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.

What is "ETC"? I can't find it mentioned in the thread before now, and I'm not familiar with that...

Blog discussion re: pairing system for the Open: http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2010/04/swiss-is-for-chocolate-seeding-and.html

Blog discussion identifying Fantasy comp going up shortly.

http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2010/04/in-pursuit-of-perfection.html

I realize that April and August don't share much in common except the letter A, and sometimes being in the same year, but I wonder how far in advance we can expect rules packets, trial scenarios, point breakdowns, etc.

at that comp system (based on the one here... I run an all-forest-spirit army for wood elves, so there is only one core choice available to me... I don't understand why "max 3 of the same core choice" helps balance anything?

Bummer...! It sounds like he is going to edit it, not just use it straight as-is? Is it possible that that restriction will change?

The comp seems to force lists to be more well-rounded, instead of focused in one area... and while that is fine, I'm not sure I like all of the restrictions... especially the one about core . I usually take 5 units of dryads... 4 would be okay, but 3... I don't think I'll have a chance!

RiTides wrote: at that comp system (based on the one here... I run an all-forest-spirit army for wood elves, so there is only one core choice available to me... I don't understand why "max 3 of the same core choice" helps balance anything?

Bummer...! It sounds like he is going to edit it, not just use it straight as-is? Is it possible that that restriction will change?

The comp seems to force lists to be more well-rounded, instead of focused in one area... and while that is fine, I'm not sure I like all of the restrictions... especially the one about core . I usually take 5 units of dryads... 4 would be okay, but 3... I don't think I'll have a chance!

ETC takes a bit of getting used to. We've run one using those rules, and it was interesting. Have another coming up on the 17th. Partly popular right now because we have one of the guys from the NZ team in the area, and several of the US team are in NJ/NY area. Makes for an interesting change up, but not something anyone wants to play all of the time. Although a good chunk of the world uses that system for a lot of their tournaments.

My troll army doesn't come out to play in ETC at all. No Throgg, so no trolls as core.

Especially given the speed at which we are filling slots, the 40k rules packets, trial scenarios, etc., should be out by early or mid May at the latest, and will be distributed at that point.

40k sign-ups continue to be fast ... if you're on the fence, at the least send me a message to include you on my "heads up, we're almost full" e-mail list.

Although I know ETC is not perfect - we all know that from the competitive stand point, WHFB is not either.

I think using a 'standard' (for lack of a better work) comp system - especially one with the caliber of ETC is the overall best bet for a more competitive environment, such as a a Vegas qualifying tournament.

Although restricting fun and fluffy armies such as the all dryad/treeman lists, it also prevents the insane overpowered armies such as VC and Daemons from sweeping away with everything.

I know personally I go to tournaments to win, but that is my priority - and I know not everyone shares it! Although lists are restricted under the ETC, I think it really allows people to field new armies, try new builds and find a 'new favorite' as opposed to simply fielding the 'same old' army time and time again.

My Dwarf list that I plan on playing will not be legit due to two organ guns (Boo! Hiss!) - so I'll have to tweak as necessary, but keeping in mind that I won't *need* two organ guns at this point... except for all those pesky dyads! =)

Heck, I might even dust off my Ogres, 2600 points is huge! Now if only they'll let me take a Slaughter Master without Tyrant!

I'm still on the fence of what I want to play... I'm starting space pups up in 40k, and my Orks are quite pretty and do well on the battlefield for me... but Fantasy is where the real fun is!

For all of us that use the INAT on a regular basis, note that this tourney will have it's own tourney FAQ.

Hopefully in time to get in some games playing by the NOVA Open rules.............?

While I don't think it will be drastically different, Don is correct - we'll have a pretty comprehensive FAQ of our own.

We should have that, and the rules packets, and other things out by early to mid May at the latest.

Good point, Mr. M!

You are more than welcome. If I might make a suggestion. Take the INAT as your primary source document and that way you only have to post a list of those items you change, and can use the INAT reference numbers so people can find the changes quick and easy.

So (based on our discussions elsewhere) you could simply post to your FAQ:
IG.47D.02 -- Q: Does 'Weaken Resolve' affect units with the 'Stubborn' special rule when they are taking a morale test?
A: No, it does not.

don_mondo wrote:You are more than welcome. If I might make a suggestion. Take the INAT as your primary source document and that way you only have to post a list of those items you change, and can use the INAT reference numbers so people can find the changes quick and easy.

So (based on our discussions elsewhere) you could simply post to your FAQ:
IG.47D.02 -- Q: Does 'Weaken Resolve' affect units with the 'Stubborn' special rule when they are taking a morale test?
A: No, it does not.

This works very well. It gives you the flexibility to note changes in the INAT, but gives you the bulk of the INAT rules for people to answer a lot of their own questions.

maaksel- thanks for that, that's a great perspective . Makes me feel better about it .

I'm going to mikhaila's event next weekend, so I'll get a taste for how I like ETC and be able to make a better decision about this tourney!

RiTides wrote:I'm going to mikhaila's event next weekend, so I'll get a taste for how I like ETC and be able to make a better decision about this tourney!

How did you end up doing with ETC? What list did you run?

Sorry, I'm never sure how to use the tenses! By "next" weekend, I meant what is now this coming weekend (the 17th) . So I'll update about what I think of ETC then, and maybe put up a bat rep in that section

As a heads up - we'll be releasing mission primers for the 40k side sooner than later - working on the packet now.

If there's anyone in particular who is strongly interested in playtesting the primers and providing feedback, feel free to let me know via PM, and I can give you the framework as I'm polishing the presentation of the actual docs.

The Primers will not be the same as the actual missions, but will be of the same format.

I've got access to a vast network of 40k players from around the world through Vassal / Skype. I'd be happy to run them by whomever I can for feedback and compile it all for you.

Primer missions are ready for distro - just send me an e-mail at mvbrandt@gmail.com to ask for the basic data.

They'll go up on the site early May (or earlier) whenever I can actually polish off my template building skills and make 'em prettier than a word doc.

Thanks,
- Mike

PS - Reiteration that if you want to attend the 40k tourney, sign up sooner than later!

I went to the monthly ETC tourney at mikhaila's store, and had a great time . I'll probably put up a post about it on here soon. However, I do think it also shows me that ETC is not really for me... it's great for the army, but with my self-imposed list restrictions (only forest spirits) I had trouble having enough units to get up to the point level. I think I ended up bringing a pretty weak list (3 massacres! and 2 at the low table!) but I can't think how to change it, and still remain all forest-spirits and meet the ETC restrictions.

All that to say, I don't think I'll be attending this tourney, also since I've already committed to going to Games Day, and I haven't yet braved two weekends in a row of warhammer tourneys on my wife

I hope it's awesome, though! And overall, I think ETC is excellent for a tourney like this, the games seemed very competitive for the most part

Thanks for the feedback on ETC RiTides, and I'm sorry it doesn't work well for your army in particular.

Update - logo / primer mission / etc. should now all be accessible via site, whiskey

http://novaopen.com/
http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/

Running an 8-man Primer Tourney on the 8th to stress test our scoring mechanisms. "8 on the 8th."

If any attendees/community members would like to get 8 of their buddies together, and run their own 8 on the 8th on the same day, I will *PROVIDE* a pair of trophies and have them sent to you. Requirement is that you report on it during the day between rounds, and photograph/report heavily on the round itself.

As always, feedback is welcome and often utilized in pushing forward and making this event the most comprehensive and complete tournament possible. My constituents are YOU all, not my and my team's own whims.


For RiTides and all - high probability we will be using EIGHTH EDITION FANTASY, NO COMP. More data to come.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
UPDATE:

We will be giving out a FREE registration to the Open for the winner of any group that does the "8 on the 8th" primer tournament and coherently/comprehensively reports on it.

Does that mean I get my money back if I win your little tourney?

For RiTides and all - high probability we will be using EIGHTH EDITION FANTASY, NO COMP. More data to come.

Probably a good way to go. With the changes in 8th still unknown, any sort of comp system is going to be rough, and ETC rules probably won't be updated by then. We discussed doing this for the Big Show, on July 24/25 but it's just too close to the new rules hitting on July 10. Not possible for people to get armies ready under new guidelines.

That sounds good, MVBrandt! I am intruiged, just have to check on the schedule and see if I can get away with the two-weekends-in-a-row tourney schedule . I am getting really excited for 8th...

Why the aversion to Kill Points?

I realize that a lot of people in the competitive crowd seem to have problems with the Kill Point system. I think this is mostly due to the fact that if you look at a lot of the style of lists those people advocate you'll see almost full FOC charts fully meched up. Meaning naturally that they have very high kill points.

I personally feel they are an important part of the the game design of 5th edition. Vehicles got more cheaper and harder to kill. This was designed to keep those armies in check against armies that don't have access to vehicles in the same quantities like Tyrannids.

Otherwise they look good MVB. Hopefully I'll be able to make it

I had a really long KP response typed up, but this is the internet, and such subjects can become heated.

Let us leave it at this - we've used KP in all our prior, smaller tourneys, and in our leagues. Only once in over 150 recorded games did we ever have a KP mission where the winner scored fewer VP than the loser, winning *purely* by KP. Furthermore, that one instance was an Eldar army with ~15 KP vs. a Demons army with ~11 KP. So, the demon scored more vp, but fewer KP, despite the Eldar having MORE KP via dedicated transports. Why? The Eldar got his teeth half kicked in, but targeted the smallest demon units with everything, even at cost to tactical advantage. Keep subjective out of it, my purpose in this paragraph is ONLY to help the reader understand that I am - at the least - not fabricating the stance based off personal WHIM. None of our plans or missions or anything for the Open are based off what "I" want, beyond as close as we can get to a fair, balanced tournament that favors all and in theory will reveal the best overall hobbyist, and the best general, without question. We'll see.

For KP, it is entirely possible and very real that in your average tournament, some lower KP army will draw another low KP army by chance in the KP mission, and then draw the MSU spammed guard or marine or w/e in the objective mission. Unfortunate. Similarly, it can happen that said MSU army draws a very low KP army in the KP mission, and draws the high KP opponent in the objective mission. Can every army bring lots of KP and have it be a good list? No. Can every army bring very FEW KP and have it be a good list? No. The reason you see higher KP guard, sm, etc., armies more often than not is b/c it's the "best" course of action for many REGARDLESS of the KP mission.

Can every army build 2,000 points competitively within the force org? AH, much closer to "yes." There is no chance that in the VP mission, one guy will have 1,000 VP and the other will have 2,000. Whereas in KP, "luck of the draw" determines how hard or easy your mission will be. That's, I would think obviously, "unfair." I approve of KP over long haul leagues, where your odds of poor match-ups diminish over time and where a single loss due to a poor draw is far less devastating. I approve of KP in the game in general, pick-up games, the stuff that is 95% of what we play. VP are basically argument free. If you split your points down into weaker constituent units, it's easier to score increments, but the increments are smaller. Similarly, if you jam your victory points into fewer but more uber units, it's harder to score increments but the increments are larger.

We can all acknowledge that there's a big argument in play over KP, and I don't place myself PERSONALLY anywhere on it in a formal way - I own and routinely play a couple of very low KP armies, and a couple of decently high KP armies (my "tourney" army is typically 13-16, which isn't really an absurd #), but the above two paragraphs will hopefully at least shed light on why we as a TO group, with the addition of a world wide web's worth of input, input on my blog, etc., decided to go that way.

I'm actually quite hope you'll be able to make it, as well! We've started to get a really impressive, nationwide crowd attending, including some of the web's more colorful characters. As I looked at a Wisconsin registration earlier, I couldn't help but smile at what should turn out to be quite the event.


PS - As a caveat, I acknowledge and respect the argument on KP v VP. For us, we made the decision to go with a system that prevented "luck of the draw" on the Annihilation mission of the day being too much of a "swing." Since everyone will have 2,000 points, everyone can score 2,000 points off their opponents when that mission comes up. I would cordially ask that a KP VP argument not spawn out of this tourney announcement thread - I'm not the type to tell anyone that they are WRONG, so I have no reason to argue this out. My intent here is only to share the rationale of our tourney group re: KP / VP in the mission format ... and that could always change, based on feedback from our national 8 on the 8th primer tourney day (which folks at Dakka are welcome to participate in: http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2010/04/8-on-8th-in-detail-free-stuff.html

I was just wondering. If your evidence supports it it's ok with me. It's just something I've always seen as a limiting factor and it does increase the power of certain builds immeasurably to not have to worry about KP missions. Thanks for the long and well thought out reply MVB, I hope I'll be able to make it

You do not like KPs, so your tournament will not have them and nothing is going to change that. I see that you are a mech guard player, so that explains why.

As Hulksmash said, KP are a balancing factor in the game.

You know the fact that you have had only 1 army that scored fewer VPs that KPs might be that everyone knows that there is going to be KP missions and plan accordingly? They make larger squads and take more durable choices, squadron up and blob up. If you remove KPs, then players are free to build their armies so that they do not have to worry about losing a lot of small and cheap units, and can spam them instead.

Let’s take your squadron rules with vehicles. KP missions encourage people to take one squadron of 3 vehicles, but your VP scenarios rewards people to take 3 squads of one vehicle.

There are just so many armies that are at the top tier that benefit from removing KP, and VPs make them even better.
Mech Guard
Razorback Spam
Dark Eldar

You play IG, do you know how hard it is to get VPs from a mech guard army compared to KPs?

Blackmoor, given that I play Necron, Tyranid, Mech Guard, and a couple of other armies routinely, and kept track not only of the KP/VP stats, but of what armies were being played, I would prefer to avoid a situation where there are accusations or inferences of plain, amoral/immoral bias - especially after I've repeatedly claimed that isn't what things are based upon, nor is it a subject to be debated in this thread.


I am sure that you have played 40k for many years, like myself, across half a dozen or more armies, like myself, and would be equally interested in keeping negativity out of very positive tourney threads, eh? If you'd like to debate the merits of KP vs. VP and their impact on the competitive game with me, I can be reached via PM or on my blog, or on e-mail. If your intent is to attempt to discredit me, on the other hand, by claiming I'm a biased and purely Mech IG player ... well, I don't get why you would be so motivated in the first place.

Since you can't possibly be motivated by some strange desire to "go after" me (a stranger), send me a PM or e-mail, and we can privately discuss whatever merits.

There are literally dozens of KP vs VP arguments across the Dakka forums that people can view or partake in if that's your intent instead (open KP/VP argument on the Dakka forums).

- Mike

PS - I was happy to share with Hulk some of our bases for going with VP, since he asked so politely! I am not interested in arguing the kp/vp merits in a tourney notice thread, in the wrong forum (which is why you'll notice I haven't disagreed a wink with your arguments here - simply asked you to redirect them elsewhere).

I am sorry, I thought this thread was a place to discuss the Nova open and it's missions.

To quote from the end of your batrep in game #1 of the Adepticon Championships:
“neither of us were fans of kill points.”

You don’t like KPs, which is fine. It is your tournament and you can run it any way you want to, but don’t claim that it is because of statistical data, or anything else. I hate capture and control missions, and if I ran a tournament I might not have a C&C mission in it.

I was thinking about going to the Nova open even though I live on the other side of the country I like some of the things that you are doing. If I do go, it will be a significant investment I would want it to be the best event that it can be.

The biggest problems that I have had in all of the Indy GTs are the missions. I have been to 3 of them (4 if you count Adepticon twice) and the weakness of all of them have been their missions (as you said in your blog about Adepticon's missions).

The problem with most of the missions of the Indy GT is that they favor certain armies, and certain builds. Missions should be balanced and fair so that every army has a chance at winning, and taking out KP favors some armies. If you want it to be truly a competitive event, you should stick at close as possible to the missions in the rule book. I was bored and I use to like seeing new missions at tournaments, but now that I have seen so many bad ones, a large part of me wishes to go back to the missions in the rule book. Especially since you are only having 4 games.