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 have posted my thoughts on the event that happened last weekend. After a few days and reading the comments on various boards and on this site, I wanted to compile a list of suggestions for the event in 2011. I know there are people who either help organize the tournament or are in contact with the organizers that read on this site and I welcome everyone to post their own suggestions as well. I want to thank the organizers for a job well done for 2010 and well executed. Please take the time to read this and consider some of the ideas. This is all based on 4 years of attending Adepticon.

1) The current INAT needs to be done away with and in replacement of it should be a document that deals with common issues in tournament play but does not attempt to rewrite the rules because the writers felt things were too powerful or unfair. Also drop the FAQ council thing as it does come off as very elitist and open it up for more representation among the North American 40k community. Right now the majority of the members of the FAQ council are from the midwest and there are other 40k communities that are as large if not larger than in the Chicago area. It is a noble effort but the execution is off.

2) A revised championship RTT that is a 2 day even and spans 7 games. You can have it on Friday as a qualifier with 4 games and then separate the top 30% into a Sunday invitational where the best of the best fight for supremacy. At the same time you can have a consolidation bracket for the remaining 70% that truly emphasizes the hobby with higher soft scores and prizes for multiple categories. BOLScon attempted this and it turned out well. This gives players an alternative to the Gladiator. Speaking of which ...

3) The Gladiator has lost much of what made it fun: Anything goes. I suggest turning it into an APOC tournament with 3000 points (Minimum APOC point level) and do formations, forgeworld, titans, crazy datasheets. People can get the FW bug out of their system and smash face with whatever they want to play with. Add some over the top scenarios all to your desire.

4) Alternate mission structure. The multi-tier missions are alright but there is no clearly defined win or loss when it comes down to drawing on objectives. It is possible to score moderate in the beginning and then cruise through the middle of the pack beating on baby seals until the last round and possibly winning overall. Add a win/loss with bonus points in the form of secondary and tertiary. The points cannot tell you if one player destroyed all his opponents only to get wiped the last game vs the other player who hard fought each victory but just got middle of the road points for some hard earned wins. The missions dont have to punish army types nor do they have to be rulebook missions. You can start with the rulebook missions and do slight variations to them.

5) Bring back the codecier challenge on Saturday night. Thats a selfish want but it was fun doing jeporady style questions that did help a whole lot with winding down from an intense team tournament.

Here are a few things I insist Adepticon keep and to not change

1) Organization. Whatever the staff has done that weekend, continue with that because there was almost zero delay in tournaments, prompt judging, and clear communication about clarifications of the missions. I owe the staff a beer or burger their choice.

2) Variety of gaming. This year saw the introduction of Warmachine and FOW along with the usual Fanatic games. Those were great additions and lets the players choose what to play throughout the weekend.

3) The Venue was very nice although 30 min from the airport (either of them), the location was nice to make a drive to multiple restaurants after the tournament of the day. The hotel was very nice and the bed west pretty comfortable.

Those are my suggestions along with 3 must keeps for Adpeticon 2011. I hope to see any of the changes for next year. To the Adepticon staff: thanks for reading this and please take the time to consider what I discussed as I aim to improve the event.

thehod wrote:I have posted my thoughts on the event that happened last weekend. After a few days and reading the comments on various boards and on this site, I wanted to compile a list of suggestions for the event in 2011. I know there are people who either help organize the tournament or are in contact with the organizers that read on this site and I welcome everyone to post their own suggestions as well. I want to thank the organizers for a job well done for 2010 and well executed. Please take the time to read this and consider some of the ideas. This is all based on 4 years of attending Adepticon.

Thanks...we're always glad to get feedback. Missed the larger portion of the Wrecking Crew this year...understand Parker's got family issues, but where was everyone else?

Any thoughts that I'm posting below in response are my own thoughts only, not the thoughts of the rest of the AdeptiCon staff, and don't mean that we will or won't implement them. Just trying to keep a conversation going.

thehod wrote:1) The current INAT needs to be done away with and in replacement of it should be a document that deals with common issues in tournament play but does not attempt to rewrite the rules because the writers felt things were too powerful or unfair. Also drop the FAQ council thing as it does come off as very elitist and open it up for more representation among the North American 40k community. Right now the majority of the members of the FAQ council are from the midwest and there are other 40k communities that are as large if not larger than in the Chicago area. It is a noble effort but the execution is off.

That sounds good Hod...except that how do you define "common issues." I've found that what might seem obvious to some, or most, isn't really all that obvious to others.

Also, while I understand the antipathy towards having the INAT team make something classified as a rules change, we try to only go that far in two situations. #1, the rules as written is simply unplayable (e.g. Falcons have no "corners" and so its impossible to draw a line from corner to corner in order to determine facing for shooting purposes). #2, the RAW clearly goes against any rational intent. (e.g. IC's can't end their moves within 2" of a friendly vehicle).

On widening the membership of the Council...its a logistical issue, but one which we're definitely looking at. We'd like to expand the ruling council, but at the same time, if it gets too large, it becomes unwieldy and tough to mesh schedules.

thehod wrote:2) A revised championship RTT that is a 2 day even and spans 7 games. You can have it on Friday as a qualifier with 4 games and then separate the top 30% into a Sunday invitational where the best of the best fight for supremacy. At the same time you can have a consolidation bracket for the remaining 70% that truly emphasizes the hobby with higher soft scores and prizes for multiple categories. BOLScon attempted this and it turned out well. This gives players an alternative to the Gladiator. Speaking of which ...

The biggest problem with this is the Friday/Sunday split. There's absolutely zero chance of the 40K Team Tournament being on any day except Saturday...and splitting the tourney into two days results in a ridiculous number of drops on the second day. There's talk right now about doing something like this...but there are a lot of logistical issues to work out. On top of that, it would essentially kill the Gladiator.

Trying to get a "supremacy" tournament really requires a dedicated weekend, or even a season. IMNSHO, it's really beyond the scope of what you can do in just 1 or 2 days.

thehod wrote:
3) The Gladiator has lost much of what made it fun: Anything goes. I suggest turning it into an APOC tournament with 3000 points (Minimum APOC point level) and do formations, forgeworld, titans, crazy datasheets. People can get the FW bug out of their system and smash face with whatever they want to play with. Add some over the top scenarios all to your desire.

APOC and tournaments really don't go together IMNSHO. There's just too much crazy stuff there that really isn't all that balanced and is mainly there for the "cool" factor. Which was the whole point of APOC to begin with. Not to mention the timeframe issue...in my experience, even fast APOC games take 3-4 hours to complete.

I wouldn't be opposed to some APOC events, kind of in a structured megabattle-type format...but I don't think its really suitable for tournaments.

thehod wrote:4) Alternate mission structure. The multi-tier missions are alright but there is no clearly defined win or loss when it comes down to drawing on objectives. It is possible to score moderate in the beginning and then cruise through the middle of the pack beating on baby seals until the last round and possibly winning overall. Add a win/loss with bonus points in the form of secondary and tertiary. The points cannot tell you if one player destroyed all his opponents only to get wiped the last game vs the other player who hard fought each victory but just got middle of the road points for some hard earned wins. The missions dont have to punish army types nor do they have to be rulebook missions. You can start with the rulebook missions and do slight variations to them.

Multi-tier missions are the best means I've found for actually generating separation, given the limited number of games and the timeframe. In your proposal (win/loss/draw with bonus points for secondary and tertiary), either you get no effective difference (if the bonus points for secondary and tertiary are high enough) or you essentially make the secondary and tertiary conditions meaningless.

True, it can make a player who crushes three of four opponents, the battle-point equivalent to someone who slogs through with 4 lesser-scale victories. But really...what's wrong with that?

Really, the multi-tier mission structure requires people to rethink what "win" and "loss" are in those mission. Taking the Gladiator missions as an example, (42 points possible per round), in my mind, 0-14 points was a loss, 15-28 points was a draw, and 29-42 points was a win. (I could stretch it out more to include the old minor/major/massacre, but you get the picture). How you got to those points really doesn't matter.

Yes, its different than the missions in the book. But its not like people can't go in expecting that...hence the posting of primer missions, points breakdowns in the event descriptions, etc.

thehod wrote:
5) Bring back the codecier challenge on Saturday night. Thats a selfish want but it was fun doing jeporady style questions that did help a whole lot with winding down from an intense team tournament.

Standard AdeptiCon response #2 - Do you want to run this? Seriously...generally events happen because people step up and say they want to run them. Hence the BFG Championships (me and now Rob), AI demos (Paul), Space Hulk Tourney (Yakface), etc.

Hi

1. Couldn't disagree with you more regarding the INAT. I don't agree with everything in it, but it clears up so many grey areas that I want it around. I really appreciate the amount of work that is put into it, and use it at my own event.

2. Agreed on the Championship format. A 120 man tourney having only three rounds to determine the winner is nearly impossible - which is why I played fantasy team tournament for kicks on Sunday.

3. Apocalypse has ruined the gladiator experience for me. I last played in the gladiator in 2007 and it was simply one of the best tourneys I had ever been a part of. In 2007, I fough titans and heirophants with a standard force and beat them both. In 2010, when our group finally made it back to Chicago, I got stomped by a warhound (and the scenario didn't help at all). D weapons are simply too much in standard 40K. In the past, big toys were more expensive with lesser armament. Now they are cheaper with bigger guns. If D were reduced to Str 10 AP 1, at least dice would need to be rolled. Throw in the "Lance" ability if you want it to still be really effective against tanks. (EDIT - I should probably add that I own 2 warhounds and a reaver, so this isn't envy speaking)

Also, the "screw everybody" approach to this year's scenarios resulted in auto-win/loss without rolling a die because certain matchups created a very tilted playing field. I played Tau, so my first round was auto-loss as Tau cannot take the middle of board from assault based Chaos Marines when only 4 turns get played. The third round was auto-win for me as Goatboyz Space Wolves never stood a chance in a stasis field game. Round four was the warhound - so with one of my broadside units tunnelling into combat with 10 marines, I never stood a chance. I didn't whine during the tournament, but I have to say that my enjoyment level was lacking, and of my group only I am considering doing it again on the Friday, if just for the tune-up before the team tournament.

4. Love the mission structure (primary, secondary, tertiary) for the gladiator and team tournament - don't change a thing there. I didn't play in the championships - so no comment there.

5. Codicier was cool in 2007, but not missed in 2010.

Cheers,
Carlos the Craven

I didn't play in the team tournament this year, so if this has already been changed please disregard;

I would rather play 3 full games in the team tournament as opposed to 4 half games. To explain, two years ago we played in the team tournament and between moving tables (Around several people mind you during a team tournament!), classifying terrain, explaining team armies, handling FAQ rulings for the team armies, etc....the games were usually rushed and failed to have any closure. Many games both our opponents and ourselves wished the game could go on, as it seemed rather anti-climatic to just pack up and go to the next table.

Not to mention the physical fatigue from the event. Our last game both our opponents and ourselves were exhausted, which made the last game pretty lackluster (Even though they were great sports). We were completely wiped out that evening waiting for awards, to the point of bailing out of the already paid 40k Championships the next day. I would just rather play 3 full games of 40k with my team and have a few moments respite rather than rush table to table to make it to turn 3-4.

Of course, keep in mind regardless of my reservations we'll be playing in the team tournament next year....I'm just dreading the 4th game.

thehod wrote:1) The current INAT needs to be done away with and in replacement of it should be a document that deals with common issues in tournament play but does not attempt to rewrite the rules because the writers felt things were too powerful or unfair. Also drop the FAQ council thing as it does come off as very elitist and open it up for more representation among the North American 40k community. Right now the majority of the members of the FAQ council are from the midwest and there are other 40k communities that are as large if not larger than in the Chicago area. It is a noble effort but the execution is off.

The results of the TT quiz show overwhelming support (75%+) for the inclusion of the INAT (even if people disagree with some rulings). The INAT is put together for AdeptiCon first and foremost. Over 70% of our attendance is from the Midwest, so I don't see that being an issue. Use of the INAT outside of AdeptiCon is not our concern. People are free to make of it what they will. I also think the impact of the INAT is minimal at best. If two people that hate the INAT play a game against each other at AdeptiCon - they are free to ignore it as per our Conduct Policy, which reads: 'Players should attempt to resolve all rules disputes between themselves at the table (using the appropriate codex, rulebook, FAQ).' The INAT exists only to resolve disputes at AdeptiCon between people with differing interpretations of the rules that cannot come to amicable resolution on their own - no different than having a judge make a call on the spot, save that it is published months in advance and strives for consistency between 40K events at the convention. Who defines 'Common Issues'? It is easy to call something elitist when you disagree with it, but in turn that makes every event judge or TO that makes a rules call an elitist.

thehod wrote:2) A revised championship RTT that is a 2 day even and spans 7 games. You can have it on Friday as a qualifier with 4 games and then separate the top 30% into a Sunday invitational where the best of the best fight for supremacy. At the same time you can have a consolidation bracket for the remaining 70% that truly emphasizes the hobby with higher soft scores and prizes for multiple categories. BOLScon attempted this and it turned out well. This gives players an alternative to the Gladiator. Speaking of which ...

Things of this nature have already been discussed by others, both before and after this year's event. The idea you propose I mentioned earlier in this post. It's something we are considering and definitely has some merit, but Bill raises some good points. If anything I would support a 4-round Friday event that feeds the a number of top players into a 3-round Sunday event. No consolidation bracket. Do we really think a 3-round RTT event finds the ultimate 40K general? Hell no, but like others have pointed out - it can still be fun.

thehod wrote:4) Alternate mission structure. The multi-tier missions are alright but there is no clearly defined win or loss when it comes down to drawing on objectives. It is possible to score moderate in the beginning and then cruise through the middle of the pack beating on baby seals until the last round and possibly winning overall. Add a win/loss with bonus points in the form of secondary and tertiary. The points cannot tell you if one player destroyed all his opponents only to get wiped the last game vs the other player who hard fought each victory but just got middle of the road points for some hard earned wins. The missions dont have to punish army types nor do they have to be rulebook missions. You can start with the rulebook missions and do slight variations to them.

Doesn't drawing on objectives inherently mean there is no clear winner or loser? You have to think about missions differently when you are dealing with 220+ result per round in the TT and 120+ results per round in the RTT. You need scoring separation - as mentioned by Bill. Are the missions overly complicated in some instances, sure, but they also feed into you #1 positive point - organization. There is nothing wrong with some games ending in a draw or stalemate - I think if you look at the top finishers in the TT or RTT _ you will see there that you have no chance of winning either event without solid Battle Scores. Not happening. If changes like you have suggested above are made to the Champs/RTT, then I think there might be room for less complex/score-separation inducing missions, but I honestly feel they do exactly what the event needs them to do at the moment.

thehod wrote:5) Bring back the codecier challenge on Saturday night. Thats a selfish want but it was fun doing jeporady style questions that did help a whole lot with winding down from an intense team tournament.

Was always one of my favorite highlights of past conventions. No one has offered to run this since Brian Carlson did it in 2006/2007. If someone offers - I am sure it can happen again...but someone has to step up.

AgeOfEgos wrote:I didn't play in the team tournament this year, so if this has already been changed please disregard;

I would rather play 3 full games in the team tournament as opposed to 4 half games. To explain, two years ago we played in the team tournament and between moving tables (Around several people mind you during a team tournament!), classifying terrain, explaining team armies, handling FAQ rulings for the team armies, etc....the games were usually rushed and failed to have any closure. Many games both our opponents and ourselves wished the game could go on, as it seemed rather anti-climatic to just pack up and go to the next table.

I didn't find this in our games for the TT. We generally tended to reach 6 turns every round and half tended to reach a natural conclusion to the game by that point, the only 2 being the games where out opponents essentially held back(the Wolves because of their inexperience, and the guard because they designed their lists to take out opponent HQs and protect their own). Personally, I would have felt a little let down to only play 3 games, especially since with 3 longer rounds, I'd have had so much free time between rounds because we tended to get our games done with ~10-15 minutes left before time was called anyway.

I also have a few suggestions for next year's championship event. First of all let me say that Adepticon 2010 was a ton of fun. I used to play Wizkids games competitively, and I participated in countless tournaments at various venues including major tournaments like Nationals and Gencon. Adepticon was hands down the nicest venue and most well ran tournament I've ever played in.

1) The Sportsmanship score needs to be reworked. Having it on the same page as the round score card made it really difficult to score your opponent accurately and honestly. This really needs to be handled in a way where your opponent can't see your scoring for them. Secondly I can see how doing it secretly can also create abuse where you are inaccurately scoring down your opponent intentionally to inflate your own chances of gaining a high score. My suggestion would be to score sportsmanship when the tournament is over, and you have to pick 1 of the 3 players you played as your choice for the best sport. That way it is unlikely anyone is getting a perfect sportsmanship score and if they do, they really must have deserved it.

2) Faction Ranking and top prize. What I was disheartened to see was the amount of similar army builds, namely the 2 Valkyrie Imperial Guard armies. I really felt the Championship tournament was more of an environment for the entire hobby from fluff, to painting/conversions, sportsmanship, and the actual battle. The power army builds really belong in 'Ard Boyz tournaments. I don't think there should be anything to discourage people from using those builds but a way to encourage a more diverse showing of factions would be to put each player in a faction bracket. That way the overall best Ork, Eldar, IG, SM, CSM, Tau, Necron, etc... player has the chance at a prize and recognition. If you choose to play the popular army build, you will have a lesser chance of taking the faction prize.

3) Players choice. I don't believe I missed anything in the tournament packet but I wasn't aware we were making our players choice vote before the first round began and I didn't get a chance to review allot of armies as I was staying near my own waiting for a painting judge to score my army and I could have been looking around more had I known I needed to make this score so early. I really think it should be done during the lunch break or at the end of the tournament.

4) I agree that the 3 round format needs tweaking as it really makes it difficult to have an accurate ranking with only 3 rounds.

5) Time between the rounds. We had plenty of time before round 1 began to get started, and the lunch break between rounds 1 and 2 gave us plenty of time to set up for the 2nd round but we literally had maybe 5 minutes to find our next pairing and get to it before the 3rd round began. I know that it takes awhile to correlate 220 players worth of results so I would try to put in at least an hour break between rounds so that the last round is not so rushed. We had plenty of time once the 3rd round was over to easily have increased the gap between rounds 2 and 3.

Again, I mean this all as constructive criticism and I will again say this was hands down the best gaming experience I have ever had!

Platuan4th wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:I didn't play in the team tournament this year, so if this has already been changed please disregard;

I would rather play 3 full games in the team tournament as opposed to 4 half games. To explain, two years ago we played in the team tournament and between moving tables (Around several people mind you during a team tournament!), classifying terrain, explaining team armies, handling FAQ rulings for the team armies, etc....the games were usually rushed and failed to have any closure. Many games both our opponents and ourselves wished the game could go on, as it seemed rather anti-climatic to just pack up and go to the next table.

I didn't find this in our games for the TT. We generally tended to reach 6 turns every round and half tended to reach a natural conclusion to the game by that point, the only 2 being the games where out opponents essentially held back(the Wolves because of their inexperience, and the guard because they designed their lists to take out opponent HQs and protect their own). Personally, I would have felt a little let down to only play 3 games, especially since with 3 longer rounds, I'd have had so much free time between rounds because we tended to get our games done with ~10-15 minutes left before time was called anyway.

Well, my experience is certainly anecdotal and perhaps we just had unlucky pairings that year. We played a horde ork, semi-horde ork/Daemons, Mechdar and SOB spam. So 3/4 games had some model count to it (Although, as a team, we played relatively elite armies). I simply like the thought of 3 games to give me time to find our opponents, shake hands, check out armies, etc.

NecronLord3 wrote:I also have a few suggestions for next year's championship event. First of all let me say that Adepticon 2010 was a ton of fun. I used to play Wizkids games competitively, and I participated in countless tournaments at various venues including major tournaments like Nationals and Gencon. Adepticon was hands down the nicest venue and most well ran tournament I've ever played in.

Thanks from me, and this really should be directed at our volunteers who act as our rules judges, paint judges, registration table workers, etc. And to Hank/Matt/Jeff who put in way more time than I even want to think about.

NecronLord3 wrote:
1) The Sportsmanship score needs to be reworked. Having it on the same page as the round score card made it really difficult to score your opponent accurately and honestly. This really needs to be handled in a way where your opponent can't see your scoring for them. Secondly I can see how doing it secretly can also create abuse where you are inaccurately scoring down your opponent intentionally to inflate your own chances of gaining a high score. My suggestion would be to score sportsmanship when the tournament is over, and you have to pick 1 of the 3 players you played as your choice for the best sport. That way it is unlikely anyone is getting a perfect sportsmanship score and if they do, they really must have deserved it.

Sports is always a tough one...thankfully, I don't have to worry about it as Gladiator organizer. What you're describing was actually attempted 4-5 years ago...the championships used a ranking, as opposed to a rating system, where each player ranked their opponents from first to third. It worked great from the perspective of generating separation and making the scores a bit more meaningful...but it was also a logistical nightmare for the organizers. Pretty much doubled the amount of paperwork that needed to be processed after the final game, and probably required almost three times as much time. They switched back to a rating system because of it.

NecronLord3 wrote:
2) Faction Ranking and top prize. What I was disheartened to see was the amount of similar army builds, namely the 2 Valkyrie Imperial Guard armies. I really felt the Championship tournament was more of an environment for the entire hobby from fluff, to painting/conversions, sportsmanship, and the actual battle. The power army builds really belong in 'Ard Boyz tournaments. I don't think there should be anything to discourage people from using those builds but a way to encourage a more diverse showing of factions would be to put each player in a faction bracket. That way the overall best Ork, Eldar, IG, SM, CSM, Tau, Necron, etc... player has the chance at a prize and recognition. If you choose to play the popular army build, you will have a lesser chance of taking the faction prize.

Theoretically its possible to track that with our tournament software. The Team Tourney has awards like Best Imperial, Best Heretical, Best Xenos, and Best Hybrid teams. I can't think of a reason why it couldn't, or shouldn't be applied to the Championships as well (except, of course, that Inq. Malice would need to find more prizes to give away ).

Applying it to gameplay would be a lot more problematic, and I think there its overly complicated.

NecronLord3 wrote:3) Players choice. I don't believe I missed anything in the tournament packet but I wasn't aware we were making our players choice vote before the first round began and I didn't get a chance to review allot of armies as I was staying near my own waiting for a painting judge to score my army and I could have been looking around more had I known I needed to make this score so early. I really think it should be done during the lunch break or at the end of the tournament.

I played in the Champs...and there was a lot going on. They did announce it a few times, but the staff for that event probably could have pushed it a bit more in the packet itself...another thing I don't have to worry about running the Gladiator. (As an aside, on our last conference call meeting pre-AdeptiCon, the BFG organizer told us he needed some paint judges...I told him he could have all of mine, since they were a bunch of lazy gits who didn't do anything...after he spent about 10-15 seconds telling me he only needed 1 or 2, I reminded him that we don't judge painting for the Gladiator. )

NecronLord3 wrote:4) I agree that the 3 round format needs tweaking as it really makes it difficult to have an accurate ranking with only 3 rounds.

As a fellow player in the Champs, I agree wholeheartedly.

NecronLord3 wrote:
5) Time between the rounds. We had plenty of time before round 1 began to get started, and the lunch break between rounds 1 and 2 gave us plenty of time to set up for the 2nd round but we literally had maybe 5 minutes to find our next pairing and get to it before the 3rd round began. I know that it takes awhile to correlate 220 players worth of results so I would try to put in at least an hour break between rounds so that the last round is not so rushed. We had plenty of time once the 3rd round was over to easily have increased the gap between rounds 2 and 3.

This has more to do with our restrictions for Sunday itself than with scheduling in general. We HAVE to wrap by 5:30-6:00 PM, which means cramming stuff in more than is really comfortable to a lot of people.

carlosthecraven wrote:Hi
3. Apocalypse has ruined the gladiator experience for me. I last played in the gladiator in 2007 and it was simply one of the best tourneys I had ever been a part of. In 2007, I fough titans and heirophants with a standard force and beat them both. In 2010, when our group finally made it back to Chicago, I got stomped by a warhound (and the scenario didn't help at all). D weapons are simply too much in standard 40K. In the past, big toys were more expensive with lesser armament. Now they are cheaper with bigger guns. If D were reduced to Str 10 AP 1, at least dice would need to be rolled. Throw in the "Lance" ability if you want it to still be really effective against tanks. (EDIT - I should probably add that I own 2 warhounds and a reaver, so this isn't envy speaking)

Greg and I actually thought about that...then decided we decided we didn't want to play "AdeptiCon 40K" with the Gladiator. 5th ed really helped D-weapons and big stuff, in ways we didn't forsee last year. We made some changes this year because of that, which to my mind, worked reasonably well, since the top two armies didn't have a single piece of forgeworld, superheavies, gargantuan creatures, or the like in them.

carlosthecraven wrote:
Also, the "screw everybody" approach to this year's scenarios resulted in auto-win/loss without rolling a die because certain matchups created a very tilted playing field. I played Tau, so my first round was auto-loss as Tau cannot take the middle of board from assault based Chaos Marines when only 4 turns get played. The third round was auto-win for me as Goatboyz Space Wolves never stood a chance in a stasis field game. Round four was the warhound - so with one of my broadside units tunnelling into combat with 10 marines, I never stood a chance. I didn't whine during the tournament, but I have to say that my enjoyment level was lacking, and of my group only I am considering doing it again on the Friday, if just for the tune-up before the team tournament.

I understand what you're saying...but to quote from the rules of the event: "Life isn't fair, and neither is the 40K Gladiator." The missions as a whole are designed to reward balanced forces, as opposed to one-sided ones. Looking back at the roster of champions:

Chaos SM
Mech Guard
Chaos SM
SM
Eldar
Tyranids
Guard
SM

With the exception of the 2 Guard armies (Mine and Jwolfe's), none of them were really focused on one aspect of the game. And I'll argue strongly that in a tournament setting, with 1 possible exception, shooting > assault.

Personally, I think it would take an exceptionally talented and lucky Tau player to win it all, because while they have good shooting, what they lack is the resilience that Guard gets from numbers. Then again, except for Scott Simpson, Tau have generally been boned on the tournament scene, so I don't know how we could necessarily make the Gladiator any different.

Once again, all opinions here are my own.

thehod wrote:Right now the majority of the members of the FAQ council are from the midwest and there are other 40k communities that are as large if not larger than in the Chicago area. It is a noble effort but the execution is off.

While true most are from the Midwest, none are currently fom the Chicagoland area. Of the current active council, only 3 of us even live in Illinois (and all South of I-80). The rest are in California, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan. So much more then the Chicago 40k community is being represented. If anything, the Chicago area 40k community is actually not being represented, currently.

While we all stand behind what gets ruled, I can assure you that any of the "hot topics" that get voted on normally end up coming down to a 4-3 split, with the ruling going in favor of the majority vote. Adding in more people from different parts of the country really isnt going to change that dynamic. More then likly either potential "answer" to a question on those "hot topic" type issues will come down to one side having 1 more vote then the other side of the duiscussion.

I think the key component to all that is not based on where people are from. Rather its the dynamic of how many people you have who are hardline RAW v people who want reasonable playability before RAW in all cases. Then you have your few who fall in the middle of that. Hardline RAW is going to be the same no matter what part of the country you are from. Reasonable playability and those who fall inbetween are where your swing votes are at. Add 2 more individuals from any part of the country who are in that voting area and you will probably still see them go 1-1 on the "hot topics" and still end up with a 5-4 split, as example. Im not saying there is no need for a few more people with valuable insight, just that the overall rulings are still going to end up being won by a single vote either way. Then as others have said, how many do you add in where it just becomes unmanageable with everyones schedules.

AgeOfEgos wrote:I didn't play in the team tournament this year, so if this has already been changed please disregard;

I would rather play 3 full games in the team tournament as opposed to 4 half games. To explain, two years ago we played in the team tournament and between moving tables (Around several people mind you during a team tournament!), classifying terrain, explaining team armies, handling FAQ rulings for the team armies, etc....the games were usually rushed and failed to have any closure. Many games both our opponents and ourselves wished the game could go on, as it seemed rather anti-climatic to just pack up and go to the next table.

I agree with a lot of this one... 2.5 hours *seems* like enough, but it always seemed that our games started at the 2hr mark as everyone has to go through the other army lists, review the (many) victory criteria for the scenarios, etc... We only had a couple of games actually finish on turns.

I do like the idea of primary, secondary, and tertiary objectives but the whole Command token thing was too time-consuming IMHO.

Still, don't drop a game. 4 games is do-able as long as some of the time killers (overly complex scenarios!) are cut down to a minimum.

Vale,

JohnS

cygnnus wrote:I agree with a lot of this one... 2.5 hours *seems* like enough, but it always seemed that our games started at the 2hr mark as everyone has to go through the other army lists, review the (many) victory criteria for the scenarios, etc... We only had a couple of games actually finish on turns.

I do like the idea of primary, secondary, and tertiary objectives but the whole Command token thing was too time-consuming IMHO.

Still, don't drop a game. 4 games is do-able as long as some of the time killers (overly complex scenarios!) are cut down to a minimum.

Some of the Command Counter uses are fine - "This unit is now a scoring unit" is easy to understand, and shouldn't take too long to assign. (Note: it saves significant time if teams read the missions BEFORE that round starts.) Others were annoyingly complex this year, e.g., mission #1.

I'd like to see table assignments posted ONLINE as well as on paper. There were more than sufficient numbers of iPhones on my team; we could have saved several minutes/round by not having to fight to one of the 3 paper lists.

@ Cent

There was actually quite a few 40k WC members present:

BBF
WhiteDevil
GMM Studios
Nascient Wonder
Rob Carr
Kenny Boucher
Tim Baptist
Rogue248
Rob Baer
The Hod
Paul Murphy (newly inducted)
Paul Minglino (newly inducted)

If I missed anyone my apology.

G

Centurian99 wrote:
On widening the membership of the Council...its a logistical issue, but one which we're definitely looking at. We'd like to expand the ruling council, but at the same time, if it gets too large, it becomes unwieldy and tough to mesh schedules.

That's because you insist, in 2010, on using conference calls to resolve things, where people have to commit several hours at a time on the phone. I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous. I was on the phone-calls for setting up the TT rules in 2009, and opted to just judge day-of-the-event this year because of how poorly run those phone calls were. I'm busy, I'm sure all of you are busy, and there's no reason to have to block out a four-hour period of time when we have email and forum software that is far better suited for these sorts of things.

Then, because the discussions aren't actually written down and you're running it orally, you get goof-ups like what happened with the Tyranid stuff, where you completely missed a paragraph under the Death Leaper's special rule that actually resolved the question, and ruled opposite of what was actually in the rulebook. (Speaking about the loss of d6 movement question, specifically)

Get rid of the insistence on trying to resolve everything on a phonecall, and set up a private forum (even with polling capability), break every question into a topic, and people can weigh in as they have time, not shackled to any specific four-hour time period. It will be easier to quote and refer to relevant passages as you go too.

You do that, and there would be any number of qualified individuals willing to contribute to the effort, while simultaneously reducing the logistical issues involved in having a committee.

There is hte old adage if it's not broke don't fix it and you can't make everyone happy. If you turn the championship into a two day event it will possibly overshadow the team tournament and probably the gladiator. I like the championship as it is now since it's not overly competitive and you can play in all three of the big events. I think there is a trend of starting to make tournaments solely focused on being as competitive as possible and that is not necessarily always for the best. If you switch over to a two day event some will say you are just trying to copy BoLScon.

G

Redbeard,

On this point we will disagree. I think if you ask anyone serving on the council they will tell you as well that the conference call method is the only method that resolves the issues in a timely fashion. We have done the other methods and it drags on and on. We dedicate evenings a few hours at a time to work through the issues, have a verbal discussion, and debate the issues. Verbal communication and debate is the only way some discussions take place and a proper frame of reference can be determined. Additionally the conference call if needed can be recorded and reviewed later. Having people on the phone able to verbally discuss, and engage one another is critical to the process that otherwise is lost in an electronic format. Not to mention vote calls. Online polling would fall painfully short. Timing of the debate and discussion is critical.

Most of the council members are highly technical individuals. It’s not a matter of not understanding or lack of ability to use new technology. We use a lot of electronic communications on a regular basis for AdeptiCon and INAT purposes.
But, sometimes the old ways are the best ways to reach an end result and when it comes to these discussions .. getting everyone on the phone, discussing the issues, and calling a vote seems to be the best way to go about it from our experiences.

Oh .. the Tyranid goof up had nothing to do with the conference call setup. It had everything to do with attempting to get a updated out in a very short time frame. Unfortunately, when you rush to turn something around a few items might get missed.

-Hank

I know you like your calls Muwhe, and I know we disagree.

I don't understand your reasoning though. "Online polling would fall painfully short" - why? And do you really believe it's not possible to use an online solution that addresses that concern? Timing of the debate and discussion - simply set deadlines. Arguments must be presented by a given time, at which point votes can be taken.

I think that the rush and errors with the Tyranids would have been alleviated if you did your reviews in a written format, rather than an oral one. If all the questions are written down, complete with relevant quotes and comments directly with the question, it's much harder for something to fall through the cracks.

Redbeard wrote:That's because you insist, in 2010, on using conference calls to resolve things, where people have to commit several hours at a time on the phone. I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous. I was on the phone-calls for setting up the TT rules in 2009, and opted to just judge day-of-the-event this year because of how poorly run those phone calls were. I'm busy, I'm sure all of you are busy, and there's no reason to have to block out a four-hour period of time when we have email and forum software that is far better suited for these sorts of things.

Then, because the discussions aren't actually written down and you're running it orally, you get goof-ups like what happened with the Tyranid stuff, where you completely missed a paragraph under the Death Leaper's special rule that actually resolved the question, and ruled opposite of what was actually in the rulebook. (Speaking about the loss of d6 movement question, specifically)

Get rid of the insistence on trying to resolve everything on a phonecall, and set up a private forum (even with polling capability), break every question into a topic, and people can weigh in as they have time, not shackled to any specific four-hour time period. It will be easier to quote and refer to relevant passages as you go too.

You do that, and there would be any number of qualified individuals willing to contribute to the effort, while simultaneously reducing the logistical issues involved in having a committee.

And that is exactly where this process would fail. While forum software and polling has benefits (and is a resource to use - ie: dakkadakka.com, warseer.com, etc), you can spend far more time composing arguments, assessing grammar and working to interpret discussions than a call would ever take up. Hell, just viewing some of the threads and the length of the posts should provide that insight alone. Now that is not to say that these tools are not used or not valuable. They are used through the sites listed earlier and the input received there has been accounted for in a lot of the major issues. However, there are many issues which take a lot of discussion that is best handled via a call. If forum software and polling was the absolute best method, companies would never need conference calls or meetings ever again. We can all see that has happened.

Side note: it's just like texting. While texting has it's uses, there have been plenty of times that I responded to several texts and wasted a ton of time. Yet a call ended up solving the problem very quickly. Same rule applies here. You have to pick your tools and know when to appropriately use each one. Funny - how after typing this email, I have wasted a great amount of time reviewing it and working to ensure my points were clear. Damn a call would have been quicker.

As far as mistakes, I guarantee with 100% certainty that no matter what team is assembled, what tools are used and what processes are implemented, mistakes will happen. Guarantee it. That's why feedback is solicited and accepted. You are just fooling yourself if you think the tools you listed will fix everything. In fact, I would be willing to be they cause more work and time consumption.

As far as any number of qualified individuals goes, I'm sure that there are a number of qualified individuals. However, everyone thinks their qualified. While it's nice to think that everyone should be involved, it's a reality that doesn't work. This is why for instance - I select very specific teams at work depending on the capital project requirements. If we tried to include everyone that would be of value or some value, we would never accomplish anything. People would be tied up all the time.

Overall, the inclusion of large numbers of people, personality flaws, lack of true expertise, use of the wrong tools at the wrong time and more would detract from what has been a successful process.

Redbeard wrote:I know you like your calls Muwhe, and I know we disagree.

I don't understand your reasoning though. "Online polling would fall painfully short" - why? And do you really believe it's not possible to use an online solution that addresses that concern? Timing of the debate and discussion - simply set deadlines. Arguments must be presented by a given time, at which point votes can be taken.

I think that the rush and errors with the Tyranids would have been alleviated if you did your reviews in a written format, rather than an oral one. If all the questions are written down, complete with relevant quotes and comments directly with the question, it's much harder for something to fall through the cracks.

I hear what you're saying...obviously I'm a fan of online communication and we could easily set up a private forum to handle this type of interaction. However I have come around to agree with Hank on this.

In the past I have been involved with attempts to do a form of the INAT that was to be created entirely over a forum, and the idea was pretty much as you suggested...you would make a thread about each issue and then have a set time to vote on the issue. However I saw this system fail rather quickly for a number of reasons:


1) You have to take the time to post all the relevant information so those members who aren't familiar with the argument know why the question is even being asked. Like you said, if done properly theoretically it could mean that less stuff will fall through the cracks as the quotes from the rulebook would be there. The problem is, someone actually has to take the time to WRITE OUT all these arguments and that takes TIME.

On a conference call both sides can very quickly make an argument and then those involved can reference the book as needed. While phone calls don't have visual body cues for conversation, you get tone and the ability to react to a conversation in real-time. This goes a LONG way towards making what would take pages of dense text on a forum into a few minutes of intense argument on a phone call.

The reality of the situation is, in order to write out both sides of the argument into a forum thread along with a poll that covers all realistic options takes a LOT of time when applied to the amount of new issues we rule on with each update...especially since many of them are rather complex issues to begin with.

Just as an example, the Doom of Malan'tai Spirit Leech ruling required quite a bit of argument and discussion and THEN once we discussed it enough and made an initial vote we then had to focus on a secondary part of the issue: cover saves. If you're handling that via a forum post you have to make all the arguments, set a poll wait for the poll to end THEN make another post on secondary follow-up issues, initiate another poll and wait for that to end, etc.

Depending on how long you're waiting to close the polls you're talking about a couple of weeks to do something that can be done in one (long) night.



2) Yes you can set time limits on polls in your forums, but what happens when people don't vote by that time limit? You end up with only a few people making the ruling, which obviously doesn't work. And that's the good thing about the conference call: yeah, it can be sometimes difficult to get everyone on the line at once, but once you do, then you know you've got all the people needed to make the rulings for the next few hours.


3) In truth, I actually think you've gotten it backwards, in that I think it is EASIER for stuff to fall through the cracks when it is presented in a forum format. Sure, when proper rules quotes are included something stupid like the Deathleaper ruling may not have happened, but in general if you've got 40 rulings to wade through and vote on by a certain date and each of those issues has a lengthy forum post, poll and potential argument to read through, I think it is a whole lot easier for someone involved to accidentally glaze through an important part of the thread and make a vote without even realizing what they're doing.

When we're on the phone, at anytime someone can stop the other person mid sentence and question them about their argument or ask for the quote from the rulebook. But you know that the important parts of the argument are going to be emphasized by those most passionate about it and that everyone is going to hear those arguments...nobody is going to skim right over something as everyone is privy to the same phone call.


In the end the Deathleaper and Spore Mine issues occurred because we were attempting to get the INAT update out more quickly than usual. In my rush I made some very stupid mistakes and everyone put a little bit too much trust in my ability to know all the rules. If we had been on our normal schedule then more people would have had more time to read their Tyranid codices a little more and we would have had more time to double-check the INAT draft before publication to spot such errors.

But even so, I am looking into a potential solution to help prevent this from ever happening again, regardless of the time constraints required for the update.

Does the INAT discussion need to be either Conference Calls or Forums? How about both? You get the benefits of both media. There is something to be said for online conversation with the ability to craft your thoughts carefully in a way that you couldn't on the phone. It would allow for a gathering of thoughts that could be quickly discussed on a conference call. And the conference call does allow for a more personal resolution of discussions.

This is surely something that be a melding of styles.

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:
If forum software and polling was the absolute best method, companies would never need conference calls or meetings ever again. We can all see that has happened.

Depending on your industry, it has. In my line of work, meetings aren't about getting things done, they're about building relationships. You have a conference call with a customer because you want them to feel valued. It's all very touchy-feely. But, when they, or you, actually want something done, email is the way to do it. IMs pretty much replace inter-office phonecalls even.

It's a different way of doing things, and I guess not everyone is ready for it. I can say, from personal experience, that text-based solutions scale infinitely better than conference calls. As Bill indicated above, the reason for not expanding the council is the logistics. Trying to get 10 people on a conference call is hard. Each additional member adds one more schedule that has to be worked around. If you spread beyond just North America, you start bumping into serious timezone issues as well. Both of these issues are solved by going to an online system. I developed a system for an international gaming group to handle their rules disputes and policy decisions online that supports weekly votes by over 50 member representatives spread across four continents, without any logistical issues about how many people can weigh-in or have to be present at any specific time.

As far as any number of qualified individuals goes, I'm sure that there are a number of qualified individuals. However, everyone thinks their qualified. While it's nice to think that everyone should be involved, it's a reality that doesn't work. This is why for instance - I select very specific teams at work depending on the capital project requirements. If we tried to include everyone that would be of value or some value, we would never accomplish anything. People would be tied up all the time.

Of course. But, if the goal of the INAT ("Independent National Tournament FAQ" - from the front page of the document) is to be a national tournament resource, membership on the council should be open to more than just Adepticon staff. Furthermore, I'm not sure that people running tournaments are necessarily the best-suited to working on such a document. Some of you are certainly extremely competent and know your rules in-and-out. But that's not true of all the people listed in the credits of the document. Matthias, for example, has many excellent talents, and is a great tournament organizer. But he self-admittedly doesn't play 40k anymore. Please don't think I'm bashing him in any way, for I know how much work he puts into making Adepticon the best tournament experience in the country. But for someone who doesn't play a game to be part of the FAQ council for that game's National Tournament FAQ is questionable to say the least.


If you want a truly independent tournament FAQ with real national (and maybe international) reach, why not set up something like this;

You make being part of the INAT a two-way proposition. Any tournament organizer can opt to be a member of the INAT group. Membership means that they get a vote on the rulings (it's really no harder to allow 100 people to vote than it is to allow 10, unless you're on a conference call), but agree to honor the majority rulings for all of their tournaments. Looking at the GW site, there are over 30 events listed on the Tournament Circuit. What better way to really get everyone playing by one set of rules than to get them all using the INAT? And what better way to do that than to give them a voice in what those rules will be.

Furthermore, you can have 'earned spots', where people who have proven themselves competent can each have a voice. Adepticon already has a mechanism that could be used for this - anyone who has won a codicer award (for rules knowledge) at one of the events could be given an entry to this council as well.

Based on the numbers, you'd be looking at about a 60-70 member council, rather than a 10-man council. But it would be a council with a much greater national voice, and more of a reason for people to adopt it.

Yakface wrote:
In the past I have been involved with attempts to do a form of the INAT that was to be created entirely over a forum, and the idea was pretty much as you suggested...you would make a thread about each issue and then have a set time to vote on the issue. However I saw this system fail rather quickly for a number of reasons:

1) You have to take the time to post all the relevant information so those members who aren't familiar with the argument know why the question is even being asked. Like you said, if done properly theoretically it could mean that less stuff will fall through the cracks as the quotes from the rulebook would be there. The problem is, someone actually has to take the time to WRITE OUT all these arguments and that takes TIME.

Someone has to take the time to write them all out anyway - that's how they got into the PDF. You're just front-loading the typing to when the question is asked, rather than when it is answered. On the other hand, as you get more members, this workload can be distributed among more people, so the actual time required by any one person is lessened.

2) Yes you can set time limits on polls in your forums, but what happens when people don't vote by that time limit? You end up with only a few people making the ruling, which obviously doesn't work. And that's the good thing about the conference call: yeah, it can be sometimes difficult to get everyone on the line at once, but once you do, then you know you've got all the people needed to make the rulings for the next few hours.

In my experience, if you tell people that votes will be taken once a week, by midnight sunday, people find a way to get their votes in. As it stands right now, only a few people are making the rulings. The FAQ document lists nine names. There are over thirty tournaments in the GW circuit this year (According to this link) That means you have fewer people making the decision than there are events. It also means that a close vote (5-4) was actually decided by five people. If the council was expanded to 50 or 60 people, and half of them didn't vote on an issue, you'd still have more people making the ruling than there are currently.

Redbeard wrote:Of course. But, if the goal of the INAT ("Independent National Tournament FAQ" - from the front page of the document) is to be a national tournament resource, membership on the council should be open to more than just Adepticon staff. Furthermore, I'm not sure that people running tournaments are necessarily the best-suited to working on such a document. Some of you are certainly extremely competent and know your rules in-and-out. But that's not true of all the people listed in the credits of the document. Matthias, for example, has many excellent talents, and is a great tournament organizer. But he self-admittedly doesn't play 40k anymore. Please don't think I'm bashing him in any way, for I know how much work he puts into making Adepticon the best tournament experience in the country. But for someone who doesn't play a game to be part of the FAQ council for that game's National Tournament FAQ is questionable to say the least.

Alex - actually my name should be removed from the newer versions of the INAT - I haven't been involved in sometime. I believe it there due my historical involvement only.

I think labeling the document the INAT or 'Independent National Tournament FAQ' was a bit ambitious. I've always been in favor of naming it the AdeptiCon FAQ. I think in the end that would have saved us a ton of teeth gnashing. That said, this is primarily Jon's baby and a majority of the document came from/comes from right here on Dakka Dakka - so labeling it as such would also be wrong.

I understand where you are coming from - but speaking from years of collective-based experience, the larger the group, the sooner it fails and falls into disarray. A forum requires constant monitoring in order to keep up with all the discussions, additional time to respond to tangents, the potential for abuse...I support the INAT guys in whatever medium they find works best for them.

Increasing membership is something that will no doubt happen from what I understand..although I sure it will be a more gradual process. Adding 3 or 4 people is much more feasible than 30-40. It is extremely important to have a respectful group that can work together without individuals that will get bent out of shape when something doesn't go their way...

This '40K' game seems to be nothing but trouble. I think Adepticon should drop it in favor of more Warhammer Quest.

Seriously - does anyone want to add their 2 cents on the other half of Adepticon? WFB, FOW, Warmachine, LotR, WAB, BFG, Epic, seminars, vender hall, etc ....

RanTheCid wrote:This '40K' game seems to be nothing but trouble. I think Adepticon should drop it in favor of more Warhammer Quest.

Haha! Agreed!

Redbeard wrote:
In my experience, if you tell people that votes will be taken once a week, by midnight sunday, people find a way to get their votes in. As it stands right now, only a few people are making the rulings. The FAQ document lists nine names. There are over thirty tournaments in the GW circuit this year (According to this link) That means you have fewer people making the decision than there are events. It also means that a close vote (5-4) was actually decided by five people. If the council was expanded to 50 or 60 people, and half of them didn't vote on an issue, you'd still have more people making the ruling than there are currently.

The highlighted section is immaterial.

The INAT is made for and by people associated with Adepticon. The existence of other tournaments doesn't really matter, as INAT is not made for/by them. Those other tournaments are completely free to take the time and energy to make their own FAQ, should they so choose. There is no reason to expect Adepticon to enlist the help of people who have no connection to the tournament whatsoever in the effort to create a FAQ for their own use.

It's like the US government discussing with foreign powers as to how to craft domestic policy.

The naming of the FAQ is immaterial, as well. It was named as such merely to indicate that anyone who wanted to could make use of it, rather than naming it such that people felt they needed Adepticon's permission to use it.

Lastly, do you really believe that taking the council from approximately 10 people to approximately 60+ people would result in a more efficient and smooth operation?

RanTheCid wrote:This '40K' game seems to be nothing but trouble. I think Adepticon should drop it in favor of more Warhammer Quest.

Seriously - does anyone want to add their 2 cents on the other half of Adepticon? WFB, FOW, Warmachine, LotR, WAB, BFG, Epic, seminars, vender hall, etc ....

I played in the Warmachine Midnight Tournaments. I only have one complaint/suggestion.

Can the Midnight Tournaments be played in an actual hall/room?

We tried to play in the Grand Hall the first night and got booted after 2 games.
Then we were in the hall out front. All the terrain on the tables had to be taken from the ballroom tables.
Then the lights gradually dimmed on us. The second night we were able to have the lights kept bright. Apparently the right person was talked to.
But it still made it feel like we were an after-thought, and not a real part of the events.
I still had fun, and I met a lot of people from the PP boards, and Malfred as well.

Also, because of the spread, I completely forgot about the Fantasy Tournament until well after the armies were gone. :(
I would have liked to check them out in person.

On the Forum vs Phone Call debate, have you guys tried any other electronic forms, ie. Chat programs or Ventrilo server? Or even video conference?

Can the Midnight Tournaments be played in an actual hall/room?

The Midnight madness was always schedule for the foyer area. Honestly, there was a good deal of uncertainity with how well it would be attended.

Given the success and depending on discussions with Privateer Press we will looking a different space. Going to be some shifting of things as we adjust to the overall space of the venue and the growth of our events.

Potentially a 24 hour gaming hall space in one of the smaller rooms. The issue of course is staffing. Someone associated with and involved with AdeptiCon has to be present. It's hard to find staff and coverage for daytime events let along the graveyard shift.

-Hank

muwhe wrote:Can the Midnight Tournaments be played in an actual hall/room?

The Midnight madness was always schedule for the foyer area. Honestly, there was a good deal of uncertainity with how well it would be attended.

Given the success and depending on discussions with Privateer Press we will looking a different space. Going to be some shifting of things as we adjust to the overall space of the venue and the growth of our events.

Potentially a 24 hour gaming hall space in one of the smaller rooms. The issue of course is staffing. Someone associated with and involved with AdeptiCon has to be present. It's hard to find staff and coverage for daytime events let along the graveyard shift.

-Hank

Thanks for the response.
I am hoping not to sound like I am making complaints.
But I am trying to show where some things were misunderstood.

When it came time to sign up for the event, the registration table people directed me to the 40k registration table,
who then directed me to where they thought the WM registration was.
Also the events list on the walls showed the event as being in the Grand Ballroom.

So there needs to be an Adepticon Staff member present to keep the halls open? I did not realize that.

Again, my thanks for putting on a great event. It was my second Adepticon, and I plan for a third.
I had a great time and saw some friends I planned to, some I was surprised to see, and met a few new ones.

Saldiven wrote:

Redbeard wrote:
In my experience, if you tell people that votes will be taken once a week, by midnight sunday, people find a way to get their votes in. As it stands right now, only a few people are making the rulings. The FAQ document lists nine names. There are over thirty tournaments in the GW circuit this year (According to this link) That means you have fewer people making the decision than there are events. It also means that a close vote (5-4) was actually decided by five people. If the council was expanded to 50 or 60 people, and half of them didn't vote on an issue, you'd still have more people making the ruling than there are currently.

The highlighted section is immaterial.

The INAT is made for and by people associated with Adepticon. The existence of other tournaments doesn't really matter, as INAT is not made for/by them. Those other tournaments are completely free to take the time and energy to make their own FAQ, should they so choose. There is no reason to expect Adepticon to enlist the help of people who have no connection to the tournament whatsoever in the effort to create a FAQ for their own use.

It's like the US government discussing with foreign powers as to how to craft domestic policy.

The naming of the FAQ is immaterial, as well. It was named as such merely to indicate that anyone who wanted to could make use of it, rather than naming it such that people felt they needed Adepticon's permission to use it.

Lastly, do you really believe that taking the council from approximately 10 people to approximately 60+ people would result in a more efficient and smooth operation?

Adding more people to a committee absolutely doesn't make it better. I applaud you for getting work done with 10. Getting bigger would add to the work, not the output, and eventually, it would still be the same people doing the work, with more shouting. Eventually the good people burn out, and output drops to 0.

The people running other circuit events are working on their own events, not Adepticon. We don't have a say in the INAT, and shouldn't have a say. Not our event. In the same manner, we can choose to use the INAT, not use it, or use part of it. There is no connection between Adepticon and the other events other than all of the rest of us wishing we could eventually be as successful as Adepticon.)

More people ruling on something 25-20 isn't a better decision than a 5-4. In fact, it will often be worse as all rulings will be compromises after way too much discussion. The INAT works, Adepticon is growing and successful. Growth and Success = WIN!