My First Adepticon, A Tournament Report

[Sleboda]

15 hours ago, svnvaldez said:

If  there is a fear asking for clarity on a rule leads to a poor sports score, then the event should really look at that aspect of the scoring. 

It's not limited to that event. It's a widespread thing. People feel like if they say "no" they risk looking like jerks, so they let people take advantage.

 

If you are bored, you can read the stuff at the link below. It's outdated, but still applicable here.

http://www.muppin.com/joesleboda/manifesto/Section5_1.htm

 

[AthlorianStoners]

4 hours ago, Sleboda said:

It's not limited to that event. It's a widespread thing. People feel like if they say "no" they risk looking like jerks, so they let people take advantage.

 

If you are bored, you can read the stuff at the link below. It's ourdated, but still applicable here.

http://www.muppin.com/joesleboda/manifesto/Section5_1.htm

 

A good read but I don’t know that the counts as and heavily converted categories should be grouped in with those others, or perhaps I’m misinterpreting what they mean. 

[Melcavuk]

I agree paint staking conversions are a representation of alot of effort and time being put into something. Being lumped in with someone trying to bend the rules (extra movement) or befuddle their opponent (imprecise movement) is a little insulting to that effort.

 

A good conversion enhances the gaming experience, cheating or rule bending does not.

[Lousy Beatnik]

8 hours ago, Sleboda said:

 

If you are bored, you can read the stuff at the link below. It's ourdated, but still applicable here.

http://www.muppin.com/joesleboda/manifesto/Section5_1.htm

 

Yuck! What a long time time just to say very little, and I agree with about half of it! The unpainted army and plonking models behind the first rank are about all that ring true for me. The comment about ignoring those who buy painted armies is a bit rich. Some of the most prolific, professional, painters I've seen are happy to buy a painted army.

(I do agree with you that people would avoid making a fuss over a dodgy rule, for fear of losing sportsmanship points, as sad as it sounds).

[SlaaneshCultist]

12 hours ago, Sleboda said:

It's not limited to that event. It's a widespread thing. People feel like if they say "no" they risk looking like jerks, so they let people take advantage.

 

If you are bored, you can read the stuff at the link below. It's outdated, but still applicable here.

http://www.muppin.com/joesleboda/manifesto/Section5_1.htm

 

Joe, I don't really know why you participate in these conversations. That's not meant as an attack or anything by the way. But you have a strong belief that GW games CANNOT be balanced and competitive, and so tournaments, as a whole, are a pointless endeavor. You have apparently held this belief for at least 2 decades, since back in the dawn of time when you worked with Fletch and Ed.  It is a fair belief, honestly held, and often well articulated, but if that's the case it seems odd that you spend so much time arguing about the nuance of tournaments and tournament scoring on these forums. I think there is value in listening to your arguments for the rest of us, but I wonder what value you get out of it.

[SlaaneshCultist]

19 hours ago, svnvaldez said:

You guys are missing the point, and please inform yourselves before making character judgments of players.

I don't think anyone is making a character judgement Sam. As I mentioned, I get along great with Joe as a person. But he is among the most single minded, win focused players I've ever met. He has no qualms about telling anyone where he would like the hobby to go, and it is drastically different from where I would like the hobby to go.

In this situation the intent of the ruling is clear, and he intentionally found an exploit to get around, one he pointed out to me before the tournament even began that he felt dirty about but would be doing anyway if it would win him a game. That is poor sportsmanship from my personal perspective. I told him that at the time, and if I were playing him in the moment I probably would have walked away from the game.

This isn't an indictment of him, or anyone, as a person, it's simply stating that what the hyper competitive high end players (you, him, Andrew Standiferd and others) think of as having a good time is usually VERY different than what most of us hobbyists think of as having a good time.   Finding rules exploits and loopholes and exploiting them to crush your opponent is not a thing that lends itself to your opponent having a positive experience.

[SlaaneshCultist]

21 hours ago, sal4m4nd3r said:

I will certainly look out for those guys! What’s the name of your gaming group?

Our current name is "Scroll Caddies" in a nod to both previous editions of the game and to the fact that Tony, who created Warscroll Builder, is one of our guys. Keep an eye out for t-shirts with an SC on them.

[Marc Wilson]

That escalated quickly and made for odd reading. I can't help feeling someone using Changehost (or whatever) to teleport a LoC onto a Balewind in a UK tournament it wouldn't cause people to bat an eyelid.

[AthlorianStoners]

58 minutes ago, Marc Wilson said:

That escalated quickly and made for odd reading. I can't help feeling someone using Changehost (or whatever) to teleport a LoC onto a Balewind in a UK tournament it wouldn't cause people to bat an eyelid.

Curious, im Australian and have no tournament experience, but are uk tournaments so different from other places? Does ever country have its own sorta rep?

[Carnelian]

If that happened at a tournament in London I don't think it would go down well

[hammer49]

Thanks for the tournament report. Made interesting reading.

[Stevewren]

10 hours ago, Marc Wilson said:

That escalated quickly and made for odd reading. I can't help feeling someone using Changehost (or whatever) to teleport a LoC onto a Balewind in a UK tournament it wouldn't cause people to bat an eyelid.

We shall find out at the London GT and SCGT. Are you happy to allow it @Marc Wilson? 

[Marc Wilson]

Put me on the spot why don’t you Steve

Maybe we are so much more dulled from shenanigans in the UK that we are immune from surprise or outrage. I might have allowed it if it could have been put as an FAQ in the pack so no one got mugged on the day with it. I’m sure whatever SCGT decide will end up the de facto ruling.

[Rhellion]

Regarding the LoC on the Balewind... it wasn't allowed at Adepticon, so much as just not actually ruled on.

Alex was asked in passing while he was trying to set up tables on either the Thursday Friday night (I don't know which day just what happened, because he had to set up extra tables both nights for the TT and Champs before he could go eat).

Alex responded "what do the rules say" because the Balewind FAQ was literally written due to the LoC, and then he walked away because he was setting up tables. So he didn't make a ruling on it at the time. During the game in question, his opponent didn't call for a judge, so during the game no ruling was made by a judge.

This non-ruling combined with the wording for changehost, morathi allowed on the balewind, and Joe's decision to do so and his opponent not questioning it is why we are talking about it. And Joe getting Best Chaos. 

[Rhellion]

Also, we actually had a local run some numbers on the "weight" of the soft scores.

[SlaaneshCultist]

3 hours ago, Rhellion said:

Also, we actually had a local run some numbers on the "weight" of the soft scores.

That's really interesting! Please pass my thanks on.

I don't know if Alex HAS any interest in tweaking his scoring, or what his goal is in his scoring, but if his goal is to create a tournament were battle and soft scores are equally weighted (or more close to equally weighted) for your overall placement, there are definitely some things he could do.

Having "best game" votes impact your actual sportsmanship score would create more separation between those scores, causing the individual points to have more impact.

My understanding with how paint was judged is that there was a very large checklist, and that each player could fill the checklist up to 50 points, at which point they couldn't get any more points. In order to decide on the best appearance armies the paint judges pulled the top 10% of the armies and decided from there. One idea I had would be for there to be a soft max that everyone in the tournament could reach, and then a hard max that only those top 10% of armies could reach. That means that the impact of having one of the best painted armies at the tournament has a significant impact on your overall placement. 

Just some ideas, and I'm sure there are a ton of other ways that Alex could go about tweaking his scoring system. As I mentioned before, I'm just nit picking, and had a great time overall, and if Alex is happy with his scoring system that's fine, I'll just go in next year knowing that battle points have a greater weight on your overall placement than soft scores do.

[Rhellion]

5 minutes ago, SlaaneshCultist said:

My understanding with how paint was judged is that there was a very large checklist, and that each player could fill the checklist up to 50 points, at which point they couldn't get any more points. In order to decide on the best appearance armies the paint judges pulled the top 10% of the armies and decided from there. One idea I had would be for there to be a soft max that everyone in the tournament could reach, and then a hard max that only those top 10% of armies could reach. That means that the impact of having one of the best painted armies at the tournament has a significant impact on your overall placement. 

Painting is currently out of 27 points... but is capped at 25 and then doubled for your 50 point paint score.

[SlaaneshCultist]

1 minute ago, Rhellion said:

Painting is currently out of 27 points... but is capped at 25 and then doubled for your 50 point paint score.

Awesome, thanks for the clarification. Maybe let the top 10% get those last 4 points? It's not much, but it's 4 points that are DIFFICULT to get, which means that they have a higher impact.

[Rhellion]

3 minutes ago, SlaaneshCultist said:

Awesome, thanks for the clarification. Maybe let the top 10% get those last 4 points? It's not much, but it's 4 points that are DIFFICULT to get, which means that they have a higher impact.

I think the "top 10%" isn't necessarily based on raw score wither. They had 160 players so the TO chose 16 armies to make the "finals". Not 100% sure on that one.

[SlaaneshCultist]

Fair. Again, this is all just spitballing, as I don't know what Alex wants the end result of his scoring to be. If his intent is simply to encourage a baseline level of paint/sports rather than to reward the highest levels of each I think the current system works fine. I just need to adjust my understanding for next year.

[Sleboda]

On 4/1/2018 at 1:43 PM, SlaaneshCultist said:

But you have a strong belief that GW games CANNOT be balanced and competitive, and so tournaments, as a whole, are a pointless endeavor.

I think I am starting to understand the whole "damned if you do, damned if you don't" and "you can't please all of the people all of the time" ideas.

Over the decades, I've been a vocal critic if people who held the belief that there are tiers, power creep, etc. in GW games. I always stated that armies were equal give or take 5%. For many, many years I've said that and been criticized roundly as a fanboy or just ignorant about the games.

Now I'm being told I have a strong belief that GW games "cannot" be balanced.

Grey areas and nuance be damned, I appear to have to choose one camp at one extreme and live in it.

I can't win. Lol.

 

Yes, GW games can be fair in competitions. Of course they can be. And yes, I think AoS is one of the least balanced-for-competition games they've ever made (remember, it was designed from the ground up as Open Play, with Matched being tacked on later) ... But it's still workable.

 

As to why I participate, it's because this is a discussion forum, and even when opinions are in opposition, discussion often leads to insights, ideas, and new perspectives.

Sue me for wanting to promote that, I guess.

[Sleboda]

On 4/1/2018 at 1:53 PM, SlaaneshCultist said:

 I get along great with Joe as a person. But he is among the most single minded, win focused players I've ever met. He has no qualms about telling anyone where he would like the hobby to go, and it is drastically different from where I would like the hobby to go.

In this situation the intent of the ruling is clear, and he intentionally found an exploit to get around, one he pointed out to me before the tournament even began 

Just checking ... Are you maybe mixing up two different Joes?

[SlaaneshCultist]

Just now, Sleboda said:

Just checking ... Are you maybe mixing up two different Joes?

Nope. In that post I was referring to Joe Krier, not you. I realize talking about two separate Joes in the same thread without expressly differentiating between them was probably confusing. My bad.

[Sleboda]

No problem. ☺️

I am definitely not super win-focused (though I prefer it to losing!), so that caught me off guard. 

Thanks for clarifying.

[SlaaneshCultist]

6 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

I think I am starting to understand the whole "damned if you do, damned if you don't" and "you can't please all of the people all of the time" ideas.

Over the decades, I've been a vocal critic if people who held the belief that there are tiers, power creep, etc. in GW games. I always stated that armies were equal give or take 5%. For many, many years I've said that and been criticized roundly as a fanboy or just ignorant about the games.

Now I'm being told I have a strong belief that GW games "cannot" be balanced.

Grey areas and nuance be damned, I appear to have to choose one camp at one extreme and live in it.

I can't win. Lol.

 

Yes, GW games can be fair in competitions. Of course they can be. And yes, I think AoS is one of the least balanced-for-competition games they've ever made (remember, it was designed from the ground up as Open Play, with Matched being tacked on later) ... But it's still workable.

 

As to why I participate, it's because this is a discussion forum, and even when opinions are in opposition, discussion often leads to insights, ideas, and new perspectives.

Sue me for wanting to promote that, I guess.

Like I said, that wasn't an attack or anything. I totally get value out of your input. I was just wondering what value YOU get out of it, since it seems like you have tended to set yourself a pretty sisyphean task in arguing against soft scores and hobby promotion in opposition to, classically, the majority of the US tournament scene.

Also, I must have misinterpreted some of your previous posts, as well as some anecdotes I've heard about your GW days, to assume that your take is that GW games don't lend themselves to balanced competitive play. That is on me, and I apologize for the mischaracterizing your position.