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

pretre wrote:Wow. I like how most of the criticism for this event is from people who didn't go. Why not just let folks reminisce about the event and talk about it without being downers? Or start a new thread to talk about scoring.

Because not everyone wants to discuss the same thing as you in the thread on the event. The discussion on the scoring of this event, in the thread of the event, is perfectly acceptable in my mind.

Californiagamer wrote:

Leenus wrote: However, there's definitely a large group of people that did not attend, BECAUSE of the poor scoring system (as evidenced by the need to open up tickets to friends of attendees).

I dont think the lack of better attendance had to with the scoring system as much as the: 1.) no holds barred/no comp scored/all SCs allowed composition system AND the fact it was held on Father's Day weekend.

I'd disagree. I got two invites and passed on both due to the scoring system, and I have three friends that I know of that passed for the same reason. Was this the ONLY reason I didnt go? No. Was it the deciding one? Yes.

It was expensive and a long trip, so that meant to me that unless it was a format I wanted to participate in, I wasn't going to scrape together funds to go.

That isn't meant to trash TOS. I think it could have been better, but as in all cases with these sorts of things, it's personal preference. I didn't like the format, so I didn't attend. There aren't any hard feelings, though I of course do wish it would have been a different format so I could have used my invites. I still applaud GW for putting on the event, it wasn't something they had to do and they seem to have put some serious effort into it.

Like most indy gt's, scoring and format may be a big factor in deciding who goes, but once there, everyone has a good time. I just don't think that the fact that people had a good time should preclude improvements to the scoring system. People had a good time from a fun weekend in vegas with fellow hobbyists/etc it seems, GW could still improve the format to be more inclusive to the entire community.

And although TOS gets a lot of unnecessary hate, I think people shouldn't be so quick to characterize any disagreement with the format as "just hating on it" or "who cares about your opinion, you didn't go". I earned both of my invites BEFORE they released any information on the format. I specifically attended more GT's this year because I wanted to participate in a Vegas finals tournament. I had already in a way spent money to go, and then the format was a let down. It's not as simple as a "no sweat, if you don't like it, don't go".

The scoring system then is more an artifact of 40k pop spread (perhaps due to the massive overepresentation of armies like Guard?) not the ToS.

I didnt see it as that big of a problem in Fantasy. Of course every knew there would be ton of Daemons as they rock with SCs in a Fantasy format but I really reserve judgement until I see the complete results...

The Dwarf guy winning Fantasy was a bit random but need to see the breakdown to comment. How can we comment on scoring when nobody has seen the scores?

I dont see the ToS as any less "evaluative" of player skill than host of Indy GTs which have upwards of 50% soft scores. Best player vote stacking is present at every event with sports scores. Painting is often completely subjective even with a checklist. Comp scoring at least in Fantasy is also subjective and can be easily gamed.

I would say if you were looking for a good games and didnt attend due to the scoring methodology you REALLY missed out.

Californiagamer wrote:The scoring system then is more an artifact of 40k pop spread (perhaps due to the massive overepresentation of armies like Guard?) not the ToS.

I didnt see it as that big of a problem in Fantasy. Of course every knew there would be ton of Daemons as they rock with SCs in a Fantasy format but I really reserve judgement until I see the complete results...

The Dwarf guy winning Fantasy was a bit random but need to see the breakdown to comment. How can we comment on scoring when nobody has seen the scores?

I dont see the ToS as any less "evaluative" of player skill than host of Indy GTs which have upwards of 50% soft scores. Best player vote stacking is present at every event with sports scores. Painting is often completely subjective even with a checklist. Comp scoring at least in Fantasy is also subjective and can be easily gamed.

I would say if you were looking for a good games and didnt attend due to the scoring methodology you REALLY missed out.

My issue was that I could beat every person there, win every game, and 100% not be in the running to win the overall event if the other people that also brought my book did well. That was my major issue with the event, all may not agree, but that was mine.

My point was more to address your "I don't think people actually stayed home because of the format" comment. I think a fair number did stay home due to the format.

1. I did attend, but you don't need to have attended to make any sort of intelligent statement about the tournament.

2. A significant number of people stayed home because of the format. I know ~10 east coast guys (probably more) that regularly attend and WIN east coast GTs and they did not attend, because of the format. Now if that is the case, I'd hope the choice of ToS format gained something at a loss of player attendance. However, I don't think it did. There are always going to be people that won't attend, but there are choices that increase that number and decrease it. ToS decreased it (do not be fooled into thinking that the draws of a FREE, fully food-comped IN VEGAS tournament that was billed at the first GW championships did not artificially inflate the attendance).

I'll give you an example of reasonable cost/benefit decision making. Why did they use "no comp?" My guess is that they don't want to openly admit that their game needs balancing or undertake the difficult task of trying to balance it. So the trade off would be fewer players for not openly admitting their books are poorly balanced and opening that whole can of worms. That I can accept.

Where I get confused is the whole "relative" scoring. That doesn't benefit anyone. Sure, it's their system, but what is the BENEFIT? I struggle to see a net benefit. Maybe they wanted to promote more diverse armies. There are better ways to do that than make overall be decided by your relative standing. Here's a very simple solution that I thought of in 2 seconds that fixes much of the issue. Give best in race awards based on relative in race performance. Give overall based on battle. Is it perfect? No. Is it significantly better than the current system at the cost of 2 seconds of thought? Heck yeah!

I'm not sure why I keep debating this point. I guess I foolishly hope that people will wake up and expect more of their TOs, rather than just settling. With all the money and time that goes into this hobby and for a tournament weekend, we shouldn't be OK accepting of shoddy decision making.

well now Im kicking myself for walking out of there Sunday without a print out of the final overall standing as it appears they arent releasing them (at least arent answering any emails on subject from what I can tell).

Why, Im not sure...

Nothing like your first post on Dakka...

Neway my name is Lincoln Tidwell and I won TOS with a dwarf army. My record was 4-1 and my last game was on table 1. I think I got 2 or 3 best game awards because apparently I'm an enjoyable opponent and my army list wasn't too cheesy.

My first game was against another dwarf player, second was skaven, third dark elves, fourth empire, and fifth dark elves. I won Adepticon last year, finished 4th this year and generally finish in the top of the field at most tournaments our club attends on the east coast. Glad I was able to take it home for Dwarves.... Really didn't want to play my Daemons and my TK are still in the painting booth. Go Dwarves!

www.innercirclegamingclub.com

I think GW intentionally created a tournament that encourages people to bring all the different armies, not cheese it out, and play nicely. That's the best way for them to represent their product. I like all tournament formats and I am glad that there will be at least one large tournament a year that uses a format like Throne of Skulls. The more that the larger 40k tournaments are NOT like each other the better in my opinion. Free thinking and creative tournament organizers make the hobby better, just like a good GM does in a role playing game... they create variety and a myriad of trials to test your imaginary people against.

I'm excited that over the course of the next year+ I will have the opportunity to play in all different types of events from Broadside Bash with comp and other soft things, to Slaughter on the Strip with soft and hard scores fairly equal, to Ironman using ToS format, to Adepticon and NOVA with their much tweeked competitive formats. Variety = Good.

PS Congrats Lincoln!

BladeWalker wrote:I think GW intentionally created a tournament that encourages people to bring all the different armies, not cheese it out, and play nicely.

You do realize that there was NO COMP and no incentive whatsoever to take anything but the hardest possible build within your respective race. Or am I missing something?

The incentive is the playing nicely part, you have to get favorite opponent votes to do well. If you can do that with the hardest possible build then ok, most people that I play don't like to be hit with max hard builds unless you discuss it ahead of time. This tournament basically said, bring your friendly list and have a god time... if someone brought the max build, they were intentionally trying to focus on wins rather than favorite opponent votes and vice versa. I'm not saying you can't be nice and play the best list, but if your opponent plays 5 nice guys is he going to vote for the guy with the max hard list that tabled him or the guy that made it a fun game even when it was in the bag?

Haha, excuse me for focusing on wins at a tournament. Silly I know!

Nevertheless, pretty sure allowing you to take anything in your book, including special characters, is discussing what's allowed ahead of time. Anything is allowed, as sent out pre-tournament by the rules pack. In fact, by not bringing the hardest build you're ruining MY fun, because I roll you with no challenge. If you brought a competitive list then we'd have had a fun, competitive game.

There a 2 sides to the coin. It really depends who you play. I got a best sports vote by essentially tabling a guy bottom of turn 2. The incentive to take a soft list simply isn't there. There is some incentive to coddle people with easily hurt emotions to earn sports votes for sure, but I already said why I think that is a silly thing to have in a tournament many a time.

Maybe you didn't walk around the fantasy side, but there were quite a few double hydras, double flamers / masque, teclises running around (I took double hydras so I'm not saying this is a bad thing). However, if there was such an incentive as you say, I doubt we would have seen such lists.

But Dwarves won Fantasy right? It seems that Lincoln took the right approach to the tournament and won it, while others took a different approach and are upset. The same thing happened in 40k, a new GK list rolled everyone it faced but it lost overall to a BA player with a more balanced list and different approach to the tournament. It IS silly to focus only on wins in the ToS format, it helps but winning at the expense of someone else's good time won't get you very far. I think you are experiencing the incentive to not bring the newer army or nastier combo now... if everyone is playing what you are then you have almost no chance to win best overall. If you are going to try for best overall you have to think outside the box of just "bring the heat", save that for almost every other tournament in the country.

pretre wrote:Wow. I like how most of the criticism for this event is from people who didn't go. Why not just let folks reminisce about the event and talk about it without being downers? Or start a new thread to talk about scoring.

I agree.

Let's talk rematches. I had a really close and fun game with Toby and his Eldar which I would love a rematch on. Anyone else?

I want a rematch with you, Dugg! My wolves are still embarrassed by their one and only tabeling to your Orks!

@ Reece ANYTIME BROTHER!!!!!

Let's get together outside of a Tournament, get some drinks and play a 2 out of 3 rematch. What do you say?

Btw, I'll bring my "I TABLED REECE" T-Shirt to the BAO ;-)

Hahaha, sounds good to me!

Anyone get a response from GW if/when (and where) the overall standings would be released? Ive sent a few emails and only got the sound of silence.

thanks.

I always love hearing from the players who's whole goal in this game is to bring the biggest dick-hammer army and then claim their win record is based on anything else...

If you want a no comp, no sport tournament where you can bring the cheesiest possible army meant to win games for you without the need for skill, well, GW already has that. It is called 'Ard Boyz. So please feel free to enjoy it.

As for any tournament other that 'Ard Boyz, some system is used to force players to take toned down list, use their actual skill, and win.

The fact that GW gave total free will in the tournament (all SCs allowed, etc) yet put in a system of control works well. If you can not play without the d-bag hammer, then take your hammer. Just hope that someone does not do equally well as you while not being a d-bag.

The only valid complaint i heard and agree with is the lack of Battle points to differential wins. It encouraged people to just simply go for the minor victory... though to truly do a mission with battle points would require them stepping outside the 3 basic missions from the book. I truly hope to see mission diversity and a battle point system instituted into ToS 2012

If you want a no comp, no sport tournament where you can bring the cheesiest possible army meant to win games for you without the need for skill, well, GW already has that. It is called 'Ard Boyz. So please feel free to enjoy it.

The 'Ard Boyz finals was one of the qualifying events for this tournament, just fyi, in addition to many other tournaments that did not feature comp or sportsmanship scores.

Also, from what I understand about it, the format didn't really do anything to curb so-called "cheese" on a list-by-list basis, only on a codex-by-codex basis. If you brought a pure fluff Space Wolf army, for instance, you still were competing against all of the completely optimized Space Wolf players.

Californiagamer wrote:Anyone get a response from GW if/when (and where) the overall standings would be released? Ive sent a few emails and only got the sound of silence.

thanks.

Doesn't always happen quickly. Figure that Ed and his crew got back sometime Monday. At some point after that they doublecheck the results, and send them off to "guy who controls the website". At this point it gets added to his workload and goes up on web depending on what else is going on that week.

I'd assume they'll be up soon. They probably have 50+ people emailing them over and over asking about the same thing, which is why you aren't getting replies. Give it a few days.

Themason wrote:I always love hearing from the players who's whole goal in this game is to bring the biggest dick-hammer army and then claim their win record is based on anything else...

If you want a no comp, no sport tournament where you can bring the cheesiest possible army meant to win games for you without the need for skill, well, GW already has that. It is called 'Ard Boyz. So please feel free to enjoy it.

As for any tournament other that 'Ard Boyz, some system is used to force players to take toned down list, use their actual skill, and win.

The fact that GW gave total free will in the tournament (all SCs allowed, etc) yet put in a system of control works well. If you can not play without the d-bag hammer, then take your hammer. Just hope that someone does not do equally well as you while not being a d-bag.

The only valid complaint i heard and agree with is the lack of Battle points to differential wins. It encouraged people to just simply go for the minor victory... though to truly do a mission with battle points would require them stepping outside the 3 basic missions from the book. I truly hope to see mission diversity and a battle point system instituted into ToS 2012

I'd say all of the players you're trying to lump together in this thread have had well spoken, valid complaints. Meanwhile, your 'defense' of TOS and personal crusade on people who think a better competitive system is possible while still having fun, is actually full of personal attacks and if one had to qualify it, would probably call it pretty d-baggy.

Just an observation.

Themason wrote:As for any tournament other that 'Ard Boyz, some system is used to force players to take toned down list, use their actual skill, and win.

The common misconception is when you both take the hardest possible lists, the game takes no skill. That should actually be the time when skill is MOST important, as the relative power difference is minimized. If you are forced to take a toned down list, two things happen.

1. You take the hardest possible list within the requirements and so does your opponent. You arrive at the same situation as if there was no comp, as players have the "hardest list possible." While armies are not as good as the totally comp-less armies, they are just as strong when you compare them to the rest of the field.

2. You create games that require LESS skill to win, because there are greater mismatches in relative army strength. One guy tones it down a little and one guy tones it down a lot (because they have different ideas on what toning down means). Now the guy that toned it down less steamrolls the other guy, because the other guy took an even softer list. Soft comp (player/judge graded) makes this mismatch gap even wider, as certain people value certain combinations extremely differently, allowing power lists to slip through the cracks and encouraging people to create a wider gap between armies.


The games that require the most skill to win are when the power level of the armies are equal. Whether that is kairos and 12 flamers or no magic and 100% core. What matters is that people take strongest combinations within the restrictions so as to minimize relative army power.

No comp DOES NOT EQUAL no skill. That doesn't mean you can't have HARD comp, to change the units that people use, but you should not be encouraging people to increase the army mismatch percentage.

mikhaila wrote:

Californiagamer wrote:Anyone get a response from GW if/when (and where) the overall standings would be released? Ive sent a few emails and only got the sound of silence.

thanks.

Doesn't always happen quickly. Figure that Ed and his crew got back sometime Monday. At some point after that they doublecheck the results, and send them off to "guy who controls the website". At this point it gets added to his workload and goes up on web depending on what else is going on that week.

I'd assume they'll be up soon. They probably have 50+ people emailing them over and over asking about the same thing, which is why you aren't getting replies. Give it a few days.

Yah youre right. Dont know if its just my web browser but it appears they took down the ToS Coverage this am and are updating perhaps. http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=&categoryId=300002§ion=community&pIndex=0&aId=15000018a&start=1&multiPageMode=true

just impatient to see what the overall breakdown was.

Themason wrote:I always love hearing from the players who's whole goal in this game is to bring the biggest dick-hammer army and then claim their win record is based on anything else...

If you want a no comp, no sport tournament where you can bring the cheesiest possible army meant to win games for you without the need for skill, well, GW already has that. It is called 'Ard Boyz. So please feel free to enjoy it.

As for any tournament other that 'Ard Boyz, some system is used to force players to take toned down list, use their actual skill, and win.

The fact that GW gave total free will in the tournament (all SCs allowed, etc) yet put in a system of control works well. If you can not play without the d-bag hammer, then take your hammer. Just hope that someone does not do equally well as you while not being a d-bag.

The only valid complaint i heard and agree with is the lack of Battle points to differential wins. It encouraged people to just simply go for the minor victory... though to truly do a mission with battle points would require them stepping outside the 3 basic missions from the book. I truly hope to see mission diversity and a battle point system instituted into ToS 2012

George, you're my friend, but give me a fething break. You play a balls out Blood Angels list. You take min/maxed dev squads, Mephiston, death company, assault squads, etc. You have no ground to stand on from the point of taking "skilled" armies.

The book missions are the most balanced missions out there. They allow armies that aren't able to crush other armies to win by going for minor victories. That is game balance and that does require skill.

When you use battle points it does stratify the field more, but it also encourages people to bring armies capable of crushing the other army as that is the only way to win the tournament. That means less army diversity. By using book missions, a wider variety of armies are able to compete by getting equal points for earning a minor victory which armies like Tau, Crons, etc. are only capable of pulling off in most cases. That is a good thing. It requires more tactics than simply taking a top tier list and it encourages people to bring a wider variety of lists.

I got a spreadsheet of the results a few minutes ago, it appears it was emailed to all the participants. Let's all meet in Vegas for Neoncon/Slaughter on the Strip in November, I'm sure there is more trouble we can get in somehow...

Speaking of the results sheet, did anyone else notice anything off on it? Either one of my opponents lied when he told me (unsolicited) that he had given me his best player vote, or it wasn't counted for some reason. Had it been counted, I would have gotten best Tyranid player.

I got the email too...Wow there were in fact 10 Eldar, 11 IG, 10 SW, 10 SM and the rest of the armies represented were smaller in number, who would have thunk? Plus, ALL of the Eldar players that got above 10 (except for me) did so because of 2-3 Favorite opponent votes... Way to throw off the average guys! Eldar had best sports in general =).

Good job pointy ear players! I'm trying to figure out why there were 5 Daemon players on Saturday and only 3 showing up on the final sheet. At first I thought it was because they dropped but I see players from a few other factions that did not play at all on Sunday, and their average was factored into the overall for their faction. If those other two players were still counted my overall may have been much higher. I totally understand why they would drop them from the scoring if they were just solid zero scores but it seems like if you drop a player for not being there Sunday you would drop all the players that weren't there Sunday?

It's interesting how much favorite votes played a part in that system (and day two drops), way more than I thought. One interesting thing is that the more Fav Op votes people of your race got, the more the average got pushed up, which meant that the nicer the other people with your army were (or more pity votes they got) the worse chance you actually had of winning. So, not only could you get hosed by people playing the same army doing well, but by being nice people too. So, the best option is apparently to play a medium army that is played by a bunch of jerks, haha.

Yeah, Phazael, the favorite opponent votes killed the Eldar (and probably every other armies) average and brought it up to 9.22 (it probably would have been between 5-6 if not for that...Everything else was something like 4-7 average except for Orks that got freakishly high scores (avg was 12+).

On the bright side, even with 3 favorite opponent votes, the best the other eldar could have done is tie me if I didn't get any favorite opponent votes but I was lucky and got 2 myself...

I think it would have been better to not have favorite opponent votes count for overall standing and just count them for tie breakers or something. Oh well, it was a very fun tourny that's for sure, I hope everyone else had a great time!

I was surprised how well Orks did. They seem to have had the highest consistent scores.

5 Ork Players:

[2] 4W/0L/1D
[1] 4W/1L/0D
[1] 3W/2L
[1] 2W/2L/1D

Or, to put it another way:

Top battle scores:
15 x1 (GK)
13 x4 (Orks x2, BA, GK, IG)
12 x5 (Eldar, GK, Ork, SM, SW)

60% of Ork players had battle scores in the top 10. 40% in the top 5.

Reese, you obviously need to switch to Orks with us.