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.

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 concur with Blackmoor on this point. Like him, I'm considering attending the event and I like a lot of what you're planning on doing. Attending this event will also be a fairly significant investment in time and money and if I'm going to attend I would want to make sure the playing field is as even as possible. As has been stated taking out KPs gives a huge boost to a number of armies.

I make the trip every year to the UK GT events because I know there is a level playing field and they are using basic missions meaning every army can be competitive.

It's a matter of careful word choice that comes into play when personal bias is in play. As you can see, of the many tournaments / leagues I've run, every one has used KP.

The important thing that we are attempting to do at the NOVA Open is establish a competitive, fair and balanced event, where "draw" in terms of who you play each round by mission, etc. does not influence your chances of coming out with a win differently than another player. That is to say, that the Mech IG who faces a high KP opponent during the KP round should not have an easier time of it than the Mech IG who faces the 5 kill point opponent. To wit, then, the 5 kill point opponent should not have a harder time of it facing an equally low KP army than his friend who faces a 20 KP army and easily scores more than his 5.

It is important when making broad sweeping, and negative-oriented statements such as "you do not like KPs, and so your tournament is not going to have them" that you are as detailed with your statistical analysis as possible. You took the time to seek out a comment I made about KP from a personal mission experience, but did not take the time to evaluate the things presented in this very thread.

For the purposes of the Open, we've released 3 primer rounds, whose missions we've encouraged people work through and provide feedback based upon.

For your part, rather than simply state that VP or KP provide an unfair advantage (or don't), a fact that is in contrast to a strong amount of statistical data I've personally worked with from running all prior events with the KP mission active, you might better find yourself making a point better by test driving some of the primer rounds (since their intent is to be test driven and fed back on), and let me know how they go / toss me some battle reports over e-mail / etc.

Especially if your genuine intent is to attend the Open (and if it is, I naturally care *even* more about your input).

Allow me to leave it at this:
Our Primer Rounds are what they are b/c we have played a *lot* of book mission 40k. All prior events utilized book missions w/ VP active as tiebreakers, per the back of the 5th Edition rulebook. In this event, our primer rounds have a different format - because KP have proven to be a source of unfair/negative evaluation at the tournament level.

That's to say, that "bad draw" skews peoples' perceptions of the fairness with which they were paired up / etc.

Every army *must* have scoring units, and every army *must* cap at 2,000 VP, in the primer round format, hence the utilization (at PRESENT, pending input, and not in a fixed way) of an annihilation mission where everyone has an identical number of scorable points, regardless of opponent.

Playtest it some, provide feedback if you are of a mind, and let me know where you're at. As opposed to your initial view - which would infer that I'm as petty an organizer as it gets, and would make decisions based purely off personal whim - I would appreciate you giving my mission the benefit of the doubt (since you read my blog, and know what it is) and trust a couple things:

a) Our missions are not "fixed," but are primers to be playtested and fedback on
b) It behooves me to present the most balanced and fair tournament possible. Playing "Basic" 40k would have everyone rolling book missions in every round separately (I've even done this before in an event). I'm sure we can agree on having fixed mission by round ... I would hope the mind can be expansive enough on all fronts to consider other amendments, then, built just as equally toward fair play.

Let this sit also as an invitation to you *and* anyone else reading to playtest the primers, and/or participate in 8 on the 8th, and provide feedback based upon squaring off "worry" lists/codices.

So, determine what codex you think is treated unfairly / imbalanced by this, and playtest it across the primer format vs. the lists you think it overbalances - then provide me w/ the batreps. That's what we're doing, and it's what has influenced the state of the primers so far.

NOT ... the fact that one of my armies is Mech IG, or I'm not a "fan" of it. Empirical evidence I'm happy to provide will happily highlight my "perfect" history of using KP in every event ever hosted.

Remember that my constituency is YOU, the player. I can play 40k any way I want any day with various friends. I will not play in my own tournament, after all, so I have no personal stake in the rules whatsoever. A lot of tournament organizers may select missions with their own intent to "change" the world of 40k or express personal bias, but I am responsible for putting on the fairest, most neutral, best event possible. It behooves me to take ALL statistical analysis and feedback into account and put the BEST possible event forward for all attendees. Give me that data, and I will absolutely put it to use. Give me the benefit of the doubt *not* to presume right away that my rationale for running a tournament is ... one of my 6 personal armies. It'll serve you well, b/c you'll have the pleasure of being listened to on the internet. Since Blackmoor reads my blog, he has seen a history of "listening" and seeing that open mindedness play out in positive changes to the Open already from its initial ideas.

Cheers and thanks for the input, just making sure we're on the same page with all the facts,
- Mike

PS - We're not committed to a VP mission, or a Quarters mission, or a 5-fixed-objective mission. These are the three missions "active" in the primer rounds. We're committed to fair analysis, and are playtesting extensively, taking *ALL* feedback into account, and hosting a prize-awarding nationwide "primer" day to further evaluate things. If one or many missions appears unfair or imbalanced to the point that it would threaten the integrity of the very point we're making on the gaming front (competitive, fair, and neutral), we'll take that into account when we release the "Final" missions that will be used in the actual tournament. Just keep in mind that we a) want to make sure we are not personally mischaracterized (i.e. You play mech IG, so you don't get it) and b) have to take in all sources of data and opinion ... so we won't be able to make *everyone* happy about *everything*.

I am, on the other hand, pleased to see that both of you have had your interest sparked despite the distance by the things we've worked toward so far. Hopefully our product will continue to sway you as we move closer to the event. Let me know if either of you need help or advice with travel plans, things to do in DC, etc., should you decide to attend or require more data.

Alex, I'll be there.

You're not only required to attend, you must also bring a pink army of some sort! My wife is excited to see you again.

Maybe we will finally meet across the table Dash. I'll have my BA ready by then.

G

Hey Dash, are you going to be playing your Dark Eldar?

I'm probably going to be doing the Fantasy with my Empire, but I want to see a good Dark Eldar player in action.

People have been playing DE for years... the fact that most people have never seen them is the best thing they have going for them.

G

Yeah, I just sold my Dark Eldar (first army ever) to fund my space wolves. I'm 100% sure I'll be playing DE again when they release.

I wouldn't considering myself a great player, but I know how to play. Just curious to watch a higher level player with a DE list.

I am sure the new Dark Eldar are going to be a lot better all around. I think Phil Kelly is writing the codex, so you are all set for a fun time.

G

For anyone considering running an 8 on the 8th primer, our primer mission packet is now up for view on the nova open website, in the 40k rules section.

maaksel wrote:Hey Dash, are you going to be playing your Dark Eldar?

I'm probably going to be doing the Fantasy with my Empire, but I want to see a good Dark Eldar player in action.

Well, my Orks have stomped tail this year, but not in a circuit GT, so I'm contemplating the Pink Waaaugh! I heard that Stelek will be in attendance, and his viewpoint on Orks is that they are the worst and least competitive codex in 40k right now, so the idea of bringing orks to a GT he's attending and winning with them is attractive in an e-peen swinging way.

Granted, I'd still have to win with them, but I can't win with them if I don't bring them. What I'd *really* like to do is play against him with my Orks - that would be a fantastic battle report. For all the talking he does, his lists traditionally perform poorly when used by other people, and he performs poorly at events too, so his wide reader base is confusing. I'd like nothing more than to play him with the army he's most comfortable dismissing against one of his "uber-competitive" lists and teach him some of the many things he doesn't know about Orks.

Dashofpepper wrote: I heard that Stelek will be in attendance.

Lol yeah right. Someone please explain why he would go to this. He never goes to GTs.

He announced his intent to come, presuming someone gets a job to pay for it.

Stelek has a decent track record at the GTs he has attended. I would not so quickly dismiss him. If he goes to NOVA he will probably have somewhat of a home team advantage since the event is being promoted as a competitive event, not a hobby event.

G

Dashofpepper wrote:

maaksel wrote:Hey Dash, are you going to be playing your Dark Eldar?

I'm probably going to be doing the Fantasy with my Empire, but I want to see a good Dark Eldar player in action.

Well, my Orks have stomped tail this year, but not in a circuit GT, so I'm contemplating the Pink Waaaugh! I heard that Stelek will be in attendance, and his viewpoint on Orks is that they are the worst and least competitive codex in 40k right now, so the idea of bringing orks to a GT he's attending and winning with them is attractive in an e-peen swinging way.

Granted, I'd still have to win with them, but I can't win with them if I don't bring them. What I'd *really* like to do is play against him with my Orks - that would be a fantastic battle report. For all the talking he does, his lists traditionally perform poorly when used by other people, and he performs poorly at events too, so his wide reader base is confusing. I'd like nothing more than to play him with the army he's most comfortable dismissing against one of his "uber-competitive" lists and teach him some of the many things he doesn't know about Orks.

I'd love to see you do just that. Unfortunately, you can't teach those who can't learn. Be content to run him over and stomp him into the ground.

I'd like to comment real quick:

1) Yes, Stelek "endorsed" the NOVA Open (I did not ask him to, for the record) and stated he and his friend John would be attending presuming he has a job by then.

2) The event is billed as not a "competitive" and "not hobby" one, but as separate but equal between the two. Note that for each system, there are 2 "golden tickets" to the Vegas Finals being handed out. One is to the 6-0 tourney champ, and one is to the Renaissance Man, which is only 33% record/score, and 67% sports/appearance. So, it's actually / arguably easier for an artistic good sport to go to Vegas via the NOVA Open than it is at events like Adepticon and others, where the tickets go to Overall/Best Gen, which are awards based on majority or entirely battle points.

So ... hobbyists be alerted to that fact - while a big focus is being put on separating the competitive component from "paint score" and ensure a balanced, fair tourney field, with a single "clear" winner of the competitive front ... the same attention is being paid to the hobby side of our beloved ... well, hobby

Black Blow Fly wrote:Stelek has a decent track record at the GTs he has attended. I would not so quickly dismiss him. If he goes to NOVA he will probably have somewhat of a home team advantage since the event is being promoted as a competitive event, not a hobby event.

G

Yeah, I knew that, but since he spends a lot time saying that most tournaments suck, and thats why he never goes to them, I was kind of shocked.

But I guess it makes some sense.

Let me get this right, you are going with a single elimination tournament format, and are you going to re-seed every round?

Opposites play within each w/l bracket, instead of sames. That is to say, that instead of #1 playing #2 after round 1, #1 will play #32 (both 1-0 finishers, but with different scales of victory). Discussion in detail @ http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2010/04/swiss-is-for-chocolate-seeding-and.html

IT IS NOT A SINGLE ELIMINATION TOURNAMENT. It's just pairing off "elimination" style, or seeded, instead of swiss pairing.

It is not a true elimination tournament, but if you loose a game you are out of the running to win (if I read it right).

Since you are re-seeding every round, that means that the first game will be very important. If you get paired up against a new player, or a "hobbyist" and you get to crush them, then that will make it a lot easier in the later rounds. While on the other hand if you get a tough draw and squeak out a win, then you end up facing the toughest opponents in the next round.

Not quite true, but like any other tournament, a flat out loss on your record is kind of a kicker ... I'm not sure there are many where you can win Best General despite losing. If you draw in a close game due to a tough first round, but break it with your tiebreakers, you are still in it of course for Best General, but will be up against someone with a higher first round score ... and you'll have to prove it was indeed just a tough match-up.

Our equivalent of Best Overall is not at all exclusive to a perfect record, and is in fact less record-exclusive than most tourneys.

As for Best General, it's only exclusive to 4-0 finishers (who all win an award regardless) *IF* all 4-0 finishers can make the 2nd day. If not, it'll go down the row of highest rated 3-1's, etc.


What would be most accurate, to keep it to a simple answer, is to say that a "Win" holds nearly as much bearing as a "Big Win," and a "Minor Win is as dramatically better than a "Loss" as a "Major Win." Our format doesn't "grade" you on how much you won BY, just on whether you won. This offsets the "crap my opponent was tough now I'm behind on battle points" issue you see in a lot of standard tourney set-ups, where you can't realistically "win" unless you crush everyone. To make sure it's still fair, however, we "seed" pair people ... so while you're in the running so long as you win (Even if you aren't crushing people), the more marginal your wins, the tougher your subsequent match-ups.

What are the tie-breakers exactly? Does opponents' records factor in (If you tied, or barely won, but your opponent then goes on to do very well, it would place you higher).

Check out the Primer Mission Packet, on the nova open site, and linked above, for a better idea of what tiebreakers are and how they operate.

For purposes of the 4 Top General awards, you are only responsible for your own performance. For the Tourney Champ (our equiv of best general), keep winning and you will get it, period.

It's different from a "battle point" type situation, where multiple undefeateds remain standing and people with ties can supersede those with all close wins, etc. etc.



As usual for all these questions, i.e. for you Blackmoor, take a few runs through the primer packet and give me some batreps and detailed feedback - I think I've established a pretty clear track record of changing things / adjusting viewpoints based upon feedback. You'd be surprised ... just gotta give me some real detail and discussion to work with, rather than gut feel. Also, running an 8 on the 8th type format with it is always welcome, and I'll try to send a couple trophies out to anyone who does.

I was reading YTTH and saw you had solicited Stelek to review your missions & provide feedback. He sure had a lot of suggestions.

G

I solicit everyone for feedback - here (if you've noticed), Stelek, *anyone* with a big mouth and an opinion. Stelek e-mailed me asking if I minded him publishing his thoughts on the primer, and I said sure.

Everyone has feedback on the internet when they're asked to give it (or even when they aren't!) ... your own tournament's thread being a great example.

Remember, however, that these are PRIMER missions - not the "Final" missions for the open. Gotta keep reiterating that. Half the point is letting people familiarize with the format, half the point is stress testing and feedback. I believe Stelek and his friends will be having their own 8 on the 8th as well, and his feedback after having actually played the missions will be just as welcome as everyone else's!

MVBrandt wrote:I'm not sure there are many where you can win Best General despite losing.

I lost game 5 (the last game) of the Slaughter in Space GT 12-6, but still won Best General because my scores in my other rounds put me significantly ahead of anyone else for Battle Points. It can happen. My opponent and I were fighting for Best General / Best Overall.

Aye - at the Open, you can't go 3-1 and beat someone who goes 4-0 for the BEST GENERAL ticket. Well, I suppose you could if someone dropped out of the final four. By design, only someone who actually wins all their games can be Best General. Regardless, for the Best Overall equiv (Renaissance Man), losing games does not exclude you at all.

Keep in mind of course that losing a game still could get you to the Best Gen, if one of the top 4 don't / can't make the 2nd day invite.

The packet doesn't seem to indicate what happens if you table your opponent. I presume the usual- play out the remaining turns and see if you can achieve the other objectives? Or are you just giving them max points, like Adepticon? It should be stated in the packet.

Good catch - one made by a couple now. Glad I released the primer

We're going to *probably* go with playing out the remaining turns and seeing if you can achieve the remaining objectives.
Thanks for the feedback.

Yeah, that always seems fairest to me. It's quick and easy, and if your army is physically incapable of getting to/holding an objctive in the turns remaining (with no enemy on the table to oppose you), it seems pretty clear that you don't deserve those objectives. Whereas on the other hand if you table your opponent in 4 turns, and have time left in the round, it doesn't make sense to end it right there and not let you grab objectives you're able to.

I think its great you are taking advice from Stelek. You seem to have a great affinity for him.

G