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.

Hulksmash wrote:@Vhwolf

1. There is 0 proof that the studio playtests at all or that they playtest at 1,500. And judging by the most recent codexes 1,500 isn't the standard anymore.

WRONG!

I have talked to play testers about this very subject and they do play test at 1,500. If you took the time to read the articles I have about it on my site you will understand that. Unless you are a playtester for GW or work in GW design team how do you know? IF their is no proof that 1,500 is the standard then how do you know that 2,000 now is? Or does GW's very own events playing at 1,500 not proof enough?

You've talked to one guy who doesn't playtest anymore Tasty. And it does confirm exactly what I said. That they used to playtest at 1,500. I never denied that for a second. But I do feel, as do many others, that the most recent codexes aren't balanced for 1,500. I think 5e changed all of it. It's cute that your selectively picked that out of my post when the intent was obviously meant currently, not that they never had but hey, anything to get hits right?

And GW's own events have always been different point values Tasty. You can say that it was "America" doing it's own thing but GW did run events for around a decade that weren't 1,500pts. That's the funnier part. That by that arguement the time we know they were playtesting at 1,500 was the time that they weren't running events at that. Interesting...

Dashofpepper wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:Dark Eldar are a great example.

At 1500 points - I almost have a full force org chart, and regularly beat face. I play them at 2k as well, but refuse to field them beyond, because they don't *gain* anything. Most armies have a tough time answering me at 1500 points

There must not be many Space Wolf players around your neck of the woods, huh?

Yes, there are plenty. You think all my tournament games have been against non-SW players, when it seems like 33% + of tournament lists are Space Wolves? At 1500 points, its a matter of my Dark Eldar either breezing through my competition, or having a challenging game, depending on the list and the skill of my opponent. At 2,000 points its a matter of me potentially breezing through my opponent, having a challenging game (mostly), or facing a nightmare of an opponent. At 2500 points, its a matter of having an extremely challenging game, or a nightmare scenario.

Space Wolves *are* the most powerful codex out. That's indisputable, and well evidenced by tournament finishers everywhere among other things. They are *not* however an auto-win against everyone else.

IG stomps on DE at all point levels.

But I do appreciate that DE is somewhat competitive at 1500 points. They are a mess in larger games since the codex is so antiquated.

Ditto CSM and to a lesser extent Orks.

Kevin Nash wrote:

IG stomps on DE at all point levels.

That depends on several things, including individual tournament ruling on the Nightmare Doll, whether the DE player goes first, how many chimeras are in the IG list, Hydras....

The same foot-slogging infantry swarm of stubborn, grenade-wielding mass nonsense that can pretty much beat up on my Orks every time is a breeze for my DE with horrofex support; I won't lie though - IG and Space Wolves are my two least favorite matchups, and a tournament I go through without having to face them is a good tournament indeed!!

The guy who interviewed with Tasty's blog talking about 1500 points ... he was part of the larger playtesting group used by GW until they stopped sometime this decade. Our Whiskey & 40k nights are hosted by a guy who has been playing GW games for a quarter century, and the original group members were all part of the same wide playtesting group that the interviewee was a part of.

They, um, did not require playtesting at 1500 points; 1500-2000 were typically the ranges used, however; it's been that way for a while now, so I don't get the attempt to claim otherwise.

The format being used is problematic not because of some flying rodent gak nuts claims (by ANYONE) about what the "standard" is, when the rules themselves suggest a RANGE as the standard ... it's actually problematic b/c so many of the events that qualify for it didn't use 1500 points at all. In running our own invitational next year at the Open convention, we're specifically making sure that the missions are truer to the book than the NOVA missions were, regardless of bias or impression of balance ... why? Because people will be getting invites based upon their performance in events across the country ... and it would be silly to use a format that not all participants were more or less equally familiar with.

GW specifically stated they didn't care what points value we used, and didn't want to influence us as GT organizers, when we all asked; so, most of the events were in the 1750-2000 point range, with VERY few (if any) GT qualifiers being at 1500 points. Hosting the finals, then, at 1500 ... is bass ackwards, regardless of what the "standard" is or isn't. So that side of the argument is kind of pointless.

Furthermore, claiming that because it's a GW hosted tournament, and it's their game, it's fine no matter what they use ... is also pointless. If MLB built a materially smaller ballfield than that used by most teams throughout the year, and forced the world series to happen on it ... people would have a right to complain that the subsequent results were inherently illegitimate. Same logic can largely be applied here ... regardless, however, the issues abound with or without said baseball analogy.

On the subject of different points levels and different ways of scoring, my general feeling is that any way to enjoy our hobby is a good one. I like to play all points levels and all types of scoring, I'm not so worried about the details... to me being versatile with your generalship as well as your collected army makes the game have more depth. I like that different games require me to build anything from 200 points to 2500 from the same collection.

On the subject of these Throne of Skulls rules, anyone got a link to them so I can read them instead of getting it second hand from this thread? My google-fu is lacking... thanks!

I thought I showed you the Throne of Skulls Rules Dustin. I will try to remember to bring them on Saturday. You can find them on the UK GW website

Thanks Vern. No wonder I couldn't find it on the US site...

Well, I'd be surprised to see if the tournament is a "Throne of Skulls" style GT. While it seems that most people I've spoke with don't like that format, I have yet to see any of them ever run in the SoCal area. (Which seems to have tournaments almost every other month.) It is different, but I'd like to play in one first hand to see if it is any better or worse than what has been out there.

Personally, I think that a lot of people with Golden Tickets might be dissapointed as they hear more. For instance, GW is not stating that if you have a Golden Ticket, that you get to play for free. I would imagine that Golden Ticket winners will still have to pay not just for air-fare and lodging, but for the tournament as well. Actually, if you think about it, all the Golden Ticket really tells GW is that they have a better chance of filling the hall and selling out the tournament.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a registration system like this: Las Vegas Grand Tournament for 300 40k players and 300 Fantasy players. Up until a certain date, the Golden Ticket winners have first dibs on registration. After that, we will open it up to the general public to fill the venue...

So, let's say that you're like Dash and would be flying across the country... After spending roughly $600 on air fare, another $400 on lodging, $150 to play in the tourney, and $200 on misc, you've now spent $1350 since you have a Golden Ticket... Are you still coming? Heck, I'd rather spend that money and go back to Adepticon... (But that's just me.)

It's an obvious concern for a lot of people. You'd think that they'd at least let the guys who collected a Ticket play for free but it could go either way. I'm hoping it's free because with that format asking a lot of the ticket holders to pay for the tourney itself is just asking for people to not go at all.

Oh well, we'll just have to see I guess.

If we have to pay for a ticket and it's a gakky system, I may pass.

If the comp is off the charts, as in the tournament winners from across the country all do show up, I'll come just for the challenge.

They should set this up as a very competitive event. That would draw all the best players. Not a silly hobby event. Have those at Gamesday.

Throne of Skulls certainly had an impact on deciding to run the NOVA invitational next year, for sure.

I was under the impression winning a Vegas Ticket only meant you won the opportunity to buy the ticket; not a free ticket. Has this changed or am I completely off base?

I would hope that since you competed to go and thus are invited, you wouldn't have to pay to go on top of that. If so, lame.

Maybe lame, but I could have sworn that was how it was set up.

MVBrandt wrote:Throne of Skulls certainly had an impact on deciding to run the NOVA invitational next year, for sure.

Mike your event was full of awesomesauce and win!

For those that questioned it before, the answer came at the very bottom of GW's latest newsletter. (Congratz to my good friend Drew who pointed this out to me)

The GW Las Vegas Grand Tournament next year will be a Throne of Skulls style GT. This is a direct quote from the latest GW newsletter at the bottom:

The circuit is made up predominantly of Independent Tournaments from around North America which are put on by gaming clubs or groups. The Champion for each game system will be decided in the summer of 2011 in Las Vegas at The Throne of Skulls Tournament!

There you go. Throne of Skulls.

This actually answers a few questions... The first is that the Throne of Skulls tournaments are 1500 points for 40k and 2000 points for Fantasy. The second is that everyone playing better do some cool type of presentation with their army and their list, because bonus points for those can mean as much as an overall game victory.

The subjective score components run a big risk; a LOT of people attending are going to know who a LOT of the other people are; plus, there's the possibility for in-advance collusion on some of these fronts.

If A then B; if "you" can't win b/c of a big loss, vote "me" as your fave, etc.

Kind of just a confusing thing all around. Still, the overall circuit organizer gave us the heads up it would be TOSkulls months ago, and most of us made mention of it; funny that none of us felt motivated to adopt the format.

MVBrandt wrote:The subjective score components run a big risk; a LOT of people attending are going to know who a LOT of the other people are; plus, there's the possibility for in-advance collusion on some of these fronts.

If A then B; if "you" can't win b/c of a big loss, vote "me" as your fave, etc.

Kind of just a confusing thing all around. Still, the overall circuit organizer gave us the heads up it would be TOSkulls months ago, and most of us made mention of it; funny that none of us felt motivated to adopt the format.

We have adopted it in Vegas for the Ironman and Golden Snotling tournaments.

Looks like we got confirmation that the Vegas GT will be Throne of Skulls. http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?aId=13200005a

I don't know about the rest of the Golden Ticket players but I am now much less likely to be going to Vegas due to the format.

I'm still going. It's a weekend in Vegas with something to do during the day when it's so damn hot Plus it'll be fun to meet people from across the country. For me it depends on whether they charge me or not for the ticket as a Ticket winner. If they do then I might balk but then I might not. Depends on what else is going on really.

Kirika wrote:IMO the whole throne of skulls tournament system as I heard it described sucks. Moving from mostly competitive tournaments to qualify for it to a hobby day is really lame.

It would be like if you qualified for the magic pro tour and they said ok we give you points for your deck theme now and you compared to people playing the same colors as you.

As far as the points levels I have no idea why 1500 is the points level. Wouldn't higher points be better for GW cause you have to buy more models and they make a better profit? 2k tournaments are better for GW cause they sell more models. No idea why 1500 is the norm in the UK.

Different points levels does shake the game up. Its like Vintage, Legacy, Extended, Standard in Magic. Lets you play with different things and keeps things interesting. Although higher points gives you more choice and makes things less rock paper sissors.

LOL at everyone saying their qualifying from "competitive tournaments". Having gone to my first GT this pass weekend I believe their far from competitive (untill they take out comp and reduce painting scores atleast).

Hell my friend went 5 and 0 and got nothing. There were only 2 players that did that. (both were space wolves). Instead some random player ended up grabbing a ticket to vegas. Most the people around us didnt even even know what army he played.

This is not true about EVERY tournament that qualified people.

MVBrandt wrote:This is not true about EVERY tournament that qualified people.

Alright I take back my statement. Atleast for the lucky people that went to ones that didnt have ridiculous comp and painting scores.

Actually the Slaughter, Smackdown, Nova, and Wargamescon didn't do comp and their painting scores weren't totally wacky in comparison to say the Broadside Bash where an army that regularly will score 25/30 or 33/40 in painting at other events pulled an 11/30......

And as long as one of the tickets is going to the Best General you can consider it competitive which a lot of events did this year. Just as a heads up.

The Broadside bash is soft score central. I only go because my friends are there.

Hahaha, we should all bring the most disgusting, over the top competitive armies possible to the BSB this year! The guys running it are really nice guys, but hardcore fluff nazis. They actually discussed, openly, the idea of having a tournament with no battle points. Yikes.

@italiaplaya
Most tournaments aren't like that. Try out some other ones, they are really good fun. Most of the big tournaments now are either no comp or moving to no comp.

Not anywhere I've played. Guess I've just been unlucky to live in areas that have a CGM in them...

Mvbrandt would you consider putting on a counter event? For the competitive people who have tickets to attend? Just curious...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mvbrandt would you consider putting on a counter event? For the competitive people who have tickets to attend? Just curious...

Dashofpepper wrote:Dark Eldar are a great example.

At 1500 points - I almost have a full force org chart, and regularly beat face. I play them at 2k as well, but refuse to field them beyond, because they don't *gain* anything. Most armies have a tough time answering me at 1500 points - tack on 500 points and bring us to 2k and we're on even footing. Add any more points and I'm at a disadvantage.

I agree, DE @ 1500 is almost unfair with the amount of stuff you can fill. Even at 2000 I end up wargearing out stuff to make 2000. Nids struggle at 1500 and most other armies dont have all their toys at 1500 where as other armies have a closet full of toys.

frgsinwntr wrote:Mvbrandt would you consider putting on a counter event? For the competitive people who have tickets to attend? Just curious...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mvbrandt would you consider putting on a counter event? For the competitive people who have tickets to attend? Just curious...

Well, there's the NOVA Invitational. I really don't intend to just go straight out and say "GW your Throne of Skulls format sucks, all ya'll ticket holders can come to a "real" tourney" or anything of the sort; I don't even feel that way. Don't bite the hand that feeds you and all that.

Throne of Skuklls is not what I would call a competitively evaluative format; it's half-cocked, and seems to have been thought up by someone trying to forcefully bitch and moan about "competitive" events via the creation of a blatantly non-competitively *evaluative* one of his own. Regardless of motive, it is still what they want to use and probably will be fun / competitive (if not EVALUATIVE, the key difference here) b/c of the concentration of high caliber players.

Kind of an important note - a lot of people will call events casual vs. competitive, or hobby vs. competitive, and I think that's the wrong way to talk about it. Adepticon last year was competitive, Adepticon this year will be competitive. Adepticon last year was NOT competitively EVALUATIVE, and Adepticon this coming year WILL be competitively evaluative. Why the latter difference? 240 players in 3 rounds, vs. 256 players in 8 rounds. If the caliber of players at an event and caliber of lists is generally strong, the event will be competitive no matter how the format functions ... so is true for the TOS/Vegas Finals. BUT if the event has an insufficient number of rounds, bs scoring mechanisms, too much soft score injection in competitive side awards (and vice versa), etc., it fails to be competitively evaluative. In short, going to the Vegas Finals will net you a competitive experience and a fun time ... but will fail to establish a winner that even the majority of observers (and attendees) are really happy / comfortable with.