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.

You know skype works pretty much the same and doesnt cost much to do conference calls and as someone else suggested Ventrilo

I have done 40 man raids in WOW with little or no problems with communication with vent vent. I have also did conference calls on skype on some podcasts and they offer chat options in each if you want to further articulate something.

Logistics problem solved

I of course don't know all the logistics going into the INAT FAQ but from this discussion it sounds like maybe there should be some consideration taken into reducing the number of people involved in the document.

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 ....

Add more terrain thralls for the secondary game rooms. In particular, about seven tables of wild west buildings and scenery would be greatly appreciated.

But seriously, I noticed that some of the free events which sold out had really poor attendance, and I wonder if changing those events to $1 each or something might avoid the possible problem of people signing up for an event because it's free but then not worrying about showing up because they aren't losing anything.

Although, in the interest of full disclosure I signed up for the Sunday WotR demo and then didn't attend due to oversleeping. So I feel like I owe the organizer of that event an apology. :(

I would like to see the TOs stop playing in the events and a couple of objective outsiders added to hte council.

G

Black Blow Fly wrote:I would like to see the TOs stop playing in the events and a couple of objective outsiders added to hte council.

Objective outsiders? Why would anyone want to invite objective outsiders into anything if they want to get something accomplished?

As far as TOs in events - I think only Greg and Bill play in any major events and they absolutely have that right. They both work incredibly hard on AdeptiCon and neither of them have any say whatsoever in any set of event rules or missions, nor see anything in advance, outside of the Gladiator.

skrulnik wrote:
I still had fun, and I met a lot of people from the PP boards, and Malfred as well.

LOL, always an afterthought

It was good meeting you, too.

Sad to say that our next meeting there'll be more silver on the table...

I loved having midnight events. It meant that I could work part of the con and *gasp* play
part of the con. I think I'd be okay with running the tournaments next year if it meant I could
play in one of the big events still.

Feedback on the grand raffle thing: I don't know of a human way to do this, but it would be
nice if there was a way to announce the raffle at a time/place when everyone could receive
it. Events were still going on the first night when we recognized one of the names. I don't know
if they got your attention in time, but the guy was playing in another event.

I don't know how that would work logistically, though. Maybe tell people running games to
be ready to receive notice and announce it in their rooms/seminars.

Call it the 10 o'clock raffle and stop everything to announce the names.

It's a growing trend for TOs not to play. Yakface played in the TT & I think Jankthin is a staff member as well now. Isn't one of the guys from a Checkmate Hobbies a staff member as well?

If you were to bring in some objective outsiders I think it would greatly help to both improve your FAQ & sale it to a wider audience.

G

I know I am not one of the bigwigs on this or any of the forums but for a first time Adepticon attendee I have a couple of suggestions. I noticed that you guys had alot of prize support for the winners of the events. I think that some of this could be redistributed so that 2nd and 3rd place people could get mentioned and receive something for placing. Best General and Best Overall I understand why it is done this way I am just not a fan. Believe me when I say understand how hard it is to get prize support. I run events for kids here in my home city and it is hard to get stuff donated. Just wanted to throw it out there.

The 40k Championships needs to be 4 games not 3 in my opinion.

The Combat Patrol is the most fun I have had playing this game in a long time. The rules and more importantly the scenarios were awesome and you must do everything in your power to keep the people doing it. They did a great job. Combat Patrol must stay. I have already started planning for next year and I am skipping the Gladiator to play in the combat patrol and then do the Team Tourney.

Jaws of the World Wolf should be allowed to go thru HtH combat not stop at it. Can JotWW really ever not be argued about.....EVER!!!!!!!!!!!! HEhEhe

@Janthkin.......I think I played you in the 2nd round of the Championship. Space Wolves vs. Your Nids. Fun game buddy.........Nice to have a face with the name now.

It's a growing trend for TOs not to play. Yakface played in the TT & I think Jankthin is a staff member as well now. Isn't one of the guys from a Checkmate Hobbies a staff member as well?

Greenie,

I don’t know if it has ever be acceptable for a TO to play in an event they “run”.

But there is a difference between a TO for a 5 or 6 game GT format event not playing and the staff requirements to run such an event and AdeptiCon. Any one major aspect of AdeptiCon could itself be a stand-alone GT. AdeptiCon is a massive operation. AdeptiCon staff are playing in events that they themselves have no involvement in the organization or operation. We have very segemented event teams. Bill and Greg run the Gladiator, but can if they want play in anything else over the weekend. Same goes for all of our event staff. No one plays in an event they “run”.

For those of us that are principles and have overriding authority on aspects of AdeptiCon. None of us play.

While some AdeptiCon staff select not to play in anything all weekend long we by no means or will we ever require it.

As a side note: For those of our staff that do choose to play in events.... we personally hold them to a higher standard; we are harder on them in a lot of aspects just ask them. Borderline conduct that might be acceptable for a normal attendee, we won’t tolerate from our staff. The issue is people want to equate having “AdeptiCon Staff” in events with some sort of shenanigans or favoritism. Take a deep breath. Stop worrying about the black helicopters or the UN world take over. We don’t spend months of our time, or have worked to build AdeptiCon into what it has become to make sure we can hand out a few prizes and plaques to our closest friends and associates. You can also be certain that our staff understand the stakes as well.

If anyone thinks that AdeptiCon staff get a hand up or some sort of advantage… well I recommend volunteering. Your tune will change very quickly when you suddenly find the hobby time you once had to keep your game up and skills sharp .. or the time you had to paint some great models… is now being dedicated to insure that the masses of AdeptiCon attendees have the best hobby weekend possible.

AdeptiCon takes well over 120+ volunteers, is a year round process for some, and from a staffing side we could always use more… what you suggest would significantly limit the number and just as important the quality of the staff needed to run AdeptiCon.

I normally post my thoughts on Adepticon in the Adepticon boards, but I guess I will post them here. I am only posting where they can improve, not going in to all of the details of how well it is run and what a quality event that it is, etc.

#1. The Championships is way too large for only 3 games. There is a big problem though with expanding it. You have the TT on Saturday and you have a “hard out” on Sunday night for people who have to go home. There are a few solutions like expanding Adepticon to 4 days and have the championships on Thur-Fri, and a 3 game Gladiator on Sunday. Or you can run it Fri and Sun. The problem with Fri-Sun is not only the split days, but a lot of people will be out of contention on Sunday, and lose interest. One idea that I had was to split the Sunday crowd into 2 groups, one that is still playing in a continuation of the 7-game championships, and the people who scored low go into a consolidation tournament where they start from scratch and play a 3 game tournament. You can run the 2 tournaments simultaneously like you did this year.

#2. I agree with Hod that the Gladiator has lost a lot of luster and is not the tournament that it used to be. Remember all of the trial rules? The chapter approved lists? Now it has become a weak Apocalypse game. If there was another 40k event going on (other than combat patrol), I think you would have very few takers.

#3. I do not know how many people you have on the INAT but about 5 or 6 seems about right. Yakface, 2-3 Midwestern guys and then you should get a few outsiders to give them a voice, and to help legitimize it. Add someone who is respected in the gaming community like Marc Parker (for an example), and also a member of the BoLS crew.

#4. The low point of the weekend for me was the missions. They seemed to be rather weak this year. To give you some examples of the Championships missions one was to kill all of your opponents troops. That is easier to do if you are playing an assault army, but if you are playing a shooting army all your opponent had to do is hide a model, and then you can’t complete it. The other mission I did not like was to kill your opponents HQs while keeping yours alive. Here my misfortune was to bring only one Demon Prince as my HQ. So my opponent was able to get the objective quite easily, while on the other side of the board, an Eldar farseer is nearly impossible to kill. It just seemed that a lot of the missions favored different armies, and they should not penalize different builds so heavily. It seems like the armies that did the best in the Championships were all assault armies. I know that you are trying to have tiered objectives to try to get some separation of a 100+ player event in 3 games, but a lot of the missions screwed some armies right away, and rewarded others.

Blackmoor wrote:#1. The Championships is way too large for only 3 games. There is a big problem thought expanding it. You have the TT on Saturday and you have a “hard out” on Sunday night for people who have to go home. There are a few solutions like expanding Adepticon to 4 days and have the championships on Thur-Fri, and a 3 game Gladiator on Sunday. Or you can run it Fri and Sun. The problem with Fri-Sun is not only the split days, but a lot of people will be out of contention on Sunday, and lose interest. One idea that I had was to split the Sunday crowd into 2 groups, one that is still playing in a continuation of the 7-game championships, and the people who scored low go into a consolidation tournament where they start from scratch and play a 3 game tournament. You can run the 2 tournaments simultaneously like you did this year.

Sorry, pet peeve.

I'm seeing this a lot lately. The correct term is "consolation," not "consolidation."

Consolation, as in, "I'm really sorry you didn't make it to the big final, so we're having this little tournament for you. I hope it makes you feel better to get to keep playing."

Maybe he meant consolidation. As in, we consolidate all the mediocre players into their own event...

muhwe it is my objective opinion. The high standards are all well and good, I believe you. Often perception unfortunately is stronger than the actual truth. So it was friendly advice what I said.

G

Went to my first Adepticon this year had a blast.

I have no issues with the Inat FAQ, I amy not agree with all the rulings, but it is still a good document.

- The 40k champs were fun, would like to see 4 games if possible and maybe less % on painting score and maybe a hight % for the rules quiz.
- I think it would be cool to have a pairs tournament, maybe at the same time as the team one for people who can't find 4 people to team up with and maybe 750 points each
- Make sure that the poker game comes back, had a great time playing in it.
- Hope fully add more games, such as Malifaux or firestorm armada.
- Maybe a dedicated area for pickup games and/or a system to find pickup games

I am looking forward to next year.

trichloro wrote:
- Hope fully add more games, such as Malifaux or firestorm armada.
- Maybe a dedicated area for pickup games and/or a system to find pickup games

The Open Gaming/Specialist games hall has space for this sort of gaming.
I have a volunteer for FireStorm Armada plus a pair of guys brought in their own terrain were playing Infinity this past year. They asked to be on the event list for next year - just waiting for them to email.
I could troll the Malifaux boards for a volunteer - or push a name my way if you have some one in mind.

The room used for Combat Patrol had a lot of pic up games played this year. I think the addition of that space was last minute - we'll see about advertising it better next year.

Guys, something that just came to my attention: Better educate your judges on the rules packets for the events.

Apparently one of the Fantasy TT judges was telling people that the event was "Closed List" despite it stating right in the packet that List Sharing was mandatory.

I just checked the packet handed out AND the one posted on the website and both contain this sentence on a bullet point:

• Each Contingent must provide an army list to their opponents with the stats of their army. Magic Items do not need to be named, but a line should appear denoting the cost of items. Hidden models (Assassins, Fanatics, etc…) should be listed separate of the unit they are contained in.

Oh I forgot one more suggestion

Bring back the Invitational. I know now there arent any GW GTs but look at all the Indy GTs plus the ard boyz finals. Thats plenty of candidates to choose from. The invitationals were a reason I wanted to goto a few of the indy GTs.

Black Blow Fly wrote:Isn't one of the guys from a Checkmate Hobbies a staff member as well?

Joe was the TO for the 40k Champs. However, every member of Checkmate Hobbies (including myself) served some kind volunteer staff role over the course of the weekend.

Seperate topic:

I can't find the post to quote it, but for whoever said all the INAT members are Adepticon staff, this isnt totally accurate. I was invited to be part of the INAT team before I ever had any involvement with Adepticon. Then, as Adepticon last year came around, I volunteered to be a rules judge for the Gladiator, TT and 40k Champs. Given I am part of the INAT team it made sense to fit me in as a volunteer member that reguard. That is currently the extent of my staff credentials for the past 2 Adepticons.

Wouldn't it possibly be a good idea to include some new council members from groups such as BoLScon and other large successfully run events? This would go far towards creating a FAQ that would have a better chance of being more universally accepted by other TOs across the country? I know this would probably involve a lot of headaches but it could be well worth it.

G

Black Blow Fly wrote:Wouldn't it possibly be a good idea to include some new council members from groups such as BoLScon and other large successfully run events? This would go far towards creating a FAQ that would have a better chance of being more universally accepted by other TOs across the country? I know this would probably involve a lot of headaches but it could be well worth it.

G

Yes it would. Of course, when we started the INAT, one of our original ideas was to invite the people who run the Necro...and that was the year that the Necro died. :( BOLS is now going into their second year (and if I can swing the cash for a flight I'd love to go this summer).

The thing is...right now there aren't a lot of tournament/conventions out there that have the kind of longevity and extra-regional reach that would be really useful. There's a lot of GOOD cons/tournaments out there...but really, none of them have the national reach that AdeptiCon does. So which ones should participate and why? And which ones shouldn't?

Or do we invite people from gaming clubs/regions...of which there are tons, but how do you choose who to invite?

On top of all that...

There's also one other issue...in that one of the things that we've all agreed on the INAT committee is that regardless of whether a ruling was 9-0 or 5-4, once we vote, it's done. We might re-visit the issue (and have done so), but publicly, we all support whatever ruling we come up with, even if we were on the "4" side of a 5-4 vote. If the INAT committee is expanded, committing to that kind of non-disclosure and public unity is going to be required.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Black Blow Fly wrote:It's a growing trend for TOs not to play. Yakface played in the TT & I think Jankthin is a staff member as well now. Isn't one of the guys from a Checkmate Hobbies a staff member as well?

If you were to bring in some objective outsiders I think it would greatly help to both improve your FAQ & sale it to a wider audience.

Yakface is on DD1. He's also our chief rules judge for the Gladiator, and this year he started the Space Hulk Tourney. (Note to everyone: this is how events for your favorite game get added to the roster...you volunteer to run the event. )

Janthkin...well, we talked him into some manual labor. I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to call him staff...he's just friendly and helpful in general.

Bikeninja wrote:I know I am not one of the bigwigs on this or any of the forums but for a first time Adepticon attendee I have a couple of suggestions. I noticed that you guys had alot of prize support for the winners of the events. I think that some of this could be redistributed so that 2nd and 3rd place people could get mentioned and receive something for placing. Best General and Best Overall I understand why it is done this way I am just not a fan. Believe me when I say understand how hard it is to get prize support. I run events for kids here in my home city and it is hard to get stuff donated. Just wanted to throw it out there.

I like the idea. Sparks may try and hunt you down and silence you (he's in charge of sponsorship), but I definitely like the idea.

solkan wrote:
But seriously, I noticed that some of the free events which sold out had really poor attendance, and I wonder if changing those events to $1 each or something might avoid the possible problem of people signing up for an event because it's free but then not worrying about showing up because they aren't losing anything.

Another good idea.

thehod wrote:You know skype works pretty much the same and doesnt cost much to do conference calls and as someone else suggested Ventrilo

I have done 40 man raids in WOW with little or no problems with communication with vent vent. I have also did conference calls on skype on some podcasts and they offer chat options in each if you want to further articulate something.

Logistics problem solved

The logistics isn't the number of people who can call in...its making schedules mesh so that enough people can call in. Skype wouldn't help with that at all.

NecronLord3 wrote:I of course don't know all the logistics going into the INAT FAQ but from this discussion it sounds like maybe there should be some consideration taken into reducing the number of people involved in the document.

LOL

malfred wrote:
Feedback on the grand raffle thing: I don't know of a human way to do this, but it would be
nice if there was a way to announce the raffle at a time/place when everyone could receive
it. Events were still going on the first night when we recognized one of the names. I don't know
if they got your attention in time, but the guy was playing in another event.

I don't know how that would work logistically, though. Maybe tell people running games to
be ready to receive notice and announce it in their rooms/seminars.

Call it the 10 o'clock raffle and stop everything to announce the names.

The raffle was a bit of a charlie-foxtrot. Definitely want to figure out something better for next year.

trichloro wrote:
- Hope fully add more games, such as Malifaux or firestorm armada.

Want to help run them?

thehod wrote:
Bring back the Invitational. I know now there arent any GW GTs but look at all the Indy GTs plus the ard boyz finals. Thats plenty of candidates to choose from. The invitationals were a reason I wanted to goto a few of the indy GTs.

Up to the Championship TOs (the Invitationals were a subset of the Championships.) The real question is...what would make the invitational different from the GW Invitational (or whatever they're calling Vegas).





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Black Blow Fly wrote:I would like to see the TOs stop playing in the events and a couple of objective outsiders added to hte council.

Muhwe and Matthias already chimed in...but I'd just like to reiterate.

Tournament Organizers don't play in their events. If you see a tournament organizer or someone in a staff shirt playing, you can pretty much assume they're playing the ringer army.

On the 40K side, the tournaments are very compartmentalized. Greg and I run the Gladiator, and aside from myself and the Three Kings (Matthias, Hank, & Jeff) nobody sees our final missions until the day of the Gladiator. The other 40K events are run the same way. (Fantasy's a bit different...mainly 'cause one person runs all three events (I think...square basers and round basers, you know. )).

One other thing that Muhwe (Hank) didn't mention is that our staff and volunteers are largely compensated by getting comped badges and event tickets.

Black Blow Fly wrote:Wouldn't it possibly be a good idea to include some new council members from groups such as BoLScon and other large successfully run events? This would go far towards creating a FAQ that would have a better chance of being more universally accepted by other TOs across the country? I know this would probably involve a lot of headaches but it could be well worth it.

G

BBF,


Things are in the works as I write this to do just that...it has always been the goal, but the most important thing was to actually get the document out and regularly updated. Now that the workflow is pretty much nailed down it is a good time to look into things like adding new council members and obviously the target would be to get other major tournament organizers from across the country.

But again, the goal has to remain in making sure the dynamic works and we are able to continue to update the INAT, so we certainly aren't going to suddenly add a bunch of people to the council all at once.

I think Jwolf would be an excellent addition to your council as would be the Hod. I don't know Jwolf that well but he comes as across as level headed and very knowledgeable about 40k. The Hod is also very level headed, very knowledgeable about 40k plus he was a judge at the Necro last year and will be a judge this summer at Bolter Beach. The Necro crew are actually fantasy players so not to knock them but I don't know how much they can contribute to a 40k tome such as your INAT FAQ. I'm sure there will plenty of work involved for 2011 with new codices such as Blood Angels.

G

Centurian99 wrote:
Or do we invite people from gaming clubs/regions...of which there are tons, but how do you choose who to invite?

Perhaps you look at people who score well on the quizes and have proved that they know the rules.

There's also one other issue...in that one of the things that we've all agreed on the INAT committee is that regardless of whether a ruling was 9-0 or 5-4, once we vote, it's done. We might re-visit the issue (and have done so), but publicly, we all support whatever ruling we come up with, even if we were on the "4" side of a 5-4 vote. If the INAT committee is expanded, committing to that kind of non-disclosure and public unity is going to be required.

That kind of unity is why there are concerns about decisions too, though. There's a huge difference between the whole group agreeing to abide by whatever the vote comes up as and support the document as a whole, and the whole group pretending that every vote was 9-0. Personally, I'd like to see a small minority opinion written about those votes that were close. It's possible to admit that you were outvoted without making the document unusable. 49% of the US population agrees not to overthrow the government every four years after all. Knowing that the really contentious issues were closely debated makes the final result much more tenable, to me at least, whereas the fictitious view that all nine members feel the same way about rules that have a 50/50 split in the YMDC forum polls would seem to indicate that they're not really considering all angles.

Of course, that would take more time, and the group has already indicated that they don't have any more time, so unless other people with more time join in, I doubt it will happen.

Saldiven wrote:

Blackmoor wrote:#1. The Championships is way too large for only 3 games. There is a big problem thought expanding it. You have the TT on Saturday and you have a “hard out” on Sunday night for people who have to go home. There are a few solutions like expanding Adepticon to 4 days and have the championships on Thur-Fri, and a 3 game Gladiator on Sunday. Or you can run it Fri and Sun. The problem with Fri-Sun is not only the split days, but a lot of people will be out of contention on Sunday, and lose interest. One idea that I had was to split the Sunday crowd into 2 groups, one that is still playing in a continuation of the 7-game championships, and the people who scored low go into a consolidation tournament where they start from scratch and play a 3 game tournament. You can run the 2 tournaments simultaneously like you did this year.

Sorry, pet peeve.

I'm seeing this a lot lately. The correct term is "consolation," not "consolidation."

Consolation, as in, "I'm really sorry you didn't make it to the big final, so we're having this little tournament for you. I hope it makes you feel better to get to keep playing."

Perhaps they mean: "consultation" as in a tournament where you ask the players to consult
one another on their rules and scenarios...

Also:

RantheCid wrote:I could troll the Malifaux boards for a volunteer - or push a name my way if you have some one in mind.

Email pending. Just need to ask him.

Redbeard wrote:There's a huge difference between the whole group agreeing to abide by whatever the vote comes up as and support the document as a whole, and the whole group pretending that every vote was 9-0.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen them do the latter. While I can see how it would be nice to be able to read "minority opinion" explanations for 5/4 split decisions, they'd add considerably to the length of the document, and I think there's also a danger there of people using them as yet another excuse to nitpick elements of the FAQ. More work for no practical gain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the subject of suggestions for Adepticon, I think Adepticon is darn-near perfect. I don’t want to nitpick other people’s suggestions, but on the whole I really like how everything is run.

I like the idea of the Championship being 4 rounds on Friday with a 3 round final on Sunday for the top x number or x% of finishers. I don’t think running a consolation bracket is necessary; there’d be a pretty high % of no-shows, I suspect. Running a simultaneous separate RTT-style event on Sunday for a fresh start would be pretty cool, though.

I love Adepticon missions. They’re (usually) way more interesting and tactically-challenging than book missions. The one misstep I saw this year was R2 of the gladiator, where an Immobilized vehicle on turn 1 or 2 could pretty much force a Loss on the primary.

I like the idea of removing Apocalypse stuff from the Gladiator. But it’s cool as-is too.

Four rounds is perfect for the Team Tourney. It does take some discipline and organization (always review the next mission with your teammates during the break!), and practice helps a lot. You save a huge amount of time in the shooting & assault phases if you resolve multiple shooting attacks or assaults which have little potential to influence another simultaneously. You’ve got four guys at the table- whenever possible, two guys should be rolling dice, with an opponent witnessing each. Once I learned this and got my teammates on board, I rarely found myself running out of time in a team game. 5th edition style (not alternating units, like 4th and earlier) deployment also speeds things up substantially.

I think the codicier challenge was cool, but as you noted, someone’s got to run it.

I’m not happy with homemade models/conversions which significantly reduce the LOS profile of a model.

As someone with no affiliation with Adepticon other than attending, I can't imagine telling someone who volunteered numerous hours to put things together for no money that they can't play in tournaments they have no direct involvement in. If you're putting together the missions or judging rules disputes, you shouldn't be in that particular tournament. Otherwise, thanks for putting the thing together and I hope you have a blast playing in the other events.

grotblaster wrote:As someone with no affiliation with Adepticon other than attending, I can't imagine telling someone who volunteered numerous hours to put things together for no money that they can't play in tournaments they have no direct involvement in. If you're putting together the missions or judging rules disputes, you shouldn't be in that particular tournament. Otherwise, thanks for putting the thing together and I hope you have a blast playing in the other events.

QFT.

Adepticon is at a level where staffing is always going to be a huge need. People running one compartmentalized event shouldn't be told they can't play in something else. The best way to tank a successful event is to make volunteering too much work for no reward, and lose your volunteer staff.

It's always more fun, and easier, to play than run the event. Hats off to the guys that worked hard at growing Adepticon over the years.

Mannahnin wrote:I like the idea of the Championship being 4 rounds on Friday with a 3 round final on Sunday for the top x number or x% of finishers. I don’t think running a consolation bracket is necessary; there’d be a pretty high % of no-shows, I suspect. Running a simultaneous separate RTT-style event on Sunday for a fresh start would be pretty cool, though.

Here is the problem. When you are selling a badge for the event, you are selling them a Friday/Sunday tournament. Those who are doing poorly will be no-shows, and have no interesting in the Sunday games. If you start them fresh with a consolation tournament they will be happier and have a reason for showing up.

Also the consolation tournament can be sold as a one day event too, so people can do something else on Friday.

That's what I'm saying. Though I wouldn't label it a "consolation" tournament.

Label it the "Losers" Tournament.

Or, in more seriousness, call one the Invitational and one the Championships like it has been in the past.