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.

We just posted all of the basics on the Golden Throne Grand Tournament 2013. This year the Golden Throne has become the first Grand Tournament to fully integrate single and team play into the main event!

This 2000pt, dual force organization tournament allows players to register as a part of a team (up to four players per team). The entire event is played individually, and at the end of the weekend the last man standing wins the title of 40k Champion -- and the team with the most accumulated wins earns the title of Team Champions!

Please note that registering as a part of a team is not a requirement.

All of the details on the event can be found on our website. Please post questions here!

We've just posted the first wave of info on our Friday events! The list of options includes:

-40k Narrative Event
-Kill Team Draft Events
-Conversion Contests
-HQ Arena Deathmatches

Each Friday event you enter gets you a raffle ticket. Each Friday event you win gets you another raffle ticket. At 7pm on Friday we'll draw tickets, and one lucky winner goes home with a Dreamforge Leviathan Crusader!

Wow, thats driving distance for me.
Im so going.

Is it the GW or non-GW one? Confused as the rules seem to be GW-like and not like they are at most major tournaments.

I thought GW didnt make tournaments anymore?

Don't they still do their very own tournament aka Throne of Skulls?

I mean, it's not a real competitive tournament, but still...thought they still did it.

Might be good to give the tourney location in the thread title

Oh, CA. So, I'm interested...in the US, is 2000 the standard? I'm used to 1999+1 and restrictions on stuff like forts. Thus I wondered whether it's a GW or an actual tournament

This event sees players compete using armies built with the following rules:
•2000pts selected from a Games Workshop codex.
•Dual force organization allowed.
•Allies allowed.
•Fortifications allowed.
•Warhammer 40k stamped Forgeworld allowed.

Round Deployment Scenario

1 Vanguard Strike
Crusade (3 objectives)

2 Hammer and Anvil
Purge the Alien

3 Dawn of War
Big Guns Never Tire (5 objectives)

4 Vanguard Strike
The Scouring

5 Hammer and Anvil
Crusade (3 objectives)

6 Dawn of War
Big Guns Never Tire (5 objectives)

All of this is like a breath of fresh air. Amazing in its simplicity.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Oh, CA. So, I'm interested...in the US, is 2000 the standard? I'm used to 1999+1 and restrictions on stuff like forts. Thus I wondered whether it's a GW or an actual tournament

If you're asking whether the tournament is run by GW, the answer is no. This is an independent Grand Tournament.

For forgewold,do you have to have the book, or can a sheet work fine?

Is terrain going to be an issue this time around?

This is literally walking distance from my apartment. I'm stoked!

Based on the (rather interesting) "pod" format, I take it that the max entries will be 128? (Just trying to decide how critical it is to register early for this one.)

 Byte wrote:

All of this is like a breath of fresh air. Amazing in its simplicity.

Thanks! I'm a firm believer in the sixth edition book scenarios being pretty much tournament-ready.

 Magc8Ball wrote:
Based on the (rather interesting) "pod" format, I take it that the max entries will be 128? (Just trying to decide how critical it is to register early for this one.)

That is correct.

I may have to go, if just to have a few games and meet people.

Interesting format. The "team" structure reminds me of Adepticon, year 1, where the Team Tournament was exactly as you have it structured here: a combined-results setup, rather than cooperative play. Nice way to guarantee that you avoid your teammates on day 1, though - just pick the 3 people you REALLY don't want to face in the early rounds, and get seeded into different pods.

Two concerns:
Will terrain be significantly improved over the previous Golden Throne event? There were extenuating circumstances last year, I know, but it was the one area that needed improvement.

How are the Alameda fairgrounds? I suspect this was a cost consideration (fairgrounds are cheaper than convention hall space), but with my ears still ringing & my ankles still sore from the BAO, it seems more important today than usual.

 Janthkin wrote:
Two concerns:
Will terrain be significantly improved over the previous Golden Throne event? There were extenuating circumstances last year, I know, but it was the one area that needed improvement.

Yes. If you take a look at our website you'll see an area labeled 'Terrain Photos;' we'll be posting photos of finished terrain there soon. We have a lot more this year, and everything will be of a much higher quality.

 Janthkin wrote:
How are the Alameda fairgrounds? I suspect this was a cost consideration (fairgrounds are cheaper than convention hall space), but with my ears still ringing & my ankles still sore from the BAO, it seems more important today than usual.

The Alameda fairgrounds are actually pretty nice. The hall we've rented is about the same size as the hall we had in San Jose last year, which gave everybody plenty of personal space.

Thanks for the response. I will keep an eye on your terrain as it goes up, as I always appreciate the process (and the effort!) that goes into making good and durable terrain. My offer from last year still stands, too - if you need help, put out a call, and you'll get some!

Hey, one other question - pods of 16 will yield 2 undefeated players from each pod in 3 rounds, to seed your "top 8" finals. Maximum of 64 players, then?

 Janthkin wrote:
Thanks for the response. I will keep an eye on your terrain as it goes up, as I always appreciate the process (and the effort!) that goes into making good and durable terrain. My offer from last year still stands, too - if you need help, put out a call, and you'll get some!

Thanks!

 Janthkin wrote:
Hey, one other question - pods of 16 will yield 2 undefeated players from each pod in 3 rounds, to seed your "top 8" finals. Maximum of 64 players, then?

This format supports a maximum of 128 players (with the top finisher from each of 8 pods advancing to Top 8). Final rankings are W/L/D with battle points and strength of schedule as tie-breakers (in that order).

robpace wrote:

 Janthkin wrote:
Hey, one other question - pods of 16 will yield 2 undefeated players from each pod in 3 rounds, to seed your "top 8" finals. Maximum of 64 players, then?

This format supports a maximum of 128 players (with the top finisher from each of 8 pods advancing to Top 8). Final rankings are W/L/D with battle points and strength of schedule as tie-breakers (in that order).

That's the part I can't wrap my head around. 3 rounds across 16 players gives you 2 undefeated players in each 16-person pod. How do you pick the top player from each pod, then? Hard to get "strength of schedule" out a 3-round pool; just battle points?

Looking forward to it, and I love the team and individual idea!

If you need any terrain, just let us know, we can bring as much as you need.

Team Zero Comp will be there!

Reece

Barring any unforseen circumstances, I should be there to defend my title.

The only question will be....what should I bring?

robpace wrote:

Thanks! I'm a firm believer in the sixth edition book scenarios being pretty much tournament-ready.

So players are setting up objectives after they choose deployment zones per the rulebook?

And since most of the missions you're using have an odd number of objectives, so that means the player who wins the roll-off to place an objective first gets to have one more objective on his side that can be just over 6" from his board edge?

And on the scouring you're playing completely by the book too? So one person can end up with the '4' point objective and two '3' point objectives all 7" from their own board edge?

I'm just wondering how you see that as being 'tournament ready' missions? Basically the most important factor is who wins the 50/50 chance to get the extra objective on their side.


And 2,000 point dual-force org games in 3 hour rounds? From my personal perspective, you literally could not pay me to attend an event with this format. But I do think it is always a great thing to have a variety of different events to cater to different types of players, so I do hope it all goes fantastic for you!

3 hours should be fine, actually. 2k Dual-org chart games tend to have FEWER models than a 1999 list, rather than more - the slots people want to double up on are expensive HQs/Elites, not more Troops.

The points on odd numbers of objectives are fair enough, though.

 Janthkin wrote:
3 hours should be fine, actually. 2k Dual-org chart games tend to have FEWER models than a 1999 list, rather than more - the slots people want to double up on are expensive HQs/Elites, not more Troops.

The points on odd numbers of objectives are fair enough, though.

While you are right (about people doubling up on all the good stuff), there will also undoubtedly people who try to max out on horde aspects, etc. So sure in some games 3 hours will be way more than needed, but for other games it will be rough. Its one of the reasons I strongly dislike dual-force org games...it really heightens the whole feast or famine element of certain army builds near to absurdity.

But really, the final sentiments in my last post (about 3 hours, and dual-force org) were comments about my preferences more than logistics. I fully know that a tournament will run overall fine at 3 hour rounds for 2K points...its just the furthest thing away from what I would be interested in as possible, that's all I was really trying to say.

 yakface wrote:
But really, the final sentiments in my last post (about 3 hours, and dual-force org) were comments about my preferences more than logistics. I fully know that a tournament will run overall fine at 3 hour rounds for 2K points...its just the furthest thing away from what I would be interested in as possible, that's all I was really trying to say.

So you won't be on my team, then?

I do hope someone brings something crazy, like 180 Plaguebearers in 9 squads or something.

I'm liking the idea of going to this. Count me in.

IF i have a scan of a forgeworld datasheet, is that allowed?

Same rules for fortifications as last year? Because I'm eager to bring the castle again.

 Janthkin wrote:

robpace wrote:

 Janthkin wrote:
Hey, one other question - pods of 16 will yield 2 undefeated players from each pod in 3 rounds, to seed your "top 8" finals. Maximum of 64 players, then?

This format supports a maximum of 128 players (with the top finisher from each of 8 pods advancing to Top 8). Final rankings are W/L/D with battle points and strength of schedule as tie-breakers (in that order).

That's the part I can't wrap my head around. 3 rounds across 16 players gives you 2 undefeated players in each 16-person pod. How do you pick the top player from each pod, then? Hard to get "strength of schedule" out a 3-round pool; just battle points?

With tie-breakers. Battle points are our primary tie-breaker, which (in my opinion) adds some depth to our WLD format. Strength of schedule is our secondary, and that's always a factor -- our tournament software determines your strength of schedule based on the record of your opponents and, if necessary, your opponents' opponents. A true tie is almost impossible under this format.