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.

I played this weekend and had an awesome time! I'd sign up for any GT in Vegas! I'd play this format again in a heartbeat, it was a really exciting change of pace. A few tweaks/upgrades here and there would be appreciated, but this was a really great event and surprisingly competitive.

This weekend really felt like a gift from GW and probably the coolest thing they've done 'for the players'.

NotMatthew wrote:
This weekend really felt like a gift from GW and probably the coolest thing they've done 'for the players'.

I must agree. GW really went all out this weekend to give us a great experience. The breakfast, lunch, dinner and dessert buffets were amazing, considering they were free. Food is expensive in Vegas, and the free food made this one of the least expensive Vegas trip I've ever taken.

The tables were sparse, but that was expected based on the ToS information packet they made available before the tournament. At least the tables were evenly distributed so there was no advantage to gain or lose based purely on which table you were at.

All in all I had 5 great games, saw some familiar faces, met some really cool people and had an all around good time.

Good job GW.

I agree it was a great gift from gw.

Great to meet you too, bladewalker! I hope we see you at the bao!

I had a great time as well, the format made you really focus on how your army was doing in general vs other people with the similar army. I was just surprised to see how many Eldar players showed up, and how many Canadians there were, hehe, 3 of my 5 games were with Canadians which is probably why I had such a fun time (they are great sports)!

Ditto on the comments about this being a great gift from GW. I don't think I've ever eaten as healthily in Vegas before!

It was very nice to meet folks off of Dakka, and for those of you who I didn't chat with I had the pink chaos marines with butterflies. I ended up with 3 wins and 2 ties but got edged out of best Chaos Marine by Mannahnin on sportsmanship scores. Maybe that was because I gave Reecius such a bad game that we didn't see him on Sunday

Ah, sorry about not showing up Sunday! I ended up hanging out with some girls I met at a pool party. It was a pleasure to meet you. Had a great game, even though not much happened! Sometimes you have to play smart, even if it means tying.

I was amazed by the level of competition, and loved every second of it.
Round 1 I played Ragnar who won best CSM
Round 2 was Randy Musgrave who missed best Necron by 1 point
Round 3 was Chris Shriner who went 4-1 with a crazy rifleman list, and only lost Best GK because I beat him then failed to also beat John. My bad man...
Round 4 was Tony Kapoch, who took home best Space Wolves
Round 5, got my butt kicked by John, who went 5-0 and took best Grey Knights.

3 games vs people who won Best player for their army, and 2 more against guys who just missed the mark. I could not have asked for a better play experience.

I'm not trying to be a downer, but you guys seriously thought a tournament that allowed people to play each other more than once was actually "good"? That is unforgivable in my mind.

Unless I missed it, it didn't seem like there was even prize support for the main winners. While I know it's a free GT and they provided food (that part was great of course), they also get the product at something like 20% of the retail cost. I just doesn't make logical sense to me, given the low internal cost.

Was it OK for a "free tournament?" Yes, of course. But they really should just call it a casual gaming get together. I could be more specific, but many of the points on scoring have been made. I just personally can't get behind anything that cannot get past the most basic of steps...and that is not playing the same person twice.


I guess my question would be "what did they do better than any indy GT?" Nothing other than being free. I, and I'm sure many others, will always enjoy getting together with a group of gamers and playing 5 games over a weekend in Vegas. However, that does not make a good event. Free food is pretty much the only redeeming quality of the weekend other than getting the chance to play some new people.

I guess you just had to be there, the atmosphere is what made it fun. After every game another meal was being served and everyone just sat down together and bullshitted about the last match, there was no mad scramble to get to your next match or rush to fit in the end of a game considering every match was 2 and a half hours long at 1500 points.

I went 3 and 2, my lucky stompa helped me out the first day, but broke down on the second but such is life when your playing orks.

Leenus wrote:I'm not trying to be a downer, but you guys seriously thought a tournament that allowed people to play each other more than once was actually "good"? That is unforgivable in my mind.

That was a tragic mistake which they thankfully fixed on day 2. I would have flat out refused to play someone twice.

It was not isolated to this event...Brother's Grim had the same thing at their ultra competitive event.

I played on the Fantasy side, though I checked the 40k side periodically.

The Good:
Catered Food- This was nice and it made up for the two nights of $300 dinners that my wife and I had haha.
Tight Schedule- There was ample time to get games done and they were very strict on the round times. Everything went according to schedule.
Solid Competition- The people who got the buddy invites were just as good (if not better) than those who got a golden ticket. No one was a slouch there.
Great Location- The room was large. The hotel was nice and affordable. That end of the strip puts you in walking distance of the Excalibur and MGM, but out of the chaotic middle part of the strip.
Tables- While they were all the modular tables, the GW terrain was all painted to a consistant standard and there was ample setup space. This was one of the best terrain and table setups of any GT I have attended in the past couple years.
Staff- Ed ran a tight ship and some of the best GW employees were on hand handling things all weekend. Things ran well and all the GW staff were extremely friendly and accessable. In particular, Matt and Chris were walking around getting feedback and chatting it up, keeping everything smooth.
Bartender- The inclusion of a bartender in the room was the best part of the whole thing!

The Bad:
Terrain- While the predetermined terrain types cut down on confusion, the choices of what terrain pieces to use was off. There also seemed to be a lack of sufficient terrain on the 40k side of the room.
Scenarios- They avoided the watchtower scenario, which was wise. They started with Battle Lines, which is also good. The banner scenario, as written, really is an auto loss for several armies, but its servicable. The other two scenarios, with the random deployment and the 12" random reserving just frustrate people. The narrative scenario for round five was just unforgivable, though. I completely crushed my last opponent because of that scenario and I know I am not alone in that. Having a weird scenario is ok, if it is carefully balanced (ie not here are my two doomwheels compulsary charging on turn one), but it needs to be done on round three. First and last round should always be Battle Lines or something very close.
Pairings- Until they corrected it, people were playing the same person, often twice in a row. This was especially true for anyone who had a draw, as draws are fairly rare in fantasy and they did not value a two draws as being equal to one win. When someone was going to play the same person a third time in a row, they finally caved in and fixed it.
Points- I know they wanted to save time, but 2k points (1500 for 40k) really cut armies to the bone, leaving nothing but the most brutal essentials in the lists.

The Ugly-
Format- Nevermind the fact that a dwarf guy with a worse record than a WE guy randomly won because the other two dwarf players sucked so much more than the average WE people there. I am talking about the lack of any restraints on army selection. This combined with limited points and a lack of soft scores led to some seriously ridiculous army builds by people. Of particular note, there were seven or so High Elf armies there, all but one having Teclis in them; the last one had a Fortress with 100 archers and 6 characters in it and two eagles. The few gunline armies there would have done well in the 40k side of the room, as well. I know they don't like admitting anything is ever wrong with their army books, but GW really should consider line item banning the problem characters and items that everyone else pretty much is, or this will just be another Hard Boyz event next year.

All said, I had a great time, despite getting some bad luck in there (went 2-1-2 with Bretts) and playing mostly power armies all weekend. The venue was very wife friendly, with side activites going on all weekend and lots of stuff to do at night. I am sad to see it move to Memphis next year, but thats better than not having it at all, if GW is cutting costs.

Leenus wrote:I'm not trying to be a downer, but you guys seriously thought a tournament that allowed people to play each other more than once was actually "good"? That is unforgivable in my mind.

Unless I missed it, it didn't seem like there was even prize support for the main winners. While I know it's a free GT and they provided food (that part was great of course), they also get the product at something like 20% of the retail cost. I just doesn't make logical sense to me, given the low internal cost.

Yes, the initial decision to make people play twice was wrong, they fixed it on day two, and I'm sure they'll never do that again.

And yes, you missed the prize support. Winners get online credit for the GW store. They mentioned it a couple times, but it was pretty loud in there so I can see why it might have been overlooked.

On an unrelated note to most of these posts. If anyone has pictures or anything from the tournament (Flikr, blog, etc) please let me know. Thanks

Faction winners get the framed award and a invite to Throne of Skulls 2012 (if I won something else please tell me lol). The conversion, painting, skulltaker, overall, all got vouchers as well.

@Sub: I put up a Battle Report thread of my games http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/377528.page and I'm editting the pics I took of the armies, but they are just on my little Canon nothing fancy. I'll put up a link to them after I get them uploaded today or tomorrow.

EDIT: I did not have to play the same person twice but I had to play 2 out of 5 local players and friends of mine, I think the addition of a friends list would help for the next one so you don't travel 2000 miles to play the guy you flew in with.

Seems like a fun event but it is very disappointing they used their totally flawed scoring system to determine winners once again.

Kirasu wrote:Seems like a fun event but it is very disappointing they used their totally flawed scoring system to determine winners once again.

Flawed is a very poor word choice. Try 'different' or 'unique' to describe their scoring system as there are many who found the rules system they used to be not so flawed.

It's flawed from a competitive standpoint. However it is a fine system for a fun weekend which GW provided. Wish I still lived in Cali so I could have made the drive out.

NotMatthew wrote:

Kirasu wrote:Seems like a fun event but it is very disappointing they used their totally flawed scoring system to determine winners once again.

Flawed is a very poor word choice. Try 'different' or 'unique' to describe their scoring system as there are many who found the rules system they used to be not so flawed.

I think it fairly accurately describes a system in which someones standings isnt 100% dependent on their own scores. Sorry Pittsburgh but you cant win the superbowl because Philadelphia did poorly! (For the non-football people.. Those two teams are in the same state)

Everyone knew the rules going in and everyone had the chance to select the best lists for the metagame. I still don't see it as 'flawed'. Being able to comprehend the rules and their effect on the metagame might be a challenge, but that certainly doesn't make the system 'flawed'.

Were the players within each codex 'competing' against each other? Certainly they were. Were the players also 'competing' with the field as a whole? Certainly. Were scores randomly generated? No....players had to fight for their scores. This tournament simply created a few transparent and easy to understand rules that provided a different tournament experience. To say that this tournament is less worthy than another is what is 'flawed'.

Saying you don't like the ToS system is A-OK...it seems a bit closed minded and silly to call something flawed just because you don't like it. I don't like the rules changes associated with the NOVA this year but I certainly see that it's a valid tournament system that many people will enjoy.

I think it's a little harder for those who didn't qualify or attend to make judgements about the validity of this tournament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And btw...a ToS player's standings ARE 100% dependent on their own scores as much as they are in any other tournament. I would suggest playing in a 1 player tournament if you would like your standing to be truly 100% dependent on your own scores without interaction/relation with other people's scores. Unfortunately you wouldn't get the social aspect of the game, but you would certainly see how you would do if other players, their results, and their list choices didn't interfere with your performance.

@NotMatthew

I think some people's problem is that you can go 5-0 and lose out on overall to someone who goes 3-2 if everyone else that ran their codex went 1-4. See how much less impact you have over your scores? The only one you have an impact on is in your bracket but that doesn't matter for overall. It's not that difficult to grasp why this can be seen as an issue.

It is a flawed system from a purely competitive standpoint. That doesn't make it a non-competitive event but it does make the format non-competitive as a whole as it does a poor job of determining who did the best over the course of the weekend.

I happily quallified last April for this event and like I've stated I would have attended if I still lived in Cali. However the format was not worth me flying to Vegas for from where I live. I'd rather attend Nova or maybe (still working on it Reece) the Bay Area Open. I don't think you can dismiss people's opinion if they don't go or qualify and saying so smacks to me of elitism which I dislike in our hobby.

No one is saying people didn't have a good time or that the event went poorly. Quite the opposite. But they are advancing that it could have been a better format for a season capping event.

Hulksmash wrote:@NotMatthew

I think some people's problem is that you can go 5-0 and lose out on overall to someone who goes 3-2 if everyone else that ran their codex went 1-4. See how much less impact you have over your scores? The only one you have an impact on is in your bracket but that doesn't matter for overall. It's not that difficult to grasp why this can be seen as an issue.

It is a flawed system from a purely competitive standpoint. That doesn't make it a non-competitive event but it does make the format non-competitive as a whole as it does a poor job of determining who did the best over the course of the weekend.

I happily quallified last April for this event and like I've stated I would have attended if I still lived in Cali. However the format was not worth me flying to Vegas for from where I live. I'd rather attend Nova or maybe (still working on it Reece) the Bay Area Open. I don't think you can dismiss people's opinion if they don't go or qualify and saying so smacks to me of elitism which I dislike in our hobby.

No one is saying people didn't have a good time or that the event went poorly. Quite the opposite. But they are advancing that it could have been a better format for a season capping event.

Agreed, it wasn't the format that, in my opinion, should have capped the season. I respectfully expressed my opinion to Ed via email and declined my invites (which I ended up winning two of). I applaud GW for the attempt, I just wish they would have put more effort into making it a bit better as the season ending, competitive event that it was billed as. If I was close I would have attended, but the cost of flight + hotel for a format I didn't agree with (going 5-0 and losing is just a poor feeling) wasn't worth it for me. Past that, once I found out most other ticket holders that I knew weren't going, and then they started inviting friends, it wasn't even the "tourney of champions" anymore, it was just another GT. And if it's a very expensive GT to attend that isn't a format I like, I won't go to it, no hard feelings intended.

Glad everyone had a great time though, and maybe I'll see you in future years or at others events.

Why did the NOVA get pulled into this, and what rules did we change?

Forreals bro!

Also, it seems like the people that went generally had fun; everyone was aware the format made it difficult to stick to the basic principles behind perceivable consequences, and so I doubt many were all upset when it played out as predicted.

Besides, winning out still generally netted you best -X CODEX- which was a pretty decent thing to be proud of. I was quite happy local regular gamers I play and hang often eough with Mike S and Tony K won Best Guard and Best Space Wolf, was happy another local buddy went 4-1 with his GK, and was happy that the local Fantasy guys from Balmer won Fantasy Overall and Best Orc/Goblin.

I think it doesn't make sense to attach too much pro or con to the format, since it was so sparkly clear what to expect, and I sure as heck wanted to go until work threw me on down to Fort Worth during the same time period instead.

Sounds like everything surrounding the format was mostly good, as well - Ed's job running the show, free food, schedule, etc.

How is a tournament which allows people to stack best player votes in order to help their friend get ahead not flawed? I'm not saying it happened, but it can EASILY happen and will greatly influence the scores. This tournament is certainly less worthy than other events without such vote stacking potential.

Let's not get hung up on debating the meaning of flawed. It's certainly not a good way to run a tournament, especially at the benefit of being "unique" or "different." Being "unique" or "different" just because you want to be special is silly.

Just because people had fun and just because the event is different than the norm does in NO WAY make it preferable to a more logically run event.


The thing that I find funny is that people sound like they enjoyed the "best army" awards. However, when there are only 3-10ish people playing your army on average and those are the people you're competing against, you're essentially at a local RTT. Traveling all that way to play in a glorified RTT is pretty silly in my book.


EDIT: My only point in any criticisms of Vegas GT and any other GTs is that I get fed up with the fact that people are generally OK with the status quo and few events work to improve things (or actually effectively improve things after implementing their new plans). There's not a single reason that after this many years of large events that people have the chance to play someone twice. That is such a basic tournament no, no that it should be automatic at this point. There's not a single reason to allow best player votes to affect overall standings to such a degree, given the ability to favor friends. There's not really a sound argument that would show the benefit is greater than the cost.

Also, to be clear... I DID attend, so I'm not going on hearsay...

Yeah, an props again to Ed for putting this on. And taking the time to respond when I told him why I wouldn't be attending. Ed's a stand-up dude and deserves the props for what was obviously an enjoyable event.

The ToS tournament (like any tournament) is not a way to determine the best player...or the most 'competitive' player. Sure, it determines who sits on the throne of skulls here in North America, but when you boil it down any tournament only has one function, and that is to find which player is best able to play by the rules of the tournament and score high enough to win the tournament. Period...doesn't matter what the rules of the tournament are beyond that. The NOVA style tournaments do NOT determine who the best 40k player is and neither do they determine who is the most competitive. They simply determine who was the best at playing the NOVA metagame for the weekend.

I do see how a player can go 5-0 and not win. You know as well as I do that many tournaments allow that situation to happen...that does not in any way make them less competitive.

Would you call a poker game where everyone had to play with their cards up more competitive than a game where poker players are forced to play the poker metagames of bluffing/reading/calculated risk? I would call them both competitive, certainly in different ways though.

Would you consider a tournament that made a choice to not include kill points as a win condition more competitive than one that did include them? Of course not, that would be silly. They are equally competitive and you are competing in separate tournament metagames.

If you are playing foot orks on table 1 in the last round of the NOVA you are depending on some horde guard army to not also go undefeated and end up playing you. Their win record is out of your control. You can end up losing an otherwise perfect tournament just because you had a very bad matchup on the final table (please note that whatever you may have heard, foot orks do not beat a proper horde guard list). Does that make the tournament flawed? Does that make it less competitive? In any tournament you are comparing your results to those of the other players and the standings of other players (and the fact that they and you have had a certain amount of good or bad luck to be where you are in the standings) has a lot to do with the placings at the end. I don't mind being defeated with logic at all and I'll acknowledge good points when I see them.

I do see how some people don't understand that any tournament is just as competitive as any other tournament. I do not see any merit in those thoughts though as there is not enough valid logic to back said thoughts up.

I will agree that this format was not my first choice for a season capper. However, after having played in the tournament I can see that it is every bit as challenging and competitive as any other format, though part of the challenge certainly comes from the metagame (like any other tournament from RTs to ardboyz to NOVA to Adepticon Team events).

Who won? Some random guy? The guy who won the most games? The guy with the best painted army? The nicest guy? No...it was won by the person who either wittingly or unwittingly made the correct metagame decisions before the tournament and backed those choices up with tight gameplay and a decent table demeanor.

Leenus wrote:How is a tournament which allows people to stack best player votes in order to help their friend get ahead not flawed? I'm not saying it happened, but it can EASILY happen and will greatly influence the scores. This tournament is certainly less worthy than other events without such vote stacking potential.

If it didn't happen, do we have to talk about what COULD have happened? Why compare a hypothetical worst-case scenario against any other format, when the ACTUAL results are available, and don't exhibit the problem?

Let's not get hung up on debating the meaning of flawed. It's certainly not a good way to run a tournament, especially at the benefit of being "unique" or "different." Being "unique" or "different" just because you want to be special is silly.

Just because people had fun and just because the event is different than the norm does in NO WAY make it preferable to a more logically run event.

Let's avoid absolutist language, please. While the format is certainly open for discussion, exclusionary and/or conclusive statements like those above don't invite debate; instead, it's instantly dismissive of any contrary opinion.

You're correct on getting hung up on the word flawed or competitive. This was a different style event and many will be glad to see it repeated.

Thanks for the dialogue guys! None of this is meant with any disrespect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MVBrandt wrote:Why did the NOVA get pulled into this, and what rules did we change?

Forreals bro!

I think a lot of players see the NOVA as the most 'competitive' event so I used it as an example and as a point of comparison. I should not have said rules change, 'ruling' would have been much more appropriate.

I honestly do not see how ANYONE could not be thankful for this event. IT WAS FREE! IT WAS CATERED! IT WAS IN VEGAS! TWO FOR ONE DRINKS!

Anyone who walked away from this with a bad attitude, IMO, needs to reevaluate their value system. This was a gift to us gamers by GW. The guys who put it on worked their asses off to show us a good time. Show some gratitude! Was the system perfect? No, but we all knew what to expect coming in, even the possibility of playing the same people twice. Even that they changed right away.

This was a GREAT event. I had a blast, and everyone I talked to had fun. The atmosphere was very relaxed, everyone was just about having a good time with very few exceptions.

Was this an uber competitive event? Yes and no. The caliber of player was very, very high. The system itself sort of curbed things a bit, but I have to say I like it. With a bit of tweaking, it could make a great tournament format. There were 4 sisters, 4 crons, 3 tau, 8 Eldar, and only like 4 or 5 Space Wolves. I like that. I brought my Footdar just to have a laugh as it was not a "serious" tournament. Those are good for a change of pace.

So seriously, anyone who is saying this was anything other than a really incredibly generous gift to us really needs to take a step back and rethink their position.

IT WAS FREE!

I had a great time and would certainly go back if it were in Vegas. Memphis....well, we'll have to see about that.

Janthkin,

To be clear, vote stacking could very well happen. It may have. I think it's very hard to prove one way or another. However, I'm willing to be clubmates / friends were more likely to vote for other clubmates / friends. You might not be able to get people to admit it to your face, but I'm sure if someone played their buddy who is in contention to win overall and 4 randos, they are most likely voting for their buddy. Do you honestly think otherwise?

You cannot definitively prove if that is the case, but if that flaw exists, why allow it? My challenge to everyone is what benefit do you GAIN at the cost of having this voting flaw. I don't see what you gain and that's what I'm trying to understand. Additionally, not only the worst case effects the outcome of the tournament. Simply 1 person voting being swayed to vote for his buddy, just because it's his buddy affects EVERYONE.



Secondly, I would pose the question about matching up people against the same people twice. Look at it from a cost/benefit situation. What's the net benefit? If it's a net negative why implement it? I agree with NotMat that it's different. I disagree that it brings any net benefit to the tournament. My frustration is that tournament organizers do not seem to be going through that cost/benefit thought process when they make a seemingly obvious misstep.