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.

yakface wrote:
I think there is not doubt that they can stick to that schedule with the 'dice down' policy.

I do not agree with you there.

I think there will quite a bit of time that goes by before they get their results.

They are doing the Adepticon model of primary, secondary and tertiary objectives, so it will take a while to figure out who won. It is pretty obvious who won in an objective mission, but it takes a while if they are planning on having victory points as an objective, or even kill points.

At the end of a game it takes a while to chat about what just happened and to add up the results, then meander to the scoring table.

But it really depends on how many people they are expecting for the event.

Ive been to a number of events where getting in 5-6 full turns completed in the alloted time has been a stretch and i can play fast. I had considered going as well...however games at 2000 points in 2 hrs is unrealistic to expect to go smoothly for everyone. Im not going to spend the money to go to an event where games will be judged on time constraints. 2000 points isnt the norm.. 2hrs isnt the norm for tourny play. 7 games isnt really norm as well but ill over look that.

Its really eye opening to me that a rep for the tourny posted here and his explination was 2 hr games can be done (as long as its between 2 experianced players who know each other) and the way to deal with it is too play faster......sheesh i hope this guy isnt one of the cell phones i would have to call for a judgement. :(

I like the 1500pt tourney, so much so that Adepticon should make the Sunday 40k championships a 1500pt tourney. The game does play at a different level at 1500pts and units that aren't so good at 1850 are better at 1500pts.

While Yakface brings up some good points that we can all agree with, the previous posts from Darkwynn and Jwolf imply (to me, at least) that they have already made up their mind and they are going to run their tournament the way they want.

I just keep thinking:

1) 7 Games, are they serious? That's rediculous!
2) 2000pts in 2hrs? Maybe if this was 2nd edition, where 2000 points could be 5 models.
3) Dice down? Really? So sorry my opponent, but you just got screwed out of your all important "Bottom of the 6th" turn in an objective mission because you wisely decided to go second, and our CC phase went to long because I have 180 orks. Sorry, you lose, but I got to play my 6th turn at least! (Sarcasm.) I think dice down is a terrible way to play.
4) Calling the judges over seems to be their answer to everything. Will they have a million judges? It just sounds like controlled chaos with judges running to an fro smiting those that are "stalling". How do you really speed someone up anyway? Do you just tell them they are done and to move on to the next phase? Are the judges going to move models for the player? Will they roll dice too? Seriously. WTH?
5) Did you read their FAQ????? Turning off powerfists? WTH, and that's like the first thing!

This whole event just sounds like a disaster, TBH. And it's a shame, because I love everything that the BOLS does, and I wish I had a gaming club like theirs!

I appreciate the concerns you voice, Yakface, and I'm happy to address them. I'd like a little latitude to address the distinct elements you bring up individually.

Points Limits. Points limits are a hard issue. It is easy to see the argment that fewer points promotes faster play - after all, fewer points mean fewer units, which should logically play faster. My experience is that players will often play more cautiously with fewer units than with many, and that the actual time saved for most armies by having fewer units to move is generally absorbed by the extra concern players put into preserving their smaller number of units. Certain exceptions exist; another 500 points of Ork Boyz certainly takes longer to move than an extra unit of Assault Terminators in a Land Raider. I wrestled with the points issue quite a lot, but in the end I decided to go with the local standard, which is 2000 points, to preserve the regional flavor. Next year, when we go to a 3-day format, we will offer tournaments in several denominations, and I very much like the idea of having a relaxed track with longer time limits and fewer games available.

Time Limits. Time limits are a very devisive issue. I feel like part of the excitement and fun of tournaments is the time pressure; this does not mean that people who feel differently are wrong, it just means we like different aspects of the tournament experience. We could easily have stretched the days to make every game 2.5 hours and still allowed for 7 games in 2 days (7 games allows for a pure Swiss System for 128 players, which is the maximum we'll allow for 40K this year). We instead chose to end earlier to allow people to have unstructured play and social time in the evening on Friday and Saturday, and to catch afternoon flights out on Sunday.

We will be tracking completion and turns played through the tournament, and adjust things next year based on the results.

Number of Games. I've always wanted to have a tournament with a pure Swiss System. For those who don't know what this means and don't want to wiki it, a Swiss System is similar what you see in the playoffs for sporting events. You have a number of teams, and they fight down to the last winner, with a set of games for every factor of 2 (2,4,8,16,32,64,128, etc). Thus, with a maximum of 128 players, a Swiss System requires 7 rounds. This should allow us to do something no other tournament has ever done - establish a true winner with mathematical validity.

Casual Gamers and "Less-Casual" Players - I really get this problem. I'm very far to the "Less-Casual" end of the spectrum, but I was far at the other end for a good while, too. The problem is finding a way to accomodate both, and I don't think there is a very easy answer. I'm very interested in your ideas on how to give the guy who plays 15 games a year, all in tournaments, and the guy who plays 40 games a month a good gaming experience.

Again, thanks for the feedback, and I'll see you next year at Adepticon, if not before then.

Wow, a swiss system? Is it based on total battle points scored so far or just if you win you go to the next round?

Cause a true swiss system means that technically 64 of those people would only play one game. If half the people that sign up for the tournament are out of it after the first game then that's pretty bad. And the cost to enter should reflect this, i.e. it should cost significantly less than most GT's due to the fact that you don't have a chance at winning if you lose a single game.

If it's not a true single elimination event then it's just like every other tourney and calling it a swiss system and basing your scheduling off of it seems wrong

As for longer and less games the two aren't mutually exclusive. Like most people here said you could play 7 games at 2.5 hours and a lost of people would love this kind of ironman event.

As for casual and less casual again it's not mutually exclusive. Just because I hypothetically only get in 15 tournament games a year doesn't mean i'm less competative or able than someone who games 480 times a year. It just means that's all I get to play. You seem to gloss over that it's strangers playing each other. That by itself adds quite a bit of time to each game.

I've actually found that at 2k all most people are taking are more troops. Most people at 1750-1850 have a solid build and use the excess points to flush out troops so I don't see them being any more careful at lower point values except possibly with their troops (purely based on regional observations).

I truly think the biggest issue is that you've created an event that doesn't appeal to a group outside of your local area. Which isn't a problem for you guys at all it's just hard to bill it as a large event when almost all of your decisions are based completely on your local meta-game which doesn't mesh with the rest of the country.

This is from the Ard Boyz.. FAQ

Codex Imperial Guard 2009
• Imperial Guard may take Inquisitorial Allies as defined in Codex Daemonhunters or Codex Witchhunters.

Simple, concise IAW Game Workshops general rules for 40k.

This is from the BOLS FAQ...

Q: May I use Witch Hunters or Daemonhunters as allies in my Space Marine or Imperial Guard Army List?
A: Witch Hunters and Daemonhunters are not allowed as allies

And your 40k 2000pt Tournament Rules...

Allied Daemonhunters and Allied Witch Hunters are NOT ALLOWED in other armies.

This is from the BOLS FAQ as well...

Read the BRB for the rule in question. Then check your Codex. In the case of a conflict, your Codex is right. Then check the Games Workshop FAQ. In the case of a conflict, the FAQ is right. Lastly check our FAQ and House Rules. In the case of a conflict, our FAQ and House Rules are right. If you still have doubts, ask a judge.

We get the idea.

My bad. I thought this was a 40k event. Your event, your choice to ignore whatever 40k rules you want, my choice not to encourge such behavior.

Not attending....

Is it possible to hold it at another time during the year next year? Austin Texas in the summer is not a place I'd like to be.

Why would a tournament ban Inquisition units, which are generally characterful and not particularly strong? Why would they require Army Builder? Why have your own FAQs and own rules? This entire thing seems somewhat off to me.

What its only 105? Woosy!

It's not thrilling to learn that a player who has lost a game in one of the early rounds is unable to win the tournament. I can easily imagine some people will just quit after they lose a game. All too often we always see the same gamers at the top tables. I think a good tournament should incorporate a system that allows for people that have lost a game to be able to move back up in the rankings and still have a shot at first place.

G

Fetterkey wrote:Why would a tournament ban Inquisition units, which are generally characterful and not particularly strong? Why would they require Army Builder? Why have your own FAQs and own rules? This entire thing seems somewhat off to me.

Easy to figure out the ban. Bet there are a few Lash armies in the BOLS groups. Cuts down on those pesky Psychic Hoods being brought in by allied Inquisitors does it not?

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:Easy to figure out the ban. Bet there are a few Lash armies in the BOLS groups. Cuts down on those pesky Psychic Hoods being brought in by allied Inquisitors does it not?

There are Lash armies here in town, but most of the BoLS people, and Austin locals, will be volunteering at the event, not playing, so I don't think there are personal army match up motivations. Personally, I think because of the changes to the Guard and Marine books several times since the WH/DH rules were created just makes it easier not to open a whole can of worms working out the details of how the new books interact with the old, old books.

I've lived in BoLS Land (Austin) for two years now after playing pretty much exclusively non-tournament games for my previous decade or so of 40k life. It is a radical adjustment moving to a tournament town. Two years ago I would have agreed that you could never get 2000 points in repeatedly in 2 hours. But the last local store tournament I attended (twenty people or so), there was usually only about 1 game per round of the ten that went right up to the time limit. We started the tournament late, about 11:15 and I was done and in my car after three games (and an 45 minute or so lunch break) at 6:45.

Having seen both sides myself, it takes a lot of practice to get the point where you can play 2000 points confidently in 2 hours. The first year I was here I don't think I completed a single game in the 8 or 10 tournaments I played in. The second year, I think only one or two (out of 15) tournament games weren't finished in 2 hours. The main difference between me two years ago and now is that now I know my army better, know the rules a lot better, and have MUCH greater knowledge of my opponents' armies.

I certainly hope that the two hour time limit is a fun challenge for people instead of a dreaded fun-killer. If you are thinking of not attending because of this, or any other rule quick, then I hope you reconsider. Variety is what makes life spicy, yes? And there's plenty of spice and hospitality down here in Austin. As someone who recently moved to the area, I definitely recommend coming. Besides the tournaments (with what I think are cool prizes in the "loser" brackets), I myself am looking forward to the Pod Racing, Narrative Apocalypse games and seeing the painting contest. I'm going to be a full-time volunteer, but I hope to be able to sneak away to get a few races in with my under-construction Eldar Pod Racer. Besides all of the gaming, Austin has great food, awesome live music and the world's largest urban bat colony. Now if they could just do something about 100-blazing degree summertime heat. Thankfully I understand the Doubletree has a powerful AC system.

jwolf wrote:I appreciate the concerns you voice, Yakface, and I'm happy to address them. I'd like a little latitude to address the distinct elements you bring up individually.

Points Limits. Points limits are a hard issue. It is easy to see the argment that fewer points promotes faster play - after all, fewer points mean fewer units, which should logically play faster. My experience is that players will often play more cautiously with fewer units than with many, and that the actual time saved for most armies by having fewer units to move is generally absorbed by the extra concern players put into preserving their smaller number of units. Certain exceptions exist; another 500 points of Ork Boyz certainly takes longer to move than an extra unit of Assault Terminators in a Land Raider. I wrestled with the points issue quite a lot, but in the end I decided to go with the local standard, which is 2000 points, to preserve the regional flavor. Next year, when we go to a 3-day format, we will offer tournaments in several denominations, and I very much like the idea of having a relaxed track with longer time limits and fewer games available.

If you are trying to stick with a regional standard then that is somewhat understandable but I completely disagree with the notion that less points equal the same length of game. While this may happen in some instances with some players, I think you can safely assume that in general (which is what matters) games played at a lower point limit take less time as they tend to feature less models which means less time setting up and moving them and less dice being rolled in every phase of the game.

Most players who suffer from tactical paralysis are going to have the same issue whether they are playing at 1,500 or 2,000 points, the only difference being is that with the former they'll complete 4-5 turns and with the latter they'll likely only complete 3-4 turns.

While there are always exceptions (players who are incredibly fast and certain armies that play faster or slower regardless of how many models they have) in general the fundamental concept is sound: A higher points limit equals models on the table which equals a longer time needed to finish the game.

If you're really set on sticking to the 2,000 point limit then you need to adjust your allowed game times. Which brings me to your next point:

Time Limits. Time limits are a very devisive issue. I feel like part of the excitement and fun of tournaments is the time pressure; this does not mean that people who feel differently are wrong, it just means we like different aspects of the tournament experience. We could easily have stretched the days to make every game 2.5 hours and still allowed for 7 games in 2 days (7 games allows for a pure Swiss System for 128 players, which is the maximum we'll allow for 40K this year). We instead chose to end earlier to allow people to have unstructured play and social time in the evening on Friday and Saturday, and to catch afternoon flights out on Sunday.

We will be tracking completion and turns played through the tournament, and adjust things next year based on the results.

This, I find a bit mind-boggling, to be honest with you.

If you're committed to 2,000 points and seven games then you need to find a way to fit in extra time for the games. I know that Sunday needs to have a 'hard out' time to allow people to fly out, but if that means starting at 6am (or something crazy like that), then so be it!

I understand that you enjoy a bit of time pressure in your tournament games and I think it is understandable to expect people to have to play a bit faster than normal at tournaments, but what I'm saying is that you are going to end up with a LOT of games that aren't going to be finishing, every single round.

Honestly, what do you think is more fun for the whole of the tournament: having some people enjoy the frantic nature of trying to finish 2,000 point games in 2 hours while many people don't get to finish their games or having almost everyone finish their games with a few people (perhaps) a bit bored because they have to wait a bit of time for their next game to start?

IMHO, the choice is obvious. If you're trying to create a tournament that is fun for as many people as possible you err on the side of having too much time for your games as opposed to the opposite problem of having scores of people not finishing their games.

Number of Games. I've always wanted to have a tournament with a pure Swiss System. For those who don't know what this means and don't want to wiki it, a Swiss System is similar what you see in the playoffs for sporting events. You have a number of teams, and they fight down to the last winner, with a set of games for every factor of 2 (2,4,8,16,32,64,128, etc). Thus, with a maximum of 128 players, a Swiss System requires 7 rounds. This should allow us to do something no other tournament has ever done - establish a true winner with mathematical validity.

Casual Gamers and "Less-Casual" Players - I really get this problem. I'm very far to the "Less-Casual" end of the spectrum, but I was far at the other end for a good while, too. The problem is finding a way to accomodate both, and I don't think there is a very easy answer. I'm very interested in your ideas on how to give the guy who plays 15 games a year, all in tournaments, and the guy who plays 40 games a month a good gaming experience.

Again, thanks for the feedback, and I'll see you next year at Adepticon, if not before then.

I admire the idea of the pure swiss system and the concept of having an undisputed winner is a nice change of pace but I do have to agree with Green Blow Fly that you may start to have an alarming rate of drop-outs if people know that even a single loss knocks them completely out of contention. Standard tournaments have this issue even with their ambiguously scored points systems, so I can only imagine what it will be like with everyone knowing that a single loss means they're out of it. This may be especially true with the games set at 2 hours for 2,000 points. If players are unable to finish their previous games, well. . .I know I'd consider packing it up and calling it a day if I wasn't managing to finish my games.

Ultimately a tournament with a bunch of drop-outs can still function fine (all you need is one ringer and the ability to re-organize your draws quickly on the fly), but I would think that a high level of drop-outs followed by a hasty re-organization period is going to make the 2 hour time limits even harder to swallow. I just don't see this as being an overall positive experience for many attendees. In other words, while the pure swiss system sounds awesome on paper, the reality is that it will likely have a negative effect on the tournament as a whole, and as such may end up being a detriment.

I can't say I'd be attending no matter what (I can only justify flying around to play 40K so much), but I know that if I was 'on the fence' about going these tournament rules would definitely discourage me from attending. 2,000 points at 2 hours in length for seven games over 2 days just sounds like a whole bunch of really, really rushed 40K games, many of which will almost certainly not end up being finished. That doesn't sound like fun to me personally, and if I feel that way I'm sure there are many other potential attendees who do as well.

Regardless of how you proceed, I wish you the best of luck. I have the utmost respect for all those who take the time to organize tournaments, as having witnessed it a little bit with Adepticon, I know how much time and effort it takes and how much crap you have to take from people who don't seem to realize just how hard it is. So good luck!

DarthDiggler wrote:I like the 1500pt tourney, so much so that Adepticon should make the Sunday 40k championships a 1500pt tourney. The game does play at a different level at 1500pts and units that aren't so good at 1850 are better at 1500pts.

I agree! I tried to get them to lower that tournament to 1,500 points last year. I think I'll have to try even harder for next year! There was still at least one game that ended up being 1/2 hour short and I know I only ended up getting to turn 4 in that game. . .I think 1,500 point games are still very fun and they allow so much more breathing room for the inevitable tournament hiccups.

realgenius wrote:
Having seen both sides myself, it takes a lot of practice to get the point where you can play 2000 points confidently in 2 hours. The first year I was here I don't think I completed a single game in the 8 or 10 tournaments I played in. The second year, I think only one or two (out of 15) tournament games weren't finished in 2 hours. The main difference between me two years ago and now is that now I know my army better, know the rules a lot better, and have MUCH greater knowledge of my opponents' armies.

I dont have 2 years to get to know my opponents or get used to a 2000 point game played in 2 hrs. I think you have pretty much summed up why some people will not attend this event.

yakface wrote:

I can't say I'd be attending no matter what (I can only justify flying around to play 40K so much), but I know that if I was 'on the fence' about going these tournament rules would definitely discourage me from attending. 2,000 points at 2 hours in length for seven games over 2 days just sounds like a whole bunch of really, really rushed 40K games, many of which will almost certainly not end up being finished. That doesn't sound like fun to me personally, and if I feel that way I'm sure there are many other potential attendees who do as well.

amen yak.....

I want to point out something else.. Having experiance in running LAN tournaments for computer games I can tell you that running a tournament at a national scale but trying to crowbar in regional play style and scoring systems tends to lead to alot of unhappy players and can doom an event. Remain flexible and remember theres going to be alot of non regional players who have spent alot of time and money to get to your tourny and play in it.

I think the whole "If I lose the first game I quit" notion is a bit obtuse. People that pay the money for entrance fees, gas, travel, hotel, etc. aren't just going to go "I quit" when they lose the first game. Many people go to tournies for the chance to play a lot of games. It's possible of course, but I doubt it would be any different than the people that quit in any tourney. I.E. quitters are quitters wherever they go, and your not going to create more quitters just because of a tourney format, especially if you know what your getting into before you go to the tourney.

As far as the demonhunter thing. A lot of people think that the allies rules were fine under 3rd edition but under 5th are a bit broken (I'm not saying I'm one of them mind you), so I can understand why they have ruled the way they have. It's their right and to suggest they have some seedy alterior motive is just wrong.

I see the speeding up of play a good thing and if this starts a trend I would welcome it. Whenever someone tries something new or different you always get the naysayers that are afraid of change. In a few years we may be looking back and thanking the BOLS guys for helping to change the tourney dynamic for the good.

I'm not from Austin and I won't be able to make the tourney, but I have run tournies before and I hate to see people jump all over tourney organizers and weep and nash teeth, before even going to the event.

GG

edited for typos

@Generalgrog

The thing is that most people aren't weeping and nashing out teeth. We've simply pointed out that the time constraints and format leave a lot to be desired. This is coming from a bunch of tourney regulars as well as one of the guys who helps run the largest 40k event in the US right now (correct me if i'm wrong Yak).

Speeding up is a good thing. I agree. I love the idea of an Ironman event. I don't even mind a swiss style event. But it's the combining of these things which will hurt the format. If I lose a game because someone from Ohio plays slower than is needed to finish and we only get 3 turns in and it takes me out of the running for the tournament as a whole then I'm going to be mildly frustrated to say the least.

As for quiting I doubt I would quit but that is because i've already paid so much to be there. I can say without a doubt that I won't be attending based on the structure of the tournament and that's more what the issue is. The structure will keep people from attending when the goal of any major event is to bring in as many people as you possibly can.

Hulksmash wrote:If I lose a game because someone from Ohio plays slower than is needed to finish and we only get 3 turns in and it takes me out of the running for the tournament as a whole then I'm going to be mildly frustrated to say the least.

Sorry, but I don't remember playing you!

Personally, I like the Adepticon format. There's the Gladiator for those that want to climb to the top of that mountain. And then there is the RTT-style on Sunday for those who don't want to slugging it out with Titans and Flyers. I think that's the bigger problem with a tourney like this. It's going to attract a lot of hardcore tourney players, but also some less competitive ones. When everyone has the same expectation, the tourney runs smoothly and people leave happy. When people have different expectations, that's whne you tend to have people feeling unsatisfied - either because they only got in 3 Turns and didn't get a massacre in a round, or because they got stomped on by a powerbuid.

zedsdead wrote:

I don't have 2 years to get to know my opponents or get used to a 2000 point game played in 2 hrs. I think you have pretty much summed up why some people will not attend this event.

It only took me about 2 weeks (so two games) playing in the local scene to adapt to the quicker play. It's really not as big of a deal as people are making it out to be, in my opinion. It keeps you focused on the game, it forces you to plan ahead and it occasionally causes you to make hurried decisions, but ultimately I think it makes you a better player.

Now when I play I can easily get a 2,000 point game in under 2 hours and that's a friendly game with distractions, opponents getting phone calls, people stopping by to say hi, etc. All sorts of distractions you don't have in a tournament. Of course this doesn't take into account rules disputes, etc. but judges will be there to solve those quickly. I just really think people should be open to trying something new before calling it hopelessly doomed to fail.

If the quicker tournament play isn't your thing there's always the big narrative games, which I'll be participating in. It's going to be tons of fun, and I hope some of you guys reconsider attending. As realgenius mentioned, there's tons of great food, live music, oh yeah, and the most beautiful women in the southwest!

Do you play horde or MEQ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What I didn't catch from the FAQ-do Valkyries count for objective disputing or objective taking purposes (with troops in them) or do they count they full height (aka NO).

Lol, my family lived in Austin (well, Round Rock) for 8 years and the only bad thing about it was the friggin heat in summer. 6th St is in my opinion better than mardi gras most every weekend of the year

@Cadaver

I have no doubt you could adjust to it quickly but 2 weeks is still more time than anyone attending from outside the local area will have. It's the fact that you'll be facing people who havn't played in that format previously and that will slow things down. Not to mention the 5 minutes it takes to get a judge over to your table and to make a decision mean that you've just eaten up some of that precious time.

@dietrich

hehe, random example

And to be fair they are having seperate games and events running as well as a "consolation bracket" for people who get smoked the first day to keep them interested in playing the second day

I know several people from the Houston area that are jazzed about attending the themed 3,000 events. Its unusual and sounds fun.

Hulksmash wrote:And to be fair they are having seperate games and events running as well as a "consolation bracket" for people who get smoked the first day to keep them interested in playing the second day

Not only that, but a Consolation bracket with prize support for Overall, Best General and Sportsmanship.

zedsdead wrote:I dont have 2 years to get to know my opponents or get used to a 2000 point game played in 2 hrs. I think you have pretty much summed up why some people will not attend this event.

I didn't say get to know my opponents, but get to know their armies. If you know enough about 40k (which I didn't) then you will have no problem playing 2000 points in 2 hours. If the 40k tournament isn't to your liking, I recommend the 40 Narrative games, I think they are going to be really awesome.

But by all means, don't attend. If you don't like the rules, no one is forcing you to come down. And if attendance is low, then maybe the format will change next year.

But it isn't going to change for this year.

People usually resist change, that's just human nature. I was just trying to point out, coming from thinking that 2000 points in two hours was impossible, that I was wrong. It doesn't take two years to figure it out, unless you are like me and really didn't know as much as you thought before-hand. (To be fair, this was also the transition from 4th to 5th edition and that slowed a lot of my games down as I got used to 5th.)

Frazzled wrote:Do you play horde or MEQ?

I either play foot or Mech Eldar, Black Templars with 50-90 models, or a 120 model Ork army. Haven't had trouble with any of them.

Regarding Valkyries, I have not checked the FAQ on this (since I'm volunteering not playing I haven't read all the stuff thoroughly), but locally it is measured like assaulting a skimmer: either the base or the hull for scoring. Otherwise Valks could never score/contest because of that dumb, high flight stand. And really, troops couldn't disembark either, since they'd have be be hanging in mid-air 2" away from the access points.

Thanks for the reasoned responses. A few of my own below.

Regarding the Swiss System - I'm afraid my expressing a desire to have a Swiss System caused some confusion. We are not doing a pure Swiss System, as that is too great of a departure from the accepted standard, and cuts out all scoring except wins and losses. The only element of a Swiss System we have going is enough games to allow for a "true winner", but, due to the multifacted scoring, the winner may not be an undefeated player. I apologize for the confusion.

Regarding Time Limits, Number of Games, and Point Limits - I'm considering all of these issues as one connected issue, as changing one affects the others. I appreciate the thoughtful responses given on these issues.

Valkyries and Objectives - Per our FAQ, all objectives have infinite height, so the height of the Valkyrie in no way impedes their passengers from contesting objectives.

@ Fetterkey - In fact, the opposite was true - we had too many strong Imperial armies and wanted to give the poor traitors and xenos a more level playing field. After spending some time working armies we determined that IG + Inquisition Armies would be the de facto best choice if allowed (Furious Charge on Grey Knight Terminators, Mystics + Demolisher Squadrons, Scouting Penitent Engines, the list goes on) and have too many locals who could field that sort of army. Our rules allow very strong Inquisitorial armies to be built, but limit the madness to some degree.

Thanks to those of you who gave feedback.

EDIT - INAT FAQ - I answered the question of "Why not use the INAT?" on our blog, but figured it's worth repeating at the home of the INAT's chief. We are using the INAT FAQ as a basis for judging decisions, and only included a small FAQ/House Rules bit to update based on the new IG book and a few other questions. Next year, when we have more time for players to prepare, I plan to use INAT and not have a separate FAQ. With the short time between our announcement and our tournament, I did not want to ask the players to learn the whole INAT. I personally use the INAT in just the way I would use any GW rules document (probably because I can't keep them separae in my old addled brain, but...)

Frazzled wrote:Do you play horde or MEQ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What I didn't catch from the FAQ-do Valkyries count for objective disputing or objective taking purposes (with troops in them) or do they count they full height (aka NO).

I play Mechanized Death Guard and Daemons. So a little of both, but horde players here don't have a problem playing in two hours or less. It's also just a very competitive local scene and stuff dies quick in games, so by turn 3 or 4 there's not nearly as much you have to move around, or isn't locked in close combat.

Hulksmash wrote:Lol, my family lived in Austin (well, Round Rock) for 8 years and the only bad thing about it was the friggin heat in summer. 6th St is in my opinion better than mardi gras most every weekend of the year

@Cadaver

I have no doubt you could adjust to it quickly but 2 weeks is still more time than anyone attending from outside the local area will have. It's the fact that you'll be facing people who havn't played in that format previously and that will slow things down. Not to mention the 5 minutes it takes to get a judge over to your table and to make a decision mean that you've just eaten up some of that precious time.

Unfortunately, 6th street sucks now. It's mostly gone super ghetto, but there's still the high number of college kids there too. 5th street and 4th street is alot better now, in my opinion, but maybe it's just cause I'm getting older.

Anyway, I'm sure it's not going to please everyone and maybe it's not for some people. Hell, I'm not playing in it, but I'm not a huge tournament player and I'm just really more excited about some big, themed Apoc battles in the narrative gaming. I don't get to play that kind of game much so it's more interesting to me personally. That and I don't want to drive across town for 11a.m. game times. It may be a big Con right in my backyard, but it's still a weekend and I have drinking to do. Late nights out and early morning gaming don't make a happy Cadaver. But I think the BoLS crew has done a good job of having something for everyone and I think everyone should have a good time regardless of what they will participate in.

but I'm not a huge tournament player and I'm just really more excited about some big, themed Apoc battles in the narrative gaming. I don't get to play that kind of game much so it's more interesting to me personally.

Thats what my Houston player comrades are jazzed about.

Deep in the heart of Tejas!



Good replies JWolf. The Inq/Mystics unit is so damn gehy I would never play it. Good to hear that it now sounds like a more balanced approach to determining best overall.

Still plenty of time to drop the points a bit. Good luck with it.

G

jwolf wrote:@ Fetterkey - In fact, the opposite was true - we had too many strong Imperial armies and wanted to give the poor traitors and xenos a more level playing field. After spending some time working armies we determined that IG + Inquisition Armies would be the de facto best choice if allowed (Furious Charge on Grey Knight Terminators, Mystics + Demolisher Squadrons, Scouting Penitent Engines, the list goes on) and have too many locals who could field that sort of army. Our rules allow very strong Inquisitorial armies to be built, but limit the madness to some degree.

I don't trust your opinion on what's good, especially given your BoLS editorials on the subject.

I also don't think tournaments should start banning specific selections/options/units based on some vague perception that they're too good, especially before there are any results to confirm or deny that perception. Many of the "too good" lists of the past have turned out to be merely decent or else actually bad once people figured out how to fight them-- remember when Nob Bikerz or 4th edition Drop Pods were "too good?" Arbitrarily constraining army design like this lowers the level of play and prevents people from making proper conclusions about the metagame and current power level of different lists.

Fetterkey your fiction reviews leave a lot lacking I hate to say.

G

Look fetterkey obviously has an axe to grind here. The bottomline... if you don't like the format.... just don't go to it. Stop whining.


GG