL) but I wanted to share it since I haven't played it much publicly in recent years, and I'm glad that I could do that.

But I will say this -- if I was going to participate in the Championships again, I would bring a gak painted army instead of dragging a top shelf army onto a plane. I could score a 24 again with a few slapdash weeks of work instead of years of time and care.

-Chris Showers

A way for quality judging without wasting huge amounts of time. have the player rate his own army which can include some supporting text.
A judge can step up look at the players checklist and agree or rejudge it. if a player feels he deserves 49 out of 50 points let him write it down. then add a penalty if you over judge your list. like 10% of your overage.
you should be able to look at the check list honestly and figure out your painting score. having a player prejudge gives a judge something to base his opinion on.

I also don't think you need to split the group. throw classic GT level softscore back in and give out most of the prizes on day 1
overall 1-3
sportsmanship which is sports and comp.
Best painted
leave the day 2 as it is and let the power gamers go for the warlord crown but have the prize on day two be small.

At NOVA, if you want to go for Best Overall, you take your army to be paint judged by 2 judges at a separate area. It works better in a situation where there are a couple hundred players.

Had an absolute blast at my first Adepticon.

Ended up taking Best Xenos in the Championship (Grats again to Eric for edging me for best overall!), made it to the Top 8 on Day 2 before losing to Tony.

Did ok in the team tournament, stayed up a little too late though Saturday night socializing and missed our Sunday morning game. It was totally worth it though to get a chance to catch up with old friends and make some new ones as well.

I also had a blast, and was in the same boat (and room) with mordendonner. Team "Roll to Wound" will return with the full set of games recorded next year!

Best Xenos, awesome! Wonder what went down Saturday night, though

There were a lot of people in bad shape Sunday morning.

 Redbeard wrote:

nolzur wrote:

 Gitsplitta wrote:
I guess that's kind of where I'm getting to gorgon. There's a LOT about Adepticon to love. But there's less and less to love about the big 40k games unless you're a big-time competitive gamer.

That's why they have an event called the "Friendly"

Except, it's not. Well, it was friendly, but it wasn't really 40k. An example of this was in the mission special rules. Game three was the relic, except every unit within 18" of the relic got +1 to all non-Leadership rolls, as well as Counter-charge, Furious Charge, Feel No Pain and Rending... In my game, that meant my unit of plague drones, in cover, was getting a 2+ cover followed by a 4+ FNP save, against my opponent's 50 or so conscripts who were hitting them on 4+ and wounding them on 5+. 200 dice rolls later and one whole wound was inflicted.

Point is, if you're looking for a more casual 40k tournament, the Friendly isn't it. If you're looking for a wacky, anything goes type event, then you're in the right place.

Redbeard (hi, btw!) is spot on... The Friendly was fun ( hey, it went to 11!) but it was hardly just a "less competative" 40k. It was deliberately wacky with lots of "outside the game" effects. Sometimes you just got lucky/unlucky by what got spun on the wheel o' goodness.

And, it hardly got rid of the WAAC players either. I didn't play him, but one guy brought a list that started with 3 SW Rune Priests (all with JotWW) and an allied BA Libby. Is that intended to be a "fun" list?

For my Adepticon money, the most "fun" non-wacky 40k was the Combat Patrol. Some very interesting scenarios and surprisingly little WAAC. just some good tight games without all the crazy.

Don't get me wrong, I had a lot of fun with the friendly, but Redbeard's exactly right. That said, I really had a blast with the combat patrol games and I'm definitely shooting to play more of them next time around. .

Valete,

JohnS

 cygnnus wrote:

And, it hardly got rid of the WAAC players either. I didn't play him, but one guy brought a list that started with 3 SW Rune Priests (all with JotWW) and an allied BA Libby. Is that intended to be a "fun" list?

3 Rune Priests and an allied BA Librarian sounds like a terrible basis for a list if you want to win games. What about the list makes it not fun for you?

 Danny Internets wrote:

 cygnnus wrote:

And, it hardly got rid of the WAAC players either. I didn't play him, but one guy brought a list that started with 3 SW Rune Priests (all with JotWW) and an allied BA Libby. Is that intended to be a "fun" list?

3 Rune Priests and an allied BA Librarian sounds like a terrible basis for a list if you want to win games. What about the list makes it not fun for you?

As I said, I didn't play it. Just saw it. There's more to it that just the list, but it's not really more story to tell...

Valete,

JohnS

 Danny Internets wrote:

 cygnnus wrote:

And, it hardly got rid of the WAAC players either. I didn't play him, but one guy brought a list that started with 3 SW Rune Priests (all with JotWW) and an allied BA Libby. Is that intended to be a "fun" list?

3 Rune Priests and an allied BA Librarian sounds like a terrible basis for a list if you want to win games. What about the list makes it not fun for you?

I've played against something like that. He podded in with 4 squads, the libby blood lancing and the RP's Jawsing things, followed by the firepower of the grey hunters and a sternguard squad. I think the libby also gives the 5+ cover save?, and it had a sanguinary priest for 5+++. I think only 3 pods came in the first turn, but if you do it right you can eliminate a lot of threats to your army, and 30-40 marines in the center of a board or flank are hard to kill.

Another Adepticon behind us, and only 360 days (+/- 21 days, depending on the exact date) until my next Giordano's pizza!

For reference, this was my 10th Adepticon. (I missed 2005, and I still feel bad about it.)

I played in the 40k Championship & the 40k Team Tournament this year; I helped staff the 40k Gladiator initially, and migrated into the 40k Warzone event, when it looked like Nick the organizer could use a spare body. I also played in the Poker after-party, for the short time I had chips, and then hung around afterwards, before catching a board game.

Actually getting to the event this year was a little rough, as was previously noted. Tremendous thunderstorms & planes don't mix especially well, and my "direct" flight spent a couple quality hours in St. Loius (which ended up being a better place to be than Indy, judging by Yakface & Blackmoor's longer delay there).

The 4-day format was new & interesting. Unfortunate that the weather was so uncooperative, as I suspect that will skew any measurables that the team would otherwise use to judge "success," but it felt like a good choice. Certainly it is more expensive to attend all 4 days, but only incrementally so, and there is no shortage of activities for those who are looking to follow the old 3-day approach.

Some thoughts, in no especial order:

Terrain placement rules: Of all the changes made for the 40k events, this is the one that I was most skeptical of. As it turned out, I thought it was truly fantastic. You need a deep terrain pool to make it work well (as each terrain piece was on the order of 1 square foot), but the placement rules were such that no board could be too barren. The only suggestion I have is to restore a 5" distance off the board edge, if not off of the other terrain elements. (In Hammer & Anvil, with the right selection of terrain & a desire to make it happen, one player could arrange a 16-18" killing ground between the midfield & terrain he was required to put on his side of the board, but it was just barely possible with 4" distances.)

Text messaging table assignments: Fantastic idea. Implementation needed a little work (the only one I received on Thursday in time to matter was during the dinner break), but this is far, far better than massive rushes to read posted lists. Now, if you'd just post assignments online also, we wouldn't be at the whims of the cell carriers anymore - pre-establish a known location for posting, and announce that they're up when you hit "Submit."

The 40k Championship: Not a lot to say about it, beyond thinking that I may be done with it for a while. So many other events going on, and the Championship was never my primary draw. Plenty of places to play "normal" 40k (although perhaps not to win a week in Mexico by doing so - wow!), but some of the 40k variants on display are much harder to find, to say nothing of the other systems available.

The 40k Gladiator: Attendance is still not what it once was, back when it was the first 40k event of the weekend. It looks like the Gladiator is morphing into a different event: it used to be the "no holds barred" event, back when composition affected "normal" GT play; now, it is increasingly about playing with your FW units without restriction. It's not a bad change, and I look forward to seeing what a new team of organizers makes of it.

40k Warzone: Really neat event, and I'm glad I wandered into it. For those who aren't familiar, Warzone takes the FW Zone Mortalis concept and expands on it. Not only do you need to be able to do battle in the confines of a Space Hulk or Necron Tombship, but your same army will also do battle on a wide-open dusty desert, in a burning cityscape, and in the trenches of a muddy battlefield. You have a small sideboard available (250 pts for your 1k army), but versatility was key. Everyone who played seemed to enjoy the event immensely. Some minor hiccups, not unexpected in a first-year event: the alloted time wasn't quite right, given the complexities of rules added by each board & each mission; and some of the special rules weren't well balanced in certain scenarios. Those are correctable, and I hope to make use of this ruleset for some local events in the near future, too.

The Team Tournament: THIS is what brings me back, year after year. Dakka Detachment One did pretty well this year, finishing 9th overall with a hodgepodge of CSM/Daemons/Daemons/IG, and we had 10 great games (even against those unsportsmanlike so-and-sos in the final round) across 5 rounds. I really, really appreciate the return to a 2-day format; 3 hour rounds are brutal, and just being DONE for the day after round 3 was fantastic. Plus, it let us eat our pizza, socialize, drink too much, and still get what passes for a reasonable night's sleep at Adepticon before round 4 started on Sunday. One minor quibble with the round 5 mission (scoring Elites, but no Scouring/Big Guns anywhere to be seen), but on the whole, a fantastic event run very well.

The hotel: Complicated topic. Food has gotten progressively better with time, as they've worked to make it so you didn't want to leave...but their kitchen closed at 10pm on Wednesday, so I couldn't get anything when I finally did get there. I really appreciated the option of the breakfast/lunch buffet on Thursday...unfortunately, the delay in the Championship start time meant that lunch was essentially over by the time I could reach it, leaving a few picked-over options to choose from. Relocating the Vendor Hall out of the main ballroom relieved congestion...but it also meant that I never took the time to browse; there wasn't enough time between rounds of the primary events to make it comfortable to leave the hall & shop. I really like the Westin, but I suspect the event is pushing the boundaries of what can comfortably fit there. And either I'm getting old, or their beds are getting harder. Couldn't be the former.

Again, HUGE thanks are due to Hank, Matt, and everyone involved in putting Adepticon together year after year. It's a labor of love, I know, and it is incredible that you can consistently put together an event of this caliber, particularly given how it continues to grow & evolve. See you next year!

9th overall, nice! Dakka Detachment 1 is going to break through and win the thing one of these days... I think you guys had an even higher result last year for battle points (but not for overall) which is pretty impressive.

My only real complaint is that the hotel ran out of Mountain Dew after Thursday pretty much (I am addicted). And the ATM stopped working for awhile, but that's nothing new.

 Alpharius wrote:

 Gitsplitta wrote:
I guess that's kind of where I'm getting to gorgon. There's a LOT about Adepticon to love. But there's less and less to love about the big 40k games unless you're a big-time competitive gamer.

Couldn't agree more!

If I make it out in 2014, I'll look more for a "Friendly 40K" game, and spend the rest of my time wandering around trying to hang out in Real Life with people I spend way to much time talking to on The Internet!

I haven't played 40K since the new edition dropped, and playing in the TT would probably be the only thing really drawing me back into the game. If I go next year I will probably focus on the smaller games unless DD3 rises from the ashes. If that doesn't happen I will probably stick with Flames of War, maybe some Warmachine or Infinity, and maybe one of the smaller 40K versions like ZM and or (a big maybe) WFB. Or I might just sign up for a few small things and then set up games with people on Dakka and bring armies for that and make it an "play a few "competitive" things, and then just make it a social gaming event where I can drink, shop, and test out new games while hanging out with friends.

 Dinamarth wrote:
My only real complaint is that the hotel ran out of Mountain Dew after Thursday pretty much (I am addicted). And the ATM stopped working for awhile, but that's nothing new.

Hahaha, I don't know if it is hilarious they ran out or a tragic commentary on the gamer stereotype

can anyone post the lists of the top 3?

phempchildrenbob wrote:
can anyone post the lists of the top 3?

The top 3...what? There were well over 30 tournaments at Adepticon.

Before you ask, I didn't get the BFG lists; sorry.

sorry I meant the 40k championchip

As far as 40k goes, the only thing I did not like was the objective placement after you knew who was on what table side.

This caused 3 problems:
#1. If you had an odd number of objectives one side had a huge advantage.
#2. To make gaining/lossing an objective harder, objectives were all placed at the back of the board near the table edge.
#3. With an even number of objectives games were more prone to ties because they were burried deep in the deployment zones.

Player placed terrian is fine but for tournaments I think you should have the terrian and objectives placed before rolling for table sides. This ensures a more balanced terrain and objective placement.

The problem comes with fortifications and maybe what you do is just replace a piece of terrain or move the terrain slightly to make room for them.

Maybe this is why necrons did so well is that they can easily move troops safetly across the board.

 Janthkin wrote:

40k Warzone: Really neat event, and I'm glad I wandered into it. For those who aren't familiar, Warzone takes the FW Zone Mortalis concept and expands on it. Not only do you need to be able to do battle in the confines of a Space Hulk or Necron Tombship, but your same army will also do battle on a wide-open dusty desert, in a burning cityscape, and in the trenches of a muddy battlefield. You have a small sideboard available (250 pts for your 1k army), but versatility was key. Everyone who played seemed to enjoy the event immensely. Some minor hiccups, not unexpected in a first-year event: the alloted time wasn't quite right, given the complexities of rules added by each board & each mission; and some of the special rules weren't well balanced in certain scenarios. Those are correctable, and I hope to make use of this ruleset for some local events in the near future, too.

I'm really glad you enjoyed yourself. This was honestly the most rewarding event I've ever run. I ran a lot of events in the 90's and early 2000's in Buffalo, NY, but this one I put everything I could into it, and I felt really good about the end result of my efforts and how everyone reacted overall.

This morning I collected all of the information from the surveys and I'm putting together a blog post and a couple articles about the event. I'm excited to do it again next year and to tweak the areas that people thought needed tweaking. I might even try to run it a couple more times this year at various places just to collect more information and maintain the momentum to finish some of the tables left unfinished.

Since I'm writing more later I'll keep it short for now, but I will say that I had figured out during play testing that the rounds were too short, but I had already locked myself into a time schedule so I just had to do the best I could with the situation. Next year it will definitely be run with 2 hour game times instead of 1.5.

Thanks again for participating!

Also, if anyone that played in the 40K Warzone Tournament snapped any pics, I'd love to see/use them in my blog posts/articles. I'm an idiot and didn't document any of it visually. :(

 Blackmoor wrote:
As far as 40k goes, the only thing I did not like was the objective placement after you knew who was on what table side.

This caused 3 problems:
#1. If you had an odd number of objectives one side had a huge advantage.
#2. To make gaining/lossing an objective harder, objectives were all placed at the back of the board near the table edge.
#3. With an even number of objectives games were more prone to ties because they were burried deep in the deployment zones.

Player placed terrian is fine but for tournaments I think you should have the terrian and objectives placed before rolling for table sides. This ensures a more balanced terrain and objective placement.

The problem comes with fortifications and maybe what you do is just replace a piece of terrain or move the terrain slightly to make room for them.

Maybe this is why necrons did so well is that they can easily move troops safetly across the board.

That isn't just adepticon that is 6th edition. In 6th edition you roll for table sides and then place objectives. That is a primary reason why necrons are so good in this edition because you can keep your troops safe for the whole game them drop them off up to 42" away from your current location.

 Tomb King wrote:
That isn't just adepticon that is 6th edition. In 6th edition you roll for table sides and then place objectives. That is a primary reason why necrons are so good in this edition because you can keep your troops safe for the whole game them drop them off up to 42" away from your current location.

Most tournaments organizers recognize how poorly designed the book missions are and adjust them accordingly for competitive play.

 Blackmoor wrote:

Player placed terrian is fine but for tournaments I think you should have the terrian and objectives placed before rolling for table sides. This ensures a more balanced terrain and objective placement.

I found the terrain placement rules to be definitely skewed, at least in my armies favour. Granted, I was playing in the Friendly, so brought a list that I doubt most would play in a more competitive environment (Nurgle Daemons), but with six large pieces of terrain, mostly area, that had to be only 4" apart, and only majority on your half, I was able to put my pieces in the middle of the table, forcing my opponent to put his pieces on his half, leaving my half of the table nearly devoid of terrain and his half very cluttered. Then I'd just play the whole game on my opponent's side of the table, and with my Shrouded rules, I was consistently getting 3+ and 2+ cover saves. My opponent was unable to counter my placing my pieces of terrain in the center (45% in his half) by putting his on my side. I hadn't even considered this prior to the event, but it just became very obvious during my first set-up period.

 Redbeard wrote:
My opponent was unable to counter my placing my pieces of terrain in the center (45% in his half) by putting his on my side.

Why not? Two scenarios:
1) You get to place the first piece, and place it on the center line, likely near the dead middle (as going too far to one side or the other would reduce your ability to put your other pieces there). Your opponent should put his first piece on the center line as well, far enough from yours to prevent you from placing another piece on that side of the board. End result: he'll end up with 2 pieces deep in his zone (back corners, if he's concerned), and 3 pieces that overhang the middle of the board.
2) He places the first piece, and should place it as far forward as possible, but weighted to one side or the other (about 12-14" off the board edge should do it, for most of the terrain pieces I saw). Should prevent you from placing more than 1 piece of yours on the middle line at all, as he'll be placing 3rd.

Sounds like you "won" the strategy side of terrain placement. Well done!

That said, a ton of people were playing normal hills as area terrain, which boggles the mind.

I HATED when people refused to play forests as forests in 5th ed., and I HATE when people refuse to play hills as hills in 6th. Luckily, my opponents were all very good people and knew what a hill was. That made me happy.

The odd obj. #'s was bogus. However, as I was playing Crons, a few times against aggressive armies I actually placed my objective in their half. Worked quite well. Mobility is key in 6th and Crons are so very good at it. Nerfing every transport except Scythes/Vendettas has been rough for a lot of armies.

FWIW the 6th Edition terrain rules allow for terrain w/ bases, and w/out bases, and often bases can refer to a piece that is area terrain AND something else, like ruins, hillcrests/ridgelines, etc. Clarifying this with your opponent in one or the other direction, or clarifying it as a tournament organizer, is a pretty normal way of doing things.

To say that a hill on a base is NEVER anything but a hillcrest/ridgeline is actually to deny the rules of 6th Edition. So try not to hate too much.

Frankly haterade is a good thing to drop in general ... most everyone I ran into was having an awesome time at the awesome weekend that is AdeptiCon, and that includes me! Thanks to all my opponents, buddies, friends, new friends, etc., that I ran into, met, rolled dice against, etc. Still one of if not the best hobby event in the nation.

 Janthkin wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:
My opponent was unable to counter my placing my pieces of terrain in the center (45% in his half) by putting his on my side.

Why not? Two scenarios:
1) You get to place the first piece, and place it on the center line, likely near the dead middle (as going too far to one side or the other would reduce your ability to put your other pieces there). Your opponent should put his first piece on the center line as well, far enough from yours to prevent you from placing another piece on that side of the board. End result: he'll end up with 2 pieces deep in his zone (back corners, if he's concerned), and 3 pieces that overhang the middle of the board.
2) He places the first piece, and should place it as far forward as possible, but weighted to one side or the other (about 12-14" off the board edge should do it, for most of the terrain pieces I saw). Should prevent you from placing more than 1 piece of yours on the middle line at all, as he'll be placing 3rd.

Sounds like you "won" the strategy side of terrain placement. Well done!

That said, a ton of people were playing normal hills as area terrain, which boggles the mind.

What if he has a fortification?

As for above:
Option #1) There are 3 pieces on the centerline and 2 in the back. Redbeard had board control because he is able to advance with plenty of cover.
Option #2) Most players want to obscure their objectives in the back of the board with LOS blocking terrain. Because you now have to counter the terrain push with counter terrain pushes, your objectives will now be exposed because by the time you place the back pieces of terrain the LOS blockers are gone and you have nowhere to hide.

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Janthkin wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:
My opponent was unable to counter my placing my pieces of terrain in the center (45% in his half) by putting his on my side.

Why not? Two scenarios:
1) You get to place the first piece, and place it on the center line, likely near the dead middle (as going too far to one side or the other would reduce your ability to put your other pieces there). Your opponent should put his first piece on the center line as well, far enough from yours to prevent you from placing another piece on that side of the board. End result: he'll end up with 2 pieces deep in his zone (back corners, if he's concerned), and 3 pieces that overhang the middle of the board.
2) He places the first piece, and should place it as far forward as possible, but weighted to one side or the other (about 12-14" off the board edge should do it, for most of the terrain pieces I saw). Should prevent you from placing more than 1 piece of yours on the middle line at all, as he'll be placing 3rd.

Sounds like you "won" the strategy side of terrain placement. Well done!

That said, a ton of people were playing normal hills as area terrain, which boggles the mind.

What if he has a fortification?

As for above:
Option #1) There are 3 pieces on the centerline and 2 in the back. Redbeard had board control because he is able to advance with plenty of cover.
Option #2) Most players want to obscure their objectives in the back of the board with LOS blocking terrain. Because you now have to counter the terrain push with counter terrain pushes, your objectives will now be exposed because by the time you place the back pieces of terrain the LOS blockers are gone and you have nowhere to hide.

Fortifications are great. If you have one, and you don't want your opponent to drop huge terrain on the center line, you drop your fortification there instead. One Aegis means no LoS blocking terrain within 4" of the center for a significant distance.

#1 sounds like "working as intended." 6e gives a major advantage to mobile armies, and calls for 1-3 "pieces" of terrain in every 2'x2' segment of the board (averages to about 12 pieces/table). I'm assuming that time concerns mandated the 6 large piece approach used at Adepticon, but it seemed a very reasonable compromise position. But even with the fairly large pieces used at Adepticon, you could still have significant open space on one side of the table under the described scenario, if you thought about it in time.

#2 isn't the described problem. Redbeard's army is advancing without much shooting; his opponent shouldn't care about having LoS blocking terrain to conceal his objectives, as there isn't much to conceal them from. (Those objectives may be better off in the open, anyway.)

To be real, I wasn't actually hating.. I'm sorry, I didn't realize a man wasn't allowed to express his pet peeves. I had a great weekend, obviously, I got to spend it in Chicago playing with toy soldiers and making new friends. Yeah, I played that little 1/2 rim as area terrain as per the rules.

My point is that the rulebook does an exceptional job of describing nearly every terrain possibility. There was never a good reason to play forests as area terrain in fifth. Same concept applies to hills in 6th.

Again, I did not have much of an issue with the terrain placement, just the order of objective placement,

Yes, I know that it is that way for 6th edition missions, I just do not think they work well with tournament play.