Jervis announces new Games Workshop tournaments!!!

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.

**Tironum**

You can find the information covering past Throne of Skulls events at Warhammer World at their site:

http://warhammerworld.typepad.com/warhammer_world_news/

One major change that had been announced a while ago is that they are doing away with the Heats in the UK and just going to have multiple events there.

What does this mean for the US and other areas?

If GW runs an event, I bet you will most likely see this format. I do not think we will see a Throne of Skulls event in the US until next year. I am confident you will see things like the 1500 (40K) / 2000 (WHFB) point limits, painting and sportsmanship will be separate categories, and the overall winner is purely based on battle. Similar to what has been done at Warhammer World, I expect to see other trophy categories.

This does not mean that the Independent events are not going to be the mainstay of tournaments, they will be the bread and butter of the competition scene. With all the chaos that is going on this year with the massive revamping of retail stores and the US HQ move, I am curious to see when they will roll this new (to the US) system out.

**warboss**

Melissia wrote:Yech, no... I've seen that model-- it looks kinda... pornish. Not military.

um... you play sisters of battle. the whole army looks kinda pornish; as stated above, it's on purpose to sell models to lonely boys and men. realistic depictions of women in combat don't sell as well to the primarly male demographic. *remembering the iron man 1 quote where tony stark is suprised there is a woman under all those soldier's fatigues in the humvee*

**pretre**

warboss wrote:
Melissia wrote:Yech, no... I've seen that model-- it looks kinda... pornish. Not military.

um... you play sisters of battle. the whole army looks kinda pornish; as stated above, it's on purpose to sell models to lonely boys and men. realistic depictions of women in combat don't sell as well to the primarly male demographic. *remembering the iron man 1 quote where tony start is suprised there is a woman under all those soldiers fatigues in the humvee*

True. I love SoB as an army and I'm sure some of that is the subconscious appeal of warrior women in corsets and knee-high boots. Which is the entirety of the SOB army except for Repentia who are worse.

**don_mondo**

Melissia wrote:Yech, no... I've seen that model-- it looks kinda... pornish. Not military.

And? I've got an entire 45 woman platoon of old female IG and Eschers, all IG models. And almost all fall into that same category....... Then there's the objective marker for them, one of the limited edition Vect slave girls, as in not the ones that come with the kit or are available through GW mail order. Yeah, the topless one...............

**gorgon**

Platuan4th wrote:
Ixquic wrote:Did GW official tournaments typically use comp systems?

Yep.

Although to be fair, the last few years of USGTs did not use comp of any kind.

**Lorek**

Let's keep it on-topic, people. Start a new thread about female GW miniatures if you want to talk about that.

**don_mondo**

Roger that. Back on topic.

As a regular (over 20) at the US GTs, I look forward to any sort of GW tourney circuit in the US. I'll volunteer to help, if that's what's needed. Been there, done that (former Outrider/Kommando).
And in all the years since I've met Jervis (first meeting, 1997 US GT, Baltimore, first US GT ever) and in the many conversations, either at the events or drinking beer at Edgar's afterwards, I've never known him to be 'anti-tourney'.

**Grot 6**

I just couldn't get past Jervis and Tournament in the same sentence to take it seriously.

Wonder if they can get that douche lawyer with all of the C and D letters to do the publicity campaign.

**wuestenfux**

I am confident you will see things like the 1500 (40K) / 2000 (WHFB) point limits, painting and sportsmanship will be separate categories, and the overall winner is purely based on battle. Similar to what has been done at Warhammer World, I expect to see other trophy categories.

This would make sense.

However, in the past (here in Germany) the game results were combined with sportsmanship, composition score, and painting.

**JohnHwangDD**

Mistress of minis wrote:Looks to me like GW is seeing the success of all the Indy GT's and wants to maske a grab for a piece of that pie.

I think we should wait and see what GW actually does.

n0t_u wrote:But he makes it sound so casual, I see this having a even worse version of the Comp system >_>

Given that Jervis is talking about "fun", I'd expect it to have Comp and Theme and Sports all figure in the winner.

**Melissia**

Off-topic post deleted. - Lorek

**gorgon**

I'm not sure why people think Jervis is necessarily pro-comp. That was really just a US thing that was eventually done away with years ago. IIRC, the last year for true comp at GWUS GTs was 2002, with "theme" becoming a new category for a year or two before that disappeared too.

And to back up Mondo (I'm one of the '97 gang too), I've never gotten the impression that Jervis was anti-tourney either. I don't think he would have worked so hard to establish the GTs in the US and UK if that was the case.

If the Throne of Skulls basic format goes worldwide, I'd expect to see various regional tweaks to fit the player base.

**Monster Rain**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
n0t_u wrote:But he makes it sound so casual, I see this having a even worse version of the Comp system >_>

Given that Jervis is talking about "fun", I'd expect it to have Comp and Theme and Sports all figure in the winner.

I don't necessarily see that as a problem though. We have 'Ard Boyz, we have the USGTs that don't have comp scores. Why not give the people that would torpedo a soft score a place where they can go and play their all-Scout Raven Guard army against the all-Infantry IG and play the game the way they want to?

I won't be going near the place, mind you...

**nkelsch**

Wow, some people have short memories or have been in the hobby for such an insignificant time they don't remember the GTs of old.

The old GW GT system was awesome. Especially early 2000s. The events were fun, well run, great models and hundreds of players. It really was great.

*SOMETHING* happened and they discontinued running them. But this notion that independent venues instantly and easily 'did it better' us myth. It took *YEARS* for many of the mainstream events we take for granted now to build up to the steam and force to equal and surpass what the original GT s were doing. And apart from adepticon, almost none of the Tourneys I have attended have eclipsed or even come close to my experiences at the Baltimore GTs.

I look forward to the GTs and hope they do one near me. I look forward to more all-painted 100% WYSIWYG events. Bring on the comp, sports and appearance scores.

**Platuan4th**

gorgon wrote:And to back up Mondo (I'm one of the '97 gang too), I've never gotten the impression that Jervis was anti-tourney either. I don't think he would have worked so hard to establish the GTs in the US and UK if that was the case.

I agree that he doesn't seem anti-tourney. However, I do think he's anti-40K as a true competitive event. He seems to believe that tourneys should be about showing off and making friends more than winning(not that I'm saying there's anything wrong with that), which I think is why he feels that the rules are fine as they are, because he doesn't think they should be used for higher lever(call it WAAC if you want, but not necessarily that) competition.

**hungryp**

I can just see a Jervis-inspired scorecard:

1 point if you played a game, 2 if you had fun, 3 if you made a playdate with a new friend.

1 point if you wrote fluff for you army, 2 if it's over ten pages, 3 if you self-published it and brought enough copies for all your new friends.

All scores would be irrelevant though, as the tourney winner would be decided based on the following criteria: each player is given one piece of terrain that they must place at the start of a game. The player with the best back story on how that piece of terrain came to be where it is wins!

**JohnHwangDD**

hungryp wrote:I can just see a Jervis-inspired scorecard:

1 point if you played a game, 2 if you had fun, 3 if you made a playdate with a new friend.

1 point if you wrote fluff for you army, 2 if it's over ten pages, 3 if you self-published it and brought enough copies for all your new friends.

All scores would be irrelevant though, as the tourney winner would be decided based on the following criteria: each player is given one piece of terrain that they must place at the start of a game. The player with the best back story on how that piece of terrain came to be where it is wins!

I'd play that.

**Nurglitch**

Orion_44 wrote:Jervis has always liked tournamnets, I don't know why anyone would think any different. He shows up to Warhammer World tournaments regularly and used to come to the GTs in North America. That is the first place I ever met him.

Throne of skulls is a new look at the current tournaments available. Tourneys went away to refocus on what the game is supposed to be about and whaat made it so huge. Having fun with your friends (whatever that means to you). But Jervis even organizes and runs things like staff tournaments and tournaments in his home with friends. And its not limited to the core games. He has done Blood Bowl tourneys, GW board game tourneys, including those with games that haven't been released except in very limited supply (The Dwarf drinking game what ever that is called).

I consider Jervis a good friend and mentor so of course I am biased. His real philosophy is get as many people to have as much fun as possible in all the different aspects of the hobby as he can. If he was really directing everything with an iron fist we wouldn't have some of the army lists we do and have had. All the designers really have to do is show him that what they have created is fun.

He provides the vision and lets people fill in the dtails. Unfortunately when designers disagree they can try and sway him but ultimately it goes the way of Jervis and his best intentions even if they don't always work. By the way he will always admit when something didn't work even if it takes years to correct it.

This bears repeating. I met Jervis years ago at my last Canadian Grand Tournament (2000 or so?) and he's a great guy.

**don_mondo**

gorgon wrote:
And to back up Mondo (I'm one of the '97 gang too),

So at least three of us in this thread, since I know Tironum was there as well. He was actually one of my opponents.

**RiTides**

I think the wording of his email came off a little... strange? But I'm willing to believe he's a good guy

and I'll certainly be looking forward to these events! Given that it doesn't matter to me all that much what the comp/scoring system/etc is, as long as it's not purely 'Ard Boyz style (which clearly it isn't).

**Sidstyler**

Bring on the comp, sports and appearance scores.

Fully-painted and WYSIWYG I can get behind, but this? Seriously, screw that.

In an event that's all about playing the game, an event billing itself as "competitive" no less, none of that matters. No one should be able to lose games and still win the event regardless just because they can paint real pretty, or are pointlessly obsessive over the constantly-changing background material. And sportsmanship scores are probably the worst, for reasons which I don't think need to be explained again since apparently the mods won't let anyone ever talk about it.

**nkelsch**

Sidstyler wrote:
In an event that's all about playing the game, an event billing itself as "competitive" no less, none of that matters.

The event is *NOT* all about playing the game. *ALL of that matters* The game is a small part of the whole event.

No one should be able to lose games and still win the event regardless just because they can paint real pretty, or are pointlessly obsessive over the constantly-changing background material.

Yes they should... The game is a small part of the whole event.

And sportsmanship scores are probably the worst, for reasons which I don't think need to be explained again since apparently the mods won't let anyone ever talk about it.

Tell that to the guy who exposed himself at the GT which birthed sportsmanships cores.

I also loved the pub Quiz, I hope they bring that back too.

40k is a dice game which is fundamentally unbalanced and incapable of being played competitively. Everyone who wins is via skill, everyone who loses is via bad luck. No one ever loses because they are bad.

The only GW game that can be played somewhat competitively is blood bowl where everyone is forced to play only human teams. That is as balanced as you can get and then you play 4-6 games in a tourney. While it is still a dice game and there is randomness, it is far more balanced than 40k.

I agree that he doesn't seem anti-tourney. However, I do think he's anti-40K as a true competitive event. He seems to believe that tourneys should be about showing off and making friends more than winning(not that I'm saying there's anything wrong with that), which I think is why he feels that the rules are fine as they are, because he doesn't think they should be used for higher lever(call it WAAC if you want, but not necessarily that) competition.

This. The idea that the gaming system is quality enough to actually be played in a true competitive sense is a giant laughable joke. It is a fun excuse for us to push little plastic men around a board while sharing models and socialization.

**Ixquic**

The idea that games can't be balanced is GW's answer to the fact that they don't want to balance their games for whatever reason. Somehow other games, both table top and computer have competitive scenes and strive for some of internal balance because it's fun to be at the same level. Hiding behind "the hobby as a whole" or whatever isn't an excuse to ship a sloppy product. Regardless of how balanced they are, 40k can still be played fairly competitively and doesn't need a lot of superfluous stuff like comps and sportsmanship scores to even it out.

Sportsmanship scores are the worst and shouldn't be in any event. If people are being general donkey-caves, they should be warned once, then if they continue asked not to return.

Also Bloodbowl is the WORST game to be played competitively since so much of that game is determined by single dice rolls. It's fun to play with friends but it's a highly random game, much more than 40k where you are rolling tons of dice and the law of averages starts to take effect.

**Kilkrazy**

Doesn't matter what people want the event will be run by GW in the manner they see fit.

**nkelsch**

Ixquic wrote:
Also Bloodbowl is the WORST game to be played competitively since so much of that game is determined by single dice rolls. It's fun to play with friends but it's a highly random game, much more than 40k where you are rolling tons of dice and the law of averages starts to take effect.

And since many of the 40k lists currently stomping the meta game are capable of trouncing a majority of armies if they get first turn... 40k would be *JUST* as bad as being determined on a single dice roll.

Blood bowl actually allows you the controlling player to control the odds of every action you enter into and there are rerolls. Most times you start your turn doing the 2-3 dice actions that put the odds so overwhelmingly in your favor that if it does fail you can reroll. At least the laws of averages works better in a game system where both players have the same rules and the same abilities and start off on equal footing. That can be said for an all humanbloodbowl. That can never be said for 40k. Rolling 'more' dice in an unbalanced game system doesn't make the game fundamentally *MORE* fair. Whole armies are built around forcing more dice rolls to use the law of averages to make people lose due to imbalance.

These events are an excuse to share models and socialize. Anyone who wants to be 'super serious' about it and pretend to be competitive can go for best general. The issue isn't the event format... it is usually the people being super serious about being competitive are upset they are not getting more/all of the cash and prizes.

**skrulnik**

Ixquic wrote:Also Bloodbowl is the WORST game to be played competitively since so much of that game is determined by single dice rolls. It's fun to play with friends but it's a highly random game, much more than 40k where you are rolling tons of dice and the law of averages starts to take effect.

I think you are wrong about that and sound like someone who has played a few games, but not enough to "get" the game.

The top players on the NAF are top because they are good, not because they are lucky.
There is much skill to Blood Bowl about where you take those single rolls, and how you plan for their failure.

Blood Bowl is, IMO, the most balanced game that GW has ever published.

Partly because they had a core of about 8 teams to work with and its been tweaked for the last 15+ years.

**Ixquic**

Just because a game has a lot of luck does not mean it doesn't involve skill. Blood Bowl requires knowledge of the game and skill to minimize bad luck and how to plan for it to occur. However when you are rolling small amounts of dice, the possibility for randomness increases. So between two players of equal skill, luck is going to be a big factor. You could easily say that the better 40k/Fantasy players have to plan for those bad leadership rolls, miscasts or whatever. If we really wanted to play super balanced games then we'd all be having checkers tournaments but there's going to be some level of "unbalance" regardless of the game and the goal should be to try and minimize it through testing, not throw up our hands and say its impossible.

**H.B.M.C.**

don_mondo wrote:I've never known him to be 'anti-tourney'.

He referred to tournament gamers as a 'fringe group' that they 'don't cater to'.

And now he announces tournaments.

Wheeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

**Melissia**

Which means the company decided they want to start catering to it.

**fire4effekt**

Hellfury wrote:Oh wow!

...oh wait...

Nevermind.

I thought this was a thread were Jervis announces they now have games capable of being tournament worthy.

I got it all mixed up.

QFT

Balance anyone?