Guys,

To make sense of things ...

First, competitive score = 10xWinRate + Goal1Rate + Goal2Rate + Goal3Rate
Second, appearance score = ((Army At a Glance Judging #1 + Army At a Glance Judging #2)/200 + .3((Single Mini #1 + Single Mini#2)/200) + .3((Single Converted #1 + Single Converted #2)/200))
Third, sports score = Cumulative Scoring by Opponents / 16

Ren Man = (Competitive Score / 13) + Appearance Score + Sports Score (equal weight to each)

These are the rankings at the end of day 1. I've created a file sorted by Tournament Champion, and a file sorted by Renaissance (Overall). So the first file is Best General sorted, and the second is Best Overall sorted, for those who haven't kept up with our terminology.

Competitive Sort - http://novaopen.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Finals-40k.pdf

Renaissance Sort - http://novaopen.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Finals-Ren-sorted-40k.pdf

On Day 2, the top 8 competitive players were all participant, with the exception that Chris Shriner declined to compete, resulting in Nick Nanavati (#9 competitive) advancing.

The final results at the end of Day 2 resorted the Top 8 to:
Tony Kopach (6-0) - SW
Mark Ferek (5-1) - BA
Andrew Sutton (5-1) - SW
Justin Hilderbrandt (6-1) - Ork
Samuel Penson (5-2) - SW
Jeremy Chamblee (4-2) - SW
Joe Trueblood (4-2) - BA
Nick Nanavati (3-3) - DoC

For posterity's sake, Chris Shriner was playing mono-Nurgle CSM

Any plans to submit a spreadsheet to Rankingshq?

Yeah, hoping the fact that we don't do battle points won't screw with their interpretation.

Thanks for the posting Mike, awesome to see how everyone did in both formats!

Woot, 4th in Ren. man, that might be my highest GT finish I think...

I'd like to motion for a bi-annual nova open...I'm jonesing

Wow, kudos to the Renaissance man also being the one with the highest sports score! I only see one other 0.94 in that category from glancing down the page. Is the Danny Internets that we all know and all?? Way to go!

Maybe I need to resort to PM, but Mike, is there any chance of getting a link to the blog or anywhere that might have some info about the fantasy side of things?

Yay me

RiTides, I'm working through the Fantasy sheet right now; the way the spreadsheets are, they're super complicated b/c they're functionally designed to properly calculate scores / etc. on the fly with us just spam entering data .... so they aren't really fieldable "raw" ... I need to snag out all the final scores and put them in a new spreadsheet, and that's while I'm taking care of real life.

So, I'll get it out ASAP, hopefully by end of today.

- Mike

What does .04 difference come out to in actual points off the painting sheet? I'm just curious

Man, I'm an average sport 10/16 My last opponent gave me a 4 which means my earlier opponents weren't so nice It does make sportsmanship a heavier weight though which works.

You scored a 68/100, 45/100, 65/100 in At a Glance, Single mini, and Single Converted mini respectively.

Dash scored 55/100, 80/100, 50/100 in each.

Eric Furman's top army scored 92.5/100, 100/100, 87.5/100

(the halves are because we combined the two separate judgings and averaged them)

I'm not really up on the competitive gaming circuit.... do the SW's dominate all tourney's in such a fashion, or is this an exceptional showing? (I know they're competitive, but 4 of the top 6 is impressive.)

Well, I'm not sure how indicative it is or isn't ...

For example, there were 3 Demons of Chaos, and 1 made the Top 8

There were 4 Orks, and 1 made the top 8

There were 11 SW, and 4 made the top 8

There were 14 BA, and 2 made the top 8

There were 11 IG, and 0 made the top 8

4/11 is not far off the proportion of 1/4 (orks), and basically the same as the proportion of 1/3 (demons)

What I think is more telling is the ABSENCE of IG from the top, and the fact that the BA were a much lower percentage than orks, sw, demons

Interesting stuff

Well, I doubt they do this well in tournaments that use kill points. Any codex that can utilize MSUs (like Space Wolves) benefits greatly when the MSU-balancer of Killpoints is taken out of the equation.

Thanks for the analysis Brandt & Redbeard... that does put things in context. Interesting indeed.

Eh, that's one heck of a big discussion. I, like most others who have already spoken up, never optimize for KP. You rarely see KP-optimized armies like SW go to the top of a tourney that goes enough rounds, barring an unfortunate match-up with some whacky low army that they can't simply table.



I'd also like to point out BA is all about MSU (with more expensive troops by a little who are benefitted beyond their cost and squad size by FNP and FC auras), and so is guard, yet neither of them did particularly well (barring Mark Ferek, and he's an exceptionally good player).

I'm not really sure that MSU ruled the day, anymore than it already does in other tourneys, where people take MSU-ish approaches to slaughter people in objective based missions, and simply table opponents that have too few KP in those missions.

To fast Mike!

Thanks for the info. Not having a display board hurt a little. Best tourney I've attended since GW Vegas

MVBrandt wrote:Eh, that's one heck of a big discussion. I, like most others who have already spoken up, never optimize for KP.

What is optimizing for KP? Taking as few as possible, or as many?

You rarely see KP-optimized armies like SW go to the top of a tourney that goes enough rounds, barring an unfortunate match-up with some whacky low army that they can't simply table.

I can't comment on this, I don't know what you're referring to by KP-optimized.

I'm not really sure that MSU ruled the day, anymore than it already does in other tourneys, where people take MSU-ish approaches to slaughter people in objective based missions, and simply table opponents that have too few KP in those missions.

It's hard to table really good opponents. And I'm not saying that MSU ruled the day, but looking at the stats, it does look like not having KP missions does have an impact. KP, while they make little sense in a real-world sense, are part of the game balanced designed into costs of things in the codexes.

Without the gamey KP construct, MSU is always superior. Even in the the real-world. WWI - charge 20,000 men over a field. Afghanistan - squads are eight guys, and usually split into two four-man fire teams.

MVBrandt wrote:Eh, that's one heck of a big discussion. I, like most others who have already spoken up, never optimize for KP. You rarely see KP-optimized armies like SW go to the top of a tourney that goes enough rounds, barring an unfortunate match-up with some whacky low army that they can't simply table.

It is interesting that both the Nova Open and BolsCon did not use KPs and SW dominated them, and armies like IG and Eldar were less successful than they have been at past tournaments. I know that there are a lot of factors at play here, but it is something to think about.

I'd also like to point out BA is all about MSU (with more expensive troops by a little who are benefitted beyond their cost and squad size by FNP and FC auras), and so is guard, yet neither of them did particularly well (barring Mark Ferek, and he's an exceptionally good player).

I would like to point out the differences between MSU and SU armies. BA and some other armies out there are SU (Small Units, but not a lot of them) armies. They have very expensive units and are small (and tough). Mech Eldar plays the same way by playing a small elite army. It seems like these armies are hurt by the exclusion on KP missions.

I'm not really sure that MSU ruled the day, anymore than it already does in other tourneys, where people take MSU-ish approaches to slaughter people in objective based missions, and simply table opponents that have too few KP in those missions.

MSU is certainly the best way to go and the superior army build in objective based missions.

So my question would be, do KP missions even the playing field if you are playing a SU armiy vs. a MSU army?

re: Redbeard
Aye; by KP-optimized, I mean to some degree limiting the MSU you otherwise take to best improve your shots at winning any mission that ISN'T kill points.

I don't think it actively balances the game, b/c I think all of the armies that compete routinely and effectively do so with or without the"gamey KP construct." That's to say, their best builds are taken, and win, and don't show signs of limiting the inclusion of any kind of KP-consideration in the list build.

I can reference the commentary of ticket-holders like Dash, Hulk, etc., or my own experiences, but this argument often becomes one of those difficult and subjective ones.

- Mike


re: Blackmoor

To your question, I don't think they actually do. It's more likely that you'll see odd situations such as in Stelek's first game at the Open. He went against a list that was openly inferior / "bad," even by the admission of the guy who played it. Like three land raiders with 1k sons squads in them, and a few other things. If he didn't table the guy *and I don't think he quite did* were the mission KP instead of VP, he'd have lost, instead of winning by around 1,000 vp. In this situation, the "gamey" construct creates a BAD result, in almost anyone's book - an inferior list piloted by an inexperienced player beating a superior list piloted by a veteran player? Just take the inferior/superior list component out of that question and it still is "wrong." Better players should win, period.

Take it to the next level, of the average situation, and unless someone is explicitly stripping KP out of his list, he's going to be roughly the same regardless of his thoughts on KP. Very few top qualitiy SW lists take fewer than a pretty high # of KP ... Tony Kopach (winner of the Open) hardly was running MSU at all, for example ... 17 KP isn't really MSU, and 3 of his Rhinos had 9+ guys in them. He took down Stelek's 24-KP "true" MSU, and Mark Ferek's 19-KP BA.

That's where the rubber hits the road, in truth. VERY few space wolf lists that most people would attribute any merit to ever really run lighter than 12+ KP, and at that point it's still just anybody's game ... but instead of it being determined off actual value killed, it becomes a situation where people are firing downrange at immobilized and weaponless rhinos on the bottom of the last turn, instead of gunning points-saturated units apart at point blank range.

While always arguable due to the dearth of material statistics collated into one place, MSU is not necessarily the "best" way to win, but any kind of AVOIDANCE of taking more units / more transports just b/c you're afraid of KP is a sure way to have a WORSE list, and that's why KP doesn't actually have an impact on list-build and tournament winnings ... only occasionally on the net # of MSU type lists that rise, when the experience of Stelek v. Daemon-Archon above occurs ... namely, while across a tournament many high-KP armies draw other high-KP armies, some random dude with a bunch of KP's gets unlucky and draws whacky list with almost none, and loses even if he crushes the life out of his opponent's army.

It's not a "balancer" to have simply weird or bad results inserted into a tournament system because of KP. It's just ... weird or bad. If you bracketed matches based upon KP total, it'd be fine, but the fact that some of the higher KP people will draw other high KP for the KP round, while others have low KP vs low KP and some have high KP vs low KP ... KP becomes inherently UNBALANCED, and can punish just about anyone at pure random. VP becomes superior not because it can't be "gamed," (because anything can be ... it's a game lol), but because everyone is guaranteed to have the same number of score-able points.

Can you define SU vs. MSU please? I'm a lost. MSU = many small units? If so, how many is "many"?

Thanks.

Yeah, it probably is a subjective difficult question, I'll agree there.

But, my thought would be that, in the absence of conclusive evidence to prove that they have no balancing effect, you should assume that their design was intentional, and include them in roughly the same percentages of tournament missions as they occur in the BRB (33%, for those keeping track at home), or, as some others have said in the past, you're not playing Warhammer 40k, you're playing a game that somewhat resembles Warhammer 40k.

If tabling in 1/3rd of the games and winning out in the other 2/3rds is a legit strategy, so be it (I don't think it is, but I'm willing concede the possibility). But at least force them to have to get that tabling.

Red, more of my reply is up there, but at the heart of it that 33% is the problem.

2/3 of the missions in the book strongly benefit people who take MSU and lots of scoring units / contesting units. I think the draw mission is pretty bad, most people seem to, but on the subject of KP you run into the fact that everyone takes very different armies at a tournament, and BECAUSE of that the KP inclusion makes a tournament situation inherently imbalanced.

Were we running a league, it would be fine - no one loss really hurts you that badly, and you invariably will have to play most or all of the lists present. In a tournament, the fact that it's only 1/3 of the missions and the bigger fields almost guarantee that only a few people (and not everyone) will be involved in matches with a wide KP disparity, it's a net DETRACTOR from balance/fairness/competition.

In short, VP is not the "Best" way to do it for a number of reasons (and is part of why we're considering dropping it from a primary mission inclusion next year), but it can't harm someone on the issue of RANDOMNESS.

Every army that is competitive to begin with CAN take an objective-optimized list, and everybody has the same number of VP ... so as long as they know KP aren't included ahead of time, the field IS balanced by nature, whereas EVEN if they know about KP when it IS included ... the field can never be balanced, due to the inherent random draw nature of whether you'll go up against a low or high KP opponent when that round comes up.



Basically, I can guarantee that in the objective mission, both players have to battle over 5 objectives.
In the Quarters mission, I can guarantee that both players have to battle over 4 quarters.
In the VP mission, I can guarantee that both players have to battle for a maximum of 2,000 VP.

In the KP mission, you can't guarantee anything. One player may have as many as 22 to score, another may only have 5.
It's the same reason the "kill all troops" back-up mission at Adepticon last year was so ill-received, and anything similar applies.

Gitsplitta wrote:Can you define SU vs. MSU please? I'm a lost. MSU = many small units? If so, how many is "many"?

Thanks.

Michigan state university?

MVBrandt wrote:Every army that is competitive to begin with CAN take an objective-optimized list, and everybody has the same number of VP ... so as long as they know KP aren't included ahead of time, the field IS balanced by nature, whereas EVEN if they know about KP when it IS included ... the field can never be balanced, due to the inherent random draw nature of whether you'll go up against a low or high KP opponent when that round comes up.

Your first sentence is part of what disturbs me about the "no KP" approach - I think excluding KP from a tournament changes what a "competitive" army is.

Matchups are always going to matter, almost irrespective of mission. If you're playing a 5 objective mission, almost any list is going to have a more difficult time against, say, fully-meched Space Wolves (or a similarly-mobile force with a lot of scoring units), than you will against Tau.

I've followed your conversations on this topic with interest for months, but it sometimes sounds like a rationalization - (some) competitive players don't optimize for KPs, therefore there is no reason to include KPs, because the competitive players aren't going to optimize for them anyway. But if those competitive players are making the choice to risk a bad matchup in a KP mission, shouldn't you allow them to face that risk? Put the KP mission late in the day, and if their choice to bring MSU-style lists pays off across the board, there shouldn't be any < 10KP opponents left for them to draw in the "winner" bracket.

It's the same reason the "kill all troops" back-up mission at Adepticon last year was so ill-received, and anything similar applies.

My problem with that mission was mostly that it was the same mission across all three "objectives" - kill stuff. The value in a multi-objective mission is supposed to reward superior game play while completing multiple objectives.

I think the issue with it was that some people would go up against an army with 10 troops choices, and some would go up against an army with 2, making it easier for some opponents to score much higher in a tournament where battle points determined who ultimately won.

It's not really about rationalization, but about normalization of a field.

As stated in the above edit, if one of the missions is 5 objectives, everyone knows they need to battle over 5 objectives when that mission comes around.

Kill points, however, does not permit that kind of guarantee of fairness from the organizer. It's simply not possible.

hey mike can you post my paint scores, I can PM you my name if you dont recall who I was, I was using Eldar though. I saw the 0.64 but not sure how that translates into the 3 categories. Thanks

Heh, put it in the other thread just now but ...

65/100 Overall, 72.5/100 Single Mini, 50/100 Single Conversion

MVBrandt wrote:
To your question, I don't think they actually do. It's more likely that you'll see odd situations such as in Stelek's first game at the Open. He went against a list that was openly inferior / "bad," even by the admission of the guy who played it. Like three land raiders with 1k sons squads in them, and a few other things. If he didn't table the guy *and I don't think he quite did* were the mission KP instead of VP, he'd have lost, instead of winning by around 1,000 vp. In this situation, the "gamey" construct creates a BAD result, in almost anyone's book - an inferior list piloted by an inexperienced player beating a superior list piloted by a veteran player? Just take the inferior/superior list component out of that question and it still is "wrong." Better players should win, period.

I disagree. It is an opinion that the thousand sons list was "bad". In 1/3rd of the book missions it is good. Steleks list was not superior to the thousand sons list in 1/3rd of the book missions. Some people think this is 'unfair' and want the 24 Kp monster to win in all missions instead of forcing Stelek's 24kp list to evolve into something that has a better chance at beating the thousand sons in kp and have a slightly lesser chance of winning in the other 2/3rd missions. You see the KP mission forces the 24 kp SW list to change or lose. Now if everyone played the same MSU style lists - what the internet thinks of as techie lists - then the KP mission is moot, however it's those people who want to explore the rich variety the 40k army lists can bring, those people throw the monkey wrench into the situation.

Good players will have to take into account a KP denial army list and factor that into their list building. This brings balance to list design and hampers the MSU list. It's absolutely fair to have to take this into account and be subject to a lose if you refuse to accept that a newbie can bring a list no one would bring, but it beats you. Phil Hellmuth always complains when someone plays a hand wrong in Poker. Some guy will play a hand all wrong and beat Phil because Phil expected him to play the hand correctly, but the kicker is he is more likely to lose to someone who doesn't play it correctly because he assumes everyone should. Someone who brings the uber MSU lists expect everyone else to play army lists from a narrow construct - only the good lists.

Here's another example, but using 'good' lists. Let's say Stelek's 24 KP list ran into a tricked out double Seer Council list. Something along the lines that almost every European team had at the ETC. In a VP game the Seer's would have been scrambling to make up VP's from left to right. Maybe one squad of Seer's get's taken down and the Eldar player lost 800vp right there. How many units of 80pts grey hunters or 40pt razorbacks would they have needed to catch and wipe out, not reduce to 1 model or immobilise, but wipe out to make up the VP difference? Now change the game to KP and the Seer Councils will most likely wipe out 4 razorbacks and 3 min-sized squads. Those are only 400pts of VP, but 7pts of KP. It might have been as much KP as the Eldar player brought and theMSU army list is toast. However in a VP mission 400pts of VP can be made up and then some by getting one Seer Council wiped out. This entire scenario - where 2 'good' lists have competed is completly impossible at the Nova Open because of the change in core rules concerning KP. It hampers one type of army list design and takes away one of the only weaknesses of the uber MSU style list.

MVBrandt wrote:RiTides, I'm working through the Fantasy sheet right now; the way the spreadsheets are, they're super complicated b/c they're functionally designed to properly calculate scores / etc. on the fly with us just spam entering data .... so they aren't really fieldable "raw" ... I need to snag out all the final scores and put them in a new spreadsheet, and that's while I'm taking care of real life.

So, I'll get it out ASAP, hopefully by end of today.

- Mike

Sweet, no rush, just wanted to know where it was at . I don't mind waiting!

MVBrandt wrote:Every army that is competitive to begin with CAN take an objective-optimized list, and everybody has the same number of VP ... so as long as they know KP aren't included ahead of time, the field IS balanced by nature, whereas EVEN if they know about KP when it IS included ... the field can never be balanced, due to the inherent random draw nature of whether you'll go up against a low or high KP opponent when that round comes up.

VP is never balanced. An MSU army where every possible unit is under 120pts will always be superior in a VP game against an army with just one Land Raider at 250pts. It takes one Lascannon to knock out a Land Raider and get 250 VP, but against the MSU list there is no way to get 250pts from one lascannon shot, everything is so cheap. A player would need to target multiple units across the board and get destroyed results from all of them. The MSU list is to spread out and can mitigate the lose of a few 75pt razorbacks here or there, by knocking out one Land Raider. There is no balance in that.

DarthDiggler wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
To your question, I don't think they actually do. It's more likely that you'll see odd situations such as in Stelek's first game at the Open. He went against a list that was openly inferior / "bad," even by the admission of the guy who played it. Like three land raiders with 1k sons squads in them, and a few other things. If he didn't table the guy *and I don't think he quite did* were the mission KP instead of VP, he'd have lost, instead of winning by around 1,000 vp. In this situation, the "gamey" construct creates a BAD result, in almost anyone's book - an inferior list piloted by an inexperienced player beating a superior list piloted by a veteran player? Just take the inferior/superior list component out of that question and it still is "wrong." Better players should win, period.

I disagree. It is an opinion that the thousand sons list was "bad". In 1/3rd of the book missions it is good. Steleks list was not superior to the thousand sons list in 1/3rd of the book missions. Some people think this is 'unfair' and want the 24 Kp monster to win in all missions instead of forcing Stelek's 24kp list to evolve into something that has a better chance at beating the thousand sons in kp and have a slightly lesser chance of winning in the other 2/3rd missions. You see the KP mission forces the 24 kp SW list to change or lose. Now if everyone played the same MSU style lists - what the internet thinks of as techie lists - then the KP mission is moot, however it's those people who want to explore the rich variety the 40k army lists can bring, those people throw the monkey wrench into the situation.

Good players will have to take into account a KP denial army list and factor that into their list building. This brings balance to list design and hampers the MSU list. It's absolutely fair to have to take this into account and be subject to a lose if you refuse to accept that a newbie can bring a list no one would bring, but it beats you. Phil Hellmuth always complains when someone plays a hand wrong in Poker. Some guy will play a hand all wrong and beat Phil because Phil expected him to play the hand correctly, but the kicker is he is more likely to lose to someone who doesn't play it correctly because he assumes everyone should. Someone who brings the uber MSU lists expect everyone else to play army lists from a narrow construct - only the good lists.

Here's another example, but using 'good' lists. Let's say Stelek's 24 KP list ran into a tricked out double Seer Council list. Something along the lines that almost every European team had at the ETC. In a VP game the Seer's would have been scrambling to make up VP's from left to right. Maybe one squad of Seer's get's taken down and the Eldar player lost 800vp right there. How many units of 80pts grey hunters or 40pt razorbacks would they have needed to catch and wipe out, not reduce to 1 model or immobilise, but wipe out to make up the VP difference? Now change the game to KP and the Seer Councils will most likely wipe out 4 razorbacks and 3 min-sized squads. Those are only 400pts of VP, but 7pts of KP. It might have been as much KP as the Eldar player brought and theMSU army list is toast. However in a VP mission 400pts of VP can be made up and then some by getting one Seer Council wiped out. This entire scenario - where 2 'good' lists have competed is completly impossible at the Nova Open because of the change in core rules concerning KP. It hampers one type of army list design and takes away one of the only weaknesses of the uber MSU style list.

Look, your intelligence is clear in your writing, and your opinion is just as valid as mine.

The bigger issue that leaves me revolving around here relates to the random draw of opponent for the mission, and the inability of the tournament organizer to present it as a mission that will be fair on the MISSION side for everyone, regardless of match-up.

That's to say, that you can't take randomness of the match-up out of the equation, but you can take the mission out as a component of that issue.

Discussions about what a good list is, who experienced players are, whether the missions in the back of the book are the "core" rules or not, etc., all comes down to opinion, and it comes down further to an impasse when two people are passionate and on different sides, yet equally intelligent. I don't want to over-burden a thread on the results of the topic with a discussion between two such people (you and me, for example) that could devolve into potential negativity when we passionately realize the other is uninterested in budging.

Do note, however, that I completely respect your stance on this - it's not wrong, it's just different from my own. We spent hours setting the terrain nicely to ensure every table had the same terrain format; we adjusted the rules so that there were no buildings or impassable terrain, so that every table had roughly the same style of terrain to play around and in; similarly, we ensured that the MISSION would not contribute to the issue that arises from randomness of pairing and sub-optimal army match-ups. It's a choice of style in terms of the presentation of the tournament, and it's one we think went off well.

How did you adjust for the randomness of pairings involving Necron players who would give up full VP's for getting phases out. A player would get 2k vp vs. Necrons but never have to kill all the models on the table. In the Adepticon Gladiator the luck of the draw early on would mean someone would face a Necron player and get full VP's while most everyone else would not be so lucky. I didn't have a solution when I ran those events.

I'm not arguing with you on this, I'm just curious because you take the randomness of player pairings seriously and I couldn't solve that one.

DarthDiggler wrote: VP is never balanced. An MSU army where every possible unit is under 120pts will always be superior in a VP game against an army with just one Land Raider at 250pts. It takes one Lascannon to knock out a Land Raider and get 250 VP, but against the MSU list there is no way to get 250pts from one lascannon shot, everything is so cheap. A player would need to target multiple units across the board and get destroyed results from all of them. The MSU list is to spread out and can mitigate the lose of a few 75pt razorbacks here or there, by knocking out one Land Raider. There is no balance in that.

Ah, but herein lies the rub my friend. When I present a VP mission ahead of time, everyone knows that they can score no less than 2,000 points off their opponents, and no moer than 0. Everyone will have the same number of score-able units.

In a KP mission, I can't guarantee that in any capacity. They may find themselves able to score 24 kill points, or only 5.

So while the randomness and luck of MATCH-UP will never be controllable, the inherent randomness of CAPACITY to score in the actual mission CAN be controlled.

You see the difference?

I think Mike's point is that VP is inherently more balanced than KP because everyone, at every table, is working with the same "budget" of 2000 points.

While a MSU apporach will "never" yield 250 points to a single lascannon shot, statistically the number of lascannon shots it would take to yield 250 points on average will likely balance out with the MSU list. IE, its extremely unlikely that 1 lascannon = 1 land raider, but much more likely that 1 lascannon could = 1 razorback.

I'll post up some basic stat's on that when I get home from work if I remember.

And just as another note, take this year's ard boyz for example:

Round 1, mission 3, fast units are worth 3 KP's. My guard army went for somewhere around 54 KP.

Now, I still took 2nd. Why did I take 2nd? I'd like to say it's because I'm an amazing player, but a big reason is that I was paired against a similarly KP'd opponent in a mech DE raider spam, with ~50 KP. We both had a relatively equal number of KP looking across from us.

I do know of games that happened just at my store, for example my friend played the Shrike assault terminator army, which clocked in at ~10 kp or so. He played a mech opponent who he nearly tabled. His mech opponent had 30-40 kp. In that instance he was almost ASSURED to win the game, and the mech opponent was almost definitley going to LOSE. After all, he could lose everything but 4-5 models and keep enough kp on the board that as long as he'd blown up 3-5 opposing transports and nothing else, he would still win.

Was it fair to the other mech guy that I got to face another high kp army, while he had to face kp denial? Not really I'd say. Were the results of that mission a good indicator of the skill level of the players? Id also say they weren't, it was more than ever the "luck of the draw" with pairings.

DarthDiggler wrote:How did you adjust for the randomness of pairings involving Necron players who would give up full VP's for getting phases out. A player would get 2k vp vs. Necrons but never have to kill all the models on the table. In the Adepticon Gladiator the luck of the draw early on would mean someone would face a Necron player and get full VP's while most everyone else would not be so lucky. I didn't have a solution when I ran those events.

I'm not arguing with you on this, I'm just curious because you take the randomness of player pairings seriously and I couldn't solve that one.

This one's a tough one to manage - but phase-out is tabling, and tabling ANYBODY gets you max VP. The one thing that we do is not grant max BP for people who table - you have to play out the game even by yourself going for the other goal components, of which VP are only 1/3 of the contribution to your current seed rating.

IIRC the Ard Boyz used a VP mission. So GW has the capacity to do VP missions.

Its not competitive when one army starts off the game fighting for a tie or having to go for the tabling to get a victory. The biggest issue is free KP like Tau drones from devilfish and formerly sporemines. For both armies there are no equal victory scales with KP. With VP you know you will have to kill 1850 points as every army has them. As for MSU, they are far easier to target and destroy than bigger fuller squads. With each unit lost, they also lose some heavy/special weapon.

targetawg wrote:While a MSU apporach will "never" yield 250 points to a single lascannon shot, statistically the number of lascannon shots it would take to yield 250 points on average will likely balance out with the MSU list. IE, its extremely unlikely that 1 lascannon = 1 land raider, but much more likely that 1 lascannon could = 1 razorback.

I'll post up some basic stat's on that when I get home from work if I remember.

It's not a question of how likely is it that a single lascannon shot will kill the 250 pt Land Raider; rather, it is that such an event can occur. A single lascannon shot will never yield 250 VPs against a list with no units that cost that much.

I think the issue with it was that some people would go up against an army with 10 troops choices, and some would go up against an army with 2, making it easier for some opponents to score much higher in a tournament where battle points determined who ultimately won.

Here, I think, is where we fundamentally disagree. If you draw the army with 10 Troops choices in a 5 objective mission, you will have a harder time than if you drew the army with 2. If you draw the army with 2 Troops choices in a KP mission, you will have a harder time than if you drew the army with 10. Dropping KPs completely attempts to account for the latter, but (in my opinion) greatly incentivizes lists which can bring more units for objective-claiming. This may actually tilt the board a bit, in favor of armies who have the option to utilize MSU tactics in this way.

Regardless of any theoretical differences, you certainly deserve congratulations - it sounds like you had a very successful tournament, and your attendees are all sounding very happy (in spite of it being Washington in August). That's the best measure of success.

Agreed. Mike, it looks like you did an amazing job, and introduced some impressive new innovations with this tournament. I hope that a good result doesn't cause you to conclude that it was perfect and incapable of being improved upon. I would really like to attend this next year, and am already looking forward to it with the promise of two days of games.

Congrats to all the winners! Congrats also to the Dakka guys who did well, like Dash and Yermom! I barely eked out a win over yermom at the Showcase Ironman event, and have no doubt I'll be seeing him in Vegas next year.

As for KPs, the arguments have already been clearly expressed, so I won't go on at length. I will note that I think
KPs are clearly taken into account by the designers when pricing transports in 5th edition codices. They got cheaper and more durable in 5th. The counter-balance to that is KPs. In 8+ years of playing 3rd & 4th ed, MSU was always the best way to play. There was no question- you always tried to max out your force org chart as best you could for maximum maneuver elements. 5th edition has introduced a radical and significant balancing factor to that- 1/3 of the missions are KPs. As a competitive player, I bought my first Land Raider last year. If 5th still used VPs instead of KPs, I strongly doubt I ever would have done.

MVBrandt wrote:
To your question, I don't think they actually do. It's more likely that you'll see odd situations such as in Stelek's first game at the Open. He went against a list that was openly inferior / "bad," even by the admission of the guy who played it. Like three land raiders with 1k sons squads in them, and a few other things. If he didn't table the guy *and I don't think he quite did* were the mission KP instead of VP, he'd have lost, instead of winning by around 1,000 vp. In this situation, the "gamey" construct creates a BAD result, in almost anyone's book - an inferior list piloted by an inexperienced player beating a superior list piloted by a veteran player? Just take the inferior/superior list component out of that question and it still is "wrong." Better players should win, period.

Better players will win, period, if they're better players, and account correctly for all the parameters involved.

In your example, Stelek took a MSU list to a tournament without a KP mission. This is a sign of a good player, sure. But, would he take the same list to a tournament where there was a KP missions, and, if he did, is that still being a good player, or being single-minded and ignoring the fact that in 40k, 1/3rd of all missions should be based on KP and penalize MSU armies.

You're changing what the game is.

MVBrandt wrote:Red, more of my reply is up there, but at the heart of it that 33% is the problem.

2/3 of the missions in the book strongly benefit people who take MSU and lots of scoring units / contesting units. I think the draw mission is pretty bad, most people seem to, but on the subject of KP you run into the fact that everyone takes very different armies at a tournament, and BECAUSE of that the KP inclusion makes a tournament situation inherently imbalanced.

I disagree with your primary analysis. 1/3rd of missions are designed to be a drawfest and can be won just as easily by an army with two scoring units as they can be with five. 1/3rd of missions have a random number of objectives - sometimes 3, sometimes 5 - and when there are three objectives, you can win with two scoring units.

...
Basically, I can guarantee that in the objective mission, both players have to battle over 5 objectives.
In the Quarters mission, I can guarantee that both players have to battle over 4 quarters.
In the VP mission, I can guarantee that both players have to battle for a maximum of 2,000 VP.

In the rulebook, there is no 5-objective mission. The rules of the game state that I am only required to bring two scoring units. So, if you force the objective mission to be about five objectives, you reward the player with 10 scoring units in their army (SM, Guard), and penalize the army that brings 20 necron warriors because they're a liability in general.

In the rulebook, there is no quarters mission either. Quarters are also rewarding a MSU approach, especially if you include the clause that the unit must be "wholly within".

Your view that MSU armies are inherently more competitive, and can overcome KP missions might be formed from the insistence on running other missions that benefit the army with more scoring units versus the one that doesn't. If that's the basis for your stance, then I can see why you think that a KP mission is irrelevant overall.

If you breakdown, by odds, how many objectives you should need to battle over via the 5th ed missions, you end up with:

5 Objectives: 11% of the time
4 Objectives: 11% of the time
3 Objectives: 11% of the time
2 Objectives: 33% of the time
0 Objectives: 33% of the time, penalizing the player with lots of units

Compare that to your guaranteed mission set above, which has:
5 Objectves: 33% of the time
4 Objectives: 33% of the time (quarters)
0 Objectives: 33% of the time, not penalizing the player with lots of units

You can see how significantly different your setup is to the one in the book.

Now, that's fine - you advertised your event, it's your call, and people knew what to expect when making their lists. But, it's not 5th ed 40k. In 5th ed 40k, if I bring two big, hard-to-kill scoring units (think 20-man plaguebearers, or 10-man nob biker units), I should have a good shot at 77% of the expected missions (figuring I can use two scoring units well enough on the 2 and 3 objective missions, and denying KP to my opponents), whereas a MSU approach is good for only 66% (as it gives up the KP mission). Isn't knowing this breakdown also part of the game's skill?

You're right - you can't guarantee anything. And that's where skill as a listbuilder comes into play. A skilled listbuilder knows that MSU has a weakness, and makes concessions accordingly. An event that takes away this balance just shows how well MSU armies can do in an environment designed to reward MSU armies. I don't think that this rewards skill any more or any less than running the mission proportions as setup in the rulebook.

It sounds good that both armies give up 2000 VPs, but those VPs are vastly harder to get from a MSU army than a smaller army.

MSU armies are spread out all over the table, and it is like playing whack-a-mole to kill them all. Especially if you are playing a smaller army you simply can't go after all of those targets.

MSU armies on the other hand have no problem going after, and tabling smaller armies. All of their points are concentrated in a few units, and they can be killed.

In most cases if you have an army with say 15 KP against an army with 24 KP it will be almost impossible for the 15 KP army to get 24 KP out of that army because it just can't kill units fast enough. The 15 KP armies will be hard pressed to beat the 24 KP army in both VPs and in objective based missions. At least with KP missions it will give the smaller armies a slight advantage that they lose in objective based missions.

We all know that all codexs are not created equal, and some codexs or types of armies can't do MSU well.

Blackmoor, I recognize that.

My point here is that if you know in advance that there's a quarters mission, a 5-objective mission, and a VP mission ... you know how you need to build your army to best excel at these.
I also make the recognition and choice based upon the way our local metagame (if you will) functions in playtest that EVERY codex capable of competing regardless, can compete in these situations if built appropriately. That's to say, maybe Dark Angels and Necrons suffer a little more, but they suffer ANYWAY, regardless of mission / tournament. Every other dex can easily manage the missions to a top tier level.

If you are running a SW codex, and take a 5 kp army with 2 scoring units, you're setting up to fail.

For the KP mission, the problem becomes not solvable. You could bring an army with fewer kill points by design, and still run into an opponent with even less than you. You could choose not to, and run into someone with more kill points anyway, etc.

In the VP situation, or 5-objective situation, there's no chance you could optimize for it and have the missions ... NOT happen. In the KP situation, the chance is ever-present.

As a tournament organizer, it is a person's responsibility to shunt blame for random/bad luck AWAY from the tournament, and onto a player's preparatory choices. Hence the issue.

This is definitely one of the better threads I've read on Dakka Dakka in a while. So I have very little to contribute, except to point out that using VPs means that armies with spawning units (Tomb Spyders, Tervigons) can give away more than 2000VPs in a game. The significance of that is something I'll leave to other people to discuss.

MVBrandt wrote:As a tournament organizer, it is a person's responsibility to shunt blame for random/bad luck AWAY from the tournament, and onto a player's preparatory choices. Hence the issue.

If you take this thought to its logical conclusion, and remove all preparatory choices from the equation, in an effort to test only player skill, you'll end up with a tournament where the TO creates the army lists (and, perhaps necessarily, supplies the armies).

Matchup draws are always going to be a part of 40k. Forcing everyone towards an MSU approach doesn't alter that, it just constrains what the viable choices are.

As a person who BROUGHT 2x land raiders to a tournament dominated by MSU...

seriously, it doesn't matter. If my land raiders go down in a killpoint game, the terminators are going to be fairly useless, and i'll probably lose the game anyway. Same thing here.

the ONLY thing I didn't like about VP's, and I think could use a tweaking, was the fact that weapon destroyed results count for half the VP's of a vehicle. Meaning if you blow one of the FOUR weapons off of my land raider, you score 130 points instantly. And its not uncommon for that to happen. Also, if its immobilized against terrain, thats another free 130 points for my opponent. Just make it so VP's for vehicles are only awarded if fully destroyed, and boom, you have a fairly fair system.

Again, if I lose my raider in a KP mission i'm still going to lose. This isn't so drastic of a departure. (the one game I did lose during the nova open, I lost both raiders to melta guns against the very skilled player mark ferek)

Honersstodnt wrote:As a person who BROUGHT 2x land raiders to a tournament dominated by MSU...

seriously, it doesn't matter. If my land raiders go down in a killpoint game, the terminators are going to be fairly useless, and i'll probably lose the game anyway. Same thing here.

the ONLY thing I didn't like about VP's, and I think could use a tweaking, was the fact that weapon destroyed results count for half the VP's of a vehicle. Meaning if you blow one of the FOUR weapons off of my land raider, you score 130 points instantly. And its not uncommon for that to happen. Also, if its immobilized against terrain, thats another free 130 points for my opponent. Just make it so VP's for vehicles are only awarded if fully destroyed, and boom, you have a fairly fair system.

Again, if I lose my raider in a KP mission i'm still going to lose. This isn't so drastic of a departure. (the one game I did lose during the nova open, I lost both raiders to melta guns against the very skilled player mark ferek)

That might be true for you, but take an army with two 800pt Seer Councils vs. the uber MSU (uber = 20+ units). A council could spend 6 turns kills 8 units that will never equal the councils points cost. If that one council goes down at the end, they lose. In KP it would have been much different. As to the change you mention about vehicles. If you needed to destroy every one of those razorbacks and rhinos to get any points, you might not get any points at all. Though I see your point about losing 130pts for getting a hurricane bolter knocked off. In the world of MSU melta spam it isn't any harder to knock out a LR as it is a Lascannon to knock out a razorback.

It doesn't force everyone to a MSU approach, and true MSU is not the best solution for the missions. That's why the Tournament Champion went through mostly opponents with MORE kill points than he had, on his way to undefeated.

An important fact to note, and take into consideration (I like statistical data and analysis far more than the alternative).

In fact, in the final rounds ... 17 KP beat 23 KP, 15 KP beat 16 KP, 14 KP beat 18 KP, 13 KP beat 16KP, 17 KP beat 19KP, etc.

Yes, I agree that taking that thought to its logical conclusion leads to same armies / same models / etc., but I think that's a little hyperbolic/strawmanish (not to say you're throwing a strawman at me, just that it's not really realistic to the 40k situation).

The point here is to allow player choices with army builds to be predicated safely upon the missions as presented ahead of time with transparency.

Until you bracket based upon KP, you can't implement it as a mission fairly, whereas implementing VP as a mission is INHERENTLY fair - with the caveat that the unwinnable argument about "codex balance" still remains (and never goes away, anyway).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DarthDiggler wrote:

Honersstodnt wrote:As a person who BROUGHT 2x land raiders to a tournament dominated by MSU...

seriously, it doesn't matter. If my land raiders go down in a killpoint game, the terminators are going to be fairly useless, and i'll probably lose the game anyway. Same thing here.

the ONLY thing I didn't like about VP's, and I think could use a tweaking, was the fact that weapon destroyed results count for half the VP's of a vehicle. Meaning if you blow one of the FOUR weapons off of my land raider, you score 130 points instantly. And its not uncommon for that to happen. Also, if its immobilized against terrain, thats another free 130 points for my opponent. Just make it so VP's for vehicles are only awarded if fully destroyed, and boom, you have a fairly fair system.

Again, if I lose my raider in a KP mission i'm still going to lose. This isn't so drastic of a departure. (the one game I did lose during the nova open, I lost both raiders to melta guns against the very skilled player mark ferek)

That might be true for you, but take an army with two 800pt Seer Councils vs. the uber MSU (uber = 20+ units). A council could spend 6 turns kills 8 units that will never equal the councils points cost. If that one council goes down at the end, they lose. In KP it would have been much different. As to the change you mention about vehicles. If you needed to destroy every one of those razorbacks and rhinos to get any points, you might not get any points at all. Though I see your point about losing 130pts for getting a hurricane bolter knocked off. In the world of MSU melta spam it isn't any harder to knock out a LR as it is a Lascannon to knock out a razorback.

Well, and councils tend not to win tournaments regardless, b/c of how badly they are screwed when you don't go first ... if your whole army is built around their success or failure. See, this is the point ... a double seer council army is a rock that HOPES for the right "go first" against the right opponents all games, and has an advantage in KP missions, but is hardly a "great" and well-balanced / all comers' list. Lists like these GAME a kill point situation, instead of building to properly handle and win (Even if by bare margins) all missions regardless of opponent. I don't see why we should be encouraging rock / random armies that simply hope for a good draw in the right missions, vs. those that are genuinely built to tackle an all comers situation in missions that don't inherently advantage certain "rock" builds that are unwise in the greater scheme of things, but capable of pulling off hinky wins vs. certain opponents in certain missions.

MVBrandt wrote:If you are running a SW codex, and take a 5 kp army with 2 scoring units, you're setting up to fail.

For the KP mission, the problem becomes not solvable. You could bring an army with fewer kill points by design, and still run into an opponent with even less than you. You could choose not to, and run into someone with more kill points anyway, etc.

In the VP situation, or 5-objective situation, there's no chance you could optimize for it and have the missions ... NOT happen. In the KP situation, the chance is ever-present.

As a tournament organizer, it is a person's responsibility to shunt blame for random/bad luck AWAY from the tournament, and onto a player's preparatory choices. Hence the issue.

I can understand your concerns, but I think you're removing the most interesting preparatory choice in 5th ed list building. The constant tension between the opposite design priorities of objective vs. KP missions. People building armies within that framework have tough choices to make, and (for example) vehicle squadrons can be a viable choice, sacrificing flexibility of fire and maneuver for durability within KP situations. By going with the mission framework you have, you have removed this dilemma and tilted the entire balance of the tournament in favor of MSU. Don't get me wrong, I love playing MSU, but I got my fill of it in 3rd and 4th ed, and I find the 5th ed missions more interesting. Your example of Stelek's game against Daemon-Archon Ren's LR list is a classic example; you would call it a "bad" result if Stelek lost, whereas most of us who play 5th edition would see it as a predictable consequence of his army design choices- he took a high-KP army. Now, this is not to imply any criticism of the army. He knew he was playing in an environment without KPs, and took a list optimized for the environment. That's smart. But if he took it to a normal 5th ed event which includes KP, there would have been a risk inherent in building an army so focused on the other 2/3 (objective) of missions.

Redbeard's mathematical breakdown of the missions is pretty enlightening.

MVBrandt wrote:As a tournament organizer, it is a person's responsibility to shunt blame for random/bad luck AWAY from the tournament, and onto a player's preparatory choices. Hence the issue.

There was also a big dose of luck in the pairings at Nova. What would have happened if Mark and Stelek would have been paired game 1 instead of game 6? There was luck involved in that. How is that any different than a MSU army getting paired with a KP denial list in a KP mission? Both sets of occurances are 'lucky'

As Redbeard said the only true way to test skill would be to have the same armies across the board, but that's no fun and then you have the randomness of die rolling. Now to mitigate that every roll, or group of rolls, must be the average. This is not a game most people would enjoy playing.


No one is bad mouthing the tourney. It sounds like a great one that will go up there with all the other great tourneys run. From my perspective I feel uncomfortable hearing that this system is the best system for determing the best player, especially when there seems to be a flaw which narrows list construction to a set path. I think the best players are the ones consistently in the top 10, not the one who wins the tournament per say. Anyone can have a good day of rolling, but to maintain that high level of performance is what makes the best players the best. The Yankees are the best team in baseball, yet they have lost 46 games. That doesn't mean 46 times they stunk. The breaks just didn't go their way those days. That doesn't stop them from being the best team in baseball.

MVBrandt wrote:Until you bracket based upon KP, you can't implement it as a mission fairly, whereas implementing VP as a mission is INHERENTLY fair - with the caveat that the unwinnable argument about "codex balance" still remains (and never goes away, anyway).

I reiterate my theory that vehicles (particularly transports) in 5th edition are priced within the context of KP missions being 1/3 of the games. How else would it make sense for them to univerally get better AND cheaper in every 5th ed codex than they were in the prior versions?

MVBrandt wrote:Well, and councils tend not to win tournaments regardless, b/c of how badly they are screwed when you don't go first ... if your whole army is built around their success or failure. See, this is the point ... a double seer council army is a rock that HOPES for the right "go first" against the right opponents all games, and has an advantage in KP missions, but is hardly a "great" and well-balanced / all comers' list. Lists like these GAME a kill point situation, instead of building to properly handle and win (Even if by bare margins) all missions regardless of opponent. I don't see why we should be encouraging rock / random armies that simply hope for a good draw in the right missions, vs. those that are genuinely built to tackle an all comers situation in missions that don't inherently advantage certain "rock" builds that are unwise in the greater scheme of things, but capable of pulling off hinky wins vs. certain opponents in certain missions.

Council armies can certainly win going second as long as the tables have appropriate amounts of LOS-blocking terrain on them. The council usually needs to hide in a corner, but due to going second he can refuse the flank and (with terrain) minimize the number of shots he has to take before he gets a turn to cast Fortune.

As long as we're talking specific army builds, I'll mention horde infantry guard again. That's an army which is designed to do very well in all missions, being particularly durable/nasty in KPs.

MVBrandt wrote:
Well, and councils tend not to win tournaments

I guess I disagree with this statement and this might be where our quandry lies. I don't think a lot of people play them here in the states, but they regularly win tournaments overseas where they are more popular and only the straight book missions are played. They also seem to be the hard counter to the uber MSU style appoach.

DarthDiggler wrote:There was also a big dose of luck in the pairings at Nova. What would have happened if Mark and Stelek would have been paired game 1 instead of game 6? There was luck involved in that. How is that any different than a MSU army getting paired with a KP denial list in a KP mission? Both sets of occurances are 'lucky'

One of them would have lost, and not made it into the second day, but they both still had the same chance of winning.

The biggest problem I see with KP is that it can seriously hurt the chances of certain armies, and it can cause auto-win conditions in games. Armies like Dark Eldar and Tau have little choice but to play lists with a large number of killpoints if they hope to be competitive in any mission. If the DE player get matched up against a Deathwing player in a KP mission, it really doesn't really matter who the better player is, because the DE player has a huge disadvantage coming into the game already. The DE player can kill 90% of the enemy and still lose.

At least with VP they are both on a more or less even playing field with at least the same number of points available. Sure maybe the balance swings more towards the DE, but the skill of the players is much more prominent.

Seer Councils have a hard time in our environment because:

1) Everyone knows to take a form of Psychic Defense

2) People know what Councils do, so thereby offer sacrifices or just shoot them with a lot of shots, they go down.

3) It's eggs in a basket syndrome.

I used a Council for awhile, and MSU defeats this when the MSU offers sacrificial units, which it can and will if played well.

I otherwise agree VP > KPs as my main gripe with KPs is that 1 KP = insanely hard to get rid of or super easy.

In one case - 10 Differed Nobs vs. 10 Grots. Both 1 KP. KPs are good because?

Herein lies the truth of things.

I think there is no mission that effectively gets away from the subject of random pairing, and so you can only attempt to develop missions that level the playing field from the tournament organizer's p.o.v., and allow players to predictably prepare a list that is appropriately all-comers for them.

Kill Points cannot accomplish this, again because someone who does not build an "all comers" list for a tournament with kill points (i.e. he spams kill points and hopes) can get lucky with his draw and avoid actually playing the kill point "game," in terms of list building quandary, while someone else can play the game actively by taking fewer kill points, and still be screwed.

Wherever you go, if the tournament is advertised enough in advance, the best players will expend their energy planning out a list that will enable them to compete at the missions presented. So, avoid taking ones that place the burden of unpreparedness for the players on the tournament itself ... leave it entirely on the players to prepare appropriately.

KP renders this impossible, BECAUSE of the impact of random draw.

In the issue of the Kopach vs. Stelek early example, Kopach in theory would have still won the match, and gone on to win his other matches ... format-wise, missions aside, that's where we get a lot of "praise" (though I avoid applying it myself) for being a better way to evaluate things, b/c we go on a single elim for the Best General path. Only one person will win all of their games, and that person is the inherent best-of-the-weekend (which is all a tournament CAN evaluate).

We also take care to have the Best Overall be truly balanced on the overall, with perfectly equal contribution of sports, appearance and competitiveness.

Anywho, good discussion - very sensible and open.

At the heart of all this is the understanding - I hope - that there's probably not a "best" mission to go with, because best is a subjective term. What matters is the presentation of your missions ahead of time, effective stress testing of them to ensure that the various codices can compete evenly (and we did this, extensively, across 1,100+ game samples, utilizing EVERY codex against every OTHER codex in multiple samples each), and then utilizing a matching / pairing / seeding / etc. format that effectively ensures the "best" player for the weekend wins (and we can all acknowledge that "best" should remain in quotes for the inevitability of random pairing regardless of missions in the first round[s] and the luck of dice in a dice-based game).

- Mike

dahli.llama wrote:The biggest problem I see with KP is that it can seriously hurt the chances of certain armies, and it can cause auto-win conditions in games. Armies like Dark Eldar and Tau have little choice but to play lists with a large number of killpoints if they hope to be competitive in any mission. If the DE player get matched up against a Deathwing player in a KP mission, it really doesn't really matter who the better player is, because the DE player has a huge disadvantage coming into the game already. The DE player can kill 90% of the enemy and still lose.

At least with VP they are both on a more or less even playing field with at least the same number of points available. Sure maybe the balance swings more towards the DE, but the skill of the players is much more prominent.

For those two examples, maybe you get back to a more or less even playing field. But you do so by disadvantaging Tyranids (no cheap transports), Necrons (no cheap transports), DA (more expensive transports), and the various Inquisition armies.

If you're "stuck" with having to choose a system that tilts the field one way or another, I prefer using the system that 5th ed gave us. As Ragnar keeps pointing out - the pricing on transports in the 5e codexes strongly seems to suggest that KP are a balancing factor. It's only 35 VPs if I kill a Rhino, making full-mech a no-brainer choice in a VP scenario. But in a KP scenario, that 1 Rhino is a little more significant.

Smurfy wrote:Seer Councils have a hard time in our environment because:

1) Everyone knows to take a form of Psychic Defense

2) People know what Councils do, so thereby offer sacrifices or just shoot them with a lot of shots, they go down.

3) It's eggs in a basket syndrome.

I used a Council for awhile, and MSU defeats this when the MSU offers sacrificial units, which it can and will if played well.

And I find it odd, has anyone mentioned here that Stelek's list is indeed NOT MSU?

Look at his Grey Hunter units, they have some meat to them.

I otherwise agree VP > KPs as my main gripe with KPs is that 1 KP = insanely hard to get rid of or super easy.

In one case - 10 Differed Nobs vs. 10 Grots. Both 1 KP. KPs are good because?

1) Hey! None of my opponents brought any, I fought loganwing, daemons, dual lash, nine obliterators, and vanilla marines, two of the armies had an easy access pass to anti-psychic powers, but they didn't take them.

2) Well, the serpent went down, and they usually slogged towards the enemy, then lashed out at a few units before going down.

3) I don't think there is anything wrong with that. :p

I went 3-1 with a council (not even a jetcouncil no less!).

I might ditch it for next year, but that's a different matter entirely.

Anyway~

VP's are probably better, sure, they help MSU lists out, but the amount of KP imbalances are too much. Grots vs diversified nobs is one, thirty-five point rhinos versus land raiders is another. VP's make sure you get your worth of everything, and it's just more balancing.

Janthkin wrote:

targetawg wrote:While a MSU apporach will "never" yield 250 points to a single lascannon shot, statistically the number of lascannon shots it would take to yield 250 points on average will likely balance out with the MSU list. IE, its extremely unlikely that 1 lascannon = 1 land raider, but much more likely that 1 lascannon could = 1 razorback.

I'll post up some basic stat's on that when I get home from work if I remember.

It's not a question of how likely is it that a single lascannon shot will kill the 250 pt Land Raider; rather, it is that such an event can occur. A single lascannon shot will never yield 250 VPs against a list with no units that cost that much.

If we don't factor in unlikelyness, then couldn't a lascannon blow up a razorback, kill the squad in side and then also kill 2-3 squads around it in the ensuing explosion? I mean, technically its possible. And you just said we aren't using statistics at all.

So there you go, a lascannon can be just as effective against an MSU army when probability isn't factored in.



On the subject of VP vs KP. MSU has certain problems with VP missions that other armies don't just like they do with kill point missions.

For example. You can kill 8 marines across 2 5 man squads (5 from one squad and 3 from the other) This would in turn yield 3/4 of those 2 squads points total. However in a non MSU army, if you killed 8 squad members you would only get 1/2 the squads point total. So its much easier to gain VP's against MSU armies with less shooting. Only needing to kill 3 models in a unit to gain VPs vs 5 with "normal" armies.

I really think that this whole KP vs. VP debate really highlights the need for some other format. Stelek's 5x5 mission where before each game each player openly nominates 5 of the opponent's unit as KP for the game seems like a good compromise. It still has some imbalances (for example a Nob Biker army vs. MSU Space Marines would be easier for the Orks if he were to nominate the Rhinos), but at least the available points in each game would stay the same.

It seems that in the kill-point vs victory-point discussion the people preferring victory points believe that 2000 victory points is an equal playing field, and the people preferring kill points believe that 2000pts of kill points is an equal playing field.

In the first case, the problem seems to be that with kill-points you can get uneven match-ups so that the player with fewer units wins a MAD scenario, so that they can win by trading units (or kill-points) worth more victory-points for units worth fewer victory-points.

Likewise, in the second case, the problem seems to be that with victory-points you can get uneven match-ups so that the player with more units wins a MAD scenario, so that they can win by trading units worth fewer victory-points for units worth more victory-points.

In fact this can probably be put in better terms, so that it's the case with kill-points that they benefit from having fewer units than an equivalent enemy points value, and with victory-points benefit from having more units than an equivalent enemy points value.

I suppose you could chalk it up to the style of play you're trying to encourage: Multiple-Small-Units or Death-Star.

So naturally, I suggest a hybrid combining the benefits of both systems: The winner is the player that wins both kill-points and victory-points, which already exists with the method of tabling one's opponent. If the player wins only one or the other, then the game is tied pending tie-breakers such as Objectives.

I believe that this would encourage a style of army selection that would allow both Death-Stars, MSUs, and less extreme styles of play to all compete on the same level playing field.

MVBrandt wrote:Herein lies the truth of things.

I think there is no mission that effectively gets away from the subject of random pairing, and so you can only attempt to develop missions that level the playing field from the tournament organizer's p.o.v., and allow players to predictably prepare a list that is appropriately all-comers for them.

This is no more true about KP than it is about any of the other issues in random pairings. If I build an army around lash, and get matched up against a mechanized Njal army in round one, I'm in the losers bracket. If I build an army based on AV 14 vehicles and face 9 broadsides in a spearhead mission in round one, off to the losers bracket with me. You cannot get rid of the matchup equation. And, in an event where one loss = not winning, any number of armies could be matched against their Achilles heel and knocked out of contention in round one.

A good 40k player is one who understands the subtle balance between KP and scoring units, and about the trade off that MSU presents in gaining tactical flexibility in exchange for additional Kill Points. If someone (a not-so-good 40k player) wants to bring an army with 10 scoring models, and expects to win by tabling every opponent they face, that's their choice, they understand the risk involved. If someone wants to bring an army with 23 Kill Points, and win every KP mission by tabling their opponent, that also is their choice.

I applaud the effort to publish the missions ahead of time. I am a firm believer that no one should lose to a mission. But, that's not the same as losing to an unfavourable match up, which is part of the 40k tournament scene. If you published, ahead of time, the fact that there would be a KP mission, people would have prepared for it (or taken their chances) the same as they did knowing that there would be none, the only difference is that the metagame for the tournament would be closer to the actual 40k metagame.

Anyway, I'm not trying to bag on you or anything, from all accounts it was a successful event. But understanding the mission selection does go a long way to explaining the dominance and prevalence of certain builds.

DarthDiggler wrote:How did you adjust for the randomness of pairings involving Necron players who would give up full VP's for getting phases out. A player would get 2k vp vs. Necrons but never have to kill all the models on the table. In the Adepticon Gladiator the luck of the draw early on would mean someone would face a Necron player and get full VP's while most everyone else would not be so lucky. I didn't have a solution when I ran those events.

I'm not arguing with you on this, I'm just curious because you take the randomness of player pairings seriously and I couldn't solve that one.

Just a quick note regarding balancing since its not a Battlepoints system your score from the previous round only effects your seeding into the next round not your overall score. Thus in the system presented even causing phase out or tabling your opponent would only net you a better placement into the next round not in an overall better position for the tournament.

Possibly true, except that if you build a list to which 9 broadsides is your achilles heel, you've got a failure in list-building of epic proportions - but we get back at that point to discsussions you and I have had before where building "hoping" not to face your weakness is what you do or see as appropriate, and I view it as superior to build a list that can well and truly handle any threat (and this can be done with any dex).

To the above, we're back in a situation where I don't want to reiterate my point too much, but it hasn't been addressed yet - random match-up can hurt you in terms of your opponent's skill, or if you built a list that isn't all-comers capable, but the mission can be built for reliably if it is vp, objectives, quarters, and a couple others.

Kill points CANNOT be built for reliably, because you cannot control the number of scorable kill points you'll face. In all the other situations, that which you must score is STATIC (2000 vp, 5 objectives, 4 quarters, etc.), whereas in kill points not ONLY could you be "harmed" by a poor match-up, your match-up alone determines the number of objectives you have to score and the number of objectives your opponent has to score.

You might as well have a mission where every one of your opponent's troops selections becomes an objective when you kill it.

I say mix-em next year! I loved the event but it's not going to stop me personally from sending what I saw as some opportunities to improve. It was a first year event that went off amazingly but there is always room for improvement

Mike seems to thrive off feedback. So send it to him so he can get started for next year

dahli.llama wrote:

The biggest problem I see with KP is that it can seriously hurt the chances of certain armies, and it can cause auto-win conditions in games. Armies like Dark Eldar and Tau have little choice but to play lists with a large number of killpoints if they hope to be competitive in any mission. If the DE player get matched up against a Deathwing player in a KP mission, it really doesn't really matter who the better player is, because the DE player has a huge disadvantage coming into the game already. The DE player can kill 90% of the enemy and still lose.

At least with VP they are both on a more or less even playing field with at least the same number of points available. Sure maybe the balance swings more towards the DE, but the skill of the players is much more prominent.

I find this take interesting. I played in an Indy GT in Washington State this weekend and took my Dark Eldar. My Army gave up 23 Killpoints and I was facing off against an 8 Killpoint Space Marine army in a Kill Points mission. Guess who won? Me.

Killpoints is there for a reason. It puts some armies such as Dark Eldar or a MSU army like Razorspam at a disadvantage, but those armies have other advantages. By taking away Killpoints a tournament ELIMINATES a disadvantage for some army builds. When you change something like that over the entire course of a tournament you change the game in a BIG way.

You are playing 40k 4th edition missions with 5th edition points costs.

Yeah I'm a big proponent of KP's. Simply because my SW's are ridiculous if you take them out. I see it as a balancer a good opponent could exploit against me. Without it even excellent opponents struggle against it.

I think the absence of Kill Points does hurt the Nova as far as what type of builds will be successful and what wouldn't be. By removing Kill Points, you remove a fundamental aspect of list building in 40k, one designed for in all current 5th edition codexes. That is obvious here as it skewed the type of lists that one would field versus an event like Adepticon where the Championsips winner was still a Space Wolf Player, but with a decidedly different list (there are other factors in the scoring of both tournaments, but that is a different discussion).

You can't help random pairings and from the organizers stand points, the random pairings is your way out. Does the Thousand Sons player feel great that he pulled Stelek in the first round, when he could have gone up against a much more inexperienced opponent to have a better shot at a win?

I know that the Nova open is supposed to be about player skill, and that is great in the sense that it is a truly competitive event. I agree with it, and I love the fact that it was successful as a fully competitive event.

But removing core mechanics of the game, especially when we are dealing with terrain rules and victory conditions, fundamentally changes the game into something else. I am just afraid that the Nova will start to be referred to as "Nova 40k".

It is doubly true concerning units that have rules designed specifically because of Kill Points. What about Lone Wolfs, they are good, but they are weak in KP missions because they have to die not to give up a KP. The points cost a a Lone Wolf reflect this condition, and you increase their effectiveness, if they never have that downside.

I will say that in this format, kill points (and victory points) should probably never be the primary objective, kill points should be at best the 3rd tie breaker in maybe one or two scenarios.

Just my $.02 on this fantastic debate.

asugradinwa wrote:

dahli.llama wrote:

The biggest problem I see with KP is that it can seriously hurt the chances of certain armies, and it can cause auto-win conditions in games. Armies like Dark Eldar and Tau have little choice but to play lists with a large number of killpoints if they hope to be competitive in any mission. If the DE player get matched up against a Deathwing player in a KP mission, it really doesn't really matter who the better player is, because the DE player has a huge disadvantage coming into the game already. The DE player can kill 90% of the enemy and still lose.

At least with VP they are both on a more or less even playing field with at least the same number of points available. Sure maybe the balance swings more towards the DE, but the skill of the players is much more prominent.

I find this take interesting. I played in an Indy GT in Washington State this weekend and took my Dark Eldar. My Army gave up 23 Killpoints and I was facing off against an 8 Killpoint Space Marine army in a Kill Points mission. Guess who won? Me.

Killpoints is there for a reason. It puts some armies such as Dark Eldar or a MSU army like Razorspam at a disadvantage, but those armies have other advantages. By taking away Killpoints a tournament ELIMINATES a disadvantage for some army builds. When you change something like that over the entire course of a tournament you change the game in a BIG way.

You are playing 40k 4th edition missions with 5th edition points costs.

Except that DE are obviously not a 5th edition army, so in your case you were playing a 5th edition mission with 2nd edition point costs.

Congrats on that win, you were obviously the better general in that position, but at the same time, you were at a fairly large disadvantage going into that game. You not only overcame the opponent, but also the mission.

The way I see it, it I am played a balanced army that happens to have 15 KP (not abusing MSU or deathstars) and I face an army with only 5 KP, not only do I have to defeat my opponent, but I also have to defeat the mission. The mission is actively working against my ability to win the game, while one table over the players may both have 15KP armies and there it is up to player skill to determine the winner.

The way I see it, it I am played a balanced army that happens to have 15 KP (not abusing MSU or deathstars) and I face an army with only 5 KP, not only do I have to defeat my opponent, but I also have to defeat the mission. The mission is actively working against my ability to win the game, while one table over the players may both have 15KP armies and there it is up to player skill to determine the winner.

Yes, but the point is that a balanced list should be able to defeat a list with only minimal kill points because said list is hurting itself in effectiveness, and probably isn't winning very many objective based games.

I think the disconnect is the concept of the individual game versus the tournament as a whole.

If KPs become an equation in proportion with the rest of the back of the book missions on the whole limited KP armies will suffer. You may perceive to suffer when army + mission = bad match up, but if you have a balanced competitive list that you know how to use, that situation should be rare enough to minimize that possibility.

Like I said, bad match-ups are inherent in the system. I think the Nova Open has done a great job minimalizing that, but they will still exist. Those sitiatuons are inherent in every 40k win condition.

Trust me, I am not a fan of Kill Points, I think they are one of the worst things to come out of 5th edition (an edition I love with a passion), but newer codexes are priced and built around them being in existence, and the removal of them removes a key element to how these armies are supposed to be balanced. My only argument to the Nova Open is to just include them at the lower level, so therefore they are still a factor, but they are sufficiently downplayed to keep things even.

MVBrandt wrote:To the above, we're back in a situation where I don't want to reiterate my point too much, but it hasn't been addressed yet - random match-up can hurt you in terms of your opponent's skill, or if you built a list that isn't all-comers capable, but the mission can be built for reliably if it is vp, objectives, quarters, and a couple others.

Kill points CANNOT be built for reliably, because you cannot control the number of scorable kill points you'll face. In all the other situations, that which you must score is STATIC (2000 vp, 5 objectives, 4 quarters, etc.), whereas in kill points not ONLY could you be "harmed" by a poor match-up, your match-up alone determines the number of objectives you have to score and the number of objectives your opponent has to score.

All you know in a VP, objective, or quarter mission is the maximum possible score differential. But it's never the maximum that matters (in a pure win/loss objective) - it's the relative comparison of what I achieve vs what you achieve. I can win by 1500 VPs, or by 251; you can claim 4 quarters, or just 1 more than I manage. Lists can be built for VP denial as easily as KP denial, and MSU lists with cheap transports are GREAT at VP denial.

Basically, any time you tweak the victory conditions, you alter the game theory. In this case, removing KPs also removes the disincentive behind MSU-style lists. As it happens, 6/8 of your day 2 finalists were drawn from codexes that, in my opinion, benefit from taking VP over KP. If you've got the data, I'd be curious to see how everything that wasn't a SM, SW, BA, or IG list did, when mission outcome came down to VPs.

Mahu wrote:Trust me, I am not a fan of Kill Points, I think they are one of the worst things to come out of 5th edition (an edition I love with a passion), but newer codexes are priced and built around them being in existence, and the removal of them removes a key element to how these armies are supposed to be balanced. My only argument to the Nova Open is to just include them at the lower level, so therefore they are still a factor, but they are sufficiently downplayed to keep things even.

I think it would be very interesting to make round 4 a KP mission. In theory, if the low KP armies are disadvantaged in the various objective-style missions that came earlier, then relatively few should still be in play to act as "spoilers" in round 4. But if you're good enough to win out on objectives with 6-8 KPs in your army, in spite of the inherent disadvantage, I don't see a problem with a low KP army having something of an advantage that late in the pairings.

dahli.llama wrote:

Except that DE are obviously not a 5th edition army, so in your case you were playing a 5th edition mission with 2nd edition point costs.

Congrats on that win, you were obviously the better general in that position, but at the same time, you were at a fairly large disadvantage going into that game. You not only overcame the opponent, but also the mission.

The way I see it, it I am played a balanced army that happens to have 15 KP (not abusing MSU or deathstars) and I face an army with only 5 KP, not only do I have to defeat my opponent, but I also have to defeat the mission. The mission is actively working against my ability to win the game, while one table over the players may both have 15KP armies and there it is up to player skill to determine the winner.

Here is the thing though, I had to grind out & play a great game for the win, the only reason I stood a chance was that I took out his Land Raider on the 1st turn. In a VP game, he'd have to be the one trying to kill all of my stuff and I'd be laughing as I fed 1 raider after another to him, but with Killpoints I needed to play a really good game to pull out the win.

Changing Kill Points to Victory Points is about as big of a change as saying all units, not just troops can hold an objective IMO.

MVBrandt wrote:Heh, put it in the other thread just now but ...

65/100 Overall, 72.5/100 Single Mini, 50/100 Single Conversion

50/100 for my converted farseer on jetbike :S yikes, thought that would have scored much higher, than was an incredibly difficult and expensive conversion to do. Ah well, such is the way of subjective scoring. Doesnt detract from the event.

Made another thread for the debate, since i'm more intrested in looking at finals/final's results discussions here. Take it or leave it.

Surprised that no imperial guard finished 4-0 on day one, seemed like a real contender with some tough players using them.

Congrats Mike.

Sounds like folks had a good time which is the most important part of any event regardless of the results.

It is nice to see a wide variety of events available to players and the community stepping up. Running these sort of events is a learning experience, view point changer and a rollercoaster ride.

Welcome to the club and the line of fire.. : )

Hank Edley
AdeptiCon BoD

Hey it's Nick Nanavati, could let me know what I got for painting as my scores out of 100? I'm a bit mathematically challenged

yermom wrote:Hey it's Nick Nanavati, could let me know what I got for painting as my scores out of 100? I'm a bit mathematically challenged

but your phone is a good swimmer! (inside joke)

Anyways. I'm sure your score and mine were close.

Well Nick, if your score's bad you know what they say, when life gives you lemons, make lemonade!

But try to be careful around it. Samsung doesn't make the strongest swimmers.

Dear Rich and Andrew,

You are terrible people.

Love Nick.

yermom wrote:Dear Rich and Andrew,

You are terrible people.

Love Nick.

I really wanted to crack a joke here, but I don't know you well enough to get away with it. =p

Those blue and white scoring sheets make me feel like I'm going to have a siezure.

Mannahnin wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:Until you bracket based upon KP, you can't implement it as a mission fairly, whereas implementing VP as a mission is INHERENTLY fair - with the caveat that the unwinnable argument about "codex balance" still remains (and never goes away, anyway).

I reiterate my theory that vehicles (particularly transports) in 5th edition are priced within the context of KP missions being 1/3 of the games. How else would it make sense for them to univerally get better AND cheaper in every 5th ed codex than they were in the prior versions?

Because GW wanted to make more money by selling more of them?? I think you are giving them way too much credit by saying that they priced them point wise as they did to fit the context of KP missions being 1/3 of the game.

MVBrandt wrote:Well, and councils tend not to win tournaments regardless, b/c of how badly they are screwed when you don't go first ... if your whole army is built around their success or failure. See, this is the point ... a double seer council army is a rock that HOPES for the right "go first" against the right opponents all games, and has an advantage in KP missions, but is hardly a "great" and well-balanced / all comers' list. Lists like these GAME a kill point situation, instead of building to properly handle and win (Even if by bare margins) all missions regardless of opponent. I don't see why we should be encouraging rock / random armies that simply hope for a good draw in the right missions, vs. those that are genuinely built to tackle an all comers situation in missions that don't inherently advantage certain "rock" builds that are unwise in the greater scheme of things, but capable of pulling off hinky wins vs. certain opponents in certain missions.

Council armies can certainly win going second as long as the tables have appropriate amounts of LOS-blocking terrain on them. The council usually needs to hide in a corner, but due to going second he can refuse the flank and (with terrain) minimize the number of shots he has to take before he gets a turn to cast Fortune.

As long as we're talking specific army builds, I'll mention horde infantry guard again. That's an army which is designed to do very well in all missions, being particularly durable/nasty in KPs.

Monkey, can I make them a less seizure-inducing color for you?

Perhaps puke green and lime green.

While I'm not nearly as high up on those lists as I'd like, I suggest going with lime green and international orange.

Hi

My 2 cents -

1. Generally, I consider VPs to be the superior way to score how well a player has done against his opponent. No need to go into detail, as I agree with MVBrandt.
1a. VPs leads to MSU being one of the best ways to build an army. Some like that style, others don't.

2. KPs does seem to be a balancing mechanic against the objective-based nature of 2/3 of the missions for 5th ed 40K. No need to go into detail, as I agree with Redbeard.
2a. KPs has led to a disappearance from list of certain choices from my lists - lone rokkit buggies, lone kans spring readily to mind - as they provide too high a return for my opponent for too little effort.

In my view, both have a place in a tournament structure.

So which do you use?
Well, for my events - the Warmaster's Challenge - I use both. This forces players to consider both factors in their army design, along with the objective based portion of the missions. In my view, this means that the player betting on MSU will have to work hard in the KP mission, while the player with a high concentration of VPs per unit will have to work hard in the VP mission, but for those with an average number of of KPs and concentration of VPs per unit, they will be reasonably suited to accomplishing either requirement.

Also, just like MVBrandt and the Nova, we publish our missions well in advance, so everyone has the opportunity to walk in prepared. At the end of the day, that is probably the more important factor than which methods of accomplishing objectives/goals are used.

Cheers,
Nate

dahli.llama wrote:

Except that DE are obviously not a 5th edition army, so in your case you were playing a 5th edition mission with 2nd edition point costs.

Congrats on that win, you were obviously the better general in that position, but at the same time, you were at a fairly large disadvantage going into that game. You not only overcame the opponent, but also the mission.

Gotta disagree here. I regularly field 20-25 killpoint DE armies against 8-12 killpoint marine armies.....and consistently beat on them. Having so many targets that can fire and take fire in return while only losing small pieces of my army is an overwhelming advantage. Add on that any gun worth mentioning in my DE army is STR8 AP2 or STR7 AP2, and you have a bonafide anti-marine list.

Its worth risking the killpoints when your 24 killpoints are readily capable of dealing with the marine's....8 killpoints.

The system breaks DOWN when the marine player also has 24 killpoints, and can shoot like you (ala Spacewolves). That's the fundamental difference here. Dark Eldar can be competitive when their massed number of units can overwhelm an army with fewer models because the player brought a balanced list ready to deal with killpoint missions. When everyone else brings massed numbers of units as well, DE are boned.

None do it better than IG and SW, who both provide solid counters to my DE lists. Even if I go first, its unlikely that my alpha-strike can do enough damage to neutralize enough of their army to neuter the return fire.....which is doubly and triply more effective than my own fire, because I'm AV10 open-topped and they have more shots.

yermom wrote:Dear Rich and Andrew,

You are the most amazing people in the world and I just want to be like all of you.

Love Nick.

Fixed.

I hate when people hate. You don't have to like what people do, but don't be judgemental of something that in the grand scheme of things does not cost human lives, does not endanger the lives of others, and does not truly reveal the full depths and character of other human beings

It is a game, there was drama, get over it.

WarOne wrote:

yermom wrote:Dear Rich and Andrew,

You are the most amazing people in the world and I just want to be like all of you.

Love Nick.

Fixed.

I hate when people hate. You don't have to like what people do, but don't be judgemental of something that in the grand scheme of things does not cost human lives, does not endanger the lives of others, and does not truly reveal the full depths and character of other human beings

It is a game, there was drama, get over it.

Lol, oops, we were teasing Nick over an episode that occurred later that evening at dinner after the Saturday event, nothing involving the event itself!

And for teasing him about his cell phone snafu, we may indeed be terrible people Although I do agree, we are amazing people.

targetawg wrote:


Lol, oops, we were teasing Nick over an episode that occurred later that evening at dinner after the Saturday event, nothing involving the event itself!

And for teasing him about his cell phone snafu, we may indeed be terrible people Although I do agree, we are amazing people.

Makes more sense. I was suspecting it was a mention from above, but could not really be too sure.

For the number crunching types in terms of Day 1 Results ...

Short-hand, organized alphabetically

Black Templars: 1-3
Blood Angels: 29-27
Chaos Space Marines: 11-21
Daemons of Chaos: 9-3
Dark Angels: 3-5
Daemon HunterS: 0-4
Eldar: 13-15
Imperial Guard: 25-23
Necron: 1-3
Orks: 16-12
Space Wolves: 32-12
Tau: 7-9
Vanilla Marines: 22-22
Witch Hunters: 4-4



Black Templars went 1-3, 1 army

14 Blood Angels went a combined 29-27, with a single 4-0, 5 x 3-1, 3 x 2-2, 4 x 1-3, 1 x 0-4

8 Chaos Space Marines went a combined 11-21, with a single 3-1, 3 x 2-2, 2 x 1-3, 2 x 0-4

3 Daemons of Chaos went a combined 9-3, with all three going 3-1

2 Dark Angels went a combined 3-5, with a 2-2 and a 1-3

1 Daemon Hunter went 0-4

7 Eldar went a combined 13-15, with a single 3-1, 4 x 2-2, and 2 x 1-3

12 Imperial Guard (originally miscounted as 11) went a combined 25-23, with 4 x 3-1, 5 x 2-2, 3 x 1-3

1 Necron went 1-3

7 Orks went a combined 16-12, with 1 x 4-0, 2 x 3-1, 2 x 2-2, 2 x 1-3

11 Space Wolves went a combined 32-12, with 3 x 4-0, 4 x 3-1, 4 x 2-2

4 Tau went a combined 7-9, with 3 x 2-2 and 1 x 1-3

3 Tyranid went a combined 3-9, with 1 each at 2-2, 1-3, 0-4

12 Vanilla Marines went a combined 22-22, with 2 x 3-1, 7 x 2-2, 2 x 1-3, 1 x 0-4

2 Witch Hunters went 3-1 and 1-3 respectively

MVBrandt wrote:...7 Eldar...a single 3-1...

These results are really nice though, amazing to look at all of them at once like this.

MVBrandt:

You love statistics...how detailed of information do you have about each army? Care to share?

I ask because the KP vs VP debate does lend itself to a lot of deep analysis, which I really don't feel has been done. Counting just the KPs or the VPs is not enough, there is definitely a lot of quality differences between different KPs or VPs - how difficult they are to kill, and are they scoring in non-VP/KP missions for two examples.

When we see things like CSM going 8-21 and SW going 32-12, is this because of KPs vs VPs? Are CSM terrible, or just terrible when there's no KPs? Are SW dominant, or just dominant when they don't have to worry about KPs? Did perhaps just half the players in your tournament not really read the rules packet that carefully, or not really care to change their armies to account for the deviation from the book rules?

I don't pretend that all of this can be answered by crunching numbers, but it would be nice to do a detailed analysis of the actual armies and their records, not just the book they're from.

No army benefits from the loss of KPs quite like IG, and they barely reached .500.

I can probably work on that.

Interestingly, Demons are INHERENTLY a lower kp army (no transports), and they went 9-3.

Well the Daemons armies I saw running were around 14-16 KP's MVB so we're a nice middle of the pack. But Daemons also seemed to have some solid players running them (Yermom, Me, and the last list looked good too) which might account for them being the second most "competitive" army their (based on win/loss). Neat information

I love analysis!

I completely agree that the lack of success of IG points towards "no KPs is fine", but the huge success of SW points the opposite way. daemons...may not have had enough players to know either way, and either way being a good KP army doesn't make you a bad VP army by default. I'd need to look at individual match ups per mission, etc to dig deep enough, and I still might not be able to glean much due to small sample sizes, and lack of real information about player quality, and of course the large amount of random events in a 40k game. But it is always fun to play with numbers.

I don't really care how a tournament is run - the rules are the rules. I think it's very likely that GW at least attempted to balance the codexes around the book missions, so the theory that transports are undercosted due to KPs would make sense, but in the end it doesn't matter. The tournament organizer can do what he wants, and you build your army to adjust for that. We all know the books aren't balanced, and well maybe the organizer makes it worse and it's less balanced, or maybe they make it better, or maybe it just changes things. If that is what the general player base likes, then more power to them. The only thing I would take issue with is calling an army that is unsuccessful in this format a bad army, when in reality it is just bad in a non-standard format of 40k.

Well, depends; 3 1ksons squads w/ gift of chaos, 3 land raiders, 1 tzeentch demon prince and ahriman = bad. That's the lowest KP army that attended.

Working on the kp stats

Its' also possible that space wolves prospered in a VP environment simply because they're the most generally low costed book out there that can also take and hold objectives. IG are dirt cheap, but still aren't the best for holding objectives, especially outside of the DZ.

In "normal" 5th edition, IG's KP weakness (tons of KPs) is balanced by their sheer ability to kill enemy units. SWs don't have the pure offensive output, with the same weakness. In VPs, the ratio is flipped a bit. SWs can, pound for pound, grind out VPs against nearly anything. IG still have fragile but expensive units (Artillery in particular, CCSs as well. even valks).

So I think when you take the best "pound for pound" army (SW) in an environment where all they have to do is fight and take objectives, they'll prosper.

MVBrandt wrote:Well, depends; 3 1ksons squads w/ gift of chaos, 3 land raiders, 1 tzeentch demon prince and ahriman = bad. That's the lowest KP army that attended.

Working on the kp stats

How did this army perform?

0-4, but "would" have beaten Stelek's army (eventual #3) on KP if that mission were the first instead of VP ...

I'm sure that means VP broke the system and the above list REALLY REALLY shoulda won b/c of its awesomeness ...
BTW, the guy who wrote it is a local, this was his first tourney, and he was almost proud of its pure whackiness


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://novaopen.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/KP-by-Rank.jpg

That graph shows KP by rank

There's a very slight trend downward, but it's pretty much irrelevant, on this one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The average Kill points for the event = 16.18

The eventual winner had 17

So ... yeah

There were only three armies with less than 10 KPs.

So now I guess what we'd need is a similar graph comparing KPs/results for a tournament that was similarly competitive, but used KPs. See how the army composition differed - do all of these armies have 3 more KPs than they would in a different format, or are they basically the same? I don't have the answer, I'm just wondering.

If you were to look around the hall at Adepticon 2010, I think you'd find the average was the same or possibly even higher (more mech IG by far than we had).


Still, I don't have those stats ... maybe someone else does.

KPs for all armies fielded at AdeptiCon 2010? No - those stats do not exist.

/sadface Matt :(

I'm not sure where to throw this out, so here is as good as any sice we are talking about the tournies results. I talked with a buddy who went to the event and asked about the SW armies (since I have one).

I was wondering if the builds were similar or diversified. He said he saw lots of different things for the SW. Most were pretty competitive. It seems like that codex really did go out of its way to make many effective builds. Maybe not all were dominating, but very competitive and effective. Which could be why they had such a strong showing. How do you fight against SW. who knows until you get to the table because there is no way of knowing what your going to face. With other armies in a competitive environment its pretty easy to guess what is going to be on the table with very few surprises. I think thats one of the strengths of the SW codex, just so much variation.

I'm wondering about all those BA, IG, and SM lists. How diversified were their builds? I'm looking at armies that had 10 or so entries.

I think its important not to draw the wrong conclusions though.

3 Daemon armies went a total of 9-3 with lower KP armies than others. Does that mean that lower KP armies do better?

There's an alternative explanation. Two of the daemon players (Hulksmash and Yermon) are both incredibly talented players, and everyone should fear being across the table from them, regardless of what army they are using.

Here's the trend I see, both locally and on the RTT / GT scale:

An average player with a decent Space Wolf list has a better chance of winning than an average player with a non-Space Wolf list.

The same may be able to be said about mechanized IG.

The Demon armies had 13, 15, and 16 ... pretty close to the average, Dash, and not materially different from the winner at 17.

It's better to evaluate where Jayden is getting - the SW lists presented all had some significant variation in them; so did several of the other successful lists.

Codex VARIETY is important, b/c it makes it harder to properly evaluate an opponent's list and decision-making likelihood at a glance. We could spin off into bizarre kp arguments, but it more lies there IMO.

So the variety of good SW builds leads to overall success for the army, regardless of general, because the opponent has more variables to process when trying to beat it.

At least that is what I am seeing in this discussion.

1) MSU is good in 40k.
2) When you do not know what form the units will be in, they are harder to prioritize and counter.
3) SW codex gives a large pool of units to pick and choose from.
4) When opponents do not see the same units, game after game, they may not deal with them appropriately.

I think anyone who thinks that the SW book is not ahead of the curve is in a state of denial. In addition to some of the most efficiently priced core troops in the entire game, they have a myriad of customizable options, the likes of which have not been seen since 2nd edition. Guard are up there too, as their stuff is EXTREMELY point efficient, but they really don't have all of these crazy options and the marine staying power of the Wolves. Both armies due well, even in adverse conditions. Wolves are slightly better due to having a solid CC element and serious advantages in a VP based environment.

I mean, I am no statistician, but the bulk of the top tens in the last year have been Wolves and Guard, with a smattering of Orks and BA mixed in there. I think guard has fallen out of number one, due to people actually adjusting to it in the metagame, though. Plus the lack of options makes handling it much easier, since you pretty much know what you are dealing with, while the other three top armies can greatly vary the setups and performance of even their basic troops. I also think VPs hurts guard, since their vehicles tend to get banged up a lot and their troops have no staying power at all, but thats a discussion in another thread.

skrulnik wrote:So the variety of good SW builds leads to overall success for the army, regardless of general, because the opponent has more variables to process when trying to beat it.

At least that is what I am seeing in this discussion.

1) MSU is good in 40k.
2) When you do not know what form the units will be in, they are harder to prioritize and counter.
3) SW codex gives a large pool of units to pick and choose from.
4) When opponents do not see the same units, game after game, they may not deal with them appropriately.

Pretty much.

The SW codex is good because of the variety. For example, if I told you I was playing Eldar at a tournament, you could pretty much guess that the army will have Wave Serpents, Fire Dragons, min-troop squads and maybe a Seer Council. If I said Tau, it would be Crisis Suits, Broadsides, and Kroot. Now if I just tell you I'm playing Space Wolves, it could be Razorback spam, it could be Loganwing, it could be Tunderwolf Cav, etc.

A lot of the old codices only have 1 or 2 really viable builds (maybe a few wacky variants, but not much), while the new ones, especially the Space Marine variants, have many different builds. This variation makes it tougher to plan a strategy until you actually see the list on the table.

skrulnik wrote:So the variety of good SW builds leads to overall success for the army, regardless of general, because the opponent has more variables to process when trying to beat it.

At least that is what I am seeing in this discussion.

1) MSU is good in 40k.
2) When you do not know what form the units will be in, they are harder to prioritize and counter.
3) SW codex gives a large pool of units to pick and choose from.
4) When opponents do not see the same units, game after game, they may not deal with them appropriately.

Its not the variety of SW that is the issue. How about a bullet #5:

5 Grey Hunters in a rhino with a Melta x 5. Add in a power weapon per squad. Maybe toss in a combi-melta on a Wolf Guard.

You've now got extremely lethal anti-tank in redundancy that has counter-attack and some very decent close combat abilities. No other marine codex has the ability to put together such cheap, effective units.

My advocacy of Orks has always been predicated on the idea that they can do anything that another codex can do, and do it better....but only one thing at a time. The more I think about it, the more I think that Space Wolves do it better than Orks do. Granted, as BoLS and elsewhere have pointed out, the U.S. doesn't use NEARLY the amount of BLOS terrain that the rest of the world does, which is probably why Long Fangs are so killer right now; they can range anything easily and not every really have to deal with more than cover saves.

*shrugs* Maybe I should stop trying so hard with my Orks and DE (and soon to be Necrons) and just switch to Space Wolves for the easy road out?

it could have something to do with maybe those SW players are GOOD players......not just using a good book (the book is good though, I wont sit here and say there isnt codex creep and the SW book is on par with my eldar book, because, well its not).

I also dont think SW is the "easy road", its not auto pilot (guard is more auto pilot than SW). It still has to come down to proper list build and a good general. Ive played lots of crappy SW builds.

Can someone please link me to the podcast interviews please.

Daemons are also a jank army in the current meta game, they have the combat ability to out shine thunder puppys, and the speed and or resilliancy to win over mech guard. Many armies fold to them, I've personally found my biggest challenge with the army to be orks and dual lash. (IMO to GREAT armies in 5th ed)

Woot yermom is scared of my list lol.

yermom wrote:Daemons are also a jank army in the current meta game, they have the combat ability to out shine thunder puppys, and the speed and or resilliancy to win over mech guard. Many armies fold to them, I've personally found my biggest challenge with the army to be orks and dual lash. (IMO to GREAT armies in 5th ed)

Daemons and their close brethren drop pod nids are the paper to IG and mech SW rock. They run into trouble when someone brings scissors which just happen to be the two armies you mentioned.

The enourmous nerfs to the Nids in the FAQ (No ICs joining pod units, no stacking of Tyrant reserve bonuses, ect) kind of killed the reserve based Nid army, as well. The nids (and some Daemon armeis) suffer from the sucko troop syndrome, too, without something as utilitarian and resilient as a marine to fall back on as an objective holder. You wind up having to play killhammer instead of the mission, most of the time.

On the bright side hordes of slavering Daemons trying to kill their enemies to the exclusion of rational strategic considerations is very fluffy.

Nurglitch wrote:On the bright side hordes of slavering Daemons trying to kill their enemies to the exclusion of rational strategic considerations is very fluffy.

Nurglitch, always looking on the bright side!

I don't think removing KPs from the tournament slanted it.

Some people probably just looked a little harder at the rules than others and built min/maxed units to take advantage of VPs when there was no worry of KP losses.

As Mike and others have pointed out, many competitive lists don't give two hoots about KPs anyways.

I imagine many (most?) of the lists at the top tables would be the same or very similar even with KP- I know my list didn't change.

kartofelkopf wrote:As Mike and others have pointed out, many competitive lists don't give two hoots about KPs anyways.

I imagine many (most?) of the lists at the top tables would be the same or very similar even with KP- I know my list didn't change.

You could exploit the fact that in VP games Rhino's are probably a better value than say a Land Raider.

It's not necessarily better or worse but it does slightly change the dynamic of the game. Death-star units like Seer Council, Nob Bikers, expensive HQ's and THSS in a LR are discouraged while solitary Deffkoptas and 5 man vanilla marines in a rhino are probably better off.

It's funny because I play nids too, and the first thing I tried when I got the new book, was reserve drop nid list as a counter to IG and wolves, personally I gave up on that style of play because it couldn't deal with guard, because the power of the guard list comes from vets in chimeras, you can out range them, but not if you deep strike in their face. Perhaps, with the rise of puppies and the downfall of guard I'll bring my drop nids out again. They were very fun. That was before they came out with the FAQ which doesn't really bother me too much.

"Shadow of the warp doesnt work on units embarked in trnasports nids are unplayable!" Well if they're in land raiders they arent shooting me with psychic powers, if they're in rhinos BLOW IT UP ITS A RHINO WE HAVE HIVE GUARD THEY gak ON RHINOS!

the end.

I am more annoyed by the inability of a Prime to join other warriors in a spore pod, when every marine army can do the same thing, personally. I'd rather not get my face melted by 15 long wangs with missle launchers before I even get one trigger pull out of my warrior unit.

I've come to accept warriors in pods as an epic fail and just take small squads to sit on your home objective whie ading firepower. This is if I were to run wrriors, but personally I don't. This isn't a how to play nids thread so lets try to keep this with NOVA.

Matthias wrote:KPs for all armies fielded at AdeptiCon 2010? No - those stats do not exist.

someone could technically go through the pics of various armies and visually count up the KP. it may not be exact and is tedious but its better than nothing if someone is willing to do it.

does bolscon keep track of this stuff? did they use KP and keep track of lists?

Well, the SW armies of Tony and Stelek were almost similar;
Tony's army was a bit more HQ-heavy.

I'm curious to see the BA army list of the 2nd. Was it based on Razorbacks?

wuestenfux wrote:Well, the SW armies of Tony and Stelek were almost similar;
Tony's army was a bit more HQ-heavy.

I'm curious to see the BA army list of the 2nd. Was it based on Razorbacks?

No, it was based around rhinos and predators.

http://www.baldandscreaming.com/army-lists/nova-open-army-lists-mark-ferek-%E2%80%93-tournament-finalist/

Dashofpepper wrote:

wuestenfux wrote:Well, the SW armies of Tony and Stelek were almost similar;
Tony's army was a bit more HQ-heavy.

I'm curious to see the BA army list of the 2nd. Was it based on Razorbacks?

No, it was based around rhinos and predators.

http://www.baldandscreaming.com/army-lists/nova-open-army-lists-mark-ferek-%E2%80%93-tournament-finalist/

Thank you! In fact, its an interesting list.

Wait, what? Was the winner's list 3 points over?

olympia wrote:Wait, what? Was the winner's list 3 points over?

Yes. This is week old news

Well, that's out of the blue. ><

Yes it was, and he's been dealt with by the TO. It has its own discussion thread and everything. And even several blogs with a section dedicated to it.

Dashofpepper wrote:Well, that's out of the blue. ><

Yes it was, and he's been dealt with by the TO. It has its own discussion thread and everything. And even several blogs with a section dedicated to it.

OH NOES! DASH HAS AWOKEN!!! RUN FOR DA HILLZ!!!!!

But seriously, what is the story behind the 3 points over? Was it found after the tourney?

Dashofpepper wrote:Well, that's out of the blue. ><

Yes it was, and he's been dealt with by the TO. It has its own discussion thread and everything. And even several blogs with a section dedicated to it.

can you post a link to the thread on dakka? i used the search function and couldn't find it (as well as being an active participant in the previous threads myself). i didn't hear anything about this until you posted it a few days ago.

edit: no mention on whisky40k's blog (isn't that the official one for the NOVA events?) ..... nothing in dannyinternet's 2 page gushing marriage proposal to a tourney that was his "impressions of nova open".... nothing posted here except for a mention of it by you.... nothing on BOLS... the only entry was one on blood of kittens saying the same thing (as in "why is everyone ignoring this?"). MVBrandt is so open and vocal about the changes he's trying to make to the 40k tourney scene; you'd think he'd want to mention something about this too. how did he deal with an illegal list winning his "gold standard" tournament? (not his quote but the title of a previous nova thread). why wasn't the list checked in the first place going into the last round for the top seeds at least? he had the army lists.

Good points Warboss. I've seen similar situations blow up in the internet before. Is this a change in how people care about such things? No answers, just cryptic messages. Interesting .....

It is discussed here in the comments section and just about everywhere else reporting in depth on the tournament: http://www.baldandscreaming.com/army-lists/nova-open-army-lists-tony-kopach-tournament-champion/

I think people are refraining from blowing it out of proportion because (1) none of the players who lost to Tony cared, and (2) it's 3 points. Tarnishing his reputation and belittling his win because of an entirely insignificant oversight would be petty beyond measure.

mvbrandt dismissed using army builder as too labor intensive. However, it really is the only way to go. Participants pre-submit lists; they are entered into army buiilder and then posted; participants have a week or so to check for errors. So obvious. So simple.

Danny Internets wrote:It I think people are refraining from blowing it out of proportion because it's 3 points. Tarnishing his reputation and belittling his win because of an entirely insignificant oversight would be petty beyond measure.

Good I'm glad to hear that. I will make sure I always play 1-3pts over at every tournament for the next year. Adepticon's 1850? Nope it's up to 1853pts. That way I'll be able to fit in that extra HK missile or combi-melta I need and according to this no one should ever care. Would you believe at our last tournament in Chicago I had to play at 1998pts because I couldn't fit anything else in, but now I know I can jump up to 2003pts and throw in that extra meltabomb on the tactical sargeant. It's only 3pts and what can a meltabomb do anyway. (BOOOOMB! goes the tank shocking Battlewagon)

DarthDiggler wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:It I think people are refraining from blowing it out of proportion because it's 3 points. Tarnishing his reputation and belittling his win because of an entirely insignificant oversight would be petty beyond measure.

Good I'm glad to hear that. I will make sure I always play 1-3pts over at every tournament for the next year. Adepticon's 1850? Nope it's up to 1853pts. That way I'll be able to fit in that extra HK missile or combi-melta I need and according to this no one should ever care. Would you believe at our last tournament in Chicago I had to play at 1998pts because I couldn't fit anything else in, but now I know I can jump up to 2003pts and throw in that extra meltabomb on the tactical sargeant. It's only 3pts and what can a meltabomb do anyway. (BOOOOMB! goes the tank shocking Battlewagon)

wow buddy... You need to relax some...



Personally 3pts over is most likely a clerical error... I don't think it was on purpose... And I also IMHO think that anyone who is bringing up the 3pts after it was handled extremely well by the TO is just an Internet drama queen.

Danny Internets wrote:It is discussed here in the comments section and just about everywhere else reporting in depth on the tournament: http://www.baldandscreaming.com/army-lists/nova-open-army-lists-tony-kopach-tournament-champion/

I think people are refraining from blowing it out of proportion because (1) none of the players who lost to Tony cared, and (2) it's 3 points. Tarnishing his reputation and belittling his win because of an entirely insignificant oversight would be petty beyond measure.

so its been taken care of by doing nothing? i'm not saying that it was on purpose but that doesn't make it any less significant. that 3pts means one less combimelta in the list. over the course of 4+ games, one less melta shot in a mech army can easily sway a battle and isn't insignificant. he took a list that was ILLEGAL to a tourney and won it. that's the new standard of 40k tournaments? weren't the top players known the night before? why weren't their lists checked again just in case?

frgsinwntr wrote:Personally 3pts over is most likely a clerical error... I don't think it was on purpose... And I also IMHO think that anyone who is bringing up the 3pts after it was handled extremely well by the TO is just an Internet drama queen.

and personal attacks/name calling is trolling. it probably is a clerical error but that doesn't mean taking an illegal list should be allowed (and therefore encouraged since there is no consequence).

frgsinwntr wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:It I think people are refraining from blowing it out of proportion because it's 3 points. Tarnishing his reputation and belittling his win because of an entirely insignificant oversight would be petty beyond measure.

Good I'm glad to hear that. I will make sure I always play 1-3pts over at every tournament for the next year. Adepticon's 1850? Nope it's up to 1853pts. That way I'll be able to fit in that extra HK missile or combi-melta I need and according to this no one should ever care. Would you believe at our last tournament in Chicago I had to play at 1998pts because I couldn't fit anything else in, but now I know I can jump up to 2003pts and throw in that extra meltabomb on the tactical sargeant. It's only 3pts and what can a meltabomb do anyway. (BOOOOMB! goes the tank shocking Battlewagon)

wow buddy... You need to relax some...

Personally 3pts over is most likely a clerical error... I don't think it was on purpose... And I also IMHO think that anyone who is bringing up the 3pts after it was handled extremely well by the TO is just an Internet drama queen.

frg and danny are both missing the point. Three points makes a material difference in the list. To claim otherwise is ignorant. The issue is not whether the youngster was intentionally cheating, but what lessons can be learned so it does not happen again. Given that the final round, the elite of the elite, was so small, it is a strange error to have crop up.

To be honest, I was afraid something like this could happen. I was surprised that they didn't ask for lists before hand,(like weeks before hand to review them). When I turned my 9 lists into the girl on Saturday morning. She spent about 1 minute looking at the top list, then put a check mark on all of the lists. I was thinking to myself,"That's it?" I personally think they should have done a better job with it, and I hope they do a better job next year.

I do believe the winner should forfeit the win though. An illegal list is an illegal list. Just like using a corked bat in baseball. (Not implying the winner purposefully cheated)

But I'm not going to rage if he doesn't, or the TO doesn't force the issue.

GG

I will make sure I always play 1-3pts over at every tournament for the next year.

So because someone makes an unintentional mistake that gives you license to intentionally repeat that mistake (ie cheat) in future events? What planet are you living on? This is a fine example of that whole "petty beyond measure" thing I was talking about...

so its been taken care of by doing nothing? i'm not saying that it was on purpose but that doesn't make it any less significant. that 3pts means one less combimelta in the list.

Actually intent has a very large impact on how significant it is. If someone forgets to roll leadership for a unit do you equate them with someone who intentionally does so with the express purpose of cheating you?

Furthermore, 3 points could be mean one less combi-melta or it could mean one less of, well, ANYTHING in the list. Dropping an 8 point Fenrisian wolf would be a more likely choice rather than eliminating something several times more effective and valuable. This would also free up 5 more points for a small upgrade elsewhere.

SHOULD this have been caught? Yes. Is it a ridiculously small thing? Also yes. It is also quite obviously unintentional--someone who plans to cheat at a national event doesn't do so in a way that is so easily caught (not unless they're completely slowed).

If one of his opponents took great offense to this error then there would be some merit to asking him to forfeit the win, but this is not the case. Everyone I've spoken to feels he deserved his victory, save for the internet peanut gallery.

I brought this up wherever it was mentioned by simply clarifying that the overage was my fault ultimately, no real other person to blame.

Tony's overage was not intentional (I'm satisfied about this after grilling the crap out of him), his opponents and the other attendees of the actual event in general did not have a problem with it (not an excuse, but an important constituency). I actually personally think 3 points can be material, as it can be that combi-melta, or whatever. Tony likely would have dropped a Fenrisian wolf, and turned his grey hunter into a combi-melta. Not that it matters.

Independently, Tony also came to me of his own accord to report the problem and offer to give up his prizes, title and Vegas ticket.

This was subsequently handled internally with the other Tourney Aces, and as needed Tony's other opponents throughout the first day. I offered to pass his ticket down (as did Tony) to the #2, who refused it.

Ultimately, it's my bad. QC missed it (Grogg - there was a backroom list check done during the day - the check on sign-in was just to mark each page with a colored marker to prevent list swap), so did I, so did Tony, so did all of Tony's opponents (until post-event), etc.

There's really nothing more to say about it. I don't consider it a point for non-attendee public consumption. I would ask any supporters of the Open to not respond to any flames or negativity either - it is what it is; I can't change back time, the other finalists for the Best General component by and large refused Tony's ticket to Vegas / did not want it to be made a big deal of, and as a TO I've stated where it's been asked by people who weren't there that it's my fault, so blame me all you like.

By and large, the accumulation of results from the Open - good things, bad things, mediocre things - are all being used to improve the event dramatically for next year, as well as expand it to a full on convention catering to literally every type of hobbyist. Moving forward, as it were. I think the lack of major negativity anywhere is largely the product of the fact that I've been open and honest about taking the ultimate blame for it, no one in attendance really wanted anything negative done about it (though many rightly had a problem with it not being caught, as did I), and we all move on with life.

I'm not a big fan of knocking anyone for not catching things like that; while important to the integrity of the game and the tournament, it's one of the easiest things to miss - which is why it gets missed other places, and why folks like Matthias at Adepticon have entire discussions geared toward the "best" way to address it. You take what you learn, take the blame as needed, and get on with life. The event's significant successes and the widespread positivity of those who attended stand rather on their own.



Generally, this type of situation is only really the concern of a) those seeking to generate drama, for whatever petty reason they have .... and b) those who actually participated in the event (who have every right to come talk to me over e-mail or otherwise about their feelings).


Shorthand - My fault, not going to retroactively eliminate his prizes or ticket based upon input from his opponents and majority of attendees, lessons learned moving forward. If you have a different feeling about this, especially if you attended, please contact me privately and I will discuss it all you like. If your intent is to just stir gak, please feel free to do so here or elsewhere, but I do ask those with positive feelings about the Open to NOT reply or participate.

Nicely worded response... just about covers it, imho.

Another reason why I'll be attending next year, even though I normally shy away from competitive events! Handled with class, just like most of the other issues that arose. Excellent

Danny Internets wrote:Actually intent has a very large impact on how significant it is. If someone forgets to roll leadership for a unit do you equate them with someone who intentionally does so with the express purpose of cheating you?

no, and i didn't in this case either. but the end EFFECT is the same... a leadership roll that could have been failed that wasn't taken; that changes the game regardless of the intent. the intent is important in determining whether to allow the person to compete again. I'LL SAY IT FOR THE THIRD TIME IN THIS THREAD SO YOU WON'T MISS IT AGAIN. I DON'T THINK THE PERSON WAS TRYING TO CHEAT. there... now stop trying to change the tone. i'm not questioning the winner's motives, just the response (or technically lack of) of the TO to an illegal list winning his premiere event and to the event's proponents (like you) intentionally leaving out this fact in their review of the event. while you were gushing over the event on your blog, it never occurred to you to mention that perhaps they need a better system of list checking for the next one? MVBrandt seems to wholeheartedly agree with me on illegal lists in the adepticon thread here yet decided to poo-poo the same exact thing in his own event with the same circumstances (a list with too many points). here's the opening paragraph (minus the historical references) and the closing ones of your review... you don't think that a lack of meaningful list checking leading to a winner with an illegal list deserves mention???

"And as of August 14th we can add one more to that list: The NOVA Open as the greatest Warhammer 40k tournament of all time. This is not a joke. It really was that good. Forethought was evident in every function of the event from the moment of registration and the day played out without any visible problems. The complete absence of online complaints in its aftermath is certainly telling of its successful execution."

"In a nutshell, the NOVA Open was a success because it embodied the trifecta of good tournament design: scoring transparency, logistical mastery, and equal recognition of different hobby interests. Tournament organizers, take note: this is how you ensure everyone both stays and leaves happy."

http://www.baldandscreaming.com/commentary/impressions-of-the-nova-open/#more-1113

this was written several weeks after the event so you can't claim ignorance, just willful deception.

MVBrandt wrote:

Generally, this type of situation is only really the concern of a) those seeking to generate drama, for whatever petty reason they have .... and b) those who actually participated in the event (who have every right to come talk to me over e-mail or otherwise about their feelings).

Other than porn and nerdrage what's the point of the internet? As long as the NOVA does away with comp. and sports scoring it will still be one of the best events in the states regardless of this slip up.

MVBrandt wrote:
Generally, this type of situation is only really the concern of a) those seeking to generate drama, for whatever petty reason they have .... and b) those who actually participated in the event (who have every right to come talk to me over e-mail or otherwise about their feelings).

but I do ask those with positive feelings about the Open to NOT reply or participate.

I'm calling foul here. Your results have an effect on all the others who will attend the Vegas event, regardless of whether those people attended Nova or not. The real problem, more so than the hush job attempted, is the lack of standard protocal when this type of thing occurs.

Step aside from the Nova for a moment.

Hypothetically a guy who wins is a friend who is nice and nice friends would never cheat so he gets a pass. His opponents don't care (or don't want to make a stink) so they pass on the ticket to Vegas. All is forgiven because we are all friends. The Adepticon Championship winner doesn't have the friends this guy has. His opponents made a stink about his omission and he had winnings taken away. DOUBLE STANDARD.

For all the claims of competitive superiority for Nova, it failed in the ultimate test. Golfers who honestly forget to sign their scorecard are zereod out. That's an infraction that had nothing to do with their play, but they broke a rule and they can not win. I'm not advocating this for non Golden Ticket events, but if we are going to judge intent, then friendship must be removed from the equation. You either brought an illegal list or not. Intent can never be known for sure and is unfair to judge. If the TO knows the guy, they will tend to rule an intent in his favor. If they don't know the guy they will tend to rule the intent against him because that friendship is more imprtant than a game (which it should be).

*Sigh*...

Yes, many tourneys DQ people for illeagal lists once it's found out. It was an option. However, as MVBrandt explained his reasoning above, I think they made the right choice here.

Hyperbole gets this discussion going nowhere but in circles...

If you're inferring I shenanigansed a 16 year old I barely know, infer away.

If you're looking for an irate reply from me defending the error, you won't get it.

I take all the blame, my decision is made and presented above. You win the internet, get flowers and candy and the nectar of the gods, etc. etc. I apologize, to you personally, and everyone.

Danny and others, please continue any direct back-and-forth with accusations of whatever to each other outside of any NOVA thread ... no sense dramafying it.

warboss....

You may have missed the part where all his prizes were offered up to the "potentially wronged" people, who declined them. My final game of the Nova (that counted for placing) came down to a series of individual dice rolls throughout the game that each and individually played a significant impact on the game. A powerklaw that needed to cause a single wound. It was an *extremely* close game. To my understanding, Tony's games were not so close - the kind of thing you examine closely and realize that it wouldn't have made a difference.....which is why the relevant parties didn't care.

A hiccup at the end sucks, but the TO took the right steps to rectify the wrong - and in comparison to the absolute awesomeness of the rest of the event in EVERY FACET, it was a chink in the flawless glass, not the straw that broke the camel's back.

When two people get into an argument, a mediator gets involved and all parties (including everyone that the person argued with) leave satisfied.....bystanders screaming bloody murder who have no stake in the matter are just drama queens.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, I think I'm supposed to leave the thread. ><

Dashofpepper wrote:warboss....

You may have missed the part where all his prizes were offered up to the "potentially wronged" people, who declined them.

*snip*

When two people get into an argument, a mediator gets involved and all parties (including everyone that the person argued with) leave satisfied.....bystanders screaming bloody murder who have no stake in the matter are just drama queens.

i didn't miss it; it was entered in AFTER i hit reply on my last response by MVBrandt but before i submitted (i was reading through the bald screaming blog for my quotes). as for the name calling at the end, you're hardly one to talk. you posted a "battle report" that was nothing but intentional drama on your part... and continued it on a blog... and continued to link it in your sig. if we're queens, you're the empress.

it seems like MVBrandt's decision is finalized to the argeement of the top players and in the end that's what matters most. that doesn't mean its still not an epic sportmanship fail on the part of the winner for simply not giving up the ticket in the first place publicly and a failing in the tourney organization to stop it in the first place and then not to address it publicly. does it seem like the event was still a success for those who attended? sure. does it have room for improvement? you bet.

For the record, the winner does not use the internet due to parental control; he does not even have his own e-mail address.

He specifically sought me out via telephone and the week after at Games Day to offer up his ticket, prizes, good name, title, trophy, etc. So, yeah, he did all you could expect of a young 16 year old and more.

Even more importantly - he figured out his error on his own, without hearing about it via the interweb. He came to me about it before anyone else had even noticed (publicly at least).

So, again, the hit is on me ... every event has room to improve and I will continue to work as relentlessly at improving the Open as I did leading up to our very first year, and that's about that.

That said, I hope all will realize that the most important input givers have been the attendees, and fellow largescale tournament organizers (i.e. Jwolf and Matthias, we three talk often, and my door / gchat is open to ANY OTHER TO looking to strengthen ties) ... all of whom better understand the realities of the situation. Snipes from non-attendees that are loaded with venom are not well-received, even if there's no desire on my part to jump into the muckety muck trenches with that kind of attitude.

MVBrandt wrote:For
That said, I hope all will realize that the most important input givers have been fellow largescale tournament organizers .

As a former Adepticon head organizerand initial INAT council member your own words betray you. I guess you have to recognize me then. I'm not impuning your tournament or the winner. You keep turning the discussion towards that direction and your passive/aggressive attempt to stifle conversation from others is shameful. I'm interested in a set protocal that supercedes the personal feelings you have for an underage participant. Not for the Nova, but for future events. You refuse to discuss this and that's your choice, however serious people who run serious events should realize that a set protocal for this type of accurance is benificial and superior to a "feelings" approach you have taken.

Maybe I am wrong and you are not the serious type of person to contribute to this conversation. I will bring this to the attention of organizers who can make a difference then.

I don't understand your comment, Darth. I think MVBrandt treated this on a "case-by-case basis", and explained how he dealt with this particular case.

Some tourneys have a hard and fast rule, such as if an army list has an error, it's an automatic DQ, and the person's opponents get the wins. However, in a bracket system like NOVA, you can't retroactively do that- the losers were already playing the losers bracket.

I thought he responded to your concerns, and asking others not to flame is not "stifling conversation"... not sure where the anger is coming from here...

and now we have full disclosure. congrats, thats how you should have handled it in the first place instead of trying to sweep it under the rug. there wouldn't be any "venom" (i don't have any, just concerns as to how it was addressed) if you had been as open and honest regarding this problem as you were with the planning and promoting of the event, i would have posted suggestions on how to avoid the problem (like i did in the adepticon thread BEFORE finding out about this) instead of trying to find out why its been ignored. a single post in the comments section of an article on one blog doesn't reach many people.

you're not running a small con tourney for 8 attendees. you're billing it (and rightfully so) as one of the premiere 40k independant tournies. if there's a problem, it needs to be dealt with both honestly AND with the appearance of propriety. you seem to have done the former but secrecy fails when dealing with the later. if YOU as the TO don't deal with it publicly, then all we have to go one are blog comment blurbs and forum posts like "local wins major 40k tourney with illegal list with no consequence." its 100% true but doesn't give the whole story, does it?

Darth: I'm not sure how they betray me. I was not targeting anyone in particular. Certainly not the organizer of a former .. Gladiator, was it? Early Adepticon history or so? I gather there were several hundred people undoubtedly that you managed.


Passive/Aggressive? Really? You would rather I urge people on toward petty forum drama? Is that your game?

Your every comment is rife with barely contained aggression and negativity, with trite commentary thrown in for fun, what's your goal here? I have no personal feelings for an underage participant here; beyond knowing who he is ... but I'm fairly familiar and friendly now with almost everyone who attended the Open ... as I would hope any organizer would be.

Implications of collusion/conspiracy/corruption based upon perceived "feelings" for someone is as low as it gets, and is as passive aggressive as it gets.

You're being a child. You can join the wide variety of people who speak constructively and with positivity toward improving events and establishing things such as protocol at any point; right now you're wallowing in negativity, and it's that very attitude that belongs ... well, not in my realm of concern.



That said, if you see my encouragement of people NOT to "fight" about a result on a forum as "passive aggressive," so be it ... shall we let the record show that's what you desire?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

warboss wrote:and now we have full disclosure. congrats, thats how you should have handled it in the first place instead of trying to sweep it under the rug. there wouldn't be any "venom" (i don't have any, just concerns as to how it was addressed) if you had been as open and honest regarding this problem as you were with the planning and promoting of the event, i would have posted suggestions on how to avoid the problem (like i did in the adepticon thread BEFORE finding out about this) instead of trying to find out why its been ignored. a single post in the comments section of an article on one blog doesn't reach many people.

you're not running a small con tourney for 8 attendees. you're billing it (and rightfully so) as one of the premiere 40k independant tournies. if there's a problem, it needs to be dealt with both honestly AND with the appearance of propriety. you seem to have done the former but secrecy fails when dealing with the later. if YOU as the TO don't deal with it publicly, then all we have to go one are blog comment blurbs and forum posts like "local wins major 40k tourney with illegal list with no consequence." its 100% true but doesn't give the whole story, does it?

Perhaps I should have disclosed every managing of the event to the world. That said, sweep it under the rug? Really?

Structuring your words on the internet is important; it's all there is - there's no personality, no tone, no anything. Speaking from a condescending point of view toward someone who not only did not "hide" anything, but took the blame upon himself in all regards, after spending hundreds of hours preparing for and putting on as high quality a tournament as his resources enabled ... will not typically accomplish any kind of goal of goodwill. While I don't particularly mind, and have no interest in a flamewar, you probably could have accomplished the same goal of whatever you sought WITHOUT causing me to have a somewhat negative view of you in result. We all make our mistakes.

Whatever faults I committed or imperfections in running this toy soldier tournament, they are mine to bear. Why commit the fault of speaking callously to another human being on the internet needlessly? Beyond me.

Come on guys. This is starting to get out of hand.

I don't see what Darth or warboss is saying that is that awefull or childish. I think it should be taken for what it is, and that is constructive critique. I.E. I think they are truly trying to be helpfull.

One thing that could come out of this is some way of standardizing lists before the event.

For example, a suggestion that might help is to have all lists turned in, at least 2 weeks before event. In which case the TO's will check the lists for legality. During the tourney the TO's are the ones that have printed out the lists (possibly color coded) for each round. That way, players are assured that lists have been checked by the TO's and have had the TO's stamp of approval. (I'm aware that TO's can make mistakes as well, but so do refs in football and basketball).

The above paragraph was intended as a an example of a starting point for discussion not the be all end all solution.

GG

It's a good idea, but sounds like it would be a logistical nightmare and/or take an army of volunteers to accomplish. I also think it was considered as an option beforehand, but they decided not to go with this approach.

Correct me if I'm wrong, here! Also, cheers for the well-reasoned and worded response.

RiTides wrote:It's a good idea, but sounds like it would be a logistical nightmare and/or take an army of volunteers to accomplish. I also think it was considered as an option beforehand, but they decided not to go with this approach.

Correct me if I'm wrong, here! Also, cheers for the well-reasoned and worded response.

I don't really think it would take that long. Lets say you had 120 entries. If you had 6 TO's, that's 20 lists each. Those could be reviewed over a few hours on a weekend or after work. The cost of printing the colored lists would be added to the tourney entry fee. The use of colored lists is to prevent the suggestion that some trickster could slip their own list in. Or by just using a custom tourney stamp on the list could prevent that as well.

If someone turns in an illegal list and it gets caught during the pre-screening process, the TO's would send it back for correction and if it is sent back with errors again.... than you start deducting points for each successive illegal list entry....or you just DQ them from participating in the tourney after so many attempts.

If an illegal list still makes it through after all of that...well then you start questioning attending that particular tourney in the first place.

GG

I disagree with MVBrandt's ruling. An illegal list is just that, an illegal list. Tournaments have a points limit for a reason.

If I'm in Nascar and I bring too big of an engine I get DQed or take a big points hit, even if I've lapped the field 12 times and could win without the extra big engine. No matter what age I am.

If I'm a golfer at a PGA tour event and I put 1 too many clubs in my bag I'm DQed. Even if I never pull out the extra club I'm still DQed.

If we want 40k tournaments to be taken seriously as a competitive tournament environment then there need to be consequences for playing an illegal list, just like there would be consequences for playing with loaded dice, even if the player doesn't know they are loaded. As it stands, there are not consequences for breaking the rules.

I disagree with MVBrandt's ruling. An illegal list is just that, an illegal list. Tournaments have a points limit for a reason.

40k has a rulebook for a reason. If someone forgets to take a leadership test at the end of the shooting phase should they likewise be disqualified? Where you draw the line between which rules oversights are serious enough to merit a DQ is entirely arbitrary.

If there's no tone or personality conveyed by writing on the Internet, how can you tell if someone is being condescending or not?

MVBrandt wrote:Ultimately, it's my bad. QC missed it (Grogg - there was a backroom list check done during the day - the check on sign-in was just to mark each page with a colored marker to prevent list swap), so did I, so did Tony, so did all of Tony's opponents (until post-event), etc.

I've decided to send my response directly to MVBrandt have that conversation in private.

As a results, I'm pulling my response to this thread (in an effort to foster something positive). Needless to say, I don't think that MVB made the right call but I recognize and respect that it was his call to make.

mkerr

Considering the biggest thing that can happen in a magic tournament with an incorrect deck registration sheet a game loss is the correction of the list and a game loss I think a DQ for being a few points over is pretty silly.

I think what we can take from this is that the tourney was awesome, and that even after the three points over to the list that won, the TO has handled the matter in the way he has thought would be best.

Now some people may not like his decision(s), which is fine, but once he has finalized his decision, then it should stand. The winning player and the TO have both attempted to contribute to resolving this situation, and after consulting the other winners of the tournament, they appear to be fine with the result. So in short from what MVPBrandt has done here in this thread ALONE, nonewithstanding coverage from other venues of the internet where he had to put forth the situation to other communities at large:

Stated he was at fault.
Stated Tony (tourney winner) came foward to give back his prize.
Consulted with other Tournament winners; many of whom declined to restructure the prizes and the standings.
Restated his fault.
Chalking this one up to a failure that wil be corrected in the future.

And then...

Has to endure the slings and arrows of people who now want to criticize his conduct in the matter.
Respond to those criticisms.
Continue to have to respond to the more negative criticisms for their implied venom-

-Even after he considers himself at fault.

People will not like that decision.

It stands however.

If you don't like the decision, do not endorse future venues run by him. He has done all he could to correct the situation without himself being a jerk.

My summary:
He took credit for both the error.
Tried to rectify it.
Nothing happened.
People got pissed.
Criticism.
Counter criticism.
Decision still stands as is.
Live with it.
Or not and repeat from the criticism step.

So let's get this straight in my mind;

1) The winner used an illegal list right? That bit isn't up for debate right? 3 extra points make it illegal.

2) The kid noticed his error before others and offerred his prizes up? That isn't up for debate right?

3) The TO decided to let him keep his prize despite the fact it was an illegal list?

Well the mistake was 3). There is no way the TO should have allowed an illegal list to win. That is pure stupidity. Lets contrast it with the recent story of a 16 year old who won a PGA tournie shall we. He realized he had an extra club in his bag, not his, put there by a friend to carry. Still illegal. He rings PGA to admit to error and DQ's himself and the PGA accepts. Quite rightly, he broke the rules and accidently carried an extra club.

Yes, the TO was at fault but who cares. It was an illegal list. End of story. TO should have accepted the offer and not to and maintain the integrity of the tournie win is intact is just illogical.

Sounds like the kid is an awesome player and great to play against. 16 and took on many good players and won. However, simple fact is his list was illegal and his wins don't count. There is no other sport where this is acceptable - doesn't matter what other players think. Time to put an asterix next to this tournie win I think.

Who cares?

It's a game.

It was 3 points.

It's not NASCAR, PGA, NFL, FBI, or BYOB....its toy friggin' soldiers.

Get over yourselves.

Also, can we stop referring to this player as "the Kid" , "the 16yo", "the black guy", or "the Jew"...he's a player, not an ism. Thank you, drive thru.

You guys are nutz.

So the winners were alright with losing to an illegal list? What about all the poor schmucks with 1998 point lists who went 2 and 2 the first day? Are they alright with it?

Frankly, there's a lot of laziness when it comes to dealing with logistics. Point totals and FOC adherence are rudimentary. There are easy ways to catch this (pre-submission; army builder, etc.) but people don't seem able for the hardship.

fullheadofhair wrote:Well the mistake was 3). There is no way the TO should have allowed an illegal list to win. That is pure stupidity. Lets contrast it with the recent story of a 16 year old who won a PGA tournie shall we. He realized he had an extra club in his bag, not his, put there by a friend to carry. Still illegal. He rings PGA to admit to error and DQ's himself and the PGA accepts. Quite rightly, he broke the rules and accidently carried an extra club.

This is exactly what I immediately thought of.

For those who are unaware: http://sports.yahoo.com/golf/blog/devil_ball_golf/post/What-would-you-do-teen-golfer-disqualifies-self?urn=golf-267228

Now, it's easy to go and tee off -- pun very much intended -- on golf's drop-the-hammer rules, on Wood for bringing the extra club to Nash's attention, or to Nash himself for failing to count the club. But all that misses the point. This is a story about honesty and doing what's right, even when what's right makes zero logical sense. Sure, Nash could have rationalized away keeping an extra club, but where's the honor in that?

The kid in this story won, He beat everyone with skill. He made an honest mistake. Everyone admits he outplayed them. He didn't use the extra club and it had no impact on his gameplay. But yet, thems the rules, at at some point, this is not people's court where just because he is a nice kid and the players he beat acknowledge his skill and accomplishment doesn't make it alright.

Now this whole 'DQ' thing, if NOVA didn't have that as a rule, then I am not sure that this year anything more should be done this year. The only thing worse that doing a gutcheck ruling on something like this is not having a rule to handle the situation upfront. If people know that the result of an illegal list is DQ or game loss or WHATEVER, then there is no internet discussion and no questioning of the TO's actions. It was part of the terms of the event and that is that.

Listchecking outs the owness on the TO.
DQ rule puts the owness on the player.

In a perfect world we would have both but if an event can't do the logistics to have people lock-in lists ahead of time or do onsite verification, then the only way to proceed is to have players verify thier own lists are legal and DQ, and if it is, accept disqualification... not 'disqualified only if the error directly impacted games or if your games were close, and if you were honest about the mistake and didn't intentionally use it to your advantage'.

generalgrog wrote:One thing that could come out of this is some way of standardizing lists before the event.

For example, a suggestion that might help is to have all lists turned in, at least 2 weeks before event. In which case the TO's will check the lists for legality. During the tourney the TO's are the ones that have printed out the lists (possibly color coded) for each round. That way, players are assured that lists have been checked by the TO's and have had the TO's stamp of approval. (I'm aware that TO's can make mistakes as well, but so do refs in football and basketball).

RiTides wrote:It's a good idea, but sounds like it would be a logistical nightmare and/or take an army of volunteers to accomplish. I also think it was considered as an option beforehand, but they decided not to go with this approach.

Correct me if I'm wrong, here! Also, cheers for the well-reasoned and worded response.

Just want to point out in the UK, we tend to have people sending lists in a couple of weeks before the event (as well as a cut off date when a new codex/army book can be used) and it's generally a common thing here. It does take a few people to go through the lists but seeing how you tend to have a few TO's plus helpers it can be done.

The story that getting missed is the dominate showing for the SW lists.

I've been getting bit by pups ever since that codex was released in my area.

Deadshane1 wrote:Who cares?

It's a game.

It was 3 points.

It's not NASCAR, PGA, NFL, FBI, or BYOB....its toy friggin' soldiers.

Get over yourselves.

Also, can we stop referring to this player as "the Kid" , "the 16yo", "the black guy", or "the Jew"...he's a player, not an ism. Thank you, drive thru.

You guys are nutz.

Posts like this, completely miss the point.

Yes it's toy soldiers. Yes it's "Just a game".

However, people paid a lot of money on plane tickets, hotel rooms and entry fees to play with their toy soldiers and play the tourney. So they have a right to be a bit upset. However you would like to trivialize the matter.

GG

I'm shocked that this happened. I'm on the side of it being a matter of fairness and following the rules, the list should have been DQed before the tournament but since it somehow made it into the "Gold Standard" of competitive tournaments it should be DQed now. It's really a shame that such a great event, so well planned and executed, should be tarnished by something so easy to check. 100's of playtesters for the missions but not enough people to just add up the lists before the tournament? Like I said, I'm shocked that this could even happen at this event and in my mind he should be DQed and prizes/glory distributed to those who had legal lists.

Byte wrote:The story that getting missed is the dominate showing for the SW lists.

I've been getting bit by pups ever since that codex was released in my area.

Yeah....Space Wolves is clearly off the hook. When Dark Eldar come out in two months, I expect my new codex to eat baby wolves for breakfast, feast on grey hunter innards for lunch, and the new Crucible of Malediction to make Rune Priests roll their leadership checks on 4d6 or be removed from play.

Hey! Dash has the same pre-realese version I do!

generalgrog wrote:
However, people paid a lot of money on plane tickets, hotel rooms and entry fees to play with their toy soldiers and play the tourney. So they have a right to be a bit upset. However you would like to trivialize the matter.

GG

The problem you run into is that by and large the biggest number of critics of the decision made did not do any of that. And many of the loudest critics of the event seem (at least from my own perspective) to have a disingenuous motive in said criticism. When pretty much everyone in the thread that actually attended the event has posted to say that it wasn't a big deal to them, I don't know why the discussion continues to center on "NO WE DEMAND THE INTERNETS MAKE IT A BIG DEAL!"

I don't know any of the players or staff involved personally, but I respect the hard work that Mike and his staff put into pulling all of this off. I respect that he's found a good balance between the hobby player and the competitive one that also includes EVERYONE in between.

derek wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
However, people paid a lot of money on plane tickets, hotel rooms and entry fees to play with their toy soldiers and play the tourney. So they have a right to be a bit upset. However you would like to trivialize the matter.

GG

The problem you run into is that by and large the biggest number of critics of the decision made did not do any of that. And many of the loudest critics of the event seem (at least from my own perspective) to have a disingenuous motive in said criticism. When pretty much everyone in the thread that actually attended the event has posted to say that it wasn't a big deal to them, I don't know why the discussion continues to center on "NO WE DEMAND THE INTERNETS MAKE IT A BIG DEAL!"

I don't know any of the players or staff involved personally, but I respect the hard work that Mike and his staff put into pulling all of this off. I respect that he's found a good balance between the hobby player and the competitive one that also includes EVERYONE in between.

Again stuff like this "I don't know why the discussion continues to center on "NO WE DEMAND THE INTERNETS MAKE IT A BIG DEAL!"

This is the problem. Just because some people criticize, and I believe deservedly so, doesn't automatically mean that it's internet drama. Mike has manned up and accepted that it was a mistake. The only drama I see are the people that are jumping in calling any critic a child/immature / "OMG I can't believe you are even daring to criticize the "Premier Event Evar"

It's more than just the one list that won the thing. It calls into question how thorough the list review process was in the first place. How many other lists were over? Were any of the 4 people I played against over? I doubt it, but it opens the can.

All I'm asking is that they do better next year. And Mike has said he will do better. That's all I need.

GG

Just because some people criticize, and I believe deservedly so, doesn't automatically mean that it's internet drama.

It's internet drama because it exists *gasp* solely on the internet. Notice that none of the people who actually attended the event have voiced complaints on how the issue has been handled.

Danny Internets wrote:

Just because some people criticize, and I believe deservedly so, doesn't automatically mean that it's internet drama.

It's internet drama because it exists *gasp* solely on the internet. Notice that none of the people who actually attended the event have voiced complaints on how the issue has been handled.

Because of the internet things are more accessible and more opinions are added than normal. A forum just offers the opportunity to be smart or as dumb as you like to a wider audience - you of all people should know that. A discussion on whether or not the decision made by a TO is not "drama" - it is a discussion. Points are made, some more worthy than others, and counters offerred. To try and reduce it to "internet drama" makes you just as bad as the idiots that use excessive hyperbole to ruin a discussion in the first place.

And while I am at it, do you think the PGA took into account the feelings of the attendees or cared whether or not the voice complaints as to how it was handled. An illegal list won, whether by accident or design. It is as simple as that. It is the players fault he was over the point limit but the point of list checking is to prevent that and to help the player - often in many other sports there is a check prior starting to make sure everything is fair.

Like I said, kudos to the kid for checking and owning up to it. Huge doses of respect to that - really admire it. I wonder how many others would have done it.

And as to Deadshane - drank a bit too deeply out of the fountain of self righeousness this morning?

Today I learned: what the internet is. Thanks!

generalgrog seemed perplexed as to why this is being referred to as "internet drama." Regardless of whether or not the situation merits discussion, the fact that the only people making a stink about it are from the internet rather than from the event earns it this particular moniker. It's not a judgment--it is merely an accurate description.

Additionally, I think derek hit the nail on the head with his remark about the criticism being disingenuous. The people who disapproved of the format of the event seem to be overly represented in most places criticizing the handling of the 3 points issue. This is probably not a coincidence.

(Edits: typos)

Dashofpepper wrote:warboss....

You may have missed the part where all his prizes were offered up to the "potentially wronged" people, who declined them.

who specifically was offered his prizes in consolation? people running for first? people who played him at all?

Mafty wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:warboss....

You may have missed the part where all his prizes were offered up to the "potentially wronged" people, who declined them.

who specifically was offered his prizes in consolation? people running for first? people who played him at all?

You may wish to scroll up the page.

Danny Internets wrote:Today I learned: what the internet is. Thanks!

Awefully glad I could be of assistance/

generalgrog seemed perplexed as to why this is being referred to as "internet drama." Regardless of whether or not the situation merits discussion, the fact that the only people making a stink about it are from the internet rather than from the event earns it this particular moniker. It's not a judgment--it is merely an accurate description.

Additionally, I think derek hit the nail on the head with his remark about the criticism being disingenuous. The people who disapproved of the format of the event seem to be overly represented in most places criticizing the handling of the 3 points issue. This is probably not a coincidence.

(Edits: typos)

Funny. Not what I get from it. From what I have read in this and others comments in different threads and forums is many people seemed to really enjoy the tournie and the format and even those who didn't go like the idea. I do. Criticism at one particular issue doesn't mean criticism at the whole point - that's politics and not debating. However, with this many people reading it there are always going to be people who dislike the format.

I also like how you call it "3 point issue" as opposed to "illegal list". A career in politics awaits you.

By far the funiest thing for me in this thread is the fact that so-called hard core tournie WAAC players (btw, I do not agree with that label) are the forgiving ones.

It doesn't matter where the criticism is coming from - you present a national tournie and advertise it via the internet you are going to get national criticism. Do I need to remind you what the internet is again coz I thought you said you learnt it?

The simple fact is an illegal list won the tournie. It shouldn't have. When found outafterwards it should have been DQ'ed just like any other competitive sport and it certainly isn't up to the other players - they are irrelevent just as they would be if it was another sport. How can what is trying to be a recognized national event and the gold standard (which it sounds like it qas extremely close to being) allow an illegal list to win?

In the golf example many have used the 16 yearold wasn't DQ for the extra club. He was DQ because there is a penalty at each hole for having an illegal number of clubs. By then declaring an wrong score it became an DQ'ing offense. But again, do you think the other players opinion counted in the decision - infact one of the said he was totally outclassed and the additional club had no bearing.

fullheadofhair wrote:

And as to Deadshane - drank a bit too deeply out of the fountain of self righeousness this morning?

I could ask the same question of the people critisizing Nova's decisions concerning this issue.

Deadshane1 wrote:

fullheadofhair wrote:

And as to Deadshane - drank a bit too deeply out of the fountain of self righeousness this morning?

I could ask the same question of the people critisizing Nova's decisions concerning this issue.

You could try but there is a smidgen of a difference between trying to be political correct over the term "16 year old kid" and people trying to understand why an illegal list was allowed to stand.

In all this thread, I still don't get why an illegal list was allowed to be played and win without any penalty. I am just so darn curious as to the logic behind that decision. I have a nasty suspicion that if Stelek or one of the wrecking crew had done this accidently the world would not be so forgiving - particular with the large amount of unnecessary hate aimed at both in the past.

edit to finish a thought

If Stelek or one of us WC guys had gone over I'm sure the world WOULDNT be as forgiving.

Stelek is WELL known in the internet community and us WC guys have a bit of a rep in the tourney scene. Due to that we'd be held to a higher standard I'm sure. Probably by judges as well. Is that right? I dunno, dont really care, I've never had a problem with bringing the right amount of points to a tourney due to all the playtesting I do and repeat building to get the most out of my list.

I do know that this player beat everybody down....3 extra points dont tip the scales THAT much in ones favor so that you can BEAT personalities like Stelek or any other players he faced down on Sunday. Players of that calibre dont lose games due to a 3pt differential....normally, they whip your a$$ so soundly it wouldnt matter if you had another 50-100pts in your list.

This player proved himself...regardless of a 3pt mistake...and like I said, this isnt PGA or the NFL. It's a hobby. Tournaments are simply the peak of the hobby...but still the hobby.

He deserved the win. Thats MY opinion.

Deadshane1 wrote:If Stelek or one of us WC guys had gone over I'm sure the world WOULDNT be as forgiving.

Stelek is WELL known in the internet community and us WC guys have a bit of a rep in the tourney scene. Due to that we'd be held to a higher standard I'm sure. Probably by judges as well. Is that right? I dunno, dont really care, I've never had a problem with bringing the right amount of points to a tourney due to all the playtesting I do and repeat building to get the most out of my list.

I do know that this player beat everybody down....3 extra points dont tip the scales THAT much in ones favor so that you can BEAT personalities like Stelek or any other players he faced down on Sunday. Players of that calibre dont lose games due to a 3pt differential....normally, they whip your a$$ so soundly it wouldnt matter if you had another 50-100pts in your list.

This player proved himself...regardless of a 3pt mistake...and like I said, this isnt PGA or the NFL. It's a hobby. Tournaments are simply the peak of the hobby...but still the hobby.

He deserved the win. Thats MY opinion.

Thank you. I think it has been said earlier but not quite so bluntly. That I can understand and it makes some degree of sense - not entirely sure I agree but it does make sense. I shall make sure I have an extra 100 points in my bag should I ever stand opposite Stelek to avoid too bad a seal clubbing.

Funny how such a hobby orientated reasoning to this comes from someone often tagged as a WAAC ruiner of the hobby.

fullheadofhair wrote:

Funny how such a hobby orientated reasoning to this comes from someone often tagged as a WAAC ruiner of the hobby.

Isnt it though?

I am just so darn curious as to the logic behind that decision

Speaking of curious logic, how is it some people are totally okay with wacky missions, sports/comp scoring, or house FAQs (like the INAT) which make major, unnecessary revisions to the rules under the guise of "clarifications", but try to make a big deal over a list being 3 points over? I'd care to wager the former has a much larger negative impact on the game, but people only seem to give a gak about the latter.

It seems like playing by the rules is only important if it's a rule you agree with.



In any case, I'm not trying to say that it was "okay" for Tony to take an illegal list and win with it. But the issue was dealt with, and in a manner which apparently satisfied the other attendees, by all rights it's over and done now. The only people complaining are people who didn't even show up, and you know what that means...if you weren't there, you have no say.

Deadshane1 wrote:

fullheadofhair wrote:

Funny how such a hobby orientated reasoning to this comes from someone often tagged as a WAAC ruiner of the hobby.

Isnt it though?

That was actually meant as a compliment and also meant as a poke at the way that stupid WAAC term is throw at competitive people who just view the same game for a different perspective. Just clarifying, as when I reread what I wrote I realized it didn't sound the way it was meant - it was meant to be a lot nicer.

it's not just the fact that he was allowed to keep the prize/win on his record. it's the fact that it wasn't made known to the general public until asked about here. the only acknowledgement (prior to this thread and its "drama") by the TO was in the comments section of a blog entry in he acknowledged the overage and said "sorry, my bad" with no details as to how it was handled.

nothing in the dozens of posts here by the TO since the event mentioning it... even in the thread talking about how to avoid this very problem...
nothing in the way of an article on the "official" blog for the event...
nothing in the glowing review by danny internets (who knew) of the event he's championing as the perfect competitive format... despite an illegal winner.

the only person who wrote an article about it was on blood of kittens and he's also asking, "why isn't anyone talking about it?". the answer is because it was a concerted effort to not publicize it to the unwashed masses. it was discussed among the finalists and his opponents and a few select others and then just forgotten about. it was said that they didn't want to tarnish the winner's good name and drag him through the mud... how do you think it looks when this news does break (weeks later) and there was no official comment from the "gold standard" competitive tournament despite them knowing about it and having it "taken care of". then, after taking care of it privately, the TO claims that they didn't try to hide it; you can't have your cake and eat it too. christ, its a toy soldier tournament and not the CIA or the mafia. you don't need to take care of your own without outside involvement; it just looks bad when you do. only after the "drama queens" raise the issue here do we find out that the winner recognized the mistake, offered to renounce his win and give up his golden ticket, and the other finalists passed. and we all have dashofpepper to thank for this. if it wasn't his offhand comments about the winner being 3pts over in a different thread and not being happy it (and then switching to being fine with the results here in this thread), we wouldn't know about this. (p.s. dash, did you work in military intelligence in the army? some fine CIA-esque work there, btw.)

Sidstyler wrote:

It seems like playing by the rules is only important if it's a rule you agree with.

That doesn't make sense. If the rules agreed upon are the INAT faq then them be da rules for the tournie. They apply to everyone 100%. As long as a rule set is agreed upon then surely those are the rules. If you are unfortunate enough for them to be the INAT rules they still have to be followed. Same goes for house rules. Whether or not the interpretations are correct is irrelevent regardless of how annoying you think they are - you play 100% by the agreed rule set for the tournie and they apply to everyone.

In any case, I'm not trying to say that it was "okay" for Tony to take an illegal list and win with it. But the issue was dealt with, and in a manner which apparently satisfied the other attendees, by all rights it's over and done now. The only people complaining are people who didn't even show up, and you know what that means...if you weren't there, you have no say.

Nope. As I said before, other attendees opinions are also as worthless in this as mine. It is the rules that count and as I said before if it was Stelek or Wrecking Crew then the hate would have been unending. That is why attendees views are worthless and you stick with the rules - stops the decision being open to complaints of person A is more popular than person B and therefore was treated differently.