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.

So...someone correct me if I am wrong....

I go to a tournament, and win all 5 games. That's 15 points. I get 1 favorite opponent vote. Yeah for me.

2320837027302 other space marine players show up. Their average score is say, 8.

16-8 = 8. My final score is 8.

Now, Joe Blow shows up with Blood Angels. He gets 3 wins for 9 points, a point for a draw, and a loss for a total of 10 points. 20 other players show up. The average score for them is 1. Joe Blow...who lost games mind you...ends up with a final score of 10-1 = 8.

OK a little farfetched...

(but what if only 1 of an army type shows up? and he wins alot....)

Guess who wins the tournament.....

Yup...not the guy who went undefeated, but the guy who lost games, solely because other players showed up who sucked.

You could really rig a tournament like this...bring a good Tau list, and have a couple buddies show up and throw all their games. You end up with a high final score.

( for anyone who has not read the rules, you get a 3 for a win, 1 for draw, and a 0 for a loss. You get +1 for 1 favorite opponent vote, +3 for 2 votes, and +5 for 3 votes. Finally, you take your score, and subtract the average score for all the armies of the type you are playing. ).

How about if 3 Necron players show up...one guy scores 16, and the other 2 get 10 points. The average score is 12. so that 16 now = a 4. You get screwed for being a good player....

This system seems to take the idea that armies win games....

I wonder if they will be using this in Vegas?????

Don't forget random pairings for every round... its a perfect system!

I'll still go. It'll just be a hobby weekend for me

Knowing the scoring ahead of time means I'm just going to have a good time anyway. Now there really is no pressure to win. Not like I need the validation of winning the GW GT

@Hulksmash:

I love that attitude, and it's why I think all tournaments should post beforehand exactly what their scoring system will look like. Nobody gets any unhappy surprises about how the final results are obtained, and people can go into the event with the right mindset.

I'm willing to be you're gonna have a great time.

If they use that in vegas, IF I can win a ticket (i'm not THAT shoddy of a player, and I am planning on entering 3 GT's this year, so its possible) I'd decline to go. I'm not going to spend the money to fly across the damn country (from rochester NY) to play a random tournament that doesn't reward winning at ALL. I'd expect people who win a round to advance to a round to play against other winners... in a tournament like this, the guy who draws the 3 worst players to fight against will be the winner, and it will be completely random.

no thanks.

You do still get rewarded for winning. If you go 5-0 you should at least get your "faction" winner title. Now overall on the otherhand is so screwy who knows

Sadly it's actually a better scoring style than the original GT's which were so heavily weighted on painting that it was common for a 2-2-1 player to win overall. I'm not saying it's a good system. It's not my standard cup of competitive tea. But it would be a fun weekend and a lot of great guys from across the country will be there so it'd be a blast!

lol, I should bring a pure daemonhunters army then. Faction champion for sure, being the only person insane enough to bring them!

I actually wouldn't be surprised by most of the guys going for a win wind up bringing WH, DH, Necrons, and Tau as those are the most underrespresented armies out there right now. I've seen more DE in tournaments than all of the above other than Tau.

Why can't they just copy the point system from ard' boyz? No comp, no random players just who ever gets the most points (wins) wins the tournament. Other than the awesome prizes ard' boyz has I am also thinking because of how the tournament is ran is how they are so popular.

Ard Boyz is popular for these reasons:

-Free
-Huge Support
-Don't have to have painted mini's
-And lastly it's all BP based

Ard Boyz is a different beast entirely as a GT/ToS won't be free, won't generally give away a free army, and you do have to have painted mini's. Apples and Oranges my friend.

Go Go Hobby Weekend! (At least we know it's a hobby weekend before we go)

Hulksmash wrote:

-And lastly it's all BP based

See GT's would probably be a lot better if they had this instead of comp, painting scores, whatever throne of skulls is. Sure you would still pay the same and not have a free army waiting for you at the end but I'am assuming GTs or throne of skulls does still give out some prizes. The % of painted armies may go down but better gaming tournaments is a huge + in my book.

But it doesn't represent the GW Hobby. GW run tournaments have always, always been about the hobby as a whole. Not the ones run by the marketing department (Ard Boyz) but National Events where they put up the tables, terrain, and it's staffed by them. GW Tournaments are a showcase event.

I remember a happier time when the only unpainted army at a GT was the poor bastard who's army got sent to Uganda or some such and he bought, built, and primed an entire new army so he could play. I actually saw them refund someone their money because he didn't bring a painted army one time in Seattle.

I'm not against BP's being the primary determiner of results. I'm an even bigger fan of record being the determine (W-L-D) since I tend not to lose much but rarely massacre. But I get it. I do hate the way they determine overall but I also used to hate how they scored painting/comp but I still went

Luthon1234 wrote:Why can't they just copy the point system from ard' boyz? No comp, no random players just who ever gets the most points (wins) wins the tournament. Other than the awesome prizes ard' boyz has I am also thinking because of how the tournament is ran is how they are so popular.

Well..the problem with the Ard Boyz system is that they are not fun for a good segment of the gaming population. I agree with the old GT/RTT system, that wants to award Overall Winner to the best player, painter, and fun person.

The problem of course is how to score that, so no one gets douched over with a low sportsmanship score. And comp scores have always had the problem of hurting some armies...

I personally hate the no comp systems, because they reduce 40K to a game. I collect armies and I enjoy the fluff etc. My armies reflect the fluff...( and I really miss 3rd edition, where to me it seemed more armies designed in theme could win tournaments than today, where "builds" are so prevalent, and they ignore the rich background...but I digress)....

Remember ToS is not all about the competitive game part of the tournament, but the hobby side as well. So if you want to encourage *all* parts of the hobby (and they really, really DO want to do this) you try to give points that represent all parts of the hobby, in painting and conversion.

I *much* prefer an "all painted" army - much much more interesting that 60 grey "blood angels"

So I guess the logical thing to do for GW is to NOT do tournaments and instead make Hobby weekends. When I hear tournament I hear competitive players playing to be the best not having the best painted or best non douche bag personality. Yea painting is a part of the game I know but it shouldn't be a deciding factor in a tournament. For example I am a bad painter, I've gotten better but nowhere near the level I would need to go to a GT and not get laughed at, but I m also a pretty decent gamer so I lose out on not being a good painter.

You value competitive play above all other factors, so you believe it should be the only factor in deciding who wins.

The tournament organisers, on the other hand, do NOT beileve the same way, so they allow other factors to influence the outcome.

Your argument amounts to "I am good at X, so I believe Y, which I am not good at, shoudl not count towards winning overall". Replace X with "painting", "game playing", etc and you come to the same conclusion - that your personal preference is just that, YOUR personal preference.

Ard Boyz and the new TOS are both too extreme. It's not that complicated to come up with a solid tournament format that rewards everyone, solicit your global community for feedback, and improve it until it rocks.

Games and sports worldwide run extremely effective tournament and league systems that fairly appeal to all participants in said games/sports ... GW should take a note from them.

Oh, I wasnt saying it was a good scoring format - I dont think it is, at all! - I just get annoyed with people when they decide that random personal preference "X" is somehow the only important aspect to playing a hobby game.

truthfully - what do people prefer to play against, all painted or 95%+ grey plastic "let's be blood angels this weekend" marines? What makes for better pictures to show off the hobby?

Hell UK GT used to give free places to the finals for best painted armies (our local 'ard boyz contractor gets this most times ) - which seems a good way of encouraging painting, without having scores for painting.

Personally as long as you meet the 3-colour+based i dont think there should be player-determined painting scores, as quite frankly most people arent competent to adequately judge good painting, especially the more technical skills that can be employed, and so I dont think paint "scoring" should be there at all - heavy penalties for not bringing all painted armies, that would be fine.

One place I went to simply didnt let you place any unpainted models on the table - and if that crippled your army, tough!

nosferatu1001:

I agree wholeheartedly with playing with a painted army. I personally don't have a single one fully done yet, but they look so much better and make upgrades so much clearer.

I also agree on paint scoring. Should the guy that sent his army away to a professional for three months to paint be getting massive points to win? No. If anything, it is a harsher system to go by as nearly anyone can understand or be taught tactics, but being a true artist is just not a skill most will ever have.

All that being said, the army scoring to determine overall winner is the worst part of this ruleset (along with favourite opponent nonsense). Bring a good list, have fun with adding character to your models and written list, and make the least mistakes and you should top every tournament. Throne of Skulls is designed not to ensure that this happens.

This isn't a tournament. It's a glorified invite only Games Day.

Under no circumstances can anyone call this an event where a best player/painter/sports will be objectively determined.

Knowing what I know now I'll still go to Vegas...but I'll probably be playing poker during the day and just hope to catch Jervis randomly sometime to give him an ear full.

It is my understanding this is what is going to be used for Vegas.

That is why they made it 1500 points.

FWIW, the random pairings can go toward eliminating the social engineering that goes on at the top tables of most events. Hard to cut deals that way...

Well its still a reason to go to Vegas... which is why myself and a couple others will probably make it a vacation as well as going to play at the tournament.. Even if the tournament isn't the most competitive thing out there you can at least have some fun, and meet some new people and enjoy some 40k against some good players.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You value competitive play above all other factors, so you believe it should be the only factor in deciding who wins.

The tournament organisers, on the other hand, do NOT beileve the same way, so they allow other factors to influence the outcome.

Your argument amounts to "I am good at X, so I believe Y, which I am not good at, shoudl not count towards winning overall". Replace X with "painting", "game playing", etc and you come to the same conclusion - that your personal preference is just that, YOUR personal preference.

Note I do not go to GTs and I haven't been to a rogue trader in a couple of years so I may not be in the know of how anything is graded.

How do you determine who has the best paint job? The organizer or the players there? I see two things that are wrong,

1. personal opinion from the TO or judges. Theres a guy in my LGS who paints all of his stuff with a glossy look, he does it for two reason 1 is because we live in texas and 2 he just happens to prefer the look. His models aren't badly painted, infact they are pretty good table top quality, but he has yet to win a painting contest. How would a judge or the TO rule on this? Would he actually look in to detail or just look at it and see if it looks "good"?

2. The players, either voting on friends or voting against their opponents. Kinda like with comp "this guy handed me my ass so I'm gonna feth him over all" or "hey he's my friend/BF/GF/relative I'm gonna vote on them to increase their chances".

From my point of view I just see too many ways of breaking the system and taking away the prize from someone who actually deserved it. At least with Battle points the only way to really cheat is to fudge your numbers and that can be caught pretty easily. Now I think there should be a contest after the tournament for painting and conversions I wouldn't have a problem with that at all.

Luthon1234 wrote:
1. personal opinion from the TO or judges. Theres a guy in my LGS who paints all of his stuff with a glossy look, he does it for two reason 1 is because we live in texas and 2 he just happens to prefer the look. His models aren't badly painted, infact they are pretty good table top quality, but he has yet to win a painting contest. How would a judge or the TO rule on this? Would he actually look in to detail or just look at it and see if it looks "good"?

Trust me, there is plenty of drama int he painting community which you competative gamers know *nothing* about. Golden Demon has had this issue for years. To win GW painting contests you have to paint a specific way as the judges look for a specific style of painting. If you don't paint that way, your models will not win and that is that. They can be awesome models, but you won't win. People who are serious about these prises often paint differently than they normally would in order to be a serious contender for Golden Demon or other things.

This has always been like this. And I would say 95% know this and just move on. I paint my models how I want to paint them. If I win something, I win, if not, I still get to share lots of great hobby talk with people and still get lots of awesome feedback.

2. The players, either voting on friends or voting against their opponents. Kinda like with comp "this guy handed me my ass so I'm gonna feth him over all" or "hey he's my friend/BF/GF/relative I'm gonna vote on them to increase their chances".

Chipmunking is over exaggerated and people who paint models and are overall hobbiests are far less likley to even give a crap about the need to 'chipmunk' someone. It is not simply a prize cash grab to most people which is almost what many events have turned in to it seems.

From my point of view I just see too many ways of breaking the system and taking away the prize from someone who actually deserved it. At least with Battle points the only way to really cheat is to fudge your numbers and that can be caught pretty easily. Now I think there should be a contest after the tournament for painting and conversions I wouldn't have a problem with that at all.

Battle points is the person who deserved it? hardly. Many games are won or lost before a single dice is rolled based upon random pairings, list imbalances and table terrain. And then many games are won/lost on mission and who gets first turn. Don't even mention insane point totals that many codexes are not balanced for and some armies suffer at high/low points. GW games for the most part are incapable of being balanced and played competitively. They are capable of being played with a winner and a loser, but often the results are a combination of chance and the narrative of a battle and true skill or tactics is almost invisible in it.

If you go to an event demanding prizes and expecting fairness and ultimate balance, you won't find it. If your enjoyment is directly tied to winning then you will probably never have a good time at any event and always leave angry.

If you go to an event to push little models around, socialize with people and see cool models then you will have a blast. This is the only type of event GW has ever supported or attempted to run when they did the old GTs. I think a lot of people don't realize this was the norm for a solid 10 years until the GTs stopped and some independent circuits showed up which allowed unpainted models and the meta game to take a foothold.

MVBrandt wrote:Ard Boyz and the new TOS are both too extreme. It's not that complicated to come up with a solid tournament format that rewards everyone, solicit your global community for feedback, and improve it until it rocks.

Agreed. Shame - I was hoping the Throne of Skulls would land somewhere more in the middle. I have heard nothing but positive stuff about past events in the UK, but this sounds like a far cry from accounts I have heard.

I know we most likely disagree about how to define 'tournament', but your formula is spot on. It is what AdeptiCon has done for almost a decade now. While our event is a more of a true Convention that transcends any single tournament/event - it has become what it is based on community feedback, constructive criticism and the tireless efforts of 100+ people (all pulled in from the community).

Seems like they just wiped the board clean for Throne of Skulls and started over - forsaking what has come before. Using this format for the Circuit finals is a really terrible idea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

darwinn69 wrote:This isn't a tournament. It's a glorified invite only Games Day.

Under no circumstances can anyone call this an event where a best player/painter/sports will be objectively determined.

Knowing what I know now I'll still go to Vegas...but I'll probably be playing poker during the day and just hope to catch Jervis randomly sometime to give him an ear full.

If they are using this format for the Circuit finals - your first statement is partially true. Ultimately you are playing the game...and that is the end goal for GW.

They have rarely cared about your second statement. You want a competitive event - as do others. GW is not going to give this you. Ever. So I wouldn't get to bent out of shape about it. You should embrace the Indy events that meet your needs, get involved with said event(s) or start your own.

You want a competitive event - as do others. GW is not going to give this you. Ever.

What about 'Ard Boyz? It's not perfect, but it's a fairly good competitive format as far as the current tournament scene goes.

There is a method to the madness to the Throne of Skulls scoring system.

The big imbalances in 5th ed 40k are not specific units, but newer armies overpowering older dexes. By making players compete against their own codex the tournament becomes about game play not list making. It also really gives armies that are very weak in 5th ed the most potential for a good player is with a traditionally weak army such as Tau. I could see it as being fun, and about playing the game instead of WAAC.

Danny Internets wrote:What about 'Ard Boyz? It's not perfect, but it's a fairly good competitive format as far as the current tournament scene goes.

If 'Ard Boyz is what the competitive crowd wants, then why does the Throne of Skulls or Circuit tournaments have to fulfill the same ends? Why can't they be the hobby ying to the competitive yang?

The competitive crowd should work on turning the existing foundation of 'Ard Boyz into something better rather then demanding that every Indy event morph into what they have defined as 40K. There is plenty of room for both.

The problem is, I don't see 'Ard Boyz being structured enough to appease the highly competitive crowd and I think GW is more likely to throw the baby out with the bath water then refine the current system unless the community gets constructive and involved in a positive manner. The loud-mouth, profanity-laden, piss-off rants that are the norm on the internet when it comes to these things isn't going to get anyone anywhere.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Oh, I wasnt saying it was a good scoring format - I dont think it is, at all! - I just get annoyed with people when they decide that random personal preference "X" is somehow the only important aspect to playing a hobby game.

truthfully - what do people prefer to play against, all painted or 95%+ grey plastic "let's be blood angels this weekend" marines? What makes for better pictures to show off the hobby?

Hell UK GT used to give free places to the finals for best painted armies (our local 'ard boyz contractor gets this most times ) - which seems a good way of encouraging painting, without having scores for painting.

Personally as long as you meet the 3-colour+based i dont think there should be player-determined painting scores, as quite frankly most people arent competent to adequately judge good painting, especially the more technical skills that can be employed, and so I dont think paint "scoring" should be there at all - heavy penalties for not bringing all painted armies, that would be fine.

One place I went to simply didnt let you place any unpainted models on the table - and if that crippled your army, tough!

You and others presume that because someone values the competitive piece of a tournament more than the painting/sports/comp piece, they're advocating grey plastic armies. This is an invalid assumption, poor rhetoric and is degenerative to intelligent conversation here.

Feel free to continue discussing, but please stop categorizing people who think that a tournament should be primarily a competitive event advocate poorly showing armies.