NOVA Open Age of Sigmar Grand Tounament Top 10 Results (with lists!)

[Sleboda]

2 hours ago, Black_Fortress_Immortal said:

Balance is tough though.  There are some who had 4/6 losses and were in top 25 out of 85.

I once went to a tournament using the worst Tomb Kings army I could come up with. I painted it very well. I was a very good sport. I lost 5 of my 6 games.

I took first place.

I understood the scoring system and, frankly, abused it to prove a point.

Point: Play the event, not just the game.

[Black_Fortress_Immortal]

22 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

I once went to a tournament using the worst Tomb Kings army I could come up with. I painted it very well. I was a very good sport. I lost 5 of my 6 games.

I took first place.

I understood the scoring system and, frankly, abused it to prove a point.

Point: Play the event, not just the game.

Agreed.  The rubric was available before-hand, and they wanted hobby to be in there.

There were a few organizational and recording errors, multiple players didn't have lists to provide opponents, scores were recorded into the system incorrectly, papers were missing, etc.  The sportsman and painting scores weren't available for people to review, while your result from the game is concrete and able to be reviewed.    I can see why some people could be a little frustrated, but again, these things happen and it's just a game.

[sal4m4nd3r]

Listen you all can say that painting and sports doesn’t matter, or you are disappointed with how the scoring works.. but don’t take anything away from the people that worked their asses off for every point. Some of these armies were STUNNING. The top level eel deepkin list was ridiculously beautiful. His volturnos was golden demon level good.and he earned the points he got for his months of work. 

If you want to take a low effort net list and roll people to get you rocks off at a tournament that’s awesome. List building is part of the hobby..but to say somebody won because they smashed the most face... that’s now how this event worked. Not adepticon, bobo, blood and glory...Mom of them had best generalship. Because it doesn’t make for a good event. 

Im not saying Mr. Soehaili’s list was a “low effort net list”. I didn’t see his army. And not qualified to judge it. I don’t want people to think I’m trashing him. He earned every point. But he didn’t earn enough to get the top spot. 

[Black_Fortress_Immortal]

21 minutes ago, sal4m4nd3r said:

Listen you all can say that painting and sports doesn’t matter, or you are disappointed with how the scoring works.. but don’t take anything away from the people that worked their asses off for every point. Some of these armies were STUNNING. The top level eel deepkin list was ridiculously beautiful. His volturnos was golden demon level good.and he earned the points he got for his months of work. 

If you want to take a low effort net list and roll people to get you rocks off at a tournament that’s awesome. List building is part of the hobby..but to say somebody won because they smashed the most face... that’s now how this event worked. Not adepticon, bobo, blood and glory...Mom of them had best generalship. Because it doesn’t make for a good event. 

Im not saying Mr. Soehaili’s list was a “low effort net list”. I didn’t see his army. And not qualified to judge it. I don’t want people to think I’m trashing him. He earned every point. But he didn’t earn enough to get the top spot. 

Painting and sportsmanship matters.  It's just not good to have the community divided.  The paint scores and sportsmanship breakdown should be available for players to see.  If you're being scored on your wins/losses points and they're up for review, then all of the components should be as well.

[Nin Win]

What was with the 40k stuff that people are commenting about?  Also, does anyone have a link to a place with pictures of the armies?  That imgur links going to pictures of paper disappointed me probably says I don't care about the same thing as other people in the thread. ?

[RoloMcFury]

It looks like there are two separate threads going here so I'll leave my general thoughts on the event there. 

In terms of what lists did well and why, I'll clarify that realms were in effect, with the first 3 rounds in Ghyran and the final 3 in Chamon. This is the reason for the level of dominance Nagash had at this event, because the realm spells provide Nagash with enough potential value to easily validate his cost. I'd argue that Nagash isn't quite top tier without that benefit.

I scrapped my way up to table 2 for the final round where I got outplayed big time by a surprising FEC army. It was a gimmicky list, but the guy played it masterfully. The game made me realize I need to work on my grave placement in a big way.

I shamefully did not grab many pictures, but here's what I brought along:

 

 

 

[Black Blade]

Im relatively new to a lot of this and can paint to a "table-top" quality. This thread is making me realize I might not belong playing in a tournament. I'm not the best at anything in this game and I'm sensing a lot of hostility here...

[Silchas_Ruin]

This is not likely to be something you would notice going to a turnament. Unless you are fighting for the #1 spot you will just have some nice games and moving up or down a couple of spots on the overall list due to painting is not a huge issue. 

Most events will have a turnament pack you can read before so you know the rules. Whats needed for painting? If you show up with bases that are only painted and the event said thats not enough its your own fault. Some people seem to be upset  due to a player who won all games not reading the turnament pack. So he turned up with a nice army, but didn't clear the checklist for painting points. 

Coming after a event and saying if they had different rules someone else would have won???? Yeah, sure. But you play the event you are at, not how you would like it to be scored. If thats what we are doing I'm sure I can find a way to call myself winner of every event I go to. Just need to change the scoring a little.

[azmarus]

somebody know 11 place SCE list ?

[svnvaldez]

2 minutes ago, azmarus said:

somebody know 11 place SCE list ?

All lists can be viewed on the BCP app.

 

[hughwyeth]

I've seen tournaments where painting doesn't count (40k tournaments) and they look terrible. Flat red marines vs flat green chaos marines, how immersive! Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I like painting being part of the score. It's a decent barrier to quickly assembled netlists and makes the games look good. Warhammer is not just the game, it's a hobby, and it's nice for tournaments to represent that. If you really care only for the game, play 40k, MTG or play an iphone game. It's great that (in the UK at least), the hobby is integral to the tournament scene. Top 10 in UK AoS tournaments are full of amazing looking armies. It would be a real shame for AoS to turn into what the 40k scene is. 

[Redmanphill]

11 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:

Nagash won. This list is skewed by paint score. Painting should be a separate thing. 

Also in terms of painting, David had 40k tanks on his bloodthirster bases, which should be big marks off in terms of AoS painting.

I thought painting didn't matter?

[stato]

3 hours ago, Black Blade said:

Im relatively new to a lot of this and can paint to a "table-top" quality. This thread is making me realize I might not belong playing in a tournament. I'm not the best at anything in this game and I'm sensing a lot of hostility here...

Honestly, its like anything talked about on the internet, in real life nothing is as big a deal as it seems online.  Im a basic level painter, and probably below average gamer (ill take the stupid move over the tactical choice if there is a chance i could pull off something glorious and crazy).  I have played in a few this last 2 years and always have a blast, ive even won a few best-sports awards. Like anything, take a good attitude into it and you will have a good time.

[Overread]

I think there's always a battleground when it comes to how things should be awarded and it can vary based on how much influence and money the competition has. 

Personally I feel that the hobby has distinct areas and that people can excel in one and fail in another. I dislike hte notion that someone can turn up and play the game really well and win matches but lose because their army isn't as well painted as another persons. I'd rather see painting, playing, converting and sportsmanship being separate scores with their own separate award (even if its just a title and no actual prize). Then offer a single combined aware for "best in event" which tallies up the results of all and sees who came out overall.

This way you reward each area on its own merit. The painter who is first class but can't play wins on painting; the first class player wins there even if their army is pretty poorly painted and the person who came and did well in all areas but wasn't outstanding wins as the best all rounder. etc.. (although personally I would prefer to leave sportsmanship on the side of all awards since its kind of very variable and the most easy to be abused or missused)

 

 

I think this way you can reward and encourage good painting but not at the cost of good playing and vis versa. 

[AaronWilson]

I think it's a bit disingenuous to attend a event's who has put there pack up WAY before the event and clearly stated that painting / sportsmanship is a part of scoring then complain about it. Either embrace or it don't attend the event. 

[stato]

7 minutes ago, Overread said:

...

Personally I feel that the hobby has distinct areas and that people can excel in one and fail in another. I dislike hte notion that someone can turn up and play the game really well and win matches but lose because their army isn't as well painted as another persons. I'd rather see painting, playing, converting and sportsmanship being separate scores with their own separate award (even if its just a title and no actual prize). Then offer a single combined aware for "best in event" which tallies up the results of all and sees who came out overall.

...

Thats fine, just go to events that do that, no need to complain about events run a way you dont want, just vote with your wallet.  Plenty of events do multiple awards for the different aspects and an overall winner when they are all combined.

[Black_Fortress_Immortal]

30 minutes ago, Overread said:

I think there's always a battleground when it comes to how things should be awarded and it can vary based on how much influence and money the competition has. 

Personally I feel that the hobby has distinct areas and that people can excel in one and fail in another. I dislike hte notion that someone can turn up and play the game really well and win matches but lose because their army isn't as well painted as another persons. I'd rather see painting, playing, converting and sportsmanship being separate scores with their own separate award (even if its just a title and no actual prize). Then offer a single combined aware for "best in event" which tallies up the results of all and sees who came out overall.

This way you reward each area on its own merit. The painter who is first class but can't play wins on painting; the first class player wins there even if their army is pretty poorly painted and the person who came and did well in all areas but wasn't outstanding wins as the best all rounder. etc.. (although personally I would prefer to leave sportsmanship on the side of all awards since its kind of very variable and the most easy to be abused or missused)

 

 

I think this way you can reward and encourage good painting but not at the cost of good playing and vis versa. 

I hear ya, it was fun to play the games, that's for sure.  Painting took me from 19th to 45th out of 85.  When asked why, the response was "I don't know."  I was a little disheartened considering that it was over 20% of my score and counted basically as much as 2 games, on top of the time and money spent to attend.

Was still fun, since I was able to play great games and see a lot of well painted armies and such.

[hughwyeth]

26 minutes ago, Overread said:

I think there's always a battleground when it comes to how things should be awarded and it can vary based on how much influence and money the competition has. 

Personally I feel that the hobby has distinct areas and that people can excel in one and fail in another. I dislike hte notion that someone can turn up and play the game really well and win matches but lose because their army isn't as well painted as another persons. I'd rather see painting, playing, converting and sportsmanship being separate scores with their own separate award (even if its just a title and no actual prize). Then offer a single combined aware for "best in event" which tallies up the results of all and sees who came out overall.

This way you reward each area on its own merit. The painter who is first class but can't play wins on painting; the first class player wins there even if their army is pretty poorly painted and the person who came and did well in all areas but wasn't outstanding wins as the best all rounder. etc.. (although personally I would prefer to leave sportsmanship on the side of all awards since its kind of very variable and the most easy to be abused or missused)

I think this way you can reward and encourage good painting but not at the cost of good playing and vis versa. 

I sort of agree with you- with painting, I don't think you should be pushed down rankings if you're not a good painter. For me the issue is people just not bothering. Anyone of any level can make a good tabletop-quality paint job army. I'm not a good painter and I can do it. It's just colouring-in in 3d, it's not a skilled thing to apply some colours to a model and spend time on it.

I think the issue of splitting it all up is that it'll  of quickly descend to lowest common denominator. One of the biggest discussions pre-40k tournaments is "how many colours do i have to have on my model- oh it's 3? i'll just paint the base colour A, the body B and the head C, done. I can tell you I would not enjoy a tournament where I'd spent 4 months painting an army to lose to a netlist with a base coat. I'm not there to just win. I'm there to enjoy the games- it's a miniatures game, not chess. The look matters- hell the look is everything for me. Otherwise why are we playing miniatures games? When you have a red army vs a green army and blocks of foam as terrain, is it even warhammer any more? 

[Silchas_Ruin]

20 minutes ago, Black_Fortress_Immortal said:

I hear ya, it was fun to play the games, that's for sure.  Painting took me from 19th to 45th out of 85.  When asked why, the response was "I don't know."  I was a little disheartened considering that it was over 20% of my score and counted basically as much as 2 games, on top of the time and money spent to attend.

Not being told why seems wrong. I'm fine with painting being part of the overall score, but there should be clear guidelines and you should be told why you didn't get full painting points, so you can change stuff for next time. I feel like most of painting points should be a checklist kinda thing, maybe with a little bonus on top for the best painted.

I want to play beautiful armies and painting being part of the score helps with that. But trying, as in done some shading, highlighting, basing even if not best painted should get you close to max.

 

[Overread]

I think the thing is that different peopel go with different intentions and expectations in mind and a different focus. Some are there to win the game pure and simple and as such might be building lists that are very recent in purchase for that winning edge; so 3 colours done is fine for them. Others might be going to show off their awesome paint skills; others are going for a laugh with a few mates; others are just sort of there because the rest of the club is there on normal club night etc....

 

I think you can easily agree that lowest common is going to happen and you can't force people out of that; indeed trying to could turn many away. That said if painting and playing had equal rewards it would certainly make them equal elements in the competition. If the prize pool was £50 for a win in the tournament and £50 for a win in the painting and then a £50 for best in show combined then there's equal value in painting and playing well whilst also rewarding each segment on its own (for that outstanding painter and player who are not good at the other aspect)

[hughwyeth]

40 minutes ago, Overread said:

I think the thing is that different peopel go with different intentions and expectations in mind and a different focus. Some are there to win the game pure and simple and as such might be building lists that are very recent in purchase for that winning edge; so 3 colours done is fine for them. Others might be going to show off their awesome paint skills; others are going for a laugh with a few mates; others are just sort of there because the rest of the club is there on normal club night etc....

 

I think you can easily agree that lowest common is going to happen and you can't force people out of that; indeed trying to could turn many away. That said if painting and playing had equal rewards it would certainly make them equal elements in the competition. If the prize pool was £50 for a win in the tournament and £50 for a win in the painting and then a £50 for best in show combined then there's equal value in painting and playing well whilst also rewarding each segment on its own (for that outstanding painter and player who are not good at the other aspect)

Right, but the issue is a well painted non-power list isn't making the tournament any less enjoyable for anyone. A 3 colours done army is making the tournament less enjoyable. It sounds like NOVA punished people too much for painting. I don't think it should be that large a share of the points. However, there's many people who would just not want to play against an army with no paint job, or at least would not enjoy it. 

[AaronWilson]

7 minutes ago, hughwyeth said:

Right, but the issue is a well painted non-power list isn't making the tournament any less enjoyable for anyone. A 3 colours done army is making the tournament less enjoyable. It sounds like NOVA punished people too much for painting. I don't think it should be that large a share of the points. However, there's many people who would just not want to play against an army with no paint job, or at least would not enjoy it. 

You're speaking about fairly subjective as if it was straight fact. "A 3 colours done army is making the tournament less enjoyable" - I totally disagree. I enjoy hobby to a point but I'm not a massive fan of painting and in no way would it make a event less enjoyably for me to a see 3 coloured army. 

Some people like to paint, kitbash and perfect the look of there armies, some others like to play the game because they enjoy list building and pushing a list to the max.

Neither is wrong and I think it's just about a event being 100% clear what the event expects either way, in this case I feel what happened was there was a flawed execution of strict painting points. 

[Black_Fortress_Immortal]

27 minutes ago, hughwyeth said:

Right, but the issue is a well painted non-power list isn't making the tournament any less enjoyable for anyone. A 3 colours done army is making the tournament less enjoyable. It sounds like NOVA punished people too much for painting. I don't think it should be that large a share of the points. However, there's many people who would just not want to play against an army with no paint job, or at least would not enjoy it. 

Both armies were painted, based, converted, etc. with display boards. 

The decision came down to painting, and when challenged, the rubric should be pulled out and gone through by the judges side-by-side.

[Dead Scribe]

Because painting often is part of a GT score, I spend a couple thousand dollars paying someone with a proven painting competition award record to paint my army so that I can get max score in painting.

[Overread]

1 minute ago, Dead Scribe said:

Because painting often is part of a GT score, I spend a couple thousand dollars paying someone with a proven painting competition award record to paint my army so that I can get max score in painting.

I forgot about pro painting services and can honestly see issues/anger if people were to win prizes on paintwork that was not their own. In straight up painting competitions its a total no-no; however when it comes to army painting in an otherwise gameplay competitive tournament it seems the standard/approach is different.