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.

Or better yet, we could open it up to all the USA. As we are just going to count battle points maybe you should give it a name, something hard and like a tought guy....

No, really, I would think you should keep it just California. We are a big enough state as it is with-out adding more area to travel in.

Of course I don't have any say in this, just an outsider's 2 cents.

Enjoy!

California is definitely big enough, but Arizona and Nevada are close enough that for some it is easier to go to Vegas or such than it is to go to NorCal.

Maybe the southwest cup? I think that is a pretty reasonable geographic area.

Put it in Vegas, and I'd highly doubt you'll have any issue...

Yeah, no kidding! Who needs an excuse to go to Vegas?

I'd keep it to the western states...honestly there is enough that you could likely limit it to the southwest and still fill it.

Make it invitational with the rankings so the top 16 in each system get invites...if some cannot make it, then the invites drop down to the next couple of spots.

This could then be a lead into more of a national cup type of thing, but if you keep it regional for now, it will be much easier to organize.

Yeah true, we could eventually have regional cups with a battle for the National Cup.

That is all very far out in the future, of course, but it is a real possibility.

Reecius wrote:I meant locally relatively. As in, the west coast, not all of the USA and Canada.

I think weighting the results based on size of the tournament would be a good idea, too. How exactly that would be done will take a little thought.

I think if we just build it on the existing tournament infrastructure that would be easiest. I mean already we have:

SoCal Slaughter
SoCal Smackdown
Broadside Bash
Gathering in the desert (it's in AZ, but close)
Da Grand WAGGH!
The Bay Area Open (the GT we're organizing up here)
And a few in Seattle

Are there any in Oregon? I would think Portland would have one?

Doc Dragon has a good idea. Just take the Battle Points from each tournament, that eliminates soft scores, and add them up. We would need some way to account for larger and smaller tournaments.

But, at year's end, we see who racked up the most points, or take the best of 3 or 5 tournament results and announce the winner and the runners up.

I think it would be pretty easy and cool.

TOURNAMENTS!?! SEATTLE!?!? WHERE?!?!

Its all GW clubs up her, so if there is a yearly tournament that contributes to this west coast thing in Seattle sign me up!

Ah, I heard there were a few up that way. That is too bad, if not. I have a buddy from Seattle, I will contact him and see what he knows about the tournament scene up there.

Reecius wrote:Ah, I heard there were a few up that way. That is too bad, if not. I have a buddy from Seattle, I will contact him and see what he knows about the tournament scene up there.

*Psst* I will save you the trouble. It dosent exists. The first one IN MONTHS is this Saturday, and its 1750 at a local GW.

Ah, that stinks. Maybe you guys should look into organizing one?

For Seattle there's TSHFT. They do two a year (usually mid march and labor day weekend for 40k, dunno when their fanatasy ones are held). It sounds like it has as many people as some of the socal events and its growing. That is about it beyond the sketchy ConQuest stuff.

Spokane Washington hosts SpoCon which has a circuit qualifying 40k and fantasy tournament. There were 28 attendees this year (4-6 no shows) on the 40k side. I am hoping to grow this number for 2011.

Not much in Oregon as far as GT style events. There's OFCC but its invitational and club based. So a different animal all together.

There's a couple of events in Vancouver Canada also (Astronomi-con, Gotta-Con and some others), but that may be out of scope for this type of thing.

Thing is unlike the California tournaments there's not a ton of travel between Washington and Cali for 40k. Maybe a handfull if that? Would love to see a bit more of that going on though!

Yeah that is true, I only know a few guys who go up to Seattle for events. I have never been up that way and would love to go check it out. My buddy Alex is from Seattle and he said the 40K scene there is pretty good.

I can't imagine it costs much to fly up to Seattle, plus it's a cool city, I'd like to check it out.

I went to Seattle the last couple years, but Mondo Vega pretty much killed it for our group. Shame too, because I enjoyed that con and got to get drunk with some local relatives and friends.

As for the idea of a cup, I am all for it. I think most of the TOs would support it, but I think you should limit it to a drivable area. My suggestion would be to include AZ, CA, and NV and call it the "Desert Cup" or some such. The major gaming groups from those areas would probably all be willing to converge in one area. I know we looked at the idea of having a GT in one of the cheaper side towns near Vegas, so its definately feasable there.

The only thing I would want to see is a minimum paint standard being adhered to and the organizers taking scenarios from the qualifying events in equal amounts, so that everyone is on equal footing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ps- This sort of thing has been talked about on a limited basis in the background on the Fantasy side, but it never really got past the idea stage.

Phazael wrote:
As for the idea of a cup, I am all for it. I think most of the TOs would support it, but I think you should limit it to a drivable area. My suggestion would be to include AZ, CA, and NV and call it the "Desert Cup" or some such. The major gaming groups from those areas would probably all be willing to converge in one area. I know we looked at the idea of having a GT in one of the cheaper side towns near Vegas, so its definately feasable there.

Like San Diego, LA/OC/Riverside, over to Vegas and Phoenix...that sort of area. That still represents LOTs of gamers and close to a dozen tournaments. Should be plenty to make a "masters" sort of tournament.

That is a good idea, especially to begin with. If it catches on, we could easily expand it.

They do the masters in Australia, I will research their structure a bit to see how they run it.

I think we have enough tournaments now that it would be pretty easy to set it all up.

Seriously Happy Grunt, TSHFT has been kicking butt for years now in Seattle, and it is one of the best run tournaments I've been to.

I think a Southwest cup would be pretty cool. Though I think it should be set up with some Celeb's getting auto invites. I mean, what is a Championship without Doc Dragon, Hulksmash, or Touradj?

Maybe set it up that 4 or 5 spots can be selected for "lifetime achievment." But that is just me.

asugradinwa wrote:I think it should be set up with some Celeb's getting auto invites. I mean, what is a Championship without Doc Dragon, Hulksmash, or Touradj?

Maybe set it up that 4 or 5 spots can be selected for "lifetime achievment." But that is just me.

Hell no...make them bitches work for their supper!

All joking aside, that would be a terrible idea...simply because it would discourage some people and promote at least some feeling of favoritism.

For full disclosure...I am not interested in, nor would I participate as a player. I am looking at this purely from an organizational standpoint. I would certainly be willing to assist in any way that I can from a TO perspective. As much as I am a hobbiest first and foremost, I do love the idea of a west coast regional championship...in this case, I am in favor of a more battle oriented type of game.

I'll work my way in at some point. No freebies for me.

Yeah I agree with Captkurt on this one. That is a good idea, asurgardinwa and the input is appreciated but I think it would undermine the concept to play favorites. Hulks is my buddy and I think like DocDragon, he would only want to go if he earned his spot. I don't know Touradj well but from the few times we have met, I think he would say the same thing.

Well seeing how luck can be a factor I'd think extending invitations to the top 3 finishers in each event would be good. That way if dice crap out on someone or the judges forget to add paint scores to Best Overall (yes, I'm still a little sore about that) they'll still get an invite.

Reecius, this sounds like a great idea to me. I would be willing to help out, and promote it using Capture and Control. PM and let me know if you need/want help.

Awesome, thanks brotha! I need to get the website going but I have been buy with work. I will contact you though to get some ideas/input.

Definitely a neat idea. We ( Games i Play ) run a doubles series all around SoCal. In our first season we had 6 events, and this year we're up to 7. We have also run a single player event ("No Quarter!" back in August) and intend to do more of those.

I suppose it does get a little tricky with the Double Trouble events though - the size of the tournament varies quite a bit from location to location, and of course it's a doubles event whereas you're talking about an individual award. Still worth thinking about of course

Reece,

The way to do it is *definitely* to run a separate 'masters' event. You don't want to just tally up points for the year from each event to award some 'winner' of the west coast because no matter how you tweak the system you never know if the best guy from one store is really better than the guy from another score because you ulimately don't know what the competition is like in each area.

Besides, just crowning someone the 'west coast champ' without them actually playing in a final tournie to decide it just kinds of smacks of pointlessness...who can really care, because any points-based ranking system will always be flawed. Does the BCS college non-playoff system ring a bell?

Now on the other hand, if the system is used to organize a 'best of the best' west coast tourney once a year, well then its actually helping to facilitate another great event, and therefore its a win-win for everyone in the community.


So I would model it kind of off of the Golden Ticket system. The winner(s) of identified events get an invite to the west coast masters event. The bigger the event the more spots are up for grabs. And if someone has already won their golden ticket from a previous event then the invite is passed down to the next place finisher.

You can start out hosting this tourney, but in later years you could theoretically rotate out the location of the masters event to other participating locations if they're interested. If they're not, then you just keep hosting 'the west coast masters' at the same place.


And what's really cool is if you use some sort of points-based tracking system going into the event (like the Sprue Posse's ELO, for example) you could even have the tournament 'seeded' ahead of time to have players set up in brackets right form the start!

I apologize in advance if this sounds harsh, not trying to trample on anyone, but personally this doesn't sound like something the game needs. It feels like turning a hobby into a sport, in a game that inherently isn't very good for competitive play. There are armies that are clearly better than others along with builds that are clearly better than others or that are better at certain matchups.


I could almost guarantee that whatever champion is crowned, would probably not remain the champion if you ran the event again with the same participants and re-arranged all the matchups. Winning an event is all about not only how *well* you play, but *which* army and *which* build you play, how *well* one rolls (sometimes the dice just won't roll well, I've won and lost games in events with very stilted dice rolls that had they been more average wound have gone another way), what missions are being used, and what armies/builds/players you are matched against. For instance, Mech IG or Mech Eldar may do amazing if it's thrown against nothing but Tyranids and Dark Eldar in Objective missions, but will probably not do so well if it's forced to fight Deathstar armies over and over in KP missions, and vice versa. So trying to crown a single "champion" in that light just doesn't seem like it means much unfortunately.

My 2 cents anyway.

@Vaktathi

First off I don't take it as harsh man but let's think about it. The game as a whole is far more balanced than it's ever been and at this point is pretty solid rules wise in comparison to other editions. I think you'll find a lot of the more recognized tournament players(not the best, just the loudest ) out there don't think that there are clearly better books/builds either. That tends to be something that gets handed out and reinforced by people who can't win with their respective army. Most of the major tourney winners this year don't think that certain armies are totally dominating.

Let's look at your second point. To get invited to the "masters" event you'd have to perform consistantly over a period of several events. So there is your consistancy in regards to all your variables. It's not perfect but neither are sports. And luck plays just as huge of a part in sports as it does in our gaming. One wrong hit or landing and your team is out of the playoffs. A gakky schedule and poor timing match-ups can keep you out of the winners circle too. It's no different but we attach meaning to sports champions.

I'm not saying that this is a sport or that anyone in it is in any way an athlete but just because the idea doesn't appeal to you doesn't mean it doesn't resonate with others. Most males are inherently competitive and it's natural for us to find a way bring that into our hobbies. How many hobbies that men do with other men aren't competitive? I mean even fishing with friends can get competitive because you don't wanna be that guy who comes back empty The term loser buys drinks comes up a lot when golfing/bowling. It's natural for people to make things a little more competitive.

I think anything that grows the hobby and helps shine light on it is good. And competitive is good, look at MtG and the money it brings in. I want my hobby around for the next 20 years like magic is likely to be.

Vaktathi wrote:I apologize in advance if this sounds harsh, not trying to trample on anyone, but personally this doesn't sound like something the game needs. It feels like turning a hobby into a sport, in a game that inherently isn't very good for competitive play. There are armies that are clearly better than others along with builds that are clearly better than others or that are better at certain matchups.


I could almost guarantee that whatever champion is crowned, would probably not remain the champion if you ran the event again with the same participants and re-arranged all the matchups. Winning an event is all about not only how *well* you play, but *which* army and *which* build you play, how *well* one rolls (sometimes the dice just won't roll well, I've won and lost games in events with very stilted dice rolls that had they been more average wound have gone another way), what missions are being used, and what armies/builds/players you are matched against. For instance, Mech IG or Mech Eldar may do amazing if it's thrown against nothing but Tyranids and Dark Eldar in Objective missions, but will probably not do so well if it's forced to fight Deathstar armies over and over in KP missions, and vice versa. So trying to crown a single "champion" in that light just doesn't seem like it means much unfortunately.

My 2 cents anyway.

I totally agree with every point you made. But I differ on a philosophical point: not meaning much, and not worth doing, are two entirely different things. I don't think the superbowl means much. One group of guys is a lot better at running around carrying a ball than another group of guys? Good for them. But it's something people enjoy, and it's something for people to strive for, no matter how arbitrary it may be.

While I can see your point in regards to consistency and whatnot, I still think very much there are clear distinctions between armies and builds. I don't think I've ever lost to Daemonhunters, I don't think I've lost to Necrons since 5E came out (I think I beat them maybe twice or thrice before that?) or to Tyranids in almost two years. My Tau very certainly aren't as capable as my Imperial Guard despite being rather similar relative to many other armies, my W/L with Tau is about 50/50 and with IG is...well lets say that playing on a weekly basis that long stretches of months go by between losses.

I've got 6 armies (2 IG armies, enough CSM stuff for two armies, an Eldar army, a Tau army, and an WIP Tyranid army) . I've played against every army out there multiple times in 5E, and it very much feels like there are weaker/stronger armies and builds (e.g. it's hard to see an army with IG penal legion units for troops is going to perform as well as one with Mechvets or blob platoons). Good playing and dice can mitigate this, but I don't think it's fair to say that Necrons are just as capable in 5th edition as Space Wolves or Imperial Guard for instance assuming two equally skilled players. With that, I think it means crowning a champion will have a large part to do with army choice rather than player skill.

40k may be more balanced than ever, and certainly more than Fantasy has been, no question, but that still doesn't mean it's really a game that you can bring any army to with any reasonable build and expect to do well with at a competitive event on a consistent basis.

That said I agree that anything that helps grow the game is good, but if it's an invite only event for people who already are neck deep in the hobby (and have been for years most likely) I'm not sure how well it's going to do that if that makes sense?

Not trying to hate-parade all over this, just trying to point out what I see as problems is all.

@Vaktathi
I, and I am sure everyone else here, respects your opinion, but what's the point? I am not trying to be rude but what does it matter? If this is an event you aren't interested in, then don't participate, seems simple enough. You make some valid points but there are a lot of us who do like to play the game competitively. We accept the fact that the game is not nor ever will be perfect, that luck, pairings and missions play a huge part of the game and are OK with that. We accept the variable and enjoy the competitive fun of tournaments. How does that hurt anyone not involved?

As I always say, if the game were truly random, the same people wouldn't consistently win events, over and over, year after year which is exactly what happen. If it really were about lists and armies, we would see nothing but wolves, IG and blood angels winning events, which quite simply isn't true if you follow tournament results the way we do. The stats are not in line with conventional thinking. I actually wrote an article about this for BoLS and put up a large amount of tournament data to support the argument. Good players win over armies more often than not.

So you are welcome to your point of view for sure, but your contributions are pretty much just raining on the parade. You are essentially saying we shouldn't, or should consider not doing something we think would be fun because you don't think the event would be valid. The community gains nothing by not doing it, it gains more fun to those who enjoy this type of thing if we do put it on. No one i hurt by it, and a lot of people gain enjoyment. I don't see any downside, really.

A for it being an invite only event, it gives something for people to aspire to. For those who are not competitive gamers they won't care, for those who are, it is something to shoot for during the year that is a lot more exciting than the daily grind. It make the game more engaging. Do the masters hurt the game of golf? The olympics hurt their sports? I'm not seeing your point. Are you afraid people will get their feelings hurt if they don't make it or something?

And again, don't take this the wrong way, just stating a counter point to your argument.

@Ozendorf
Yeah, I have been following your events, my friends Dave and Marc jut won your last tournament at Game Empire in SD, my old store. We will definitely have to try and get some cross pollination going on.

@Yakface
You make good points, it would be more fun to have a tournament of champions than just to award a trophy. And this would be a legit tournament of champs, not the silly throne of skulls event. This would actually mean something.

Logistics of organizing the event would be the only sticking point. Having seeded tournaments would be super cool though and would help to add prestige and hopefully boost attendance to exiting events the way Golden Tickets do.

well, you did ask

So I was thinking, with all the tournaments that we already have on the west coast, and with more sprouting up, what do you guys think about organizing a California or West Coast Cup? Maybe even a Western States Cup or something?

So, what do you guys think? I think it is a cool idea and would add a little bit of prestige to winning the most tournaments on the West Coast.

And thus I gave my thoughts on it, my apologies if it wasn't what you were looking for.

As to the other bit, I honestly don't have the data for most large tournament results so I can't comment, I can only go off my own play experience at various events (lately mostly in the PacNW, have been mainly just doing pickup games the last few months since I moved back to San Diego) ranging from store/club tournaments to large 40 person+ venues. I don't mind playing competitively, I've played in lots of competitive events, I'm not saying that playing competitively is a bad thing, only that a closed invite-only event that seeks to proclaim a definitive "40k champion" (as opposed to a champion for a single event) doesn't seem (to me at least) like it would really bring much to the hobby at large given vagueries of the game.

I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time, it may be a great thing, all I'm doing is expressing my viewpoint on the matter given that it was an open question on an internet message board.

A for it being an invite only event, it gives something for people to aspire to. For those who are not competitive gamers they won't care, for those who are, it is something to shoot for during the year that is a lot more exciting than the daily grind. It make the game more engaging. Do the masters hurt the game of golf? The olympics hurt their sports? I'm not seeing your point. Are you afraid people will get their feelings hurt if they don't make it or something?

Well, if we were talking about an event with an audience and actively watching games with an element of suspense (and tons of revenue generation through advertising ), which is primarily what drives those events you mentioned, there might be something to it (which may be something that could be interesting? Streaming games or something?), unlike an invite only thing where just about anyone who didn't go are only going to know likely know player names, their faction, and overall results, if that.