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.

Hi. MBG Rob Baer here.

Since the thread about the Valentines day tourney got locked and no progress was made towards actually solving this issue by coming up with a format that we can all agree to- not just from an organizer standpoint, but from an participant's as well. I think we can all agree that if your going to spend $500 flying across the county to play in x event, you want it to be good.

Well I think we, being the gaming community, should come up with some guidelines for Indy tourneys that GW can choose to adopt if they see fit, or maybe can even be worked into a INAT touney checklist of sorts.

We can all cry and moan about problems on the circuit, obviously there have been issues with the first three event so far, but maybe we cant try to help to improve the circuit going forward.

So here some hot points I think are important as a tournament participant. These are by no means an exhaustive list, and I hope we can add and debate on them as this post continues.

Scoring. How is the event going to be scored? Be clear on how the scoring will work, and provide values for that scoring. Events running a comp component that is shrouded in mystery, may do not as well as a tourney that has comp and is open how they are scoring it. We could even go so far as to standardize the scoring; there must be a sports, paint, and battlepoint system and it is "x".

Points Limit. Staying within a normal perceived points limit may be attractive to most players. I remember GW some years doing 1850 with 150 point blocks, and some mandatory models for some mission such as messengers etc. Does this need to be standardize?

Rounds and time. What is the normal number of rounds to be a GT? I would assume its 5. Time limit per round could be 2+ hours with 2:30 being the perceived norm from what I have seen.

Price. Well i think that can't be standardized but I'm sure that many will attest that price is a big decision make on whether to attend an event at all. I guess it all comes down to getting what you feel you pay for, but that can be said for anything.

Missions. This is a biggie for me. Are they going to be standard type missions, or custom ones that have to be corrected via forums or during the rounds over and over again? Personally I just want something standard with a mechanic I'm used to playing. Missions converted poorly from 4th to 5th, ridiculous kill points, or even the dreaded 2 objective mission are all my pet peeves. I'm okay with somethng new as long as I can understand it at first glance OR it conforms to a particular mechanic. I'm not sure if this can be standardized, but maybe made into a guideline.

This should be able to get us off in the right direction. I'm pretty excited for this post lets see what we can come up with.

I think the GT's on the gt circuit should as of now all be free to set their own points limit but they should all be 1850 if we were to standardize it.

Battle should make up 100 points 5 games 20 points a game.

Paint should make up 25 points. I'm too tired to come up with a system for itright now.

Sports should be 25 each opponent ranking you on a scale of 1-5.

Comp should be included ONLY to figure out opponents in the 1st round and that is all.


at 1850 it should be 2 hours per round. Time is called at the 2 hour mark no exceptions. If you don't think you can get through a turn don't start it.

Missions should IMO ALL be taken from the rule book. With modified bonus points up to the TO.

Well the St Valentines was my first tourney in an age so I'm not the best person to ask but...

Mike made a good point that he offers diverse types of tournies including ones with and without comp and in the absence of concensus on that issue maybe the best way to go is to let a 1000 flowers bloom. So long as we all know what to expect going in.

So for point levels, I favor diversity. We did a 1000 pt 5 game tournament at the Warmongers and it was a nice change up. I'd not want to do it every month but it was a cool change.

The last time I cared about these things I really felt the purpose of comp should be handicapping. There simply are some units better than others and winning with a jetbike seer council or valkyrie vets or nob bikes just is not as impressive as willing with less competitive units. the problem is this does not lend itself to the old X troops, X heavy formulas the GW GTs used. Going off the gut feelings of experienced hosts is probably a good way to do it but mot the most transparent.

For missions, I'd favor the first 2 or 3 games be the same mission and it being a basic one. I think trying to mix things up every time is not needed at a high level of play, the quality of the armies and the players makes for an entertaining game, hosts need not reinvent the wheel with funky missions. Some spice is nice but not for all 5 games. Plus repetition allows us to learn.

For painting I think Mike had a good clear check list. That's certainly a benefit since painting can easily become the most subjective element.

Sportsmanship... well everyone I played was cool. Maybe just have it as a threat that people can lose points at the judge's discression?

Clarity on how the events will be scored is the absolute most critical aspect. That way potential participants are free to disagree and then just not attend.

To me, there is nothing worse than going to a tournament with pre-published rules and then finding out - after the fact in most cases - that those rules were not adhered to.

Examples being - 1) to be told that painting would be judged to determine the over all victor and then that not being the case. Impact - I have many armies and some I have put much more time into than others. If paint scores are going to make up 25+% of my total score I am going to bring a better painted army even if it is not as 'hard core' as some of my lesser painted forces.

2) to be told that army comp will be judged a certain way and then it isn't. For instance - being told you will not be dinged if you have at least two non minimum sized troop choices then you will receive full points and then have this not come to pass because I bring two 10 man nob biker squads. (remember, lead by warbosses these are troops). Impact - again, the weight of these scores directly effect the army that I bring or the way that I build my list for the given tournament.

3) Subjective scores - tournaments without sportsmanship 'check lists' suffer from rabid chipmunks. The check list doesn't completely prevent this but it certainly helps. Too many subjective scores take away from the competitive feel of the tournament. (remember, there is a reason that the olympics rule out the highest and lowest subjective scores at events that use them). While I do realize that the game and tournaments will never completely pull away from subjective scores IMO their impact needs to be minimized or at least brought into perspective. This point does go hand in hand with my statement if this criteria is published then it should be adhered to once the tournament starts. Again, if this type of thing is posted then it's my choice as a potential attendee to go or not to go.

OK, I'll say my piece.

Point Vaules, as long as it's publicized in adavnce, doesn't matter.

Missions. Little bit harder. Non-standard missions can be fun. Only drawback I see is if the TO has locals help him playtest, without making the scenarios public knowledge to anyone else attending. Oddly, a tourney entrant that knows the scenarios in advance has a bit of an advantage..........

Scoring. Well, I've made my opinion clear enough elsewhere, but to re-iterate it. Battle points should be 50-60% of the total score. BP should be weighted heavily enough that a player cannot win Overall unless they win most of their games.
Painting, Theme. As long as the standards are laid out in advance, I'm good. Preferably, the scoring for these should be judge's only, no players involved.
Sports. Subjective or objective is fine either way. It's easy enough for the TO to track scores GIVEN by a player as well as scores received. So it's easy to tell if someone is chipmunking all his opponent's. Now if a player just slams one opponent, it's a harder call.
Comp. The boogeyman. We all know I don't care for it. If used (and especially if it can affect the final standings), it should be scored byb judges only and standards should be well publicised in advance.

So, notie the common trend. Publicized in advance. Most players are good with nearly anything as long as they know what's going on. The worst tourney experience I've ever had was when I showed up for a tourney and found out just before the end of the first game that losses were worth more points thatn draws..........

Something else, let people know what the proze support is. I was at one tourney where all of a sudden, one category didn't have prize support because I won it.

It's not that hard and I'm surprised people constantly make a balls of running a tournament.

1. Composition. Get rid of it.

2. Painting score. Should not affect battle points at all. Rather, have different prizes. One for 'best general' and one for 'best army' (painting/theme). During the lunch break on Day 1 have players nominate armies. On Day 2 have judges make the final selection from the top 3.

3. Basic logistics.
A. Have a hard deadline for army list submission. Penalize late entries. Use army builder and enter every entry (OMG that will take time!!!) and then print out a copy to have for the player when they arrive.
B. Use standard missions and announce them well in advance. For a five game tournament the distribution should be 2 Seize Ground with 5 objectives, 2 Kill Point, and 1 Capture and Control. Deployments should be 2 pitched battle, 2 spearhead, 1 dawn of war.
C. Use a data projector, large screen, and excel to provide an open, transparent view of the standings. Simple score cards will allow the data entry to take no more than five minutes. Obviously no one should EVER play the same person twice.

4. Scoring. Whatever system is adopted it needs to be simple and well presented. I find the following system works best:

First step - decide who is the winner based on rulebook rules. The result is always 15 (winner) :5 (looser). If it's tied on the objectives both players recieve 10.
Second step
Compute Victory Points (VP) difference. The player having the VP difference in his favour gets a bonus, the other one gets a malus.
Difference in vps / game points bonus / malus
1450-1750 / +5 / -5
1150-1449 / +4 / -4
850-1149 / +3 / -3
550-849 / +2 / -2
250-549 / +1 / -1
0-249 / no bonus & malus for vps

5. Rules FAQs. Adopt a comprehensive FAQ, either the INAT or the ETC (European Team Championship).

6. Terrain. Remember the rulebook recommend 25% of the table should have some type of terrain on it.

7. Judges. You'll need a few of these who have no other responsibilities on the day.

8. Prize support. This should reflect the number of entries. Personally I prefer proper trophies rather than GW products, but to each their own.

Hmmm, I like that VP system............... Gonna steal it.

Kesher wrote:Well I think we, being the gaming community, should come up with some guidelines for Indy tourneys that GW can choose to adopt if they see fit, or maybe can even be worked into a INAT touney checklist of sorts.

Hmmm. In great diversity there is great beauty. There are very few things I would want truly "standardized" to the degree suggested.

Scoring. How is the event going to be scored? Be clear on how the scoring will work, and provide values for that scoring. Events running a comp component that is shrouded in mystery, may do not as well as a tourney that has comp and is open how they are scoring it. We could even go so far as to standardize the scoring; there must be a sports, paint, and battlepoint system and it is "x".

The only thing I insist on is disclosure. If you're going to score for Painting, I want to know. If you're going to score Comp, I want to know. (If Comp is a significant factor in overall scoring, I'd like to know how it is calculated, but it won't make-or-break the event for me.)

I don't want uniform scoring. It's useful to the hobby to have the Broadside Bash, with the big emphasis on soft scores, in the same circuit as the Adepticon Championships. Not everyone wants to attend an event that focuses on maximum killiness, and not everyone wants to attend an event that equates painting with winning 3 massacres. Viva la difference!

Points Limit. Staying within a normal perceived points limit may be attractive to most players. I remember GW some years doing 1850 with 150 point blocks, and some mandatory models for some mission such as messengers etc. Does this need to be standardize?

I don't think it needs to be standardized. People enjoy games at different point levels, and armies perform differently at different point levels. Having some variety here lets people try out different things, and introduces some variables into the "which is the best tournament list" discussion.

Rounds and time. What is the normal number of rounds to be a GT? I would assume its 5. Time limit per round could be 2+ hours with 2:30 being the perceived norm from what I have seen.

I wouldn't attend an event that uses 2 hour rounds for 2000+ pt games, as that's a little too frantic a pace for an old man like me. But there's no reason to formalize this - most events allow reasonable time to play.

Price. Well i think that can't be standardized but I'm sure that many will attest that price is a big decision make on whether to attend an event at all. I guess it all comes down to getting what you feel you pay for, but that can be said for anything.

Cost to enter a tournament is a minor component of the cost of attending, between travel, lodging, food, drink, and the expensive toys we play the game with. Adepticon events & badge are costing me $130, which is scarcely more than one night in the hotel. Given the differences in venues, it's almost impossible to standardize anyway - convention space in Las Vegas is going to cost a whole lot more than space in South Bend, IN, so costs to run the event will vary wildly.

Missions. This is a biggie for me. Are they going to be standard type missions, or custom ones that have to be corrected via forums or during the rounds over and over again? Personally I just want something standard with a mechanic I'm used to playing. Missions converted poorly from 4th to 5th, ridiculous kill points, or even the dreaded 2 objective mission are all my pet peeves. I'm okay with somethng new as long as I can understand it at first glance OR it conforms to a particular mechanic. I'm not sure if this can be standardized, but maybe made into a guideline.

Absolutely not! Bad custom missions are annoying, but good custom missions are a joy to experience. Moreover, they can effectively replace comp - if a mission involves many objectives AND killing certain enemy units AND keeping certain elements alive, then a balanced army will have an easier time obtaining all of the points than something extreme (Nob bikers spring to mind here). Also, in a tournament like Adepticon's Championships, with 120 players in 3 rounds, the only way to get a spread in the upper players is to offer progressively more difficult to obtain points.

All I ask is that the tournament organizer provide enough information for me to make an informed decision. Reputation takes care of the rest - if people enjoy an event, and talk about it, then I'm more interested in attending.

I'll just comment on Sportsmanship scoring. Here's my idea:

Lets say 5 rounds, so you play 5 opponents. You score each of them UNIQUELY from 1 to 5. Then apply to whatever % sportsmanship makes up for the tourney, so if Sportsmanship = 10% of total score then a 1 gives you 2 points, a 2 gives you 4, etc.

I like this system because unique scoring means less chance a douche can tank your scores, because he has only one '1' to give out. On the other hand a guy who consistently is a great and friendly opponent has a good chance to get multiple 4s and 5s.

But what if you played nice and fair but only got a 2? That just means there were 3 other guys who played nicer and fairer than you Think of it as scoring the experience. You could have been a great opponent, but if your fellow opponents were great-er, they deserve higher scores.

What think you all?

rabidaskal wrote:I'll just comment on Sportsmanship scoring. Here's my idea:

Lets say 5 rounds, so you play 5 opponents. You score each of them UNIQUELY from 1 to 5. Then apply to whatever % sportsmanship makes up for the tourney, so if Sportsmanship = 10% of total score then a 1 gives you 2 points, a 2 gives you 4, etc.

I like this system because unique scoring means less chance a douche can tank your scores, because he has only one '1' to give out. On the other hand a guy who consistently is a great and friendly opponent has a good chance to get multiple 4s and 5s.

But what if you played nice and fair but only got a 2? That just means there were 3 other guys who played nicer and fairer than you Think of it as scoring the experience. You could have been a great opponent, but if your fellow opponents were great-er, they deserve higher scores.

What think you all?

I dislike this sytem personally. Because it means I HAVE TO penalize one of my opponents. What if all five games are against fun opponents? Why should I be required to score one of them poorly when he doesn't deserve it?

Here is my $.02

Scoring:
Battle points should be the main factor in scoring, after all this is a game and who plays it the best should have an advantage. The Broadside Bash’s 39% of your points coming from Battle is incredibly low. I wonder if you buy your opponent beers with a well comped army that is painted to golden demon standard if you can win a tournament. Battle points should count for 50%+ of you points and 60% to 75%+ more likely.

Sportsmanship-Why do we even have it? The ‘Ard Boyz does not have it and there were no fist fights breaking out. The Wild West Shootout had it and no one complained about how awful their opponents were. The St. Valentine’s Day Massacre did not have it and everything worked out well. Sportsmanship is just so random that to give it any importance seems ridiculous. If you want to have it, you should have a checklist that lists excepted behaviors so that if anyone does try to do some of the things that people do to game the system they will be punished (showing up late, slow playing, etc.). I think the big Waaagh had a problem with someone last year, and if you have someone that is behaving that badly the judges should just warn them, then kick people out and refund their money. I have had a lot of tournament games, and I have had very, very few bad experiences. Not only do I not think that sportsmanship is bad, but I think it actually has the opposite of its intended effect. I think people hesitate to question others, and their rules interpretations because they are afraid of getting a poor sports score. Same thing with calling out misdeeds during the game like moving farther that they should, premeasuring and other things that you would stop if you were not scared of how they will score you. People have to sit and take it because their opponent has so much power over them when it comes to soft score points.

Comp- Really? Let’s get rid of it. There is no good way to judge it. At the Broadside Bash my Eldar army was scored great by the judges who just saw a bunch of unused crappy Eldar units. My opponents saw a ton of strength 6 shooting tearing up their units and tanked my soft scores. At the STDM I think we can see the problems with judge scored comp, and player scored comp is worse. Also with the meta game in areas being what it is, what is cheesy in one area is fluffy in another so you can have a lot of arguments over what the real power builds are. Also since this is a game of match ups one army might seem cheesy to some, and not to others. It you are a space marine player with 3 thunder-fire cannons most MEQ armies will laugh at you and think that your army is really fluffy, but if you were playing an ork army they would think that your army is total cheese.

Point limits- Tournaments use to mirror GW’s USGT point limits. When GW had GTs at 1850 points, all of the RTTs had their points at 1850. When the USGT dropped down to 1750 points all of the tournaments did the same. Now that GW pulled the plug on tournaments, it seems the points are ballooning up to 2000 points. Here is the big problem, the more points you have, the more time you need for your rounds. 2000 in 2 hours is not enough time. Not only that, but horde armies are making a big comeback with Orks, IG and Tyranids, and they really need a lot of time to play and people don’t realize that 5th edition plays a lot slower than the previous editions. I have a few models in my Eldar army and I did not have time to finish a lot of my games. At the Broadside Bash which was at 2000 points at 2.5 hours. I was shooting so many shots that it took a long time for my shooting phase. A lot of shots, a lot of wounds, and then wound allocation, and then the individual saves, etc, and then repeat many times. At the SVDM playing for the win, the top table only got to round #3 before the game was called do to time (The SVDM was 1850 points and 2.5 hour rounds). So the time for rounds should go up, and the point limits go down.

Missions!
This is the Achilles heel of most GT tournaments. Everyone is sick of the basic missions in the rule book and so tournament organizers are making up their own. The problem is that most of them are bad! For example, a mission that lets you place objectives on upper floors of buildings so all bike armies are unable to get to them. Other bad missions favor shooting armies over assault armies, and vice versa, and unbalanced missions are ruining tournaments. There is not a good way to solve it, but remember in 3rd edition with GW had an RTT rules pack and they had about10 missions to select from? Something like that needs to happen. Some bright people need to cherry pick the best missions that people have come up with, or create 10-15 good missions that GT organizers can have the option of choosing from.

don_mondo wrote:
I dislike this sytem personally. Because it means I HAVE TO penalize one of my opponents. What if all five games are against fun opponents? Why should I be required to score one of them poorly when he doesn't deserve it?

Would it help to think of it not as penalizing someone who doesn't deserve it, but rewarding those who deserve it more? Even against 5 fun opponents, the user experience wouldn't be entirely, exactly, 100% equal. There would be a difference, one would be better than another.

Though I do understand what you're saying, and I get how some people wouldn't like it. How about this then: you only have one '1' and '5' to give out. And unlimited '3s.' So you penalize the one horrible guy you played with, reward the funnest (sp?) opponent, and everyone else is middle of the pack. Thoughts?

Nope, cause I'm still having to give a fun opponent a poor score. I'd much rather be able to give all my opponents what I feel they deserve. If all five of them were fantastic opponents, I should be able to give them scores taht reflect taht. On the other hand, if ll five of them are utter and complete imbeciles, I should be able to score them accordingly.

The1/3/5 system might work. Have to think on it.

Edit: So of course a thought popped into my head right after I hit enter. The only drawback to the 1/3/5 I can think of right now is that you have to wait until all games are done to submit the scores. I much prefer getting it out of the way right after the game. But that's a minor nitpick.

yermom wrote:I think the GT's on the gt circuit should as of now all be free to set their own points limit but they should all be 1850 if we were to standardize it.

Battle should make up 100 points 5 games 20 points a game.

Paint should make up 25 points. I'm too tired to come up with a system for itright now.

Sports should be 25 each opponent ranking you on a scale of 1-5.

Comp should be included ONLY to figure out opponents in the 1st round and that is all.

I agree with the scoring for events. I wouldn't even mind 66% soft scores. Painting and Comp(favorite army) already have awards. I would prefer that events were 1500, 2000 or 2500 points. I don't see any point in building lists in between those points limits. Whenever I try to build a 1850 list it is just an enemic version of a 2000 or it just doesn't work at less than 1900 anyways.

Can anyone explain how pairing people by comp changes anything for the lists that are scored poorly? So they fight each other now instead of later? I don't get it. Also I have personally witnessed multiple large events doing this poorly and recently it happened again at the Valentines GT.

Edit: Oh yeah Transparency is absolutely key. I need to know the percentage of subjective scoring and the percentage of that score that my opponent is responsible for. I'm not good at schmoozing with people to get them to score you higher so I don't want to go to an event where that will determine half of the top ten. The details of this scoring needs to be spelled out ahead of
time. When pairings are posted so should the scores of the players.

Shinkaze wrote:
I agree with the scoring for events. I wouldn't even mind 66% soft scores. Painting and Comp(favorite army) already have awards. I would prefer that events were 1500, 2000 or 2500 points. I don't see any point in building lists in between those points limits. Whenever I try to build a 1850 list it is just an enemic version of a 2000 or it just doesn't work at less than 1900 anyways.

Can anyone explain how pairing people by comp changes anything for the lists that are scored poorly? So they fight each other now instead of later? I don't get it. Also I have personally witnessed multiple large events doing this poorly and recently it happened again at the Valentines GT.

66% soft scores? That would make it possible for someone to lose 3 out of 5 games and still win overall...............

Comp pairing. Depends on whether the comp is just being used for initial matches or whether the comp banding is for the whole tourney. If all you play for the entire tourney is the other players in our comp 'zone', then those in the soft zone have easier games, in addition to starting with higher scores, giving them an unfair advantage in the final overall standings.

I meant 66-33 ratio of battle to soft scores.

With Comp pairing how do you know it is done fairly? If it is only for the first couple of rounds what effect does it actually have if any? I think whoever came up with it was just like now watch those two Nidzilla lists have to play each other and have a terrible time!!! Not realizing that these kind of players are not like him, they don't think the good lists are cheesy/beardy. They are competitive players and welcome a challenge and besides, they were already used to playing each other round 4 and 5 anyways.

Now if you want to separate the cheeseheads from the fluff lovers that's fine. Just run a tournament and a narrative campaign or run two brackets. If you are a cheesehead you enter bracket cheesey, if you are a fluff lover you enter bracket lots of player determined soft scores.

Comp. scoring will always be deeply unsatisfying to many. It requires constant tinkering and relies on subjective judgement. Get rid of it and 'poof' all the problems go away (it reminds me of the complexity and tinkering required to keep the geocentric model of the solar system working; put the sun at the center instead and all the problems go away). Why would anyone bother with comp at all? It boggles the mind why a tournament organizaer would want to put this "£%!sandwich on their plate in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shinkaze wrote: Now if you want to separate the cheeseheads from the fluff lovers that's fine. Just run a tournament and a narrative campaign or run two brackets. If you are a cheesehead you enter bracket cheesey, if you are a fluff lover you enter bracket lots of player determined soft scores.

Typically there will not be enough participants to do this. It is better to split the prizes into 'best general' and 'best army/hobbyist.' The latter includes painting and theme as well as points for a fluff-based quiz or something of that sort. Both awards are equal in value and people can decide for themselves which they think is more important.

I think 2000 points at 2.5 hours is fine. As long as their aren't rambling conversations and people stick to the game their is usually enough time. People are always coming up with ways to play faster, for example keep a cube with 24 dice for Scatter Lasers from Warwalkers ready at all times. Reload it during your opponents turn.

I like the rule book missions fine and they are really 9 different missions. I think Capture and Control needs to be modified to play better(different version for each deployment type) but other than that they rock. Just keep it simple and people will be more than happy with the good times, good friends and sweet lookin minis.


For Capture and Control I suggest the following:
Spearhead - Objectives in opposite quarters
Pitched Battle - 3rd central objective
Dawn of War - same thing as above

This mission needs to be modified because it plays to ties and minor wins. It's more of a mission for the UK scoring system where as Seize Ground is more of a US style mission since it scales well for margin of victory.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shinkaze wrote: Now if you want to separate the cheeseheads from the fluff lovers that's fine. Just run a tournament and a narrative campaign or run two brackets. If you are a cheesehead you enter bracket cheesey, if you are a fluff lover you enter bracket lots of player determined soft scores.

Typically there will not be enough participants to do this. It is better to split the prizes into 'best general' and 'best army/hobbyist.' The latter includes painting and theme as well as points for a fluff-based quiz or something of that sort. Both awards are equal in value and people can decide for themselves which they think is more important.

Shinkaze wrote: I meant 66-33 ratio of battle to soft scores.

With Comp pairing how do you know it is done fairly? If it is only for the first couple of rounds what effect does it actually have if any? I think whoever came up with it was just like now watch those two Nidzilla lists have to play each other and have a terrible time!!! Not realizing that these kind of players are not like him, they don't think the good lists are cheesy/beardy. They are competitive players and welcome a challenge and besides, they were already used to playing each other round 4 and 5 anyways.

Now if you want to separate the cheeseheads from the fluff lovers that's fine. Just run a tournament and a narrative campaign or run two brackets. If you are a cheesehead you enter bracket cheesey, if you are a fluff lover you enter bracket lots of player determined soft scores.

OK, that I can go with.

Comp pairing. That's the whole point, you don't, especially in any subjective comp scoring system. It's all based on the scorer's opinion. Taking it beyond the first round definitely weights the battle points towards the soft armies, since the more games they play against fellow "soft" armies, the more points they can get without having to face a 'hard' army.

My $0.02 on some topics:

Personally, I think Battle points should be at least 50% of the total. But beyond that the percentage is up to the organizer. Some variety isn't a bad thing.

Regarding sportsmanship, maybe we should look at the UKGT system more. My understanding is that there's no sports scoring there. It works like soccer (football). If the judges feel you're acting up, you get a yellow card as a warning. Get a second yellow card and you're gone. Act up badly enough and you get the red card immediately and you're gone too.

This probably requires a critical mass of judges/refs walking the floor at all times, but it seems to cut to the chase. Namely -- act enough like a jerk and you're gone. You get a problem player, you call the judge over (if the judge hasn't seen the behavior already). If he keeps doing it (whatever that may be), the judge gives him the card. The nice thing is that because there's no player-scored sports, you don't have to worry about getting dinged by calling a judge over.

Regarding painting scores, in an ideal world I'd prefer to avoid "checklist" scoring. There's really no formula for army appearance. However, I fully recognize that clarity and transparency are paramount in these events. So at MechaniCon (I was the paint judge) we used a checklist, with 1-3 discretionary points the judge can award if they feel the army deserves them. I'm going to make a few minor tweaks to the scoring for 2010, but overall I think the basic approach worked pretty well. It gave the judge just a little ability to adjust if they felt the checklist approach did the army in question some wrong.

Regarding rounds and time, I think 5 games for a 2-day event is the norm, and is definitely what I prefer. GWGTs had a 6-game format for a few years a while back, and that 4-game first day was very long and exhausting. Better to wrap the gaming up by dinnertime and let the players unwind.

Price is just going to depend on the format. If you're talking about hotel or convention center space, that's significantly more pricey for the TO than something in a game store, school auditorium, college student union, etc. Personally, I don't mind paying more for better surroundings and atmosphere.

Here are my two cents

1. Battle should be the main catagory for points.

2. painting should be there but the top painter should not be able to make so many points more than a average paint score that he basicly gets a free extra max point game.

3. sports---really, I think all the tourneys of late have shown that we dont need it.

4. COMP---let this crap unfair idea just die. It can never be fair to all armies and when you have people judge it without a check list you have SVDM which nobody except maybe the guys who got 13+ thought was fair.

4a. comp pairing really, just go straight swiss and be done with it.

5. points-whatever last just roll some dice

6. For TO's bring a printer and post the points with next round match ups for everyone to see. transparency and the ability to verify points takes care of all shenanigans before they can happen or make people think they are happening.
I'm sure hobby promotions will be glad to lend there scoring program to any TO's that ask for it, and GW's system for scoring GT's works just fine.

7. Registration--the way Necro did it with a online list and a online waiting list was awesome. You could see who is coming and see where you are on the waiting list.

These are my thoughts but what do I know, I have only been to a few of these things

Kesher wrote:So here some hot points I think are important as a tournament participant. These are by no means an exhaustive list, and I hope we can add and debate on them as this post continues.

This are my thoughts, and what I'd do as a TO, just from what I'm hearing on-line. I don't genrally attend tournaments, so that may well discount the following points.

Kesher wrote:Scoring. How is the event going to be scored? Be clear on how the scoring will work, and provide values for that scoring. Events running a comp component that is shrouded in mystery, may do not as well as a tourney that has comp and is open how they are scoring it. We could even go so far as to standardize the scoring; there must be a sports, paint, and battlepoint system and it is "x".

Well, as a TO, my thoughts would be that Battle Points should be the dominant category, with painting as the next most significant component. I'd also have sportsmanship as a minor factor just to mitigate against tthe TFG's of this world. I think a breakdown would be:

Battle: 66%
Painting: 30%
Sportsmanship: 4%

Awards would be Best Painted, Best General & Best Hobbyist (the combined Paint/Battle/Sports)

Kesher wrote:Points Limit. Staying within a normal perceived points limit may be attractive to most players. I remember GW some years doing 1850 with 150 point blocks, and some mandatory models for some mission such as messengers etc. Does this need to be standardize?

I'd like to see an escalation style tournament, with the first round being 1,000pts and each subsequent round increasing the total by 250pts each time. Not sure how practical it would be, but it'd be interesting to see how the metagame adjusts at lower point levels (less AV14 etc) and then scales up.

Kesher wrote:Rounds and time. What is the normal number of rounds to be a GT? I would assume its 5. Time limit per round could be 2+ hours with 2:30 being the perceived norm from what I have seen.

Hand in hand with the points values above, I'd go with what appears to be the standard 5-games (3 on day 1, 2 on day 2) two-day format, with 2 hour rounds on day 1 (which would have 1000, 1250 & 1500 point battles) and 2.5 hour rounds on day 2 (1750 & 2000 points)

Kesher wrote:Missions. This is a biggie for me. Are they going to be standard type missions, or custom ones that have to be corrected via forums or during the rounds over and over again?

I guess I'm boring, I'd just use the standard missions from the rulebook, with each round using a different mission/deployment combination. Not sure what the order would be except that game 5 would be Annihilation/Pitched Battle. I'd also make the list of missions and the order available prior to the event, to aid in listbuilding, which I imagine would be crucial in an escalation type tourney.


Just my 2 cent contribution ot the greater good.

I fully realize that the system was put in place with no feedback from me and yet I am also very pleased that we have something to look forward to. The official GTs have been canceled twice over the past few years and when they did it last year I jumped on making sure there was one in '09 to fill the gap. I look forward to playing in events that other folks put on so I have many interests here.

I love GW games, and 40K is my favorite. My club has brought events to almost every Baltimore GD, most of us have attended the GT's since '97 and getting together a couple times a year with friends from all over the country/world who love to paint and play with toy soldiers we made is awesome.

Here are my ideas about the National Circuit, including the current system and feedback so far from the community.

1- Making events uniform - all I would want to see is some basic tenets be applied to game-play such as number of games and a minimum point cost. Everything else I would leave to the discretion of the TO. There is such a wide variety of events that there is something for almost everyone. Missions, Points, Scoring, all lump into TO's discretion for me. I do want to see a rules pack put up well in advance as a PDF download and no last minute changes except for correcting typos. Our event is an old style hobby-type event ( Battle/Paint/Sports/Quiz ) and Ard Boys is 2500 points ( Battle Only ), so there are some extremes of soft score diversity.

2- Keeping these events around - We went from NOTHING last year to a massive new National Circuit. Even though the Circuit events are the talk of the town, remember that they are not GW run events. Most of the events on the Circuit were already established a long time ago and GW's involvement is to ENHANCE the events, not to take them over. The events are run by many stores, clubs or other organizations and if we want them to continue then a positive direction will be required. I am not saying do not criticize since that is where improvements can be found but instead try to remember that trashing what we have now may leave us with nothing again.

3- National Circuit Events need to be a higher level of event. Extra effort should be given to these events and even though they are all different there should be additional care given to them. Handouts for rules packs should be ready at the door and players should have name-tags that show their real name and their user-name. Some may feel like a large RTT and some may feel like the best event you ever attended. The diversity is good in my opinion, I just want each event to be administered well.

4- Price - This also plays into the diversity. Some are more expensive than a lot of the other events. When we started our planning the goal was to provide the absolute top level event similar to the original GW GT's. We are in a hotel/convention hall with a bar so we are more expensive to start. We have custom table tops and tons of GW scenery. We also handed out swag bags and every attendee walked away with a prize and we had custom trophies made. Those rewards were thanks to countless hours of lining up sponsorship as well as part of the ticket price. Some events are run in a hall that was donated for them to use and they play on cloth mats. Having a smaller staff that does not have the time or a smaller budget to get into superfluous add-ons will affect the final outcome. These are still very admirable events and I love that. Just having another event to attend makes me very happy.

Other Points -

A- I would like to see more events out there. It is a ton of money, time, and labor to pull even the smallest events off. Do you and your group have what it takes to run one? Are you willing to give up your chance to play to make sure an event gets all the help they need?

B- I hate comp for 40K but I would rather support diversity in events than take a stand against it.

C- Accept player feedback and use it to make your next event better.

D- This still is about having fun, right?

E- Think about Pluto. That's right, our neighbor in the solar system. For almost a century this member of the community was well regarded as a Planet. Based on a definition that held true for thousands of years. Now a bunch of guys get together and change the definition and whammo! no more Planet status, except some refuse to take the new definitions and some states have even gone so far to pass legislation that says Pluto is still a planet within their borders. Was the change warranted? Well now that there have been so many new discoveries there is a need for new definitions. Should we A - change the old to fit the new? or B - start over? or C - something else?

My point here is that if a uniform set of tournament guidelines is desired by many players, maybe SOME of the events could decide to work together and have a sub-set of the National Circuit that will use similar Points/Missions. If you try and get all of them to conform you will probably lose some. It is hard to make everyone happy but I think diversity is the key.

Should AdeptiCon, which is probably the front runner in being able to shape the future, stop doing Gladiator, Team, Championship events and just have one sterile ruleset?

Wow! how about that statement...

Hmm...an underlying gap is to merry COMP to META. This is the real challenge to make everyone feel good about comp.

I offer this.

D-30 codex of choice and ticket must be paid for. No changes after this point to other codexs. COMP player generated see below.

D-25 comprehensive list of META published via email to those who paid for ticket.

D-20 Lists due to organizers.

D-15 Comp scores released to entrants.

D-10 Revised lists to alter comp scores deadline.

D-5 Lists finalized, Comp finalized.

This way peple know whats out there and can taper their armies to suit. Go too far and get the comp deduction and adversly...

Second I hate to go down this rabbit hole but if someone has put together a comprehensive FAQ same may need to be done for COMP. I see a web based pole being done by entrants. Each codex has a nemesis.

Marines_RenMar
Templars_DA
Wolves_BA
Guard_Orks
Tau_Eldar
Necron_Tyranid
Witchhunes/Inq_TBD

(Assumptions: the squad takes useful and ternament worthy gear, same with vehicles) Each Codex entry would be entered in general terms w/ and w/o transports. A point score for each from 1-10 5 being average 10 being too good. Pts assigned based on nemesis opinions. Failure to complete poll gives nemesis scores of 1 for all entries.

Compile averages and post.
Scale for COMP based on AV pts.

1-3points +3COMP
4-5points +1COMP
6-7 points -1COMP
9-10 points -3 COMP

This way you have a list that you COMP against before submitting.
You can then balance your list to have comp included and know what "people" think are WAAC units. Yes people will WAAC whole lists but thats what the organizers are there to fix.

A well organized RT could do this during rounds as long as people turnin their polls/lists a day or two ahead.

These are all very good points, im going to let it go a bit more then start collecting and summarizing them for better discussions. I especially like the military planning aspect that Brother Chaplain Ginn brought up.

Here is hte breakdown for Bolter Beach:

Battle (55%)
Comp (15%)
Sports(15%)

Best overall (all categories) will win a golden ticket to Vegas and best general (battle only) as well.

All rules including comp are open to the public four months prior to the event. Simple but hard missions that are thoroughly playtsted and have no whacky rules. Pairings are pure Swiss. I will add that closed comp systems makes me a very sad panda. :(

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Here is hte breakdown for Bolter Beach:

Battle (55%)
Comp (15%)
Sports(15%)

Best overall (all categories) will win a golden ticket to Vegas and best general (battle only) as well.

All rules including comp are open to the public four months prior to the event. Simple but hard missions that are thoroughly playtsted and have no whacky rules. Pairings are pure Swiss. I will add that closed comp systems makes me a very sad panda. :(

But what's the last 15%? (It's probably "Paint," but it'd be much cooler if it was "Average Blood Alcohol Content").

Oops yeah... paint it is!

Hope to see ya there Janthkin!

G

Brother Chaplain Ginn wrote:

Second I hate to go down this rabbit hole but if someone has put together a comprehensive FAQ same may need to be done for COMP......

This post not just the quote has great ideas and solid thought. I think I might steal it........