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.

Agreed 100% with Dash.

If you call it a tournament then award the tickets to the people who win the tournament, not the people who win the hobby competition.

As for ties, the guy who ran our club's last tournament had a good solution for this without having to rely on soft scores. He totaled up the battle points of the tied players' opponents and gave the win to the person who had a higher total. The reasoning was that the person with the higher total likely faced better opponents and thus displayed more skill to earn his score. Is it a perfect metric for scoring? Certainly not, but it works well as a simple tie-breaker.

Danny Internets wrote:As for ties, the guy who ran our club's last tournament had a good solution for this without having to rely on soft scores. He totaled up the battle points of the tied players' opponents and gave the win to the person who had a higher total. The reasoning was that the person with the higher total likely faced better opponents and thus displayed more skill to earn his score. Is it a perfect metric for scoring? Certainly not, but it works well as a simple tie-breaker.

I love this. This is a fantastic idea. I want to have its babies.

Iron_Chaos_Brute wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:As for ties, the guy who ran our club's last tournament had a good solution for this without having to rely on soft scores. He totaled up the battle points of the tied players' opponents and gave the win to the person who had a higher total. The reasoning was that the person with the higher total likely faced better opponents and thus displayed more skill to earn his score. Is it a perfect metric for scoring? Certainly not, but it works well as a simple tie-breaker.

I love this. This is a fantastic idea. I want to have its babies.

Strength of schedule tiebreakers and it's variants are routinely used in chess and magic: the gathering tournaments.

I also use it in my RTT's as the second tiebreaker (behind head to head).

I had a bad experience with strength of opponent scheduling the only time I've seen it used. It was at an RTT last year, and at the end of the third round, I was 3-0, and there was a second player 3-0. He won based on strength of schedule....and I can't remember the exact details, but I was bitter for not winning because the other guy was absolutely not my equal on the battlefield. I got paired up against him during the first round of the next RTT (same lists) and tabled him (I was running mech orks and he was running nob bikers)

@dash, what would you prefer instead as a tiebreaker? Rather than VPs of opponenets perhaps just compare total VPs earned by the players in the tie?

This poor thread has gotten derailed, hasn't it? However, I will say that I just want to say that I like Danny Internets. He wants to play the same kind of tourneys that I do.

I despise RTTs, which means that I will never play in any kind of tourney that incorporates soft scoring. I just want my little plastic girls to kick the crap out of your little plastic dudes and I think if I do that 3 times and win, I should win the tourney.

The reason I don't like soft scores is because I don't like subjective scores. I think my pink orks are painted awesome. I think they're art; and so like with any art, if you don't like mine, you can go jump in a lake. It may not be Van Gogh, but maybe it's Andy Warhol or Jackon Pollack. Does everyone like them all? Maybe not. Is one better than the other?? Opinion. I don't like scores based on someone else's opinion. I don't wash my models because I don't want anything detracting from the brightness. I like my pastelly colors. Do I think they're better than some Golden Demon winner? Heck yeah, because it's the style I like. It's my opinion. I'm not entering a painting competition because I know I would be scored lower than someone who washes and junk. That's fine, that's not what I'm interested in.

I also don't like someone having control over my sportsmanship. Newsflash! Not everyone likes everyone else and who says they have to? There have been people I have played with that I just don't get along with. Our personalities clash. Did I like playing that person? Um no. That stuff happens in life. Do I like the fact that it's possible that they would be downgrading my score because we didn't communicate well or whatever? Well, that's why I don't play in these kinds of tourneys.

You should be rewarded for the fact that you're a superior tactician and you know how to play the list you wrote. Winning your games and then losing overall is an insult. It's happened to Dash a few times and so has turned me off to tourneys as they are ruled now.

I could go on and on about more things (like comp) however I'll cut my ramble short. I will say that a true general will be able to win no matter the pairing. Comp is lame.

--Dodiez (aka Mrs. Dash)

The problem with strength of schedule tiebreakers is twofold: First, more often than not, the two players should have played each other already, rendering it pointless unless they tied. Second, it puts things back into the luck of the draw catagory.

And, seriously, overalls have existed since the first GTs. The only tournament to run entirely on BP is Hard Boyz, and its plagued with rampant assclownery and unpainted (and occasionally illegally converted) armies. This is not something any club wants its name associated with, sorry. I am not a fan of soft scores, either, but they do force certain social cripples to behave themselves, when used in propper moderate levels. In practice, two guys running tough lists who behave are going to render the comp scores a wash. Its there for people who can't behave themselves and feel like their $65 entitles them to treat other people like crap. If you can't accept this Danny, then have fun at the Hard Boyz and lurking at YesTheButtHurts, because the reality of who buys tickets in SoCal differs greatly from the vocal few on the Interwebs.

Phazael wrote:The problem with strength of schedule tiebreakers is twofold: First, more often than not, the two players should have played each other already, rendering it pointless unless they tied. Second, it puts things back into the luck of the draw catagory.

In a 3 game tourney, it'd be used more thana 5. However, luck of the draw category also includes determining by comp (Who is lucky enough to know the specifics of how it's being scored) or sports (Who ran into opponents that score better than average) or anything else. (Even VP's can be lucky...If you had an extremely good matchup for your army and got a lot of VP's, you score higher than if you had a harder fight and had to work harder for a smaller win?)

Dashofpepper wrote:I had a bad experience with strength of opponent scheduling the only time I've seen it used. It was at an RTT last year, and at the end of the third round, I was 3-0, and there was a second player 3-0. He won based on strength of schedule....and I can't remember the exact details, but I was bitter for not winning because the other guy was absolutely not my equal on the battlefield. I got paired up against him during the first round of the next RTT (same lists) and tabled him (I was running mech orks and he was running nob bikers)

Hmm... Bitter? -1 for Sportsmanship HAHAHA!

Dashofpepper wrote:I had a bad experience with strength of opponent scheduling the only time I've seen it used. It was at an RTT last year, and at the end of the third round, I was 3-0, and there was a second player 3-0. He won based on strength of schedule....and I can't remember the exact details, but I was bitter for not winning because the other guy was absolutely not my equal on the battlefield. I got paired up against him during the first round of the next RTT (same lists) and tabled him (I was running mech orks and he was running nob bikers)

If you don't actually play the other player this kind of stuff is going to happen either way. Luck can get involved regardless of what kind of tiebreaker you are using. Battle point scoring systems actually do the exact opposite; You are actually rewarded for playing bad players which yield blowout wins as opposed to good players who force ties or minor victory's.

Battle point scoring instead of w/l/d scoring has a lesser chance to result in a tie between two players, but it opens up a host of other inequalities such as rewarding reckless play, or playing glass hammer armies. VP tiebreakers can do the same thing. Certain armies excel in that kind of scoring format while other armies are needlessly punished. I actually wrote an extensive article about this on my blog.

Long story short, in a 3rd round tournament with swiss pairings there is a good chance you're going to have to go to tiebreakers. I think strength of schedule is more fair than VP's since it treats every army equally, where VP's strongly favor certain armies or styles of play.

Ties do happen. The 5ed rulebook tells us to use VPs for tie breakers so I think that can work for bp missions.

G

The only tournament to run entirely on BP is Hard Boyz, and its plagued with rampant assclownery and unpainted (and occasionally illegally converted) armies.

I've been playing in 'Ard Boyz for years now and I've never come across this so-called "rampant assclownery." In fact, the only time I've had even a mildly unpleasant game was in a tournament that had sportsmanship scoring. Furthermore, 'Ard Boyz requires all models to be WYSIWYG, so if "illegally converted" armies are participating it is because the tournament organizers aren't enforcing the rules.

I am not a fan of soft scores, either, but they do force certain social cripples to behave themselves, when used in propper moderate levels.

This is the THIRD time I'm asking you now: what evidence do you have to support this argument? You keep repeating different variations of this mantra but that doesn't make it true. Clearly, you have very strong negative opinions about tournament players in general and a whole network of assumptions stemming from this prejudice. Other organizers are able to run fun, well-received events with 40+ players without relying on the crutch that is soft scores, so it's clearly possible to do so. If you perceive players' attitudes to be such a problem perhaps you need to step it up and run your tournaments better.

If you can't accept this Danny, then have fun at the Hard Boyz and lurking at YesTheButtHurts, because the reality of who buys tickets in SoCal differs greatly from the vocal few on the Interwebs.

What steps have you taken to assess this so-called reality of who buys tickets? Did you administer a survey? Systematically interview participants? I'm curious, again, as to what evidence you have for making these claims. How exactly do you know that those who buy tickets wouldn't be interested in the kind of event I've described? I understand that you have a tendency to ignore difficult questions, but I think they are of great value to this discussion.

Bad things happen at 'Ard Boyz because you have TOs running the event who aren't well-equipped to run a 40k event.

But having recently been to the SVDM, Mike announced at the beginning that despite there not being a sportsmanship score, he expected everyone to act like an adult (which is why he didn't have a sportsmanship score). You know what? There weren't any problems, and no one complained after the event about sportsmanship.

Exclude 'Ard Boyz; its a remotely organized, decentrally run event being supervised by random LGS owners.

Can you point to any Indy event that DIDN'T have sportsmanship scoring, and ass-clownery was rife? Probably not. And if you *can* show me a tournament with sportsmanship problems, then I can probably show you a TO who didn't do their job.

I wouldn't even call it a crutch - it is simply a weapon to be abused by players, and does not have the ability to be more. In the heat of the moment, when two competitive people are hashing out a game, and someone is losing (which competitive players never like), emotions ramp up, and I honestly don't believe a fair sportsmanship score is likely. In fact, I think I've only met one person who can table me (and he trounces me regularly and is responsible for basically all/most the losses in my signature)

Socal team:

Friend and I are playtesting missions, and a couple glaring weaknesses have arisen:

1. In the Slaughter style reverse killpoints where what you have left alive at the end is your killpoints towards victory, there's a glaring opportunity for abuse: Since dedicated transports don't count towards killpoints, then there's no reason that people can't reserve their entire army and leave all the transports on the table (Mechanized IG and razorback spam get clear advantages here) and have 9-15 units on the table that don't count towards game purposes wrecking havoc on the enemy army. There's HUGE broken-ness here.

2. The 4 objective mission where you have two and the opponent has two is also something of an auto-win for mechanized list. You place objectives before deployment, and since you don't know where you will be on the table, you kind of have to place them in the middle. IG with Emperor's Tarot have an advantage here - or any mechanized list that goes first - they can be out on the objective during the scout move, or even during the first turn, then disembarked and automatically killing the objective. Infiltrators get the same thing. There's SERIOUS hosing in progress for armies without infiltrators (My Orks and DE don't have any), and the armies that can modify who goes first or put infantry models out on the table during a scout move (IG for both, DE for the former) are at a huge advantage.

I think both of those missions are significantly broken and need reworking.

For mission three, if you were to require the infantry models to be holding the objective for a full game turn, that at least gives opponents a chance to react. Or have to hold it for two game turns.

But something is seriously wrong with these two.


*EDIT* I've booked my transcontinental flight, my hotel, have plans in motion, my wife is going to Disneyland while I'm out there.....but if the missions go into play as is, I think I'm going to regret the trip. You've got four missions seriously broken, and slewed towards mechanized IG. They don't need more help.

Mission 2 isn't Slaughter Style KP's. Though deploying only transports is a concern that should be taken into consideration.

The 4 objective mission is already being reworked so that it's clearly stated that the objectives are placed after deployment.

And so far all I can see is 2 missions that need a little work Dash. What were the other 2 ?

::Edit::

On further thought I don't even see if the guard player starts all in reserve with his troop units and only puts out transports and other FOC slots as being that big a deal. It actually means I don't have to worry about vets w/melta's and plasma's eating units from the safety of their transports and it allows me to focus just on their other scorable units. Makes rushing a mech gun line easier since they won't have the extra shots from inside to eat those landraiders and battlewagons. Yes they can keep a few more units safe but so can most armies if they choose to go this route. I think this is more of a mountain out of a molehill situation. Some missions are going to slightly favor 1 of the 10+ codexes out there than others. This one happens to help guard while the 4 objective one hurts them just as badly.

Also since the 4 objective mission is being changed so that they are deployed after zones are determined I think a single player turn is actually the right way to go. Clearing a space in the enemy deployment zone is hard enough. Keeping units from driving back and contesting it will keep the number of ties down.

<-- Mech IG!!! BAM.. doh, there goes my comp score

Glad to hear they are fixing the 4 objective mission.. I will admit against some armies my list is an auto-win, through no fault of my opponent, if I go first. I would hate to be in that situation, even as an auto-win it really detracts from the gaming experience as either the winner or the loser. For those that ever played MTG its basically like the situation Flash Hulk decks created, and hence why some of the cards that enabled Flash Hulk were restricted. Flip a coin, heads, yay, I win.

@Absoluteblue

If someone doesn't bring enough anti-tank in the current environment knowing how prevalent and nasty Mech IG can be then I don't really blame the Mech IG guy. The only army I feel slightly bad about is Nid's if you go first. Everyone else has the tools to deal with mech guard. And Necrons are an auto-lose against a lot of lists out there so unless you hit a 3 monolith army Absolute that might be a walk too

Personal experience only though. Grain of salt and all that

Hulksmash wrote:@Absoluteblue

If someone doesn't bring enough anti-tank in the current environment knowing how prevalent and nasty Mech IG can be then I don't really blame the Mech IG guy. The only army I feel slightly bad about is Nid's if you go first. Everyone else has the tools to deal with mech guard. And Necrons are an auto-lose against a lot of lists out there so unless you hit a 3 monolith army Absolute that might be a walk too

Personal experience only though. Grain of salt and all that

Apparently not DE.

I think DE can work. But I prefer wych cult to kabal. I also like haywire grenades

My limited experience with DE was that it seemed to depend on mission. (and assumes a good DE list)

With regards to Necrons, of course now that you say that I will show up and get crushed by Necrons

@Dash-
The KP alive mission is not Slaugher KP (the last mission is the only one that uses Slaughter KP). We may be dropping the dedicated transport thing because of Blood Angels getting dedicated LRs, anyhow. Final decission will be rendered this wednesday and the scenario updates will be considered final at that time.

The sabotage the objective mission should have stated placing objectives after sides are chosen and it will require units to be disembarked out of transports to accomplish the sabotage. It is difficult for some armies to defend objectives, but you can assign multiple units to the task, since all you need to do is contest it to keep it from being popped.

But as it stands at least they don't count if they are alive or dead. If you start counting dedicated transports then it's an even bigger bonus for mech armies since they'll have 20+ units on the table.

Oh and you should edit mission 4 for placement of the objectives as well (i.e. after deployment zones are determined). And dedicated transports should count in this one since it'll actually make it so one missions it's good to have lots of transports and one mission that it's bad. Especially if you take the dedicated transports not counting out of the second mission.

My *apparently not DE* snipe was aimed at the assertion *everyone has the tools to handle mechanized IG except Necrons* comment.

I've decided that taking DE to the SoCal slaughter is probably a bad idea, despite how much I love them for three reasons.

1. I'm told that mechanized IG is a popular build in and around LA and the events in Cally.

2. The missions to me seem (or did seem) a bit unfairly skewed in the favor of mechanized IG players. Hulksmash tells me that some of them are being reworded and added rules going in...this should all help.

3. DE can't effectively answer mechanized IG. At 2,000 points my "take all comers" list has 15 dark lances, 8 blasters, and 9 disintegrator cannons. I could try building specifically to kill mechanized guard and give up my disintegrators (thereby gimping myself to a good extent against horde, tyranids, and space marines), but that would defeat the idea of a take-all-comers list. Even if I go first (and I use a nightmare doll to try stacking the odds), my 15 dark lances against all those AV12 chimeras / vendettas etc get an average of 4 glances on the first turn. I might blow up a chimera or a vendetta somewhere. And in return, a vast array of multi-lasers with as much range as I have, some added lascannons and autocannons, and probably a manticore and maybe some hydra flak cannons are going to absolutely annihilate my AV10 open-topped mess in return. Seems to happen pretty much every time. ><

Put those three things together, and you have an obvious rock to my scissors that is a popular build in the area around the GT, missions unfavorable to my scissors but favorable to that rock and the conclusion is that L.A. is instead going to be visited by the plague that is my Pink Waaaugh!

Dashofpepper wrote:
3. DE can't effectively answer mechanized IG. At 2,000 points my "take all comers" list has 15 dark lances, 8 blasters, and 9 disintegrator cannons. I could try building specifically to kill mechanized guard and give up my disintegrators (thereby gimping myself to a good extent against horde, tyranids, and space marines), but that would defeat the idea of a take-all-comers list. Even if I go first (and I use a nightmare doll to try stacking the odds), my 15 dark lances against all those AV12 chimeras / vendettas etc get an average of 4 glances on the first turn. I might blow up a chimera or a vendetta somewhere. And in return, a vast array of multi-lasers with as much range as I have, some added lascannons and autocannons, and probably a manticore and maybe some hydra flak cannons are going to absolutely annihilate my AV10 open-topped mess in return. Seems to happen pretty much every time.

Agreed. If your average is 4 glances/pens, then you got the best of averages against me (dead Chim, dead Vend, 2 Chims w/out MLs)...and we both remember what happened next

You need to have dedicated transports as kill points.

The reason why is that it is such a huge advantage to Mech Armies. It is hard to kill transports, and then you have to kill the guys inside of it to get one kill point? Razorback spam Space Wolves are a brutal army, and then when you try to kill the troops, they just hide behind some cover.

The other reason why is that some armies get to have things like Land Raiders as dedicated transports, and they are so hard to kill, and dish out a lot of damage, and then not have them as a kill point seems wrong.

Blackmoor wrote:You need to have dedicated transports as kill points.

The reason why is that it is such a huge advantage to Mech Armies. It is hard to kill transports, and then you have to kill the guys inside of it to get one kill point? Razorback spam Space Wolves are a brutal army, and then when you try to kill the troops, they just hide behind some cover.

The other reason why is that some armies get to have things like Land Raiders as dedicated transports, and they are so hard to kill, and dish out a lot of damage, and then not have them as a kill point seems wrong.

You're missing half the conversation, Allan - one of the missions goes to the player with the most KP left alive. So a mech Guard player would start with 28 or so KP, versus a Tyranid's 10....

Yeah, it's mission 4 where transports need to be KP's or at least count toward immobolized/destroyed units and mission 2(?) where it's a good idea to exclude them since it's reverse KP's.

I didn't realize we were following someone at all when we decided to give Vegas tix to the best general.

I assumed every tournament was doing this, but it was an independent decision. There aren't any leaders or followers in the indy tourney circuit, or at least I hope there aren't.

Random,
- Mike B, NOVA Open TO

Didn't mean it like you were a follower. More that more of the circuit is moving in that direction MVB. I'm glad the practice is spreading either thru independent decision, feedback, or seeing how other people are doing it.

Hulksmash wrote:Yeah, it's mission 4 where transports need to be KP's or at least count toward immobolized/destroyed units and mission 2(?) where it's a good idea to exclude them since it's reverse KP's.

Blackmoor's objection is still sound.

If a space wolf player has 9 razorbacks and 9 additional units for those razorbacks.....


In regular killpoints (excluding transports) you have to break your way through 9 razorbacks which don't count for killpoints to get to the nine units inside.

In reverse killpoints (excluding transports) you have to break your way through 9 razorbacks which don't count for killpoints to get to the nine units inside.


There's no difference - only the units inside count for anything, and you have to break your way through an armored shell to kill what's inside. Except in reverse killpoints, breaking through the armored shell doesn't give you any value. I'm being perfectly honest - MSU armies and fully meched up IG/SW/Mechdar DO NOT NEED MORE HELP!!!

These missions are giving it to them. Some changes were supposed to come out today to make them a bit less abusive, but stuff like this is taking the two best codexes in the game, and customizing a GT entirely to their benefit. I'm serious, I'm already not taking the army I wanted to because the GT is structured to benefit the single army out there (mech IG) most capable of killing me, and my reserve army (Orks) is at a disadvantage in my eyes because my lack of reliable ranged anti-tank is being exploited in the foundation of this GT's design.

See the threads wondering why there weren't any orks or Tyranids at Adepticon? I think you're going to see a repeat, where 50%+ of all your lists are mechanized IG or mechanized razorback spam, with 30% of the rest being other marine players who couldn't afford that many vehicles, and a smattering of Xenox. And these overpowered codexes now have a tournament full of missions designed to benefit them.

Nice.

I'm still coming. =p But its my right to whine when I see something unfair.