NOVA Open - The Gold Standard? What does it mean for other tournament organizers?

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.

**DooDoo**

It would appear that a consensus has been building that the Nova Open is the current gold standard of a 40k tournament. My question to the other tournament organizers is do you plan to incorporate any or all of the ideas that made up the core of NOVA?

For instance, are organizers going to move to a format where you have to win out in order to become best general or do you plan to keep the concept of battle points to settle the issue with multiple undefeated players at the end of the day?

Do you plan to keep kill points in at least one mission or are you moving to victory points or an all objective type scenario?

Will you abandon soft scoring after NOVA has held a tournament with them and not suffered any of the common ills that soft scores are intended to prevent?

Will you abandon comp scoring and validate list building as a meaningful part of the game?

Or, will you ignore the outcome of NOVA and maintain the status quo?

**MVBrandt**

Before this goes crazy anywhere, two things:

1) We had the softest Best Overall in the country (Renaissance Man, which is only 33% competitively comprised)

2) We're just trying to run the best events we can; I don't want us to be held up as a shining standard to piss off other tourneys; plenty of people do it right!

**DooDoo**

Fair point Mike, I should clarify that I mean soft scores were removed from the determination of who was best general and instead went toward the best hobbyist award.

**RiTides**

Soft scores are always removed from best general, but do go towards "overall" "renaissance" or whatever else you like to call the combined category

I'll definitely be coming next year for the fantasy side of things

**Janthkin**

DooDoo wrote:For instance, are organizers going to move to a format where you have to win out in order to become best general or do you plan to keep the concept of battle points to settle the issue with multiple undefeated players at the end of the day?

While a wonderful idea in theory, in practice this is impossible for many events. The Nova team managed 7 games (enough to have a single winner from a pool of up to 128 players). Most events max out at 5 games (single winner from a pool of 32); most large tournaments have far more than 32 players, so there's no way to determine a single winner solely from win/loss record.

Tournaments come in different shapes and sizes, which is a wonderful thing - more variety means more opportunity for people to find the event that works best for them.

**Phazael**

I doubt it will be duplicated outside of possibly adepticon. Few people have the number of judging staff and other logistical amenities to make it happen. I think most tournaments will move away from subjective soft scores until everyone starts getting sick of facing Razorwolves/mech IG over and over again.

**daedalus**

DooDoo wrote:For instance, are organizers going to move to a format where you have to win out in order to become best general or do you plan to keep the concept of battle points to settle the issue with multiple undefeated players at the end of the day?

I shudder from thinking about the number of games that would have to be played to make this viable at Adepticon.

**MVBrandt**

8, which isn't that many

**gorgon**

As I said before, while 40K should never really be compared to a "sport," in golf and tennis different tourneys have different surfaces, course types or even scoring systems. And IMO it's part of what makes those sports interesting.

As Janthkin said, diversity gives the circuit appeal to a wider variety of players. I think strict uniformity across tourneys would eventually end up strangling the circuit.

**MVBrandt**

I agree.

I think that tournaments should be held to a standard of transparency, being well thought out, produced and presented in a fashion where the format selected is tried, tested, and its drawbacks considered/addressed.

More to the point, I think that the QUALITY of a tournament should be a much more important thing to all of us, but the format should remain at least somewhat varied.

I'll be building and providing to anyone who wants it a "packet" for building and setting the format of an event, but anyone who is doing a fine job without the help should just keep on keeping on. If people leave your event happy, you've done your job ... just be relentless about improving it year in and year out.

**Matthias**

Threads like this are ridiculously and purposely divisional. Good TOs talk, listen and learn from each other and their attendees. Looking at the NOVA, it's original inception and plans for future growth - it is pretty obvious Mike recognizes that an event like AdeptiCon is doing lot of stuff right and borrowing pretty heavily in terms of logistics, giveaway ideas, etc.. Lkewise, AdeptiCon is not beyond learning a thing or two from other events like the NOVA, DaBoyz, WarGameCon and the like in terms of appealing to the disenfranchised gamer.

As much as people want competition in their wargaming, wargaming ultimately is a community and not a race to the finish line.

I think some of you are in for a shock in 2 weeks...we've been working since January, when we realized the 40K Championships was going to sell 300+ tickets, on revamping certain aspects of all our GW events. Our events will still be decidingly our own (as they should be) in terms of philosophical approach and retain much of what has made AdeptiCon so successful over the years - but there is always room for improvement and new ideas/approaches. We have 6-7 major 40K events that weekend...plenty of room for everyone.

**MVBrandt**

Matthias and I have also been talking pretty extensively. Anyone who has been to both events knows that I took ideas like swag bags and what-not from my great experience at Adepticon.

I think you'll find that it's the QUALITY of a tournament that matters, far more than variety (or lack thereof).

**Skarboy**

MVBrandt wrote:I think you'll find that it's the QUALITY of a tournament that matters, far more than variety (or lack thereof).

This, a thousand times over. Well-run, well-executed events are the end result and should be the standard, not the exception. Having a knowledgeable TO, with competent and plentiful staff to work the event and maintain a good attitude, means so much more than pretty much anything else and sets the tone for success throughout. As much as I hope the NOVA format catches on, I hope the energy and passion Mike B. put into it catches on even more. I wish I could have gone, and I do hope similar events crop up in my neck of the woods and I can attend a handful of them.

**Aldonis**

Matthias wrote:Threads like this are ridiculously and purposely divisional. Good TOs talk, listen and learn from each other and their attendees. Looking at the NOVA, it's original inception and plans for future growth - it is pretty obvious Mike recognizes that an event like AdeptiCon is doing lot of stuff right and borrowing pretty heavily in terms of logistics, giveaway ideas, etc.. Lkewise, AdeptiCon is not beyond learning a thing or two from other events like the NOVA, DaBoyz, WarGameCon and the like in terms of appealing to the disenfranchised gamer.

As much as people want competition in their wargaming, wargaming ultimately is a community and not a race to the finish line.

I think some of you are in for a shock in 2 weeks...we've been working since January, when we realized the 40K Championships was going to sell 300+ tickets, on revamping certain aspects of all our GW events. Our events will still be decidingly our own (as they should be) in terms of philosophical approach and retain much of what has made AdeptiCon so successful over the years - but there is always room for improvement and new ideas/approaches. We have 6-7 major 40K events that weekend...plenty of room for everyone.

QFT - it's arrogant and dividing to say that Nova is hugely more successful than Adepticon that's been around for 5/6 years and has gone from a 100 person tourney to over 1K attendee's. BOLSCON more than doubled in size in it's second year with great reviews. Nova did a great job for a first time tourney and appealed to a group of gamers that didn't like the format's most commonly used at other tournaments. Great - I'm happy for them. But a HUGE number of people were ok with the existing tournaments as well. Changing all tournaments to match a one time event because a lot of the vocal internet minority liked it sure doesn't seem like a prudent decision to me.

I hope someone just locks this thread down and can's this kind of crap......

**MVBrandt**

It's not arrogant, b/c I didn't say it lol.

It's also not one time, rawr! We've run tourneys with similar formats for a while now.

Anywho ...

**DooDoo**

I, the OP, never said that "NOVA is hugely more successful than Adepticon." I only inquired as to whether the concepts employed by NOVA would be carried forth in other tournaments.

**Hulksmash**

@Aldonis

Why would it get locked? A couple of different TO's have already weighed in and given their opinions. Even Mike has said his tourney isn't the be all end all. While the topic is phrased middling poorly I think it's opening up good conversation. I think there are some things TO's can take from Nova but at the same time I like the variety as well.

@Thread

Biggest thing to take is absolute transparency which a lot of tourney's on the circuit still lacked this year. While Nova can take a page from Warcon in relation to army list submission. Everyone can learn from each other.

I think the best thing it did personally is highlight that hand holding isn't required for a fun tournament. That no sports toward the ultimate prize doesn't translate into asshats all weekend. That comp isn't required for people to have a good time. I'd actually like to see the sportsmanship score percentage based on finishing record if Mike has the time as I think that will also help highlight that playing to win doesn't make you a dick.

And Razorspam was actually noticably absent Phazael. Nobody in the final game had a razorback. And only 2 of the final 8 I believe were even fielding them. Mech IG also did pretty poorly in comparison to Orks, BA's, SW's, and Daemons.

**gorgon**

I agree 100% with Mike regarding the quality of the tournament, regardless of the format.

And I think what you see is that the better tourneys are fairly clear about their mission. NOVA was very clear about what it was trying to accomplish, as is Adepticon and all the other great events on the circuit.

Tony's inspiration for Mechanicon is the old hotel GT format that us old-timers fondly remember, but with changes such as no comp scores, big prizes, goodie bags, etc. Hence our line about trying to put the "grand" back into GT.

All these events have their place, and (to DooDoo's last comment) I do think you can and will see certain concepts in common across the best events. But again as Mike indicated, I think those common concepts relate more to how professionally the event is run rather than things like scoring formats.

**Kevin Nash**

I think Mike did a great job and it's outstanding that he ran such a cool and innovative tournament on such a large scale successfully. Kudos to him and his playgroup for putting on a fantastic event. I've heard nothing but positive feedback from the player-base. As a TO myself I know that running a tournament is no small undertaking. A GT of that magnitude? Truly impressive to be able to pull that off.

Our playgroup has been running true Swiss pairing, soft score free tournaments since February and we plan to continue to do so in the future.

I hope the NOVA tournament structure continues to be successful because it reflects well on ours and because just like Mike I believe that the best way to foster great competition is to provide players a competitive environment to play in.

**Frazzled**

DooDoo wrote:It would appear that a consensus has been building that the Nova Open is the current gold standard of a 40k tournament. My question to the other tournament organizers is do you plan to incorporate any or all of the ideas that made up the core of NOVA?

For instance, are organizers going to move to a format where you have to win out in order to become best general or do you plan to keep the concept of battle points to settle the issue with multiple undefeated players at the end of the day?

Do you plan to keep kill points in at least one mission or are you moving to victory points or an all objective type scenario?

Will you abandon soft scoring after NOVA has held a tournament with them and not suffered any of the common ills that soft scores are intended to prevent?

Will you abandon comp scoring and validate list building as a meaningful part of the game?

Or, will you ignore the outcome of NOVA and maintain the status quo?

Consensus by who???

**Matthias**

@Aldonis - This will be 9 years for us and we now host over 1300 attendees.

@OP - when you put forward the question of a Gold Standard and then refer to everything else as 'status quo', as if other events don't learn, grow and improve - you are seeking to push an agenda...and that is divisional. There is no NOVA vs. AdeptiCon issue, I only brought up our convention as an example because other people mentioned it and I can speak with experience regarding it and the interaction I have had with Mike over the past few months.

The big difference between Mike and other people that have called for a similar format for sometime or leveled criticism at an event like AdeptiCon - is that Mike understand sympathy, empathy and respect for people that do not agree with him and all that is returned in kind. This is fundamental to any social contract...and something that wargaming and the the Games Workshop wargaming community in particular needs.

Quality of an event is paramount. Sure game formats play into that to a degree, but it takes much, much more to pull of events then writing a evaluative system and a mathematical equation to determine a winner. As an event grows, it takes many more dedicated people to maintain that same level of quality. For example AdeptiCon had over 100 people on the volunteer list for 2010, and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that had a problem with the quality of the event as a whole....just as gold as anything else...

**carlosthecraven**

Hi

OK, I'll bite... and try to be as respectful as possible with my answers because I think that it is good that Nova is there to fill out a niche within the tournament world and I am glad it was successful.

In terms of adopting the Nova ideas for our event.... not likely. Not because they aren't good or valid or useful, but because within our local player base, there isn't a call for this format OR we have already adopted/started with these ideas for a while now, or something so close that altering the format will have little to no substantial impact.

What is effectively a "win or go home" format, despite the carrot of more draw prize tickets for losing, will work for a select group, but eliminating 1/2 the field from contention in a single round wouldn't fit our local player base particularly well. You might argue that someone with a 2-2 record is still in the running for Renaissance Man, but the likelyhood is extremely remote that someone with a 3-1 or a 4-0 wouldn't take it, and it could certainly be gamed to win by a cunning player. On the other hand, we enjoy the suspense of a come from behind victory using variable battle points., despite the danger of this system also being "gamed". Finally, the perception of this event is that it placed far more emphasis on the Best General than the Renaissance Man, which is not a route we have a strong interest in pursuing. That may not be the intention, but that is certainly my perception. The reward for winning - more games than everyone else and a second day of action - outweighs all the other rhetoric in my mind.

We will continue to use both victory points and kill points as both have a role within the metagame that we feel are important to competitive play. Believe it or not, using victory points is not new.

We will retain our light soft scoring component for sportsmanship in the form of code conduct questions, rather than a subjective score, along with a favorite opponent vote.

We haven't done comp scoring for a while now because it simply alters what is powerful in a list rather than balances the game. ALL comp systems are very subjective, including the decision not to have comp at all. In our view, no comp is the least subjective as it gives players the freedom to take what they want without feeling they need to fit within someone else's box. That being said, I have no problem going to a comped event if I know what the criteria are ahead of time.

I don't really understand your Status Quo question... every big tourney, and most small tourneys, have quirks that make them different. It is the quality of the event itself as well as the transparency of the format and scenarios that are the keys to a great tourney, rather than the use of battle points OR straight win-loss OR win-loss-tie OR whatever.

Nova has a very interesting format, and I certainly will consider attending in 2011, time and circumstance (the wife effect) permitting. However, my gut reactiion is that the format is more suited to an environment where you get paid for results, rather than pay to attend - like a pro tennis tournament. I have heard it mentioned that someone in Canada wishes to adopt the style. Can anyone fill me in on where and when that might be? I may not make it to the main event, but it would be fun to attend something close to home.

Cheers,
Nate

**MVBrandt**

Nate,

Just an FYI that our format is not "win or go home." 2-2 finishers were in the Top 10 for the Renaissance Man / Best Overall award, which was half the Vegas qual, and more than half the field was contending for it to the last.

That's to say, that your comments are all positive / respectful, and I'm glad you're considering attending next year, but I don't want misinformation out there accusing the system of being "win or go home" when it really, really isn't.

**Aldonis**

MVBrandt wrote:It's not arrogant, b/c I didn't say it lol.

It's also not one time, rawr! We've run tourneys with similar formats for a while now.

Anywho ...

My message really wasn't directed at you....but more at the interwebz in general.

This WAS the inagural year for the Nova though. There have been several other tourneys that have done well at the start - but haven't stood the test of time (Big Waagh, the one in Northern Fl). I truly and sincerely hope and don't want that to happen to your tourney or anyone elses for that matter.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

MVBrandt wrote:Nate,

Just an FYI that our format is not "win or go home." 2-2 finishers were in the Top 10 for the Renaissance Man / Best Overall award, which was half the Vegas qual, and more than half the field was contending for it to the last.

That's to say, that your comments are all positive / respectful, and I'm glad you're considering attending next year, but I don't want misinformation out there accusing the system of being "win or go home" when it really, really isn't.

Objectively it's really TWO tournaments.

A 1 day RTT style tourney that has all the same formats, scoring, etc that have been around for some time (Overall, General, Sports, etc).

The Won/Loss results qualify a certain percentage (in this case top 8 or 10 right) for an "Invitational" position seated tournament the next day.

While linked - they are separate events. Technically the lowest seat in the invitational could have won the whole thing if they won out.

**nkelsch**

I disagree with the concept that there is only one valid and correct format to run a Tourney, which is what the OP seems to be promoting.

I think the reason why tourneys are successful is because they are different and have different rules and appeal to different people. Just because the NOVA format directly appeals to some people, doesn't mean it is the only valid format or that all people only enjoy that format. TOs should always appeal to their base as a severe majority of tourney goers are going to be mostly local.

I would like to know the breakdown of appearance scores and I would like to see how relaxed painting requirements and non-impacting appearance scores negatively impacted the quality of armies brought to the event. From many of the pictures and battle reports, I have seen lots of armies which would be thrown out of many tourneys for not meeting minimal requirements or the appearance scores would be so low, the person would be incapable of reaching the top seats. While I know many people hate appearance, lots of us really enjoy that aspect and going to an event to play against unpainted or basecoated armies is simply not fun. While I would probably still enjoy the NOVA format, I do enjoy events with good appearance scores that actually force people to bring painted armies. In my experience, most people with metalists that are barley painted do own fully-painted quality armies, and if painting is required, they do bring them. But this is what *I* want in a tourney and if there are enough people who agree, then those types of events will still exist. I do not say that there is only one correct way to run or score a tourney and room for everyone.

**sabote**

Nova- is going to have to start posting those saying like you see on some advertisements. " This add was not sponsored or paid by anyone at the Nova Open".

The mediate blitz by the regular internet personalities here leaves me a bit speechless. Personally I think diversity in tournaments it better. I would get tired of the same old format.

Glad the Nova Open was a success for MVB simply for the hard work he put into it.

**DooDoo**

I believe that NOVA did have a 3 color standard. It just had no impact on determining the best general like it usually does.

**mikhaila**

DooDoo wrote:It would appear that a consensus has been building that the Nova Open is the current gold standard of a 40k tournament. My question to the other tournament organizers is do you plan to incorporate any or all of the ideas that made up the core of NOVA?

For instance, are organizers going to move to a format where you have to win out in order to become best general or do you plan to keep the concept of battle points to settle the issue with multiple undefeated players at the end of the day?

Do you plan to keep kill points in at least one mission or are you moving to victory points or an all objective type scenario?

Will you abandon soft scoring after NOVA has held a tournament with them and not suffered any of the common ills that soft scores are intended to prevent?

Will you abandon comp scoring and validate list building as a meaningful part of the game?

Or, will you ignore the outcome of NOVA and maintain the status quo?

Pardon my bluntness. I worked 10am to 5am yesterday on Games Day stuff, and I'm cranky and looking at 36 hours straight to get it done. Liquid nails ib fingers means I type badly. Logged on to Dakka for a break. Normally more controlled than this, but I'm tired.) Glad you enjoyed NOVA, but no, I don't feel like making my tournaments a clone of it.

MIKE: You at Games Day, do want to pick your brain on stuff.

I look at a lot of tournaments and steal whay I think are good ideas.

No. Yes, battle points.

Loaded question, and the NOVA had soft scoring.

Loaded question. I don't use comp anymore for 40k, so a moot point.

Loaded question. Status quo? WTF are you talking about? There are lots of different GT's now with different ways of doing things? Define the status quo for me so I can see if I want to abandon it.

Simply put, I think Mike did a great job on the NOVA. But do I want to become a clone of the NOVA with what I'm doing up here? Hell no.

Go ask most gamers a question like "Now that you saw your army sucks and didn't win first will you abandon it and start playing MechGuard?" Your questions are similarly phrased.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Consensus by who???

Really? We have to explain "Pushing an Agenda" to you Frazzed?

Consensus = 1+ peoples agreeing on something. Ask any pollster.

There is lies, damn lies, and statistics.

(I got a MS in Statistics before running a game store, it helps.)

**MVBrandt**

**Matthias**

DooDoo wrote:I believe that NOVA did have a 3 color standard. It just had no impact on determining the best general like it usually does.

Huh? Since when does painting factor into Best General? Best General at *most* events is raw Battle Points or straight W/L record.

I know people have a hard time reconciling Overall and Best General...but honestly, I swear they are different awards!