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.

I wonder why attendance was so low, Game Empire in Pasadena got more than that a couple of RTTs ago, and this event was drawing people from the Bay Area.

 Dugg wrote:
I think the Missions favor a balanced list. I think the small model count DeathStar lists have a tough time, which is a good thing.

Like my Tyranids, or your armies, or...oh, wait!

It is an interesting observation. It'd be fun* to take the results of all BAO-style events and really crunch the numbers on them, and see what pops out. Because it is a win/loss format, you don't have to dominate; you can play to your army's strengths. So an IG army doesn't have any mission that they MUST advance far out of their deployment zone, provided they can win on either KP or Crusade/Seize Ground objectives. But it is very matchup driven, as all single-elimination formats pretty much have to be; the DE list that beat my Tyranids went down in flames to Vinnie's IG, but I'm fairly confident my bugs would have been a rougher matchup for Vinnie.

*For certain definitions of "fun."

@ Janthkin Yeah, I would have loved to play vs Vinnie too. I think my list could have done well vs his, maybe next time.

btw, I really liked your list. and if you wouldn't have pooped out you would have totally swarmed over me as well. I'm still shacking my head over your Doom of malan'tai and his "walk in the park" along my back line. HAHA

I thought I could give Vinnie a good matchup too with tank hunting dark lances, but I screwed up against DE and never got the chance.

 mikkoboi wrote:

It's covered by the 2+ rerollable saves probably... lol. Breaching drills are mean. They almost wiped out my harlies.

Dark Eldar don't have rerollable 2+ saves....leastways not on their own... just sayin'

@Hulk and Overwatch

Of course the game is not balanced, I assumed that was a given.

I think where we differ is in how we define balance. A balanced system (or perhaps, perfectly balanced as there is not other kind of balance) is a system in which any list has equal chances of beating any other list.

That quite simply isn't the case.

No game is balanced though, even in Chess the player going first has a slightly higher chance of winning.

My point was that it really changes anything that much other than to mitigate Flyers and give the weaker armies a nice boost.

This wasn't a statement on Comp at all, we don't use comp because we believe that a player should try to overcome the imbalances through clever list building and tactics as opposed to forcing everyone else to play the way they want to play.

Comp and game balance are two very different ideas in my mind, although I can see how a lot of folks see them as similar.

@Blackmoor

A lot of our regular guys couldn't make it: Christian, Face Puncher, Stave Stiff, Dave Fay, Warboss Russ, etc. as they all had other obligations.

As to general attendance, we're stumped, too. This is without a doubt one of the coolest events we do. It should be huge, and next year we're going to push hard to get awareness up. It's just too awesome of an event to not grow, so much cool stuff going on!

@Dok

That's a good question. I think there are too many variables in play to say that any one list will dominate. The players winning with IG are also very, very good players.

Our missions format is not that much different than book missions. The only thing we don't have is The Relic, which I could see an argument being made would help IG.

I think building a list that can get into the other player's lines reliably would be smart. I have found the key to beating IG, particularly a list like Vince's, is to get into assault with them. They will fold if you do.

I agree that Janthkin would have given him a good fight. Also, Vince played Raw Dogger's Blood Angels and it came down to the last throw of the dice with Vince's MoO scattering onto an scoring unit and killing them. He had several very close games, it wasn't a wipe out by any means.

 Reecius wrote:
Our missions format is not that much different than book missions. The only thing we don't have is The Relic, which I could see an argument being made would help IG.

Yes...and also no. Yes, you use the same criteria as the book missions. But having all three active means that you can safely ignore certain mission types sometimes. For example, Capture & Control/The Emperor's Will: when this is the ONLY objective, you have to play for it, or you end up with a tie (or relying on the secondary points). When it's only one of three mission objectives, even if it's the highest-value one, I can safely choose to ignore it (aside from securing my own objective). So long as that objective is canceled out, I can focus on something easier for my army to accomplish, be it KPs or Seize Ground objectives.

I'm not complaining, and it's not a "bad" mission structure by any means, but it is a bit different in terms of what army works best, and how you play the mission. You don't need quite as much mobility, if you're certain you never really HAVE to get into your opponent's Hammer & Anvil deployment zone; you don't need to aggressively advance your footguard as much, either.

Time, by the way, felt pretty good to me. Didn't make it to random game length rolls in all my games, but every game made it to at least turn 5.

Good points.

True, it is not the book missions solely, but we honestly feel the book missions as they are are not the best suited for tournament play. They are too narrow in focus. Layered missions allow for flexibility in play, but when we have missions that are very similar, as you noted, it also leads to a certain amount of predictability.

One thing we have been toying with is an alternate structure wherein we incorporate 3 different book missios per game, such as Relic, Big Guns Never Tire and Purge the Alien, for example and vary the combinations every round.

That would mix things up a bit and stay true to our format, but also mitigate the really bad match-ups that can come as a result of straight book missions.

Also, check out this cool cosplay video from Comikaze, guys!

http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2012/09/18/comikaze-cosplay-video-very-cool/

 Blackmoor wrote:
I wonder why attendance was so low, Game Empire in Pasadena got more than that a couple of RTTs ago, and this event was drawing people from the Bay Area.

Painting reqs + new edition prevented me from going, but I only manage to get to half a dozen tournaments all year.

I found that the mission did lend itself well to heart troops, which is a good things.

In all the BAO games I have played, people being able to get through my Boyz squads was always an issue, and made my Wagon rush very viable, where as basic book missions were a lot harder for me.

Grats on the win Vince!

 Reecius wrote:
True, it is not the book missions solely, but we honestly feel the book missions as they are are not the best suited for tournament play. They are too narrow in focus. Layered missions allow for flexibility in play, but when we have missions that are very similar, as you noted, it also leads to a certain amount of predictability.

No disagreement here; I like having multiple ways to win.

One thing we have been toying with is an alternate structure wherein we incorporate 3 different book missios per game, such as Relic, Big Guns Never Tire and Purge the Alien, for example and vary the combinations every round.

That would mix things up a bit and stay true to our format, but also mitigate the really bad match-ups that can come as a result of straight book missions.

Try that. Also try straight VPs, with all those objectives in play - every unit is a VP, each secondary is a VP, every objective is 3 VPs (unless The Scouring, in which case random values on those middle objectives). I'm curious to see if 6e needs the "multiple ways to win" separated and/or point-normalized (which is what the current format does), or if a simple combined VP approach built on the skeleton of the book missions would function. Hell, even The Relic might work, if it's just 3 more VPs up for grabs.

Regarding attendance; SOCAL Slaughter is this next weekend. 2 major events back to back pretty much kills most peoples budgets. I would expect the Slaughter will also see a lower than normal turnout as people who travelled to LA last weekend are now tapped out to make another trip (gas, food, hotel, etc) so soon.

@Reece I always support you guys and I love the tournys you put on but I have only one critiqe. When I first started going to GT's I really liked getting a paint score at the end. I work really hard painting my army (I enjoy painting) and like seeing my scores get better as I progress. I have never recieved a paint score at your events or seen any posted for any of the best painted/rennasance man. It really should be more transparent, plus if you make a prize for it and require every one to a certain standard then you owe it to us to judge all our scores (not just the few you think is the best). Not only that but it is a major part of this hobby or you wouldent require it. I know its more work but other GTs manage (and I know there were alot of nice views from your stand but I'm sure someone could have found soe time to do it). Rant done.

dkellyj wrote:
Regarding attendance; SOCAL Slaughter is this next weekend. 2 major events back to back pretty much kills most peoples budgets. I would expect the Slaughter will also see a lower than normal turnout as people who travelled to LA last weekend are now tapped out to make another trip (gas, food, hotel, etc) so soon.

There is that, too. I couldn't make the Slaughter this year, which mitigated the selection process for me.

 Reecius wrote:
@Blackmoor

A lot of our regular guys couldn't make it: Christian, Face Puncher, Stave Stiff, Dave Fay, Warboss Russ, etc. as they all had other obligations.

As to general attendance, we're stumped, too. This is without a doubt one of the coolest events we do. It should be huge, and next year we're going to push hard to get awareness up. It's just too awesome of an event to not grow, so much cool stuff going on!

This GT snuck up on me, and I didn't get my act together fast enough to go. In my backyard, too. I gotta be better about checking Frontline.com for info.

I'm sure you guys woulda liked some extra footing help on the way to the top.

@BLD

No doubt our missions does alter what armies are good, but that will happen anytime you deviate at all from the book.

@Janthkin

We definitely will, and we'll post the results.

@Kelly

Yeah, having lots of events close to each other doesn't work out so well, usually. It's the Smackdown this weekend too, not the Slaughter.

@Grimgob

We appreciate your support buddy, for sure. You have a valid concern, but there are several reasons we don't judge each person at the events.

For one, it takes ages to do. To properly score each army takes a solid 3-5 minutes per army minimum, and when you multiply that by 50-100 attendees, you can see how fast that adds up. You're talking 3 to 7 hours of time. Even split between 3 guys, that isn't realistic. We quite simply don't have time with a 3 man crew to rate everyone.

Our logic is that since only 4-6 people when an award based on painting, that time spent judging people simply to give them feedback when we could be adding up player scores, answering rules questions, etc. is time not well spent.

That isn't a slight against anyone and I know I like getting feedback too, but unless we had someone who's only job was judging painting, and they had all event to do it, it doesn't make sense. It isn't meant as an insult to anyone at all, it's simply an efficiency issue.

And your army looked awesome! It just wasn't finished. Had all your models been done, you would have easily won a painting award.

Thanks for your input though, we appreciate it.

I understand but it would have taken you guys 15 Min each day between the three of you during lunch at this last one. I know I wasnt finished and was not expecting anything (never am really I got a lot better but am not that good). I just thought it was part of a GT to get a painting score. mabey you need some more volenteers. I'll help if you come up with a qubric like the old one from GW (even taking myself out of best painted, but I still want a score from someone else for renassance).

The only problem with having attendees rate each other is people get made about perceived unfairness.

And yes, you are right that with 30 people we could have done it in a more manageable amount of time than say, the BAO. We didn't consider it though as out stated policy is to visually inspect every army and then go into depth on the top armies. That's just the way we're used to doing things.

And a GT can have a paint score, but there isn't a set format for how to run a GT. It is what the TO's make of it.

If people want to have us judge there armies, we of course will as our goal is to create a fun event. It's just that it is not the most enjoyable task when there are so many other things going on that need to be taken care of as well. And, just as often as not, people get mad about their score when they think they should have scored higher, or what have you. It is a major time sink.

If we did get a dedicated paint judging squad, that is a group of people that don't get to play. So, there's a lot more to it than probably it seems at first. We do put a lot of thought into it though.

So the first major event to allow Forge World is won by an army with many of the completely broken Sabre Defense Platforms? Color me unsurprised.

@Grimgob

If you have any ideas for a peer reviewed system, I'd love to hear it, actually. Perhaps you've got some ideas we hadn't considered.

@Kingsley

We weren't the first big GT to allow FW by any stretch of the imagination. Many events have used FW previously and just as here, it was no big deal.

 Reecius wrote:
@Kingsley

We weren't the first big GT to allow FW by any stretch of the imagination. Many events have used FW previously and just as here, it was no big deal.

To be fair, FW is a big deal at the Adepticon Gladiator. Some of those titans are pretty large, after all.

Ah yeah, fair point Reece-- I meant the first major event in 6th edition to use FW. I honestly think 6th edition has made FW less balanced, since most armies have no real way to deal with Artillery units now and some of the FW Flyers are just crazy. But it sounds like people had a fun time at this event regardless, so that's cool. Overall I don't care how people play the game as long as a good time is had by all!

@Janthkin

Hahaha, OK, you got me there!

@Kingsley

Exactly! So long as people are having fun, that's the point.

And artillery really, really aren't that big of a deal. I agree the Sabres are under-priced, but not broken, IMO. You're free to disagree of course, as folks do, but the people that actually played Vince and aren't basing their argument off of speculation, said they thought they were fine.

This was a good time! Funny non-tournament things that happened... I dont know how many other people this happened too but I totally could've gotten into the con without paying saturday morning, grimgob and I just walked in an open door about 9:45 and went right in. Some guy wanted some "credentials" after we were already inside and I pulled out my ticket and kinda showed it to him but I feel like I coulda pulled out a printed out email or fanfic to the same result, grimgob did not even do that, it was hilarious. Then the second day this security lady wouldnt let us in even though we had our very official badges on lanyards.. so we snuck under a velvet rope thingie about 10 feet from her. All in all not very good security. Israel was great, he asked her if she was having a bad day all politely and then caught her later and asked her if her day had improved (to which she continued being bitchy) I couldnt help but laugh.

As a Tau player I got to fight Israel first. Israel has some really nicely painted Tau which make me jealous, all on this really nice fortification/display board. I dont even know why we were fighting being both Tau, but I guess no ethereals were around. It was just a test to see which doctrine was better. Turns out the doctrine that includes O'ralai is better than one that does not, that model kicks serious ass. I had Israel on the ropes right up to the end then he showed me what O'ralai could do, busting out of a fight with my ally belial and laying big templates all over my poor innocent fire warriors. Lesson learned, shoot the 'O first next time.

My other truly memorable match (read loss) was against Dugg. Those damned drills. They apparently have a habit of scattering off onto things they shouldnt, but not in this game! He landed them both in good places, one on top of my commander and my hammerhead taking out both. But it was a fun game anyway. By the end he was able to hovermode his vendettas because he had wiped all my heavy weapons. not much I could do after that. But hey it was a fun game anyway, grats to dugg on the win.

So I went 3-2, not bad, Tau are definitely better nowadays (especially when you can take an ally and have fearless FNP terminators with stormshields as troops).

Of course the other plus was we were at a comiccon with a lot of cosplay going on. Much better eye candy than you normally get at a tournament. Reecius you think you can get a bunch of half naked women to walk around at all of your tournaments?

Voodoo wrote:
This was a good time!
Of course the other plus was we were at a comiccon with a lot of cosplay going on. Much better eye candy than you normally get at a tournament. Reecius you think you can get a bunch of half naked women to walk around at all of your tournaments?

Hahaha, I can't make any promises, but I promise I shall do my best!

The only way you could do it player judged is three ways. 1. you hand out a qubric and pick a game to go over your opponants army (as its not subjective and you can check it) or 2. you could do the old 7 opponants give each a score 1-7 (no repeat numbers) use the scores and you guys could judge ties with a qubric 3. Get a girlffriend and have her judge painting to keep her busy while you TO I like 1 and 3 best

@Voodoo Our game was a BLAST! I knew you were going to steal the initiative on me. Haha it was a tough match to work my way back after that. The Drills helped but I think the Vendettas taking out your big fire power was the real turning point, and the fact that my Nob bikers and your Termi's stuck for what 3 rounds? I totally messed up on my precision strikes on that one. Oh well, live and learn. Thanks again for the great game.

I bought a ticket, but it turned out that I couldn't get my S together enough to make it. So, take my money I guess? haha. The timing on these is ass (not your fault, but still) The first one was on my bday and this one was on my GF's bday.

I had a lot of fun, although I made huge play mistakes in my first round against the ringer army, and my other matches were a bit more one sided than I would care for. I think the TOs did a fine job and I like all the victory conditions (which definitely change which armies are good, which lists are good, etc). I think the only real issue I had with the experience was that I think the wrong call was made on the ruling of whether Night Shields can reduce the range of a Heavy Incinerator but then again I should have come up to a judge and made my argument rather than just accepting it, still very very new to 40k and used to the MTG scene where the rules are in plain English. Here's looking forward to a new INAT FAQ.

Can't say I've been to many other tournaments where I could see Stan "The Man" Lee as well as play some games.

@ Janthkin

You stay away from me, you and that damn Doom of Malantai. I didn't want ANY of that and was very pleased that I never had to deal with it.

@ Blackmoor

I actually thought I was going to be playing you in Match 4 (first game on Sunday) since a lot of people were saying you had arguably the best list in the tournament. It would've been a fantastic game I think.

@ Bloodlord

EXACTLY! Large numbers of troops (in individual 10 man squads, no less) actually managed to do well, which I was warned beforehand was a complete waste of points and I should've run mounted Plasma Veterans like every other competitive IG player apparently does.

Hopefully the meta will swing back to playing Guard the way Guard was MEANT to be played, and soon.