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're not talking about participation trophies, we're talking about making it an actual competitive sport where one bad game based on luck doesn't knock you out completely. The less rounds, the more luck impacts the tournament.

Yes, the game with countless dice rolls on both sides, all kinds of random abilities and conditions, and so forth, is less random than the game where the only random aspect is what you draw and then have full decision making after that. I always enjoy how condescending you are, so please, let me roll for the mana cost of my Lightning Bolt, then roll for how much damage it deals to you, and now you can roll for how much damage you negate. Seriously, the random factor in magic is significantly less over three games per round in comparison to 40k.

Hey, I'm just trying to explain why 40k tournaments are run the way they are, because you seem genuinely unfamiliar with why. Nothing more, nothing less.

And, yes, the law of averages dictates that the random elements of 40k have a minimal effect on the outcome. A good player with a good list will beat a worse player with a worse list pretty much every time. I don't play magic, but I've know a few pro magic players who said that even the best players wouldn't win all of their games, they just win most of them, say 60-70%. Since the same applies to poker, it seems quite reasonable to me, but I could be wrong I'm not going to tell a magic player how magic works. On the other hand, the best 40k players will win 90+% of their games, and their losses are primarily due to bad matchups rather than bad luck. Combined with the practical issues involved, 40k is almost universally 3 rounds a day, and it won't change anytime soon.

 Tinkrr wrote:
So here's a question then, what happens two years down the line when you do hit that 512 number?

I'd imagine you would have 512 folks that have a great time in Vegas, and a bunch of whiners on the internet complain about the latest ITC vote that "nerfed" their favorite army, while others continue to opine about point levels and time limits. Maybe by then the nerfed army will be the Pan Fo, as they will truly be reviled.

 Tinkrr wrote:
So here's a question then, what happens two years down the line when you do hit that 512 number?

Everyone is thrilled because it means that GW hasn't killed 40K. But the reality is that the games changes a fair bit every 1-2 years, so why try to solve a problem that may not exist 2 years before it might occur?

OrdoSean wrote:
If both players have their most expensive unit cost 200pts and both players kill it they both have killed the most expensive unit....

If both players kill each other at the same initiative for first blood they both score it...

IF the most quarters held by any player is 2... and both players have 2.... then both players have the most....

If the most units in the center of the board is 2 and both players have 2 in the center then they both have the most....

neither player has more than the other player both have the most in that game. All the missions read most not more.

But thats just how I read english. Your mileage may vary.

 Reecius wrote:


And Sean is correct, while extremely rare, you can get a situation where both players tie the binary tertiary point. However, it almost never occurs.

I am not trying to dig in the dirt here, but doesn't a draw mean neither player earns the point? Why are situations where both players tie for a binary point treated differently than situations where both players tie on the primary or secondary mission?

I think something in the ITC rules to handle these situations would be helpful. Myself and many others seemed to have missed the above interpretations of binary points.

 Reecius wrote:
And Sean is correct, while extremely rare, you can get a situation where both players tie the binary tertiary point. However, it almost never occurs.

When did that change? At every ITC event I've ever been to, if the unique point is a tie then neither player scores it. I swear you've discussed on the twitch stream exactly this scenario dealing with table quarters on Mission #2, and said that neither player scored it. If I recall you were playing your Airborne AM list vs Eldar.

It is a scenario that comes up frequently enough, especially on Mission #2 (Table Quaters), and Mission #5 (King of the Hill). I'll bet everyone in this thread has seen it come up at an event at least once. Am I the only one that didn't realize this is how it works now?

What happens with King of the Hill if neither player has any units within 6" of the center? They both get the point, I assume since that would tie them 0-0. How many players do you think missed out on scoring a point they had earned at LVO because they didn't know that failure by either side to complete this objective meant both sides complete it?

 Reecius wrote:
@Tinkrr
(snipped)

And we used to run 4 round days, it sucked, honestly. Too much 40k. The current system is what we've arrived at after years of trial and error. Of course it is not perfect, but it's come out of a lot of practice as the most enjoyed format.

And Sean is correct, while extremely rare, you can get a situation where both players tie the binary tertiary point. However, it almost never occurs.

I'll echo what Reece said, 4 round days are pretty brutal, and by the end of it you've been playing 40k straight, not including breaks, for a solid 10 hours. By the end of it you're exhausted, you don't feel like going out and doing much, you wake up, do it again, and then go home - and you miss out on a place like Vegas.

The extreme of this idea was attempted by NOVA in their first year doing the invitational, and it was a noble goal - take the most competitive (that could come and qualified) 32 people and run 5 rounds in one day so they could still participate in the GT (another 8 rounds, 4 each day). We came, we played, we ground it out. End of the day I think almost all of us ended up at a buffalo wild wings around 1130pm because we hadn't had time for much of a dinner and it was the only place still open. We'd gotten there to set up/do reg. at 7am. I think it was unanimous that all of us wanted to drop the GT that started the next day we were so burnt, but we of course ended up playing. For most of us that invitational, while plenty of us supported it as a concept beforehand, was a lesson in what too much 40k is. It really, really, really detracted from the enjoyment of the event, and the NOVA staff learned from it and listened, and it wasn't attempted again.

I think the current missions could probably be improved a bit (mostly the maelstrom component could use a few tweaks) and if that wasn't desired you could also just tweak how things are scored to result in less ties - that would get rid of what happened this year. I think most of us accept that in a swiss style event with this many players, a loss means we're out except for a glimmer of hope if we do really well and sneak in.

GreaterGouda wrote:

I am not trying to dig in the dirt here, but doesn't a draw mean neither player earns the point? Why are situations where both players tie for a binary point treated differently than situations where both players tie on the primary or secondary mission?

I think something in the ITC rules to handle these situations would be helpful. Myself and many others seemed to have missed the above interpretations of binary points.

Last year's BAO, my opponent and I had Imperial Knights mutually kill each other at initiative 4, and we were told that we both earned first blood.

It's either that, or no one gets first blood, but both players getting points makes more sense.

It's already been noted a few times but just to reinforce it - by far my least favorite experience at an event was one that did a 4-round day. Absolutely killer. And when you're that tired, it's much easier to have a "bad game" where you can't enjoy playing / end up getting into a needless rules dispute / etc. 3 rounds per day all the way!

Lowering point levels would just make those 3 rounds more manageable, as even now it's a bit of a slog for a multi-day event. But fitting in another round is definitely not the goal!

The simultaneous first blood situation is in the brb. Both players earn the point.

 somerandomidiot wrote:
Last year's BAO, my opponent and I had Imperial Knights mutually kill each other at initiative 4, and we were told that we both earned first blood.

1st blood going that way is RAW (BRB page 133), though I didn't realize it until just now. +1 for GW for anticipating such a situation.

King of the Hill and Table Quarters are not:

Table Quarters: The player with the most scoring or denial units that are more than 50% in a table quarter controls that quarter. The player that controls the most table quarters wins this point.
King of the Hill: The player with the most scoring or denial units at least partially within 6″ of the center point of the table wins this point.

If I have 2 apples, and Somerandomiot has 2 apples. Which one of us has the most apples? Based on what I remember from 3rd grade math, the correct answer is that neither of us have the Most apples. Because we have the same number of apples.

Big Game Hunter, might be more confusing.

Big Game Hunter: At the end of the game, of all destroyed units, the player that destroyed the unit worth the most points wins this point.

Because the sample set is larger, and thus some units are indeed worth more than some other units, it might be possible to conclude that there could be 2 units worth the most points. After consulting a dictionary definition of Most: "greatest in quantity, extent, or degree", it doesn't clarify things too much. It could be a case of a Vernacular difference.

Either way, I'd like to know exactly how to score myself, and clarify it to others that attend events when I'm TO.

To quote your dictionary response greatest in quantity. If you have 2 and I have 2 than both having 2 we both have the most. Neither of us has more than the other. More denotes degree. Most can be a fixed quantity.

To take it a step outside the mission set. If I collect 12 apples and you collect 12 apples and jimmy has 3. When the third grade teacher asks who collected the most apples you and I would both raise our hands. Jimmy wouldn't win just because we collected the same number. If she asked us who had more we would have to say neither but still get to point at jimmy laugh and say we have more than he does.

OrdoSean wrote:
To quote your dictionary response greatest in quantity. If you have 2 and I have 2 than both having 2 we both have the most. Neither of us has more than the other. More denotes degree. Most can be a fixed quantity.

To take it a step outside the mission set. If I collect 12 apples and you collect 12 apples and jimmy has 3. When the third grade teacher asks who collected the most apples you and I would both raise our hands. Jimmy wouldn't win just because we collected the same number. If she asked us who had more we would have to say neither but still get to point at jimmy laugh and say we have more than he does.

For Primary and Secondary mission scoring the ITC rules specifically call out ties as resulting in neither player getting any points. Yet for Tertiary points we bust out the dictionary to find out what happens? Consistency might be the hobgoblin of the little minds, but it sure makes it easier to arrive to an agreement among hundreds of people.

OrdoSean wrote:
To quote your dictionary response greatest in quantity. If you have 2 and I have 2 than both having 2 we both have the most. Neither of us has more than the other. More denotes degree. Most can be a fixed quantity.

To take it a step outside the mission set. If I collect 12 apples and you collect 12 apples and jimmy has 3. When the third grade teacher asks who collected the most apples you and I would both raise our hands. Jimmy wouldn't win just because we collected the same number. If she asked us who had more we would have to say neither but still get to point at jimmy laugh and say we have more than he does.

Most is both a determiner and a pronoun. Unfortunately it has common definitions and usage as both expressing degree and fixed values. It is a poor choice of word to use when specificity is called for.

In your school example I believe that you'd get as many people to say that they both have the most as neither has the most, but everyone would agree that they have more than poor Jimmy, who sucks at collecting apples, but who probably has more than Timmay!

 Tinkrr wrote:
So here's a question then, what happens two years down the line when you do hit that 512 number?

Instead of about 400 people doing the meercat/prairie dog, about 600+ will look up when I bellow Julio's name ... or whoever it is I pull for a match Round 2, X # of beers in.


"Juuuullliiioooooooo!"

OrdoSean wrote:
To quote your dictionary response greatest in quantity. If you have 2 and I have 2 than both having 2 we both have the most. Neither of us has more than the other. More denotes degree. Most can be a fixed quantity.

Greatest in quantity. In order to be Greater in quantity, something must also be less in quantity. You are essentially making the semantic argument that "Most" to you means something slightly different than it does to me, which is very possible. It could very well be, and we could both be correct based on a differing vernacular, but we can't both be right on how it is supposed to be played in the ITC.

It would surprise me that every ITC event I've ever attended or TO'd has scored it wrong, but I guess it is possible.

 RiTides wrote:
It's already been noted a few times but just to reinforce it - by far my least favorite experience at an event was one that did a 4-round day. Absolutely killer. And when you're that tired, it's much easier to have a "bad game" where you can't enjoy playing / end up getting into a needless rules dispute / etc. 3 rounds per day all the way!

Lowering point levels would just make those 3 rounds more manageable, as even now it's a bit of a slog for a multi-day event. But fitting in another round is definitely not the goal!

We ran a local 4 round 1250 tournament which worked well due to the smaller game size. 4 1250 games is about the same time frame as 3 1850s. But I don't see normal 40k switching to 1250 anytime soon. 1750 and 1850 is definitely too much for some people. I don't mind it generally, but I've been to enough 4 game events and you can notice the attitude shift after the third game. When it's 7pm and you're starting your 4th game, you will hear a lot of "screw this, I'm ready to go grab dinner and just hang out".

A draw is pretty much a win as long as you don't lose a game so I don't know why people are complaining about how many pts they got in a draw. Going 5 wins and a draw pretty much guarantees you a top 8 spot.

For those talking about a four round Nova event, how long was each round, at how many points?

Perfect example, LVO this year had a single undefeated player going into the finals. The more of a gap between where you are and the top end attendance of the bracket, the more players that make the cut without a perfect record.

Slightly pedantic point but actually there were 7 undefeated players going into the top 8. 7 players who had not lost a game. There was only one who had won all 6.

Fortunately (for me) he crashed out in the semi-finals which means I'm still the only player to win the LVO by winning all of their games

There's still a difference between a win and a tie . Didn't the final game come down to victory points as well, it was so close?

Alex is actually one of the only truly undefeated winners we've had, so kudos to you!

@Thread

So, obviously there's some ambiguity on tertiary points but as we are updating our missions for the new season, this is a great opportunity to address any concerns and update verbiage where needed.

@Tinkrr

If we hit 512 in the room playing 40k at the same time in a championship event, we pop champagne and dance a victory jig!

Sorry if you feel like everyone's digging on you a bit, it's not at all personal, just that we've been having these same discussions for years. We all just accepted that single elimination is the only format that works within the confines of 40k. However, as stated, it never actually works out that way as you never (or very rarely) actually have a 100% full bracket. So, you still have some wiggle room with a tie or even a loss.

You updating your missions? Woot, im happy to hear. You gonna work to reduce msu spam and maybe more sit and shoot armies?

Yeah, we're going to update them for the new season. We're looking at some of the cool mission design elements form other events, too, to incorporate into the ITC for the new season.

That awesome. Im glad to hear that.

 Tinkrr wrote:
So here's a question then, what happens two years down the line when you do hit that 512 number?

The correct answer is, as always, a Tau nerf.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 The Everliving wrote:

Perfect example, LVO this year had a single undefeated player going into the finals. The more of a gap between where you are and the top end attendance of the bracket, the more players that make the cut without a perfect record.

Slightly pedantic point but actually there were 7 undefeated players going into the top 8. 7 players who had not lost a game. There was only one who had won all 6.

Fortunately (for me) he crashed out in the semi-finals which means I'm still the only player to win the LVO by winning all of their games

It's pedantic but an important point.

When will the voting begin? IIRC, I think they mentioned friday on the last youtube frontline video. I'm curious to see if the community will vote to return to 1500pts as a standard that we haven't commonly seen since 3rd edition as a tourny game size. It might help curb some of the astartes cheesiness inherent in the marine welfare armies since you can't get all the free stuff AND the flavorful toys outside of the prereq units.

GreaterGouda wrote:


I am not trying to dig in the dirt here, but doesn't a draw mean neither player earns the point? Why are situations where both players tie for a binary point treated differently than situations where both players tie on the primary or secondary mission?

I think something in the ITC rules to handle these situations would be helpful. Myself and many others seemed to have missed the above interpretations of binary points.

Good question and great point. Everyone and their opponent should ask the event TO when you hand in your score sheets together to make sure you did it right. Just in case one event TO does it different than another. Also, ask before the tournament so that it can get announced to everyone (and ignored by 73.4%). Not my first rodeo!

So I hate to be a broken record, but what was determined weapons arc for the Tesla Spheres on the Obelisk? Having at least a single FAQ in that regard might lead me to purchase one.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So I hate to be a broken record, but what was determined weapons arc for the Tesla Spheres on the Obelisk? Having at least a single FAQ in that regard might lead me to purchase one.

I played Jonathan Camacho at the LVO, and he was using them as 180 degree firing arcs (which allowed him to fire 2 at a single target, or 3 if it was large enough, like my Imperial Knights), and that seemed reasonable. I believe he said that he'd been told to play them as 180 degrees, but I don't remember specifically. You can submit the question via the ITC rules submission form (https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1W8A22qTts0p9CIkhxZIefmicHr7J2RoWlJmPqGQFiZo/viewform).

To be fair to MSU spam though, only 1 made it to t8. That third round KP mission with base tertiaries was a pretty effective firewall at shutting down BCs. From what I gather very few made it through that with a win.