My First Adepticon, A Tournament Report

[Sleboda]

No apology needed (though appreciated!).

Short version of what I get out of it is that I like having my opinions put under the microscope and challenged.

I have a phrase that I live by:

"Have an opinion on everything. Just be prepared to change it."

In other words, don't be one of those boring "um, I dunno" people, but understand that it's ok to take in new info and ideas that may change what you previously believed.

 

On the hobby thing-

I think events should require fully painted armies and should have a super simple sportsmanship score (I have a system I can go into if interested), and the hobby part should have an award all its own, but that neither should factor in to the winner of a gaming event.

All the hobby stuff is important and is done before the gaming. At a tournament, it's about the gaming aspect of the hobby and won/lost is the only objective thing you can score and should count when competing in games.

[SlaaneshCultist]

2 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

On the hobby thing-

I think events should require fully painted armies and should have a super simple sportsmanship score (I have a system I can go into if interested), and the hobby part should have an award all its own, but that neither should factor in to the winner of a gaming event.

All the hobby stuff is important and is done before the gaming. At a tournament, it's about the gaming aspect of the hobby and won/lost is the only objective thing you can score and should count when competing in games.

I think the issue you and I run into there is one of definitions. To use classic award titles, I think the "Best General" award does what you want "Best Overall" to do, reward the single most skilled player (who also happened to have good luck). There are also awards that acknowledge the "pure" best painter, best sport, etc.  I think the "Overall" award is intended, at least at the tournaments I used to run, like the Quake City Rumble, to be just that. The reward for the best overall hobbyist, incorporating the aspects of each of the other awards. 

If a tournament wants to prioritize competitive skill above the other aspects of the hobby, that's fine. It won't necessarily preclude me from going to or enjoying an event. They are, however, not my personal preferred type of event, and if I'm forced to choose between two similarly sized events the one that prioritizes a complete approach to the hobby and the community will be the one that I will lean towards.

My one (very minor) issue with Adepticon was not its scoring system in and of itself, but rather the fact that its scoring system, and the weight it gave to soft scores, was very different from what I had understood it to be heading into the event. No biggie, now I know.

[Ryan Taylor]

I like the cut of your jib Mike!

Nice run down of the event. I too would like to see more hobby in my hobby tournaments but that would also requirement to paint 

[SlaaneshCultist]

21 minutes ago, Ryan Taylor said:

I like the cut of your jib Mike!

Nice run down of the event. I too would like to see more hobby in my hobby tournaments but that would also requirement to paint 

Thanks! I'm always a little iffy on full painting required, only because a couple of the best hobbyists I've ever known got their start by getting sucked into the hobby after playing in a tournament with an unpainted army, Warscroll Builder creator, fantastic painter, and wonderful opponent Tony Pacheco among them, and I would hate for potential fantastic hobbyists like that to be discouraged.

That being said, in my crotchety old age and after 15+ years of consistent playing in major tournaments, these days I'm leaning towards paint requirements. It just makes the whole event so much more enjoyable, at least for me.

[Ryan Taylor]

Oh I am all for one dayers to get folks in without painting. Get them hooked then show off what you can do. Problem is I don't get enough games in and woblle on armies. If you have any ideas for armies you ain't gonna use please dm me.

[SlaaneshCultist]

4 minutes ago, Ryan Taylor said:

Oh I am all for one dayers to get folks in without painting. Get them hooked then show off what you can do. Problem is I don't get enough games in and woblle on armies. If you have any ideas for armies you ain't gonna use please dm me.

Haha! I'm the opposite. It takes me like 1-2 years to paint an army to completion (I actually started my khorne stuff when AoS first came out, but the vast majority of the work was done over the course of a year) and I play them obsessively while I work on them.

Where are you located Ryan? Being able to have a weekly game date, as well as having a buddy who comes over every week for a painting day, really helps keep the motivation high.

Daughters of Khaine is next for me, with a shadow patrol based list that should be VERY different from what most people will end up playing.

[Ryan Taylor]

I'll take this to DMs. But suffice to say I live in the middle of nowhere lol

 

[Richelieu]

37 minutes ago, SlaaneshCultist said:

Daughters of Khaine is next for me, with a shadow patrol based list that should be VERY different from what most people will end up playing.

The ability to build lists that are wildly different from each other it's what I live about DoK.  I'm probably going to end up taking Shadowhammer Compact to a GT in June because I have the Stormcast half already and I doubt my ability to get 40 more witches plus other stuff built and painted in time.

[SlaaneshCultist]

Yeah, I think the standard competitive list will be based around a ton of witches/sisters. Which makes sense, because they are spectacular for their points. I also think that the most competitive builds will not have Morathi in them. My list will not have a single witch or sister of slaughter.

[Richelieu]

15 hours ago, SlaaneshCultist said:

Yeah, I think the standard competitive list will be based around a ton of witches/sisters. Which makes sense, because they are spectacular for their points. I also think that the most competitive builds will not have Morathi in them. My list will not have a single witch or sister of slaughter.

I think you're probably right.  I have Morathi, and want to use her because the model is gorgeous, but I've been working on a non-Morathi list that, while not as radical as the outline you've described, is still pretty far afield of what most people on the forum are working on.

[Mikester1487]

Cool to read about someone elses experience at adepticon and congrats on getting 7th!  I was waving all the way back at 140th .

[SlaaneshCultist]

3 hours ago, Mikester1487 said:

Cool to read about someone elses experience at adepticon and congrats on getting 7th!  I was waving all the way back at 140th .

Thanks! Did you have fun? As long as you did that matters a hell of a lot more than any individual placing, as far as I'm concerned.

[sal4m4nd3r]

On 4/2/2018 at 8:23 AM, Rhellion said:

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. 

I have heard several people tell me that Alex used this EXACT phrase several times. I dont think its really appropriate for a TO to do this.. If you are a TO and someone asks about a specific situation simply saying "what do the rules say" is weak sauce for me. I'm asking YOU because you can ensure clarity in a game/system where there always isn't clarity. For causal games..yeah work it out amongst the players but in a massive 160+ player tournament.. there needs to be precise and purposeful statements from a TO.

One example was a player who was up 27-1 on the Three Places of Power mission. (Game 2) But he only had a single Blood Secrator alive and he was forced to take 5 save rolls at -1 rend. Failed all 5 and was tabled. The rules stated that if a player was tabled that "the game immediately ends." Well if the game "ended" the player who was up 26 points would win right..? even though he was tabled..? Because it DIDNT state the tabled player looses.. just that the game ended. When they approached Alex for clarification he responded: "What do the rules say?" Thats not ok lol. The players decided to use common sense and awarded the victory to the player who tabled the Khorne army. But thats where the TO needs to be decisive and clear not ambiguous and acting like the Riddler by answering a question with a question. 

I also understand the challenge that presents to Alex. He has 160+ guys coming up to him asking him about very very specific situations. Sometimes when he was hungry or tired. I cant imagine how much work it was to be the Adepticon AoS GT TO......But If I hear LoC and Balewind in the same sentence.. I might have taken a closer look at that one. 

[SlaaneshCultist]

35 minutes ago, sal4m4nd3r said:

But thats where the TO needs to be decisive and clear not ambiguous and acting like the Riddler by answering a question with a question. 

I agree with you entirely here. If players are approaching a rules judge it is because they couldn't come to an equitable decision with regards to a rule question themselves. A TO needs to be ready to make a ruling. If you aren't ready to be a rules judge yourself (or have a reliable rules judge staff) you're not ready for prime time.

Back in the height of the QCR days, at around 120 players, we had 4 rules judges walking around at all times, each with a binder with all the FAQs in them, and each well versed in the game and its nuances. The Adepticon tournament should really have something similar. It's both the largest and one of the most prestigious tournaments in the country. Answering a rules questions with "what do the rules say?" is bush league, not to mention condescending and kinda rude.

[Sleboda]

1 hour ago, sal4m4nd3r said:

I have heard several people tell me that Alex used this EXACT phrase several times. I dont think its really appropriate for a TO to do this.. If you are a TO and someone asks about a specific situation simply saying "what do the rules say" is weak sauce for me. I'm asking YOU because you can ensure clarity in a game/system where there always isn't clarity.

Alex doesn't need me to defend him, but I will anyway.

The vast (vast!) majority of times a person goes to him with rules questions, they are just being lazy. He's not there, nor is any rules judge, to replace one's knowledge of the game. Players in a tournament are expected know the rules inside and out. If nothing else, it's a courtesy to their opponents.

If there is a true issue, Alex will listen to the arguments and make a ruling, but given the evidence of laziness on the part of gamers, I don't blame him (or any TO) for having a screener response/question.

 

FWIW, he's given me the same response more than once over the years, and I'm his friend. He was right to say it. He has a lot more to do than to be a substitute Search function for lazy people.

[rokapoke]

3 hours ago, sal4m4nd3r said:

One example was a player who was up 27-1 on the Three Places of Power mission. (Game 2) But he only had a single Blood Secrator alive and he was forced to take 5 save rolls at -1 rend. Failed all 5 and was tabled. The rules stated that if a player was tabled that "the game immediately ends." Well if the game "ended" the player who was up 26 points would win right..? even though he was tabled..? Because it DIDNT state the tabled player looses.. just that the game ended. When they approached Alex for clarification he responded: "What do the rules say?" Thats not ok lol. The players decided to use common sense and awarded the victory to the player who tabled the Khorne army. But thats where the TO needs to be decisive and clear not ambiguous and acting like the Riddler by answering a question with a question. 

I would suggest applying the event pack as written before going to common sense to settle a dispute. The event pack, that Alex put together, was 100% clear what the outcome should be. Game over, Khorne wins a major victory despite getting tabled. The pack clearly states that “If at any time you or your opponent has no models left on the table with no additional units to set up after the game begins, the game is over immediately.” So whoever has the most victory points then should win the game. Ergo, “what do the rules say?”

[svnvaldez]

2 hours ago, SlaaneshCultist said:

agree with you entirely here. If players are approaching a rules judge it is because they couldn't come to an equitable decision with regards to a rule question themselves. A TO needs to be ready to make a ruling. If you aren't ready to be a rules judge yourself (or have a reliable rules judge staff) you're not ready for prime time.

Back in the height of the QCR days, at around 120 players, we had 4 rules judges walking around at all times, each with a binder with all the FAQs in them, and each well versed in the game and its nuances. The Adepticon tournament should really have something similar. It's both the largest and one of the most prestigious tournaments in the country. Answering a rules questions with "what do the rules say?" is bush league, not to mention condescending and kinda rude.

I completely agree.

1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

The vast (vast!) majority of times a person goes to him with rules questions, they are just being lazy. He's not there, nor is any rules judge, to replace one's knowledge of the game. Players in a tournament are expected know the rules inside and out. If nothing else, it's a courtesy to their opponents.

If there is a true issue, Alex will listen to the arguments and make a ruling, but given the evidence of laziness on the part of gamers, I don't blame him (or any TO) for having a screener response/question.

 

FWIW, he's given me the same response more than once over the years, and I'm his friend. He was right to say it. He has a lot more to do than to be a substitute Search function for lazy people.

I completely disagree.

[SlaaneshCultist]

6 hours ago, Sleboda said:

The vast (vast!) majority of times a person goes to him with rules questions, they are just being lazy. He's not there, nor is any rules judge, to replace one's knowledge of the game. Players in a tournament are expected know the rules inside and out. If nothing else, it's a courtesy to their opponents.

That is a broad assumption, and having been a rules judge at major events in the past I can tell you that has not been my experience. Most questions asked of rules judges are questions that the players have made an honest attempt to answer, which is why they are calling a judge. This is especially true at tournaments that have a sportsmanship score, as no one wants to be perceived as the guy who calls a judge unnecessarily at the drop of a hat 

Also, your rules judges should know the game well enough so that on the few occasions those easy questions come up they can answer them without having to look anything up, at which point, if nothing else, it saves both players time and allows them to get on to the fun of playing faster. if you can't answer the easy questions about the game quickly and easily, than I reiterate my point about not being ready for prime-time.

[svnvaldez]

We play a semi balanced game full of rule ambiguities. A tournament player well versed in the rules knows the limitations of “what do the rules say?" A rules judge and or a pack which addresses all these ambiguities  (No one can write that pack) is a necessity for a large event. 

https://aosshorts.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/2018aoschamp.pdf

 

Can a LoC go on a balewind?

Can every model in my unit be modeled as a standard or musician (There are plenty of warscrolls where it is beneficial to have multiples)?

Do we measure distance from the objectives center or the edge? (Assume we didn't discuss this before the game began and one player will win with one ruling and lose with another ruling).

 

There are countless more questions... that is why GW produces an FAQ. The reason the FAQs get updated is because they didn't/can't catch them all.

[Seraphage]

14 hours ago, sal4m4nd3r said:

One example was a player who was up 27-1 on the Three Places of Power mission. (Game 2) But he only had a single Blood Secrator alive and he was forced to take 5 save rolls at -1 rend. Failed all 5 and was tabled. The rules stated that if a player was tabled that "the game immediately ends." Well if the game "ended" the player who was up 26 points would win right..? even though he was tabled..? Because it DIDNT state the tabled player looses.. just that the game ended. When they approached Alex for clarification he responded: "What do the rules say?" Thats not ok lol. The players decided to use common sense and awarded the victory to the player who tabled the Khorne army. But thats where the TO needs to be decisive and clear not ambiguous and acting like the Riddler by answering a question with a question. 

 

To be honest, giving a win to the player that tabled his opponent seems the exact opposite of common sense to me

This game without scenarios, goes from one of the coolest and most complicated strategic games to a slaughter feast. Do not get me  wrong. Simply rolling dice is great and you can have an awesome time. This is why Open Play exists though. Being laid back and not paying that much attention when you want to relax.

Has nothing to do with the strategic game we all love though ! *matched play that is !

[Mikester1487]

18 hours ago, SlaaneshCultist said:

Thanks! Did you have fun? As long as you did that matters a hell of a lot more than any individual placing, as far as I'm concerned.

It was quite a bit of fun and a good learning experience.  I took a non clown car ko list and got tossed around.  A little sad about that, but I've come up with a much more fun build because of lessons learnt.

[GlanceOnASix]

On 3/30/2018 at 3:37 PM, SlaaneshCultist said:

Somewhat working. After all, Joe Krier did win Best Chaos by putting a chicken on a balewind vortex. Not very sporting....

I wanna be clear btw, I played Joe in the event, got tabled top of turn 1 and I still gave him a good sports score.  Hes a nice guy and he played every rule in our game right according to how it was ruled by judges at the time.  I don't like the idea of throwing peoples sports down based on bringing tough lists.  We were all bringing tough lists at those top tables.

[SlaaneshCultist]

26 minutes ago, GlanceOnASix said:

I wanna be clear btw, I played Joe in the event, got tabled top of turn 1 and I still gave him a good sports score.  Hes a nice guy and he played every rule in our game right according to how it was ruled by judges at the time.  I don't like the idea of throwing peoples sports down based on bringing tough lists.  We were all bringing tough lists at those top tables.

I have specifically and repeatedly said I like Joe as a person. However the shenanigans with the chicken on the balewind are clearly exploitative, and a blatant example of bad sportsmanship.

I won't get into the discussion of whether or not the list you take is an extension of your sportsmanship, or whether it is time to bring back the comp score, as this is not the place for it. But I will say that when every major tournament in the past year and a half has been won by either change host or vanguard wing there is something unbalanced beyond the standard deviation, and that bringing one of those lists to a tournament and winning, or placing high in ITC rankings (something I know Joe is super proud of) with one of those lists, does nothing to prove your actual skill as a player, and doesn't give me a good impression of your interest in your opponent's enjoyment.

[SlaaneshCultist]

4 hours ago, Mikester1487 said:

It was quite a bit of fun and a good learning experience.  I took a non clown car ko list and got tossed around.  A little sad about that, but I've come up with a much more fun build because of lessons learnt.

Awesome! I'm glad you had fun. KO, in my experience, are win big/lose big armies. A little bit of luck and it probably could have gone the other way for you! But it's always valuable to learn from and build on your experiences. Are you doing any other tourneys this year? I'm doing Nashcon in June and Socal Open in October.

[Trout]

I enjoyed the discussion on soft scores so far. I have never attended a tournament and am not sure if I will ever get around to attending one. But all this discussion brings up an important question.

 

1. I have models I did not paint myself (because I purchased them already painted). Is it unethical for me to compete with those models? What if I win best painted or something like that? My intention wasn't to join a painting tournament, but a gaming one. Can you opt out of the painting side?

2. If competing with models someone else painted isn't unethical then isn't it in everyone's best interest to contract out their painting to professionals so they can max out their paint scores? It's better for me not to paint any of my competitive models because I'm not a very good painter; it's in my best interest to hire a pro-painter to do all of that for me.