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.

My plane landed last Thursday at 8:30 PM CST. I was home about 10 PM CST. Missed out on registering for my events.

It sucks, but was completely out of my hands. I'm on the waiting list, though.

 Reecius wrote:
I vow to not lose my first game again this year

.....assuming my opponent doesn't beat me!

You will win until you play Paul Murphy.

 TimmyMWD wrote:
How will the new Inquisitorial Detachment be handled for the team tournament? Will you just be unable to take it since you can't take allies?

The Warhammer 40K Team Tournament rules have been updated to deal with Codex Inquisition:

http://www.adepticon.org/14rules/201440Kteam.pdf

Make sure to refresh the page. Last Update should read 11.18.2013

 Matthias wrote:
Survey results blog post early next week I think.

I think that most people do not care too much about all of the questions that you asked (for example: point limits).

I might be wrong, but the question that seems to have sparked the most interest (and really the only interest) is the Forge World question. I would like to know what experienced tournament players have to say on this matter. There is so much noise on the internet that it is hard to tell exactly what people really think of it.

I would not be surprised if 90% were for it, or if 90% against it.

I'm really looking forward to my fist shot at Adepticon. I have been wanting to go for years and finally my schedule allows for it! I'm just really excited to meet some players outside of the Northern Ohio area

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Matthias wrote:
Survey results blog post early next week I think.

I think that most people do not care too much about all of the questions that you asked (for example: point limits).

I might be wrong, but the question that seems to have sparked the most interest (and really the only interest) is the Forge World question. I would like to know what experienced tournament players have to say on this matter. There is so much noise on the internet that it is hard to tell exactly what people really think of it.

I would not be surprised if 90% were for it, or if 90% against it.

No disrespect intended here, but I don't think we need another thread hijacked by this question.

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Matthias wrote:
Survey results blog post early next week I think.

I think that most people do not care too much about all of the questions that you asked (for example: point limits).

I disagree here- I think there's been quite an interest in point levels for tournaments lately! Almost as hot a topic as the FW issue, and that's saying something

 krootman. wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Matthias wrote:
Survey results blog post early next week I think.

I think that most people do not care too much about all of the questions that you asked (for example: point limits).

I might be wrong, but the question that seems to have sparked the most interest (and really the only interest) is the Forge World question. I would like to know what experienced tournament players have to say on this matter. There is so much noise on the internet that it is hard to tell exactly what people really think of it.

I would not be surprised if 90% were for it, or if 90% against it.

No disrespect intended here, but I don't think we need another thread hijacked by this question.

There is no debate, just numbers.

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Reecius wrote:
I vow to not lose my first game again this year

.....assuming my opponent doesn't beat me!

You will win until you play Paul Murphy.

I'll beat him this year I tell you!!

I shudder to think what clothing will go missing if you play Paul this year Reece. It can only escalate from last year I'd think...

Warhammer 40K Championships Survey Results have been posted to the AdeptiCon 2014 Development Blog.

Nice, thanks for posting that! I really like the summary:

AdeptiCon 2014 Development Blog wrote:These results were considered along with verbal feedback received during and after AdeptiCon, the changes to the Warhammer 40K rules mentioned above, and how the Warhammer 40K Championships fit into our overall tournament offerings. Our conclusions:

The Championships will remain at 1850 points.
Round times will be expanded to 2 hrs and 45 mins.
Forge World will not be included in the Warhammer 40K Championships, but will remain a component of other tournaments.
Terrain placement will be similar to last year.

We would once again like to thank those that took the time to respond to the survey. The motto of AdeptiCon has always been, “By Gamers, for Gamers” and that is never more evident than when our valued attendees take the time to make their voices heard. We look forward to seeing you all at AdeptiCon 2014!

- AdeptiCon 2014 Staff (and their significant others)

P.S. Current draft rules for the AdeptiCon 2014 Warhammer 40K Championships can be found here.

 Matthias wrote:
Warhammer 40K Championships Survey Results have been posted to the AdeptiCon 2014 Development Blog.

Well these were interesting.

Points
71% wanted 1850 and keeping with the status quo
The only other significant block was 17% for 1500 points. That tells me that people might be open to lower point games.

Time
This question asked if last year the 2.5 hour rounds are enough. Only 14% said that it was not enough time but the problem is that Demons (for the most part), Tau and Eldar were not there and those codexes can take a long time to play. Since those codexs were released tournaments have struggled to finish games on time.

Forge World
Over 50% of the field said they did not want forge world, and only 20% wanted unrestricted forge world.

Terrain (this is the one that surprised me)
57% wanted player placed terrain. I was uncomfortable with player placed terrain at first, but it was ok once I got use to it.

The one thing that I did not like from last year was that you placed objectives after choosing table sides and I thought that was an issue.
For example:
#1. Everyone buried their objectives on the very back edge of the board.
#2. If there was an odd number of objectives one person would have a huge advantage.
Personally I think that objectives should be placed before table sides to create a more even distribution of objectives since you do not know where you are going to start.

I actually missed that about the FW question- I didn't realize the middle choice was "restricted" (0-1) and that only 19% of people chose "unrestricted". That's pretty interesting! But you do have around half who were open to "restricted", but again less than 20% who wanted full-on allowance.

One thing to note Blackmoor, is that although they didn't get an overwhelming response on time issues, AdeptiCon did increase the round time in order to stay at 1850. So that (increased time) is a really big positive, imo!

Most of these results are not very surprising, and it's good that this effort was performed to pull them in and help verify the way attendees actually feel about it. More super kudos to AdeptiCon.

The "vast majority for at least restricted, majority against including at all" vote on "40k Approved" Forgeworld jives with the feedback we received last year when we invited attendees to share their opinion with us along similar lines.

I think the key is to also remember the target audience of the survey namely the 40K Championship attendees, an event that has traditionally ran at 1850 pts, and without Forge world.

As such I expected the Forge world question to be a bigger split, in the context of the Championship, than the final result ended up. ( 52/48 split ).

muwhe wrote:
I think the key is to also remember the target audience of the survey namely the 40K Championship attendees, an event that has traditionally ran at 1850 pts, and without Forge world.

As such I expected the Forge world question to be a bigger split, in the context of the Championship, than the final result ended up. ( 52/48 split ).

I see a lot of people lumping in the limited FW with the unlimited FW crowd. To me there is a big difference between the two.

As everyone knows I am anti-forge world, but I would not mind a 0-1 limit on FW. I look at it as 80% of people wanting restrictions on Forge World, and only 20% want unlimited access.

@Blackmoor -

Just looking at the same glass half empty or half full ... but yes .. : )

muwhe wrote:
@Blackmoor -

Just looking at the same glass half empty or half full ... but yes .. : )

Haha . But yeah, I agree on this- the "internet discussion" has been very "all or nothing". But over 80% of people being against "all", at least in this (post Championships) survey kind of puts the kibosh on the idea that there is a near-universal desire for "all" inclusive, no restrictions.

But the fact that there are almost 50% of folks (EVEN BLACKMOOR, lads ) who would be open to restricted FW allowance means the middle ground position of allowing it, but with restrictions, is pretty viable!

So I'm a big fan of that survey, I'd like to see that same question asked after other events if possible

I like the team tourney restrictions. I can bring lots of forgeworld but I can't spam it. So a unit of grot tanks, a mega grot tank, a mega dread is ok. It prevents having to play against possibly 18 grot tanks and 3 mega grot tanks worst case

I voted for restricted but I'm against unrestricted FW. Interesting information.

The one thing that I did not like from last year was that you placed objectives after choosing table sides and I thought that was an issue.

@Blackmoor - Not a pretty pie chart but the results of that question

After placing objectives - 50.00%
Before placing objectives - 39.42%
No preference - 10.58%

muwhe wrote:

The one thing that I did not like from last year was that you placed objectives after choosing table sides and I thought that was an issue.

@Blackmoor - Not a pretty pie chart but the results of that question

After placing objectives - 50.00%
Before placing objectives - 39.42%
No preference - 10.58%

Thanks Hank!

I wonder why 39% want to place objectives after choosing table sides. Anyone who voted that way want to state their reasoning?

Too bad on FW, but it was as close as I would have guessed. Our closing poles showed a movement towards acceptance of FW after being exposed to it. I think a lot of this is people just choosing to stick with the status quo. We got a lot of that in our polls this year.

Blackmoor, hahaha, you see the numbers in an interesting way, but I suppose we all bring our own biases to the table.

The big one I wanted to see change was book objective placement. It can result in such lop-sided games. I would love to see more restrictions on placement and points values for objectives to make it more even, but no matter what, I will be there and having fun!

Is there more than one way to see the numbers? Nearly 8/10 are against broad use of forty k approved, while 5.5/10 are against any at all. Simple and easy.

The only disappointment for me is player placed terrain, but since it allowed me to beat a competitive peer off a single pregame dice roll last year I don't suppose I should complain overly.

RiTides at least a couple events have performed similar polling. In the case of many, I do think there's some natural proclivity of those who enjoy an event to vote toward a similar event. The champs last year were a lot of fun, so why would most of us want to see dramatic change? The loudest complainers are often in the smallest minority.

MVBrandt wrote:
Is there more than one way to see the numbers? Nearly 8/10 are against broad use of forty k approved.

Because that is not accurate assessment of the survey.

Players were given three options, so for example we don't know what the results would have been if the survey asked a 50/50 question like: Would you prefer IA be allowed (full stop) or would you prefer no IA be allowed (full stop). We obviously know the same people who voted against any IA use would have voted the same way, but we don't know how many of the other side would have instead voted for complete IA inclusion if that was their only other option.

So you can safely say that 52% of players are against any IA inclusion in the champs, and you can say that 48% are for some sort of IA inclusion in the champs, but to say that roughly 80% aren't for full usage of IA in the champs is a false statistic based upon the questions asked.


----


Also, I think we should all remember that this is just a targeted survey for a specific event that was answered by roughly 100 people. It absolutely SHOULD be used for that event (as these are the people playing in the event) but 100 people voting on one event shouldn't be spun into anything more than what it is (not saying you're doing that at all Mike, just pointing that out in general).

Also, I think we should all remember that this is just a targeted survey for a specific event that was answered by roughly 100 people. It absolutely SHOULD be used for that event (as these are the people playing in the event) but 100 people voting on one event shouldn't be spun into anything more than what it is (not saying you're doing that at all Mike, just pointing that out in general).

+ 1

Yeah, and you have to assume that people without strong opinions were less likely to vote.

So, not only does this survey only apply to this event, it only shows the views of those with relatively strong opinions.

While not scientific, its reasonable to assume that more people are okay with FW than the survey indicates.

MVBrandt wrote:
The only disappointment for me is player placed terrain, but since it allowed me to beat a competitive peer off a single pregame dice roll last year I don't suppose I should complain overly.

I think it would be a more interesting discussion to determine what alternative tactics could have been applied during the game. I have lost games due to terrain placement simply due to the fact that I did not adapt tactically or my strategy did not work. This is not a rip on Jeremy, but I find it hard to see where one terrain placement equals automatic game over.

As an aside and this is my opinion, static boards with a standard setup allow for predictability in game play. This limits strategic/tactical options and therefore limits the number of forces that can optimally perform. This hyper focus kills variety.

 Inquisitor_Malice wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
The only disappointment for me is player placed terrain, but since it allowed me to beat a competitive peer off a single pregame dice roll last year I don't suppose I should complain overly.

I think it would be a more interesting discussion to determine what alternative tactics could have been applied during the game. I have lost games due to terrain placement simply due to the fact that I did not adapt tactically or my strategy did not work. This is not a rip on Jeremy, but I find it hard to see where one terrain placement equals automatic game over.

As an aside and this is my opinion, static boards with a standard setup allow for predictability in game play. This limits strategic/tactical options and therefore limits the number of forces that can optimally perform. This hyper focus kills variety.

I agree; that's why (for us) at NOVA we are working with different layouts on multiple days, but consistent layouts on each board each round, so tactics must diversify and people can't game the terrain (this needs us to make more terrain, btw, so hardly a perfect resolution in the first year haha). Thus, variety, tactical complexity and fairness all combined.

In this case, I was able to place a three+ level piece of terrain with all my firepower on top and largely prevent him doing anything about getting at it due to the type of list he had and being able to ring it with expendable guard squads. Had the overly dominant piece been mirrored (LOS blockage) or not given to just one person's deployment zone, it would have been a more complex and challenging game. He still gave me quite a run!

The terrain placed vs. fixed argument is a consistent one, and I have my opinion on it, but obviously I don't HATE the alternative as I was supportive and attendant to the event last year, and complimentary after the fact. I just don't think it's ideal, and personally think it adds a level of entirely random unfairness to the game that doesn't need to be there in a tournament setting. I come from a sports background and a sports family, and never found a game of Baseball or Football unfair or unstimulating because the fields didn't change. By letting me luck out and get to place terrain to my personal advantage and my opponent's decline, when terrain is a fixed feature of the game that cannot be subsequently altered, a single early game dice roll was able to give me a MARKED advantage. Jeremy did his best to work with it, but we are peers ... he was not going to just outsmart me into giving up a massive advantage after I had it, and thus the outcome. While there's an EXTREMELY intellectually obvious component to terrain placement (I won the roll, I get to dictate this, there are super obvious advantages I now get to take), it's also entirely random who gets the advantage. Thus, it derives a handicap for one player over another at the drop of a dice. If the players are of roughly equal skill, you've now added a component to the tournament that you did not need to (6th edition rulebook rules allow for player-placed terrain and non-player-placed terrain) that provides a tip to the balance otherwise derived by their similar skill levels.

That said, it has no bearing either way on my decision to attend // my love for AdeptiCon. I'd also not like it to be lost in the longer paragraph, my initial comment that I entirely agree with you about there being downsides to the exact same terrain every round (downsides that can be corrected in ways other than putting terrain advantages in the hands of a single dice roll).