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.

Matthias -

I love the idea of 4 games, take a break for the TT, and 3 more games on Sunday. And it lets me not play Gladiator and not take grief from Bill for not winning two of them before I stop (assuming I can actually get into the Sunday portion, which is not a given).

How in the world is painting not part of a series? You can consider it the first event, the last event, whatever you want, but it isn't magically outside of everything.

player judged comp and sports are part of your total score for that round. Just because someone bothers to write them up in a separate column on the spreadsheet doesn't change that.

organizer judged comp can also be just considered round 0 (especially if also used for matchups) or round X. Just because you don't know when it was judged doesn't suddenly make not part of the series.

You're focusing way too much on the word series in one definition anyway. What's so bad about, say,

1. A series of contests in which a number of contestants compete and the one that prevails through the final round or that finishes with the best record is declared the winner.

So c'mon, show us this legion of disaffected competitive gamers. Otherwise, you are talking out of your rear-end and spamming tournament threads with nonsense.

The community that participates over at YesTheTruthHurts.com is fairly large and features many of these individuals, including myself. I also know several people in my own club who have chosen not to attend events based on predominance of soft scoring. Obviously it's impossible to quantify the impact of the results without some kind of omniscient mathematical model, but we do exist.

Everyone has their own concept of the ideal event.

There are tournaments with soft scores and tournaments without soft scores, so everyone should be happy.

If there isn't an event which fits your ideal, you can start one.

Ozymandias wrote:
Buttercup, you still haven't shown us this massive group of competitive players not showing up to events because of the soft scores. Adepticon sold out a 240 person 40k event with all the soft scores you so despise and there were over 400 players in the Team Tournament.

So c'mon, show us this legion of disaffected competitive gamers.

Like the subjective scores you love so much, the number of people who avoid this type of tournament because of its scoring system is impossible to objectively measure. Clearly TOs favor subjective scoring systems because, according to the TOs, many American wargamers are unable to behave in a civilized fashion without their presence.

How in the world is painting not part of a series? You can consider it the first event, the last event, whatever you want, but it isn't magically outside of everything.

Series
1 a : a number of things or events of the same class coming one after another in spatial or temporal succession
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/series

It certainly exists outside of the game. It's not even related to the game except by virtue of the hobby. The games are played serially with each affecting the subsequent game via paring. The painting competition just gets throw on top, either before, during, or after and isn't part of the series of the games and has no impact on them whatsoever.

Kilkrazy wrote:Everyone has their own concept of the ideal event.

There are tournaments with soft scores and tournaments without soft scores, so everyone should be happy.

If there isn't an event which fits your ideal, you can start one.

AMEN brother!

Buttermuffin wrote:

So c'mon, show us this legion of disaffected competitive gamers. Otherwise, you are talking out of your rear-end and spamming tournament threads with nonsense.

The community that participates over at YesTheTruthHurts.com is fairly large and features many of these individuals, including myself. I also know several people in my own club who have chosen not to attend events based on predominance of soft scoring. Obviously it's impossible to quantify the impact of the results without some kind of omniscient mathematical model, but we do exist.

And we know these people are competitive because they say they are competitive and belong to a site that declares its competitive? I'm sorry, tautological reasons don't really hold water. I've been around YTTH and while I'm sure a lot of people do go there, the actual, regular contributors is not a very high number. I'm sorry that the vast majority of tournaments in the US don't hold up to the standards of the couple dozen or so of you. But from what I hear, there will be a YTTHCon so hopefully you can show us all how it's done!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Matthias wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:All of these are cool but I'm torn on #3 (especially #2, damn Hades Breaching Drills!!). I really don't think this is a big deal and I'd rather not pay more to have more dice that I really don't need.

Of all those that is one we are the fence the most about. *If* we can work out a good deal with a vendor, we might consider this. I don't think dice cheating is that much of an issue given our conduct policy - we would be approaching it from the coolness/swag factor first - if we can work that out then we can roll it into the general tournament changes. Like I said, nothing in stone...

The swag idea is kinda cool. If it were just a block of dice then no thanks. Overall though, not a huge gripe and obviously wouldn't preclude my participation next year!

What's wrong with a gaming contest? Why is determining who can play the game the best so evil? I posit that Danny's Tournament as determining the best game player who payed his money and showed up that day is a perfectly valid format for a tournament.

I further suggest we look at "draw" for such an event. Adepticon (with it's Non-Gaming Contest format) draws folks from all across the country. This could be because it's a well run event, where people have a fair assurance of having a good time pushing their little plastic and metal men around for 14 hours a day over a period of 3 days. I would assume that this draw, measured in number of paying attenders, makes Adepticon a viable convention but then I am no expert on the economics of conventions / tournaments. Would Adepticon be less fun for the attenders if there were fewer than 1/2 as many folks present?

Perhaps the Draw for a Gaming contest is limited because there can be only one winner. If you had a Gaming Contest that was fair, with good rules support that had 240+ attendees and only one champion would you have more or less fun if there were fewer folks present?

Danny Internets wrote:

So c'mon, show us this legion of disaffected competitive gamers. Otherwise, you are talking out of your rear-end and spamming tournament threads with nonsense.

The community that participates over at YesTheTruthHurts.com is fairly large and features many of these individuals, including myself. I also know several people in my own club who have chosen not to attend events based on predominance of soft scoring. Obviously it's impossible to quantify the impact of the results without some kind of omniscient mathematical model, but we do exist.

I Just don't think these mythical good players. I great player would show up and max battle points and go home happy. if these good players showed up and could play at the super level they would win every other event, because it is shown that the highest battle points almost always wins overall. The fact is these players are only mariginal in every aspect. I challenge you hate soft score gamers. send me a PM tell me what Circiut event you are going to. if you end up with the most battle points and fail to win overall. I will refund your entry fee.

you have to send me a pm before the event. I will publish a list so we can track how the hate soft score uber gamers fair in battle.

Matthias wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:All of these are cool but I'm torn on #3 (especially #2, damn Hades Breaching Drills!!). I really don't think this is a big deal and I'd rather not pay more to have more dice that I really don't need.

Of all those that is one we are the fence the most about. *If* we can work out a good deal with a vendor, we might consider this. I don't think dice cheating is that much of an issue given our conduct policy - we would be approaching it from the coolness/swag factor first - if we can work that out then we can roll it into the general tournament changes. Like I said, nothing in stone...

Mmmm, more dice.... I still have my Adepticon-branded dice from...2005, I think? Unfortunately, they warped - many of them are visibly bulged along at one face.

In response to Winterman's post, in order for this argument to hold water it requires some cherry-picking of tournaments. I'd very much like to see the full sets of results for those tournaments in order to do a more in-depth analysis, since several of these examples don't provide numbers, just claims that they were "dominated" by high BP scorers and so on.

These weren't 'cherry picked' -- they were the first GTs of 4ed. If I were cherry picking for my own gain I would have only gave data for Baltimore (or left it out). Or not given the data for the events that had ties in battle that were decided via soft scores.

And by 'dominated' in the one case where I wrote that, the top 10 overall was essentially also the top 10 in battle (9th and 10th overall was decided via soft score because those guys were tied for same battle points with several others).

This was the only tournament where this was the case -- the others had lesser battle points sneak in to top 10 overall.

If I have time I may throw up more specifc data and analysis but I honestly doubt it matters enough to spend the time to do it.

Danny Internets wrote:The community that participates over at YesTheTruthHurts.com is fairly large and features many of these individuals, including myself. I also know several people in my own club who have chosen not to attend events based on predominance of soft scoring. Obviously it's impossible to quantify the impact of the results without some kind of omniscient mathematical model, but we do exist.

That is just a way to "hide" within the system. I know plenty of players (including several of our Toledo group) that while we go to have fun, we focus a ton on the battle portion of an event. There is nothing wrong with going to an event solely for the game even if they account other aspects of the hobby. Quit being panzies, quit making excuses and just go to events to play the game. It really isn't that hard of a concept to grasp.

I personally always go into a tournament to win Best General. I know my painting isn't amazing (it's good but not top tier). I know I'm not a total dick to play. If there isn't a 0-6 comp score each game I might actually have a chance at an overall. But my focus is always for Best General. And I bring a list that compliments my mentality. I personally know a lot of guys that play the same way.

Oh and on a side note the Broadside Bash winner that won overall was a kinda a fluke. The second place guy was actually #1 in BP's and #1 in painting. But they used sports or comp as the tie breaker and the winner (who didn't place higher than 4th in any category) was had higher sports and comp than the winner.

Danny Internets wrote:

I maintain that attempting to limit the use of the word “tournament” as applied to GW events in an exclusionary manner, as you are doing, is fundamentally counterproductive. It creates division rather than clarity. It communicates a sense of “us vs. them” rather than a unified hobby.

In order to illustrate differences you must use contrast. Contrast, by definition, creates division. I understand that you take offense at this, but there's really no reason to. There is no value judgment attached to the term. I'm sorry you don't like it, but I find it the most precise way of differentiating between the two types of events and will continue to use it.

When you describe other scoring criteria as “nonsense” you make clear that you do in fact value them differently. If you think you are masking this value judgment, I’m afraid you’re not actually that successful.

Danny Internets wrote:

You are coming from the outside and attempting to change what we call our events, based on theory and quasi-applicable real world definitions, rather than experience with the existing culture, and without the buy-in of the people who presently participate in these events. You can’t make friends or win agreement that way.

I don't really care if you adopt a more accurate (in terms of English) terminology for your hobby competitions. I have no interest in winning any Dakka popularity contests.

It’s not about Dakka, or YTTH. It’s about the larger community. You can’t win people’s agreement by insulting them and denigrating the events they enjoy. Your efforts to reshape the tournament scene would work better if you put more effort into understanding how the current scene works.

Danny Internets wrote: I'm simply here to present a reasoned argument for a more precise way of describing our "tournament" scene. Perhaps by realizing that we don't really have much in the way of tournaments that might encourage people to push for a more diverse event scene that respects a wider variety of play-styles rather than catering exclusively to the well-rounded hobbyist.

I think the terminology issue gets in the way of useful constructive criticism of the tournaments themselves. I think your criticism would get better reactions if you didn’t insist on renaming events you don’t participate in. It’s a little like Stelek. He contributed a fair amount of useful content to this site, and I stuck up for him time & again. But he proved to be incapable of or unwilling to consistently communicate his ideas with courtesy. He was continually contemptuous of others, whether he was in the wrong or in the right. I can see already that you’ve got better social skills, and I encourage you not to emulate bad habits of his.

Danny Internets wrote:

I disagree with both of your premises. First, given that you don’t attend these events, your personal experience of what constitutes a “hard” vs a “soft” score is not convincing evidence.

Quit grasping as straws.

Quit ducking points, please. Does or does not a strong knowledge of the core rulebook rules help a person be a better player? Is or is not a multiple choice quiz featuring questions with clear answers in the rulebook not an objective measure of game knowledge?

Danny Internets wrote: I don't have to get wet to know it's raining. I used to play in a lot of RTTs back when they still existed and they featured analogous scoring with painting, sportsmanship, comp, and even quizzes. I'm no stranger to the event, and even if I was it wouldn't prevent me from analyzing the results and understanding the scoring system.

And you don’t have to live in Hungary to speak Hungarian, but it sure helps. Being outside the thing and not actually participating in it you are missing details, and filling gaps with assumptions and misinformation in some cases.

RTTs and GT-scale events have similarities, but the current GT scene has evolved from and improved on (for the most part) the old RTT systems. TOs have seen problems and taken criticism over the year and refined many systems. Adepticon, for example, has some absolutely wonderful phrasing and clarity in its missions and scoring.

The truth is - even if we ran our events as pure battle - it would matter little to this hidden subsection of gamers. They have a whole series of things they think they could do better, but don't. From scoring, to missions, to the INAT to the venue...the list is endless and it is foolish for us (or anyone for that matter) to assume pleasing them is within our means. The event is a compromise. We don't spend 6 months of our lives to cause anyone strife - we do it for the love of the hobby and to provide 3 solid days of good gaming fun. Period. If they want something else...quit looking at us. No matter what we change...they will still hate it and they will still spread that hate in an attempt to not feel so isolated.

Matthias, your event rocks. The questions you put for participant feedback were great questions. Just looking at that list in a vacuum, even if I had never played in your events, would make clear how solidly you have your heads on your shoulders and how well you know what you're doing.

Thanks again for putting on such a great event.

I've attended Adepticon twice now (this year and last) and have had tremendous fun each time. I hope to bring my aspiring gaming son in the near future as well.

However, I can say without doubt that if Adepticon shifted its focus to simple battlefield points, my friends and I would likely not waste the gas. I go to Adepticon to see hobby excellence and thus far, it's always delivered.

AgeOfEgos wrote:However, I can say without doubt that if Adepticon shifted its focus to simple battlefield points, my friends and I would likely not waste the gas. I go to Adepticon to see hobby excellence and thus far, it's always delivered.

I feel the same way (although I did not go to Adepticon) about the tournaments I attend. If it was simple battle points, with no other factors, it would be just like 'Ard Boyz- something which I wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole...

It's marvelous as it is- if it ain't broke, don't fix it!

As one of two the Gladiator co-organizers (the most "competitive" event at AdeptiCon, since the only thing that matters is battle points), I wanted to toss my 2 cents in. If Greg (Inq. Malice) drop by, that'd be great, but I know he's busy as crap right now dealing with all the RL stuff that AdeptiCon makes us put on hold.

Quick Preface: I (along with Greg) run the Gladiator, and we do a lot of behind the scenes work, but I'm not speaking here for AdeptiCon... I'm speaking just for myself.

#1 - What is AdeptiCon?
I back up everything Matt says, in regards to what AdeptiCon is/was meant to be. First and foremost is that AdeptiCon is about a community of miniature wargamers coming together and having a great time. That's our #1 goal - as our motto says, "For Gamers, By Gamers."

We all got involved because we love the hobby, and we stay involved because its fun to work together with others who love the hobby as much as we do. We're always trying to find that perfect mix of tournaments, demos, seminars, and other events that will bring the most people together for a weekend that's really a celebration of the hobby itself.

Having said that...

#2 - Logistics

We've got three days. There's been some talk about eventually moving to a four-day schedule, but there are so many issues with that, dealing with so many different things, that I wouldn't expect that to go beyond the theory stage anytime soon (then again, those decisions get made above my pay grade). Three days may seem like a lot, but when you're trying to cram the schedule with as many different options for people as possible, you realize you can't include everything.

Then there's the venue limitations. Not just in terms of timeframe, but also in terms of space, layout, and appeasing the powers that be (people like the Fire Marshall who can shut down the event if they don't like the way its set up). Again, the point is that you can't do everything...you can just try to balance out everything as well as you can.

#3 - 40K at AdeptiCon
There are four main 40K tournaments running throughout the weekend, each with its own unique qualities.

At the smaller end, we've got the 40K Combat Patrol tournaments. These tournaments allow people to participate in a quick tournament experience that still leaves them time to participate in the many, many other events that are going on. Which isn't just limited to tournaments. Tournaments get the big press (for a variety of reasons) but an event like AdeptiCon is much, much, more than tournaments. Our hobby seminars give people a chance to learn from some of the best. Open, scenario'ed, and demo games give people a chance to play both new and familiar games in relaxed settings. Tons of other stuff is going on, and players in the Combat Patrol tournament get a chance to see that...something that the tournament players doing the big 3 for their respective systems don't get to see. Which is a shame...personally, I would have loved to have played some BattleTech this weekend...but the main Btech event ran at the same time as the Team Tourney, which made that an impossibility for me.

There's the 40K Team Tournament. This event really is the big enchilada of 40K events at AdeptiCon. It's what people remember most from the weekend. I've been going to AdeptiCon since year 2, played in or run the Gladiator every year, won the Gladiator twice...and the thing I remember most are the Team Tournament Games. Whether that was with a random group of Guard players that Janthkin pulled together, or the group I pulled together from 40K Fight Club, or Dakka Detachment 1 for the last five years...the experience of the TT is simply unique, ridiculously fun, and an experience not to be missed.

There's the 40K Chmpionships. Also known as the AdeptiCon RTT, because that's what most of us long-time gamers equate it to. Pretty standard stuff, if you've played in any tournament.

And then there's the Gladiator. The only thing that matters is battle points. And we allow dang near everything. Which makes the event something of a hybrid...its about the kind of craziness that you usually only see in Apocalypse...but its also about generalship and ability to play the game. It you focus on only one aspect of the Gladiator...you're missing the point. It's not just a chance to throw down some crazy stuff on the tabletop...and its not just a chance to see who has the longest e-peen on that particular day. Its both...at least that's the attitude that Greg and I have about the event.

#4 - Is the Gladiator AdeptiCon's "competitive" event?

Maybe. Depends on your definition of competitive, really. Could we make it more of a "who's the big dog" event? Sure. Will we? Probably not. To make it more purely competive, first, it needs to be longer. 4 games isn't really enough time to differentiate 140 players to make it uncontested. And IMNSHO, single-elimination type events don't show who's big dog either. To do that, you need far more time and games than is really practicable, at least until 40K becomes a spectator sport and we start raking in those fat endorsement checks.

On top of that...part of what's always made AdeptiCon special (in my opinion) is our missions. And I'll admit that there's a grain of truth to the idea that having the special missions the special structure and with special rules makes AdeptiCon's tournaments less "competive." Now ask me if I care.

Again, remember the logistics. The team tourney had 110 teams. The Gladiator had around 140 players. And the Championships had 220 players in two separate fields. And if you asked all of the tournament organizers (who are responsible for writing and playtesting their missions) what their main concerns were...the one commonality would be this: separation. As Gladiator organizer, I'm deathly afraid that after four games, two players will be tied for first place with exactly the same number of battle points. The Championships organizers face similar concerns. The Team Tourney...much less, because with 8 games/team, its not as easy to get teams with identical points.

#5 - Gladiator Missions

Yep, they're definitely not your missions from the book. They give us separation. They're designed to test players, pull them out of their comfort zones, and force them to achieve multiple, sometimes contradictory mission objectives, in order to obtain maximum points. They help us get separation. They give us an excuse to give away swag and highlight our sponsors (Special thanks to Flying Tricycle for this year's tokens and counters for the 2010 Gladiator). They generate separation.

And did I mention separation?

Seriously though...when Greg and I took over the Gladiator last year, we first tried to write the perfect competitive missions. Balanced, not favoring any army, etc.

And we ended up with four of the blandest, most boring missions that you've ever seen. Works for chess...not for 40K. So we switched tacks...and decided our motto was, "we hate everyone." And we tried to make sure that every army was disadvantaged throughout the day. This year, for example, mission 1 featured night fighting for the entire game...screw the shooters. Mission 2 required you to move...screw the static gunlines. Mission 3 made it tough to move fast...screw the assaulters. And mission 4 was about generating separation.

Did they find out who the best 40K player in the room was? Maybe. Did they test player's ability to adjust on the fly, handle multiple objectives, extrapolate and think tactically, adjust to new and changing circumstances? Almost certainly.

I realize I've been rambling (hopefully not ranting). I guess my point is this: If you want a so-called "competitive" event...first you have to define what "competitive" is. I'm certainly happy with the Gladiator as a competitive event, and based on the number of players each year who travel to Chicago and play in it, so are lots of other people.

If you've got different ideas...start your own tournament/convention and roll with it. Personally, I'm of the opinion that the more events there are, the better it is for the hobby as a whole. The good events will last. The not-so-good events will die naturally...and people won't attend the bad ones.

What I don't get and I speak as an analyst/ accountant here is the refusal to accept that even in an event that uses soft scores that battle points are most important. The POTENTIAL spread in points for battle points is incredibly extreme (range 0 to max) and the only scores that are affected by outside forces you cannot control.


CONTROLLABLE
Painting - spend more time painting you will get a better than average score

Comp - tweak it until you get a good balance between death dealing and not appearing to be someone who likes torturing kittens

Sports - don't be a dick and shower and you will get average/ above average scores

UNCONTROLLABLE
General Points - you get smacked around, roll badly, drink to much (whilst playing or night before), stare at occasion pretty girl etc and you lose points. Lots of them. Even if 50/100 are battle points you can go from 0-50.

Anyhoo, as a non-tournie player and {blushes} fluffy background list person I have to say either systems at a torunie work for me. A tournie, when I did them, was about bring a damn hard list to kick the crap out of some power gamer extremely competitive stomp all over you player. The soft scores didn't matter - beating the living daylights out of someone did.

At this point let me clarify - bringing a rock hard list and stomping the living daylights out of all of us stupid fluffy players who bring subpar lists to a tournie doesn't make someone a dick. Being a dick is what makes you a dick. Some of the most competitive players I have met are also some of the best games I have had.

If I go to a tournie I go with my hardest list and do my best to be competitive as possible. To do so is disrepectful to the person opposite me who may have travelled a great distance for a competitive game. The last thing I think about in that environment is soft scores.

On the flip side - when playing at my house in a fun scenerio game I don't expect to see a tournie strength list either!!!

Matthias wrote:. Gladiator moves to Sunday and continues to be a goofy, over-the-top event like it was always intended to be.

Wow selective memory Matt? It wasn't over the top the first year in Rosemont. No FW allowed back then and we played until there was only one undefeated person left (till 4am as I remember). I remember Josh running the Gladiators all over Illinois with those same rules. Jeff and I would drive far and wide to compete in that tournament. It wasn't a 'goofy' tournament the few years after that. It wasn't until the Apoc halfrules showed up and the missions took off could anyone say the Gladiator became a goofy event. If you want a goofy event then fine, but it was never the initial intention.

Thanks for posting that, Centurian99... sheds a lot of light on the thought process/planning for the event, which isn't always obvious from the final product. It sounds like a great event with a clear identity, and if it's not someone's cup of tea, they could always have gone to the myriad other events that happened that weekend!

DarthDiggler wrote:Wow selective memory Matt? It wasn't over the top the first year in Rosemont. No FW allowed back then and we played until there was only one undefeated person left (till 4am as I remember). I remember Josh running the Gladiators all over Illinois with those same rules. Jeff and I would drive far and wide to compete in that tournament. It wasn't a 'goofy' tournament the few years after that. It wasn't until the Apoc halfrules showed up and the missions took off could anyone say the Gladiator became a goofy event. If you want a goofy event then fine, but it was never the initial intention.

Sorry - strike my always in that sentence...you are correct...

When the Gladiator was basically the Championships without soft scores it had a different intention. Initially AdeptiCon did not want to mimic the standard RTT - we were swimming in those sort of events at that time. Once the convention settled and the Championships/RTT was added along with a 3rd day, the Gladiator consciously became something else. No one wanted to run the same event twice - one simply lacking in soft scores. I am just speaking in it's current incarnation (how 99% of the populace view the Gladiator) in regards to intention. By goofy/over-the-top I mean beatstick armies/large pieces of resin that you never get to play with and no whining. I don't mean to disparage the event, I just think people who claim the current Gladiator format as the end-all-be-all of competitive 40K are way off mark. It's competitive in it's own way, but it is unique and outside the scope of normal 40K.

For the record though...3 player games at 2AM on a round table is pretty goofy...

When you actually train for something well in advance, that is a tournament.

I consider street fighter competitions tournaments.

I consider chess competitions tournaments.

The only reason I dont play 40k 3-4 times a week with the intention of practicing for tournaments is that I have no one locally to play that is competitive. When I am into something I am hardcore about it. Watch your fingers when you eat around me, I take everything seriously.

Ok not that seriously

Centurian99 wrote: First and foremost is that AdeptiCon is about a community of miniature wargamers coming together and having a great time.

Hell yes that is my #1 reason for going. There is nothing like getting slop faced with people you love but only see once a year and then playing hardcore at 40k during the day. On top of that, you are playing the best *sportsmen* in the country. There is nothing like the level of sportsmanship on Sunday, at least in my experience.

And we know these people are competitive because they say they are competitive and belong to a site that declares its competitive? I'm sorry, tautological reasons don't really hold water. I've been around YTTH and while I'm sure a lot of people do go there, the actual, regular contributors is not a very high number. I'm sorry that the vast majority of tournaments in the US don't hold up to the standards of the couple dozen or so of you. But from what I hear, there will be a YTTHCon so hopefully you can show us all how it's done!

So you ask for evidence of competitive players dissatisfied with the "tournament" system in the US and then when I provide it you dismiss the players as not being proven competitive? Exactly what kind of "proof" are you looking for, or are you just being argumentative for the sake of disagreement? There are many competent players who comment regularly on that site.

That is just a way to "hide" within the system. I know plenty of players (including several of our Toledo group) that while we go to have fun, we focus a ton on the battle portion of an event. There is nothing wrong with going to an event solely for the game even if they account other aspects of the hobby. Quit being panzies, quit making excuses and just go to events to play the game. It really isn't that hard of a concept to grasp.

Would you go to a "tournament" if it also featured a 17-hour interpretative dance marathon that comprised 90% of the tournament scoring? After all, you can still go just for the tournament part and have fun competing for battle points. Just tough it out through the part you're not even remotely interested in. When it comes to spending hundreds or thousands of dollars and taking time off work and away from family to participate in events around the country it's important to decide whether or not it's worth it. When the focus is on the hobby rather than the tournament many of us decide it's not worth it to spend our money on something that isn't really geared towards what we like.

When you describe other scoring criteria as “nonsense” you make clear that you do in fact value them differently. If you think you are masking this value judgment, I’m afraid you’re not actually that successful.

Indeed, I personally do value them differently in the context of a competitive event, but making the distinction between these events is still not a judgment in and of itself. The distinction is a tool, a starting point for arguments that can go in any number of ways, one of which is to make judgments, but that does not mean the tool itself is a judgment.

It’s not about Dakka, or YTTH. It’s about the larger community. You can’t win people’s agreement by insulting them and denigrating the events they enjoy. Your efforts to reshape the tournament scene would work better if you put more effort into understanding how the current scene works.

If you take my comments to be insulting it's because you're interpreting some personal offense where there is none. I've stated numerous times in these threads that the chief reason why I dislike hobby competitions is because they put one type of play-style on a pedestal, demonstrating a narrow-minded view of what the hobby "should" be. Instead, I've suggested that an ideal GT would have completely separate scoring for all categories so that all play-styles are equally respected. This has, for some reason, been met with great anger by many, though I don't know exactly what about respecting others and how they enjoy the hobby is so infuriating to these people.

Quit ducking points, please. Does or does not a strong knowledge of the core rulebook rules help a person be a better player? Is or is not a multiple choice quiz featuring questions with clear answers in the rulebook not an objective measure of game knowledge?

Knowledge of the core rulebook only provides a foundation for being a good player but it is the intelligent application of rules that actually makes someone good. My computer knows all the rules of Warhammer--it's got the whole rulebook indexed and committed to its memory. Would that make it a good Warhammer player? Probably not. Does having a high visual-spatial IQ help a person be a better player? Probably. Perhaps the quiz should feature an IQ test too. By your logic, that should also be a "hard" score. Reductio ad absurdum.

The truth is - even if we ran our events as pure battle - it would matter little to this hidden subsection of gamers. They have a whole series of things they think they could do better, but don't. From scoring, to missions, to the INAT to the venue...the list is endless and it is foolish for us (or anyone for that matter) to assume pleasing them is within our means. The event is a compromise. We don't spend 6 months of our lives to cause anyone strife - we do it for the love of the hobby and to provide 3 solid days of good gaming fun. Period. If they want something else...quit looking at us. No matter what we change...they will still hate it and they will still spread that hate in an attempt to not feel so isolated.

I actually think Adepticon is the most competently run event in the community by a mile. I think many of the hobby competitions are run well. They're just not for me because I'm not a hobbyist, at least not to the extent that I want to compete for best hobbyist. I look forward to seeing more diversity, and this is one of the reasons why I look forward to 'Ard Boyz.

I show up to events for the challenge. I could care less about how I place. I just want to face other peoples toughest armies and hopefully beat them. Its all about having a good time though.

If you are playing 40k to make money you need to rethink your life. If you refuse to attend even local events because you dont feel they are competitive enough you should rethink why you play. Its arrogance to assume you would win if it was no comp ard boyz style, but if not then you wont because of soft scores. Maybe someone will come by and knock you out simply because they play better. Possibly the result of playing in any event they can. I know the previous years ard boyz players play almost any events they can. I can completely understand if you simply dont like the game set up itself. I dont go to combat patrol events for instance. Or events ran by someone I feel is particularly bad at running them. Fortunately we dont have anyone like that nearby. If it sounds like the type of game I will enjoy though then I will go. There was a tournament a few weeks ago I decided I wanted to play in an hour before it started. My list was in shambles and I got my ass kicked, but I had a lot of fun.

And that is the important thing. Fun.

I would also add that arguing whether 40k tournaments are really that or hobby competitions if frivolous and distracting. The majority of players call them tournaments. They have always been known as such. Language only exists within the context of a community. The 40k community organized competitions tournaments. If that agrees with the chess or football or whatever communities is irrelevant. The fact that Americans call soccer soccer and the rest of the world calls football football doesnt matter either. Its just a name, its a symbol, neither group is right or wrong so long as they use it within their community. It would be stupid when, upon seeing two separate math equations, you assume that the symbols representing variables mean the same in both.

skkipper wrote:it has been shown that the people with the most battle points win!!!!!!! you continue to ignore this. the people on the top of soft tourneys are the same that on top of hard tourneys. there is no mystery pool of uber gamers that can beat anyone but choice not to go to events because they hate soft scores.

Just on a personal note...Any tourney I've gone to where I've gotten the highest battle points (I can think of 3 off-hand), I haven't won best overall (2 I didn't even place in the top half)...Heck, the most recent big tourney I went to, even if I had gotten the highest battle score, I would have been in 5th place.

So the whole 'The people with the most battle points won the tourney anyways' is definitely not true in all cases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

fullheadofhair wrote:What I don't get and I speak as an analyst/ accountant here is the refusal to accept that even in an event that uses soft scores that battle points are most important. The POTENTIAL spread in points for battle points is incredibly extreme (range 0 to max) and the only scores that are affected by outside forces you cannot control.


CONTROLLABLE
Painting - spend more time painting you will get a better than average score

You can't control if the judges like certain armies/models/colors better than others.

Comp - tweak it until you get a good balance between death dealing and not appearing to be someone who likes torturing kittens

You can't control what the judge/opponent thinks is cheesy/overpowered/weak/unfluffy...Or what criteria they are going to use to judge the comp with.

Sports - don't be a dick and shower and you will get average/ above average scores

Nope. Not even close to the truth.

Danny Internets wrote:
No need to get all emotional, Frazzled, this is just a simple discussion. If you'd read the definition you provided you'd notice that a tournament is a SERIES of competitions. Series as in completed SERIALLY. It should be obvious that this refers to the games that are played serially. Painting, comp, and so on all exist outside of this series and thus function in addition to the tournament. When the winner of the "tournament" is decided in part (and even in majority) by non-tournament scoring then you no longer have a tournament, but a new kind of event. Hence, the term "hobby competition." Nothing wrong with that, it's just not a tournament. It's a tournament + other stuff. The winner of the tournament is not necessarily the winner of the hobby competition, as in the examples provided above.

Hold on a mo, we're deciding what constitutes a tournament based on which ORDER the events are played in?

So, if I have a schedule that goes

10am - Game 1
1pm - Game 2
4pm - Game 3

And judge the painting and theme while roaming around over the whole day, that's NOT a tournament by your definition, as the events are not serial.

But if I have a schedule that goes

10am - Game 1
1pm - Judging Theme
1.30 - Judging Painting
2pm - Game 2
4pm - Game 3

Then, by your definition, THAT is a legitimate tournament. So, you don't actually mind if soft scores are included, right? You just want them to be in the correct order???

BS

I'm going to stick with Tournament as the definition for a competition which involves multiple different events (like playing, painting, theming, quizzing) and call the ones that only have ONE event Battle-points Competitions.

There we go. Every event is a hobby event, since playing the game is a hobby too, but now we have Tournaments and Battle-points Competitions. Happy with that, Danny?

It doesn't matter whether a judge likes green better than blue. The same criteria apply to everyone. The playing field is level. Everyone has the same chance of winning, unless someone was secretly told in advance they should paint their army green.

Ditto for Comp, whether it is done by a system in advance or by some subjective idea of your opponents. The same for Sports.