So what is a NOVA style tournament?

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.

**Blackmoor**

So can someone tell me the definition of a NOVA style tournament, or what makes an event a NOVA style tournament?

**Byte**

Taken from a NOVA post.

A couple of quick hits on the format ...

This will be the further revised and improved follow-on to the NOVA Open 2010 GT, where the increasingly popular "NOVA Style" format was christened. If you're not familiar with it, the NOVA "Style" essentially runs two parallel events within the same tournament - the Renaissance Man and Tournament Champion tracks.

Renaissance Man is our "Best Overall." It EQUALLY weights competitive performance with sportsmanship and appearance score, as opposed to the more traditional Best Overall scores that typically weigh Battle Points as closer to 70% of your total.

Tournament Champion is our "Best General" equivalent. The tournament is structured so that the Tournament Champion is literally the sole undefeated at the end of 2 days of gaming, "battle points" being only relevant for establishing seeding and match-ups in each subsequent round.

The pairing of these two styles ensures that attendees experience the more "traditional" air of a battle points + appearance + sports scored tournament in parallel (playing within the same exact field) with a knock-out style bracketed competitive tournament. The best of both worlds, as it were.

Our further revisions in this regard are numerous, including the application of a Kill Points variant (no worries, not one that eschews the visible effect of KP like nominate-5, expect more of a "win-by-x" KP mission that's otherwise just as the rulebook) in some capacity to our tiered goal/mission format, and gaming in ALL ROUNDS for ALL PLAYERS.

**yakface**

That's a good breakdown although I would also add that when other events say that they are a NOVA style tournament sometimes this just means they utilize the win/loss system for their games instead of using battle points (I.e. I think some of them don't bother with the 'renaissance man' part of it).

**MVBrandt**

What Yak said. Ironically, in most ways AdeptiCon was a "NOVA Style" event ... I don't even think "NOVA STYLE" is an appropriate name. Why?

Best General for the undefeated finishers, or split among all undefeated if there are more than 1, without rando rewarding those who beat people up the most.

Best Overall to EQUAL weighting of all scores - soft and competitive.

By now, it's also bracketing your later rounds out and rewarding people for competing well amongst their peers, to better acknowledge the vast diversity in skill and list competitiveness in your average 40k tournament (Esp. big ones).

There's some more nuance to it, but that covers the gist. Hallmarks are largely removing or suppressing the importance of MARGIN of victory, and independently but EQUALLY rewarding Overall and General, instead of having one or the other be the sole purpose of the event.

Oh, and a lot of people abuse "NOVA style" to draw attention to their event, b/c the format is popular among many players. There are also a lot of angrypants douches out there who like the format, and browbeat other TO's to use it, even though that invariably causes those TO's to get pissed at ME for "founding it." Grumble.

**Mannahnin**

That's the price of success. You and Hank should have some serious bonding material at this point.

**Blackmoor**

I just posted this because I see so many tournaments branded as "NOVA style" and they are all quite different.

**yakface**

Blackmoor wrote:I just posted this because I see so many tournaments branded as "NOVA style" and they are all quite different.

Right, so just substitute 'NOVA style' for 'win/loss' scoring (as opposed to battle points).

While just utilizing win/loss is not really representative of NOVA's overall formula (as Mike pointed out) that's the big one that people have latched onto and what they mainly mean when they say it.

**MVBrandt**

Blackmoor wrote:I just posted this because I see so many tournaments branded as "NOVA style" and they are all quite different.

I'm actually glad for the differences, in the sense that I think a TO owning his/her own event generally yields a more passionately run event than a copycat.

I'm also generally glad to see less winmargin events - being able to stay in the running for best general just by barely winning dramatically widens the range of army styles and codices that can compete. You actually see oddball lists or lowerpowered codices eek out undefeated finishes in winmargin events fairly frequently, but always lose regardless due to not enough points. I'm also a fan of splitting generalship prizes amongst alll undefeated finishers.

So long as Best Overall is still heavy on soft score, and the Best General(s) are the guys who've managed not to lose (unless everyone loses @ least one, natch), you're fairly Novaish.

The only thing I don't like are the (minority of) events that just plain falsely use the NOVA to boost ticket sales. I remember some event saying they based their event on wargamescon and nova and waqs looking @ the scoring and stuff and going "huh?" Can't remember what that was now, but the point is - if you like an event and want to run one like it, more power to you and color me flattered. If you're just hiijacking my event name to get people in the door, knock it off!

I don't want anyone getting the wrong impression of what the NOVA is just b/c an event too unlike us calls itself "NOVA style."

**zedsdead**

MVBrandt wrote:

If you're just hiijacking my event name to get people in the door, knock it off!

I don't want anyone getting the wrong impression of what the NOVA is just b/c an event too unlike us calls itself "NOVA style."

I think Mike makes a great point here. Ive seen TO's claim all too frequently that there event is "NOVA style" only to create confusion with the participants.

In my opinion NOVA style events consist of : W/L + NOVA Missions + Ren-man and i would also consider 2nd day seeding a criteria in a two day event. Removal of any of these criterias start to water down what really is the NOVA tournament format.

Potential tournament attendees need to be wary when they sign up for something that claims to use Mikes format because its usually a destorted version of it.

**Lorek**

I've seen a few smaller tournaments describe themselves as having NOVA-Style missions, which is a little clearer. They mean NOVA Open-Style missions, but I know they don't just mean NOrthern ViginiA.

**RiTides**

MVBrandt wrote:I'm also generally glad to see less winmargin events - being able to stay in the running for best general just by barely winning dramatically widens the range of army styles and codices that can compete. You actually see oddball lists or lowerpowered codices eek out undefeated finishes in winmargin events fairly frequently, but always lose regardless due to not enough points. I'm also a fan of splitting generalship prizes amongst alll undefeated finishers.

For some reason, I didn't like this idea at first- I got the idea that it was geared to be only for the competitive folks.

But the more I've thought about it, I thought I actually would have a better chance at these events

. I generally don't have an army that can blow another off the table, but I can eke out close wins... and if that's the "same" as a massive win, that makes it much more feasible for me to compete!

Does win margin play no role at all, even in determining who you play in the next round? (I.e., it's completely random between all the winners of the previous round?)

I also like the idea of the Throne of Skulls tournament in competing against people running the same army book / codex... even if their overall execution of it / ruleset doesn't make for the most comprehensive event.

I noticed Red_Zeke posted about how he did the best out of the dwarf players at a tournament, and it's kind of a cool way to see how you did... i.e., did anyone with the same book/codex do better or not

**AgeOfEgos**

MVBrandt wrote:
Oh, and a lot of people abuse "NOVA style" to draw attention to their event, b/c the format is popular among many players. There are also a lot of angrypants douches out there who like the format, and browbeat other TO's to use it, even though that invariably causes those TO's to get pissed at ME for "founding it." Grumble.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, consider it a sign of success

.