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.

'Ard Boyz seems to be a very popular US wide tournament. What makes up the popularity of it?

I wonder the same thing I think it is because there is many opponents and it gives you a chance to play a lot of good games. And of course the prizes and trophies.

For me it is 3 free games with prize support.

'Nuff said.

Several potential reasons:

1. It has good prize support;

2. Some people may like the higher point games;

3. Some people may like the no-holds-barred or WAAC approach to its games;

4. Some people may like the progresive nature of the tournament; (unlike the UK and elsewhere, there are not a lot of progressive style tournaments in the U.S.);

5. Some people may like the no painting requirement;

6. Some people may like the (usually) weird missions;

7. Some people may like it just because it is another tournament.

Of what I mentioned, I kind of like the first four and last one, and am kind of meh about 5 and 6 (although I plan to take full advantage of 5 this year with a completely new army).

And for a good while it was the only OFFICIAL GW event... That always helps for many people who are not tuned in to the Indy circuit.

This may be one of the few local tourneys many participants have depending on area and game stores.

People in the USA are very competitive. And what's more fun than finding out who's best? I attened one year and it was a blast. I did OK (placed better than half, worse than half). Got a T-Shirt. I love that T-shirt.

'ARD BOYZ!

Higher point totals let you see different builds,
prize support
3 rnds instead of the 6 you normally see

Game types are posted up national in advance.

I think a Major draw is the lack of a painting requirement... you don't usually see the kinds of beautiful armies that populate "normal" tournaments.

It also allows people to field the latest-and-greatest model for whatever the current ruleset favors, even if they haven't gotten it painted up yet.

wuestenfux wrote:'Ard Boyz seems to be a very popular US wide tournament. What makes up the popularity of it?

It's popular? Locally we refer to it as "The annual gathering of the guys that no one else wants around."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RiTides wrote:I think a Major draw is the lack of a painting requirement... you don't usually see the kinds of beautiful armies that populate "normal" tournaments.

It also allows people to field the latest-and-greatest model for whatever the current ruleset favors, even if they haven't gotten it painted up yet.

Because new rules are put out way too fast for people to keep up with them.

I just play because it's free, so I'm not very invested and can leave if I'm having a bad time.

I personally don't like it because it brings out the bs.

Played for the first and only time last year placed like 4th or 5th in prelims (I lost my second game to a ork infantry horde, literally cornered me into my deployment corner in a tide of bodies, and my shooting was completely ineffectual worst thing was I beat the guy that got 1st and the guy that got 4th) but all the guys above me couldn't make it to semi's so I was offered the chance to advance, which I turned down. It was a terrible experience, the lists were just internet copy paste powergaming monstrosities, the people wee GAH!! Hated it... so this year I'm judging

I often wonder about why people would want to go myself. From what I hear, it's a lot of "Flavor of the Month" armies being played by the worst sort of cheating, rules-lawyering gamers that ever picked up a figure. I've never heard a wholly positive review of it (save for Solorg a few posts up). Has anyone else actually had a good experience?

Worglock Wrote:

It's popular? Locally we refer to it as "The annual gathering of the guys that no one else wants around."

Yea I can agree with that as well.

I've enjoyed it the last two years; I only started playing in it in 5th, because I think the rules are better balanced and no longer need Composition scoring to help keep things interesting.

I think Eldanar's list is very good.

Eldanar wrote:Several potential reasons:

1. It has good prize support;

2. Some people may like the higher point games;

3. Some people may like the no-holds-barred or WAAC approach to its games;

4. Some people may like the progresive nature of the tournament; (unlike the UK and elsewhere, there are not a lot of progressive style tournaments in the U.S.);

5. Some people may like the no painting requirement;

6. Some people may like the (usually) weird missions;

7. Some people may like it just because it is another tournament.

Of what I mentioned, I kind of like the first four and last one, and am kind of meh about 5 and 6 (although I plan to take full advantage of 5 this year with a completely new army).

You forgot one of the biggest factors and that is that it is free.

No silly comp or sportsmanship to decide who is the winner?

Most of the best players do well regardless of whether there is comp or sports scoring. The ones who don't do well in both paradigms usually seem to be jerks. One can understand their desire to not have a system in place to penalize them for acting like jerks, but personally I like having an incentive for people to play nice.

Sportsmanship isn't really a fair or well defined scoring system. There are times when a bad score is given simply because somebody got dealt a quick massacre. For every player that is a jerk at the table there is probably one that is a jerk when scoring because they lost badly, or they just want to influence the final scores.

Comp, on the other hand, is fair if there are well defined guidelines set out in advance about what is expected, but there are times when comp isn't fairly scored either.

One can understand the desire to play in an environment free of players acting as judges and influencing the results.

In a perfect world we could have comp, sportsmanship, and actual play, all be separate categories with their own winners.

free prize support, in round 2 you can win an 2500pt army.
WYSWYG = no proxys wondering what your opponents units are again.
Being an A-hole (once a year, twice if I do well enough)to all those tools I play in tourneis all year (priceless).

That's why its called "Ahole Boys"

Blackmoor wrote:

Eldanar wrote:Several potential reasons:

1. It has good prize support;

2. Some people may like the higher point games;

3. Some people may like the no-holds-barred or WAAC approach to its games;

4. Some people may like the progresive nature of the tournament; (unlike the UK and elsewhere, there are not a lot of progressive style tournaments in the U.S.);

5. Some people may like the no painting requirement;

6. Some people may like the (usually) weird missions;

7. Some people may like it just because it is another tournament.

Of what I mentioned, I kind of like the first four and last one, and am kind of meh about 5 and 6 (although I plan to take full advantage of 5 this year with a completely new army).

You forgot one of the biggest factors and that is that it is free.

I forgot about that one...

Frankly, it's free and huge prize support. For all that's right with it (most notably, lack of any arbitrary composition scoring from the self-righteous EXPERTS OF ALL THAT IS JUST), there's a lot wrong with it, including the unwieldy 2500 point size and the screwy and vague scenarios. The level of competition generally sucks until the semis and you see a lot of battleforce armies and people not knowing what they have because they rarely play 2500 pt games, so it ends up being rather meh.

Eldanar wrote:3. Some people may like the no-holds-barred or WAAC approach to its games;

5. Some people may like the no painting requirement;

Sounds awful.

It also allows people to field the latest-and-greatest model for whatever the current ruleset favors, even if they haven't gotten it painted up yet.

Sure sure, I suppose that it is only the most recent armies that appear unpainted, not models that have been available for years.

I like tournaments that start at a local level and end up at a national one. I also like tourneys with prize support. Ooh, and it's free.

augustus5 wrote:Sportsmanship isn't really a fair or well defined scoring system. There are times when a bad score is given simply because somebody got dealt a quick massacre. For every player that is a jerk at the table there is probably one that is a jerk when scoring because they lost badly, or they just want to influence the final scores.

Sportsmanship isn't "a" system, that much is certainly true. There are a number of different ones out there, and most of them achieve the basic purposes- emphasizing that sportsmanship matters, rewarding at least one good sport with a prize, and giving a way to keep jerks in check. I agree that there are bad systems out there, and the potential for abuse, but IMO and IME the abuse is much rarer than the people talking about it. I've designed a couple of different sportsmanship systems over the years. Here's my latest:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/The_Pass_or_Fail_Method_of_Tournament_Sportsmanship_Scoring

augustus5 wrote:In a perfect world we could have comp, sportsmanship, and actual play, all be separate categories with their own winners.

I don't believe in perfection; but I do believe in rewarding someone who brings all of those things to the table; the complete player and hobbyist. Of course, there's no reason we can't have both kinds of events; ones where the prizes are separate or aggregated. Or both at once!

Mannahnin wrote:

I don't believe in perfection; but I do believe in rewarding someone who brings all of those things to the table; the complete player and hobbyist. Of course, there's no reason we can't have both kinds of events; ones where the prizes are separate or aggregated. Or both at once!

Some people do seem to resent the idea of any credence being given to anything other than winning though, as though Steve winning Best Overall or Nicest Dude somehow undermines them winning Awesomest General. An event apparently isn't really hardcore unless it completely disregards anything but winning, even if the award for winning doesn't take any of those other factors into account, it's tarnished somehow by their presence.

That isn't to say that Sportsmanship isn't an incredibly weird animal. I've had a couple of completely weird GT games back in the day with people painfully trying to force themselves to be what they imagine to be a good sport. It's like watching a cow struggling onto it's hind legs and start trying to talk to you.

I dont know if Id go so far as to say this is an official GW tournament.. Yes GW does give "okay" prize support (However its actually fairly poor considering the turnout, except for the 1 player who wins the semi finals) but they are not the ones spending the time and store space to actually RUN the events

Just because it has no sportsmanship score doesnt mean your TO cant ask you to leave if you're being a total jerk

It's not GWs tournament, its your TO's tournament just remember that before you act too WAAC :p Ive won quite a bit of 'ard boyz games and never had to be a total dick

I dont attend ard boys any more. to me personally, I feel that events that lack some if not all of the following; comp, sportsmanship, painting scores etc. promote a side of the hobby that exemplifies the type of play that i dont enjoy. Just my .02$.

Mannahnin wrote:I don't believe in perfection; but I do believe in rewarding someone who brings all of those things to the table; the complete player and hobbyist. Of course, there's no reason we can't have both kinds of events; ones where the prizes are separate or aggregated. Or both at once!

While I agree that sportsmanship is part of being a complete hobbyist, I disagree that sportsmanship scores in tourneys does anything to keep jerks in check. Jerks will be jerks whether or not there is sportsmanship scoring. The people who are most apt to be hurt by sportsmanship scoring are the non-jerks, who receive poor sportsmanship scores by the real jerks who maybe just got massacred, or want to help a friend who is still in the running by giving a poor score to someone who is in the running with them.

I do not agree that comp has anything to do with being a complete hobbyist. There is nothing wrong with playing with fluffy armies, and the most fun games are often played with those kinds of armies, but a tournament is a place where people are coming to win. Why would anyone want to ignore the best units/options available to them if the goal is to come in first place? Also, since comp rules vary from tourney to tourney, certain codexes can end up being penalized pretty bad while certain other are not hit as hard.

augustus5 wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:I don't believe in perfection; but I do believe in rewarding someone who brings all of those things to the table; the complete player and hobbyist. Of course, there's no reason we can't have both kinds of events; ones where the prizes are separate or aggregated. Or both at once!

While I agree that sportsmanship is part of being a complete hobbyist, I disagree that sportsmanship scores in tourneys does anything to keep jerks in check. Jerks will be jerks whether or not there is sportsmanship scoring. The people who are most apt to be hurt by sportsmanship scoring are the non-jerks, who receive poor sportsmanship scores by the real jerks who maybe just got massacred, or want to help a friend who is still in the running by giving a poor score to someone who is in the running with them.

My experience is the opposite, but it is possible that you have more or different experiences than I do. IME when Sports scoring is in play jerks either stay away or make a noticeable effort to mitigate their behavior. Or they get dealt with. I have seen and encountered "chipmunking", where a jerk abuses the system to harm an opponent's chances, but I find it to be rare, and if they do it usually they're also eating penalties, and are thus prevented from winning. Given that such a jerk's only reason to be at the tournament is to win; since he doesn't care about his opponents' fun and is willing to cheat and abuse the system, having a system which prevents him from winning is usually a good way to encourage him not to attend or to reform his attitude/behavior.

augustus5 wrote:I do not agree that comp has anything to do with being a complete hobbyist. There is nothing wrong with playing with fluffy armies, and the most fun games are often played with those kinds of armies, but a tournament is a place where people are coming to win. Why would anyone want to ignore the best units/options available to them if the goal is to come in first place? Also, since comp rules vary from tourney to tourney, certain codexes can end up being penalized pretty bad while certain other are not hit as hard.

Absolutely agreed on your final point; Composition scoring is difficult to do well and you have to be careful with it to avoid screwing armies. That said, I disagree with your first statement; Composition can indeed reflect one's quality as a hobbyist, in one of two ways. 1. If Composition is being scored as rewarding an army for being true to the fluff and background of the game, it rewards players who know the fluff and incorporate it into their design. 2. If Composition is being scored as handicapping armies for pure killing power, than Composition rewards players for fielding a weaker army or one with more variety in it, or one which innovates combinations which are not well-known "power builds".

Composition scoring is a controversial and difficult thing to do well, and has been the subject of many arguments and debates. I've been involved in quite a few of them on this site over the last decade, and have taken many criticism to heart and incorporated them into scoring metrics I've designed for tournaments I've run. One of the reasons I never bothered with Ard Boyz in 4th edition was because it lacked Comp scoring, and IMO 4th edition (and 3rd), being more VP-centered, had bigger balance problems between the codices, and thus more need for Comp to handicap and even things out. I've only started playing Ard Boyz since 5th, because IMO the missions in 5th are more balanced, allowing a player to win while still sustaining nasty casualties because VPs are usually not a factor. I placed 9th Overall in Chicago (the only finals location that year) in 2009, and 4th in Pennsylvania (the East Coast Finals) in 2010, the only two Ard Boyz I've entered, so take that for what it's worth; I think I know the game reasonably well and have some proven success even when Comp is not a factor. My 2nd place finish at the Adepticon Champs Qualifier this year and 2nd place/Best General at the Boston Brawl this year were also at non-Comp-scored events.

What we would need for a true Sportsmanship sore is an unbiased and impartial judge at each table (incredibly hard to do, but it would be fair).