Competitive Event Game Concessions

[svnvaldez]

7 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

The problem with TOs making their own version of AOS is that there is no standard.  If I go to another city I want to play AOS, not someone else's abomination of AOS.  I spend my money on an army that is good at AOS, not someone else's abomination of AOS.

Exactly

1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

I take it you're not in the US?

The large distances and times between events actually make voting with our feet an unattractive option.

Like the saying goes, there's no such thing as bad pizza.

In other words, even if you really don't like the event's rules, you'll often go anyway because at least it's toy soldiers. It ends up creating the false impression that people were ok with the house rules when really they just had little to no options.

Yes, thank you for stating it elegantly. This is exactly how USA players feel when they complain about houserules. There are people who like these houserules but there are also people who hate these houserules and go anyway.

59 minutes ago, gjnoronh said:

Joe I can't speak for the country but I think a lot of TO's are looking for feedback pre and post event.   I've got a formal feedback process built into the rules packet at my event but in my experience even informally TOs are listening and tweaking based on input.     You may choose to go anyway to an event you don't like the rules pack for but most people are open to (polite) feedback and suggestions.  They want to make the event the most people will want to attend. 

You run the GT in NY correct? I have read your rules pack. My club has read your rules pack. We do not like the pack and choose not to attend. You are not getting our feedback or countless other groups feedback. Do not pretend you are when you make claims about what players like. I am not a TO. I am only a player. I understand you are trying to make an event most people will attend, and that you weight your decisions to those close to you. But your limiting yourself and the growth of your GT by not considering outside areas. 

[gjnoronh]

Hi appreciate your feedback.   Yes I run Da Boyz GT.  

The event sold out the last two years and had a waiting list of roughly 20 when we closed registration  so I seem to be doing okay on growth.  It's also the largest event in the Northeast US every year since the launch of AoS.  

In terms of feedback prior to anyone deciding to attend I actually have a number of items (scenarios, house rules etc the specific of what items vary from year to year) that I invite registrants and potential registrants to comment on prior to the event and tweak based on feedback.   Some things  (sports and painting) that i suspect your club doesn't like (based on our past discussions on this forum) haven't been open to feedback.   While the TO team and our local player base provides feedback on the rules pack the majority of the feedback is from the wider player base.   My events attendees are less then 10% local players each year.  In addition post event there is a formal feedback system built into the players pack and I get informal feedback every year from conversations with attendees, emails post event as well as in various podcasts and youtube channels of attendees.   

You can't make everyone happy and I don't attempt to.    Just as many as possible while hosting the kind of event my team wants to have.    Doesn't matter what the rules pack is - it's going to fit for some and not all.  If the event isn't the right fit for someone it's probably to both the player and TO's benefit for them not to attend.   

 I'd suggest your criticism about  the inadequacy of my approach of asking for  feedback pre and  post event  is  probably true for all events.  Or do you know of  an event where people outside of the region, who  aren't associated with the TO team  or the local community,  and haven't ever attended the event are providing substantive feedback on the rules pack?  It seems like you think there is a better way to get that input then what I've got - do you have thoughts on how it's been handled elsewhere that better takes the pulse of their player base? 

[svnvaldez]

25 minutes ago, gjnoronh said:

You can't make everyone happy and I don't attempt to. 

At the end of the day I think we can all agree the goal is to have a successful event which is feasible for the TO to run and make the attendees happy.

I would argue that any event  which imposes a high level of houserules and side missions  is not a matched play AOS event.

Additionally I have no issue what so ever with paint or sports scores as long as the event is an ITC event and submits pure battlepoint placing to the ITC.

It doesn’t matter how a TO awards prizes... he can celebrate whatever he wants. But submitting battle points to the ITC allows the tracking of players across the USA and gives them an opportunity to earn top end of year placings in an award system they value.

[gjnoronh]

47 minutes ago, svnvaldez said:

At the end of the day I think we can all agree the goal is to have a successful event which is feasible for the TO to run and make the attendees happy.

I would argue that any event  which imposes a high level of houserules and side missions  is not a matched play AOS event.

I think we can certainly agree on the former!

See my previous post which you quoted a portion of. There is a lot of variance in  how much of what I'd consider to be key features of AoS  (Realms of Battle, Malign Sorcery,  Mysterious Terrain, Terrain Warscrolls) that tournaments that appear to be matched play actually use.  That's without imposing any house rules at all and as you noted there are various add ons to the core rules that GW has suggested for events to use.   

As you note GW has provided some guidance and it's interesting how much I'd consider to be pretty central to good competitive AoS (Realms of Battle) is optional see the list at the bottom.  

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/08/01/1st-aug-pitched-battles-in-the-mortal-realmsgw-homepage-post-2/

 

I also think this is worth noting.   

Because of this, we’d recommend that tournament organisers announce which battleplan, realm and realmscape features will be used in all of the battles in a round, either for all rounds when the players arrive at the event, or about 15 minutes or so before each round is due to begin. 

It seems fairly rare to me  to have events do that.  Most post battleplans and realms and realmscape feature pre event which seems contrary to GW's recommendations.  I know I surprised some this year by only announcing   Battleplans 15 minutes before each round.    (I think it's great for encouraging people to think on their feet and bring a 'balanced' list.)  

Of course as I think about this what makes this discussion pretty amusing is it was launched by discussion on house rules on how to handle concessions.  The rules (as far as I know) are silent on how competitive events should handle concessions. We've seen some good examples of house rules on how to handle it in this thread - but they certainly aren't core rules of AoS they are a TO determined add on that some are quite happy with and others aren't.   

[Skabnoze]

3 hours ago, Sleboda said:

Like the saying goes, there's no such thing as bad pizza.

white sauce with broccoli

🤮

[svnvaldez]

1 hour ago, gjnoronh said:

worth noting.   

Also this from the FAQ. It is clear that GWs stance is in any game of AOS (matched play, open play, narrative play) 2 players or a TO can make any modifications they wish.

I believe that the modifications should only be administrative such as handling tie breakers (this can be done through sidemissions/paint/SoS/Sports etc). But it's simply a belief on what I think is best. There are no "rules" anywhere that say you can't do what you want to have a fun and successful event. There are rules on what a matched play event are. But even those are fuzzy with language indicating that modifications can be made. I still argue they should not be made but someone else can equally argue that they should be made.

That's why I like the ITC so much. Just send your results of battle points in. Do whatever you want the day of the event. Is it not the best of both worlds? 

NOVA took an ITC vote. 40ish in favor, 40ish completely indifferent, 8 against.

[svnvaldez]

1 hour ago, gjnoronh said:

Of course as I think about this what makes this discussion pretty amusing is it was launched by discussion on house rules on how to handle concessions.  The rules (as far as I know) are silent on how competitive events should handle concessions. We've seen some good examples of house rules on how to handle it in this thread - but they certainly aren't core rules of AoS they are a TO determined add on that some are quite happy with and others aren't.   

Exactly... GW has been clear that they do not wish to provide a game that is great for tournament play in the way chess is.

If there was a “correct” way to handle concessions it would be in the core rules/faq

Concessions need to be handled through houserules in the players pack.

[Deadkitten]

2 hours ago, svnvaldez said:

 

That's why I like the ITC so much. Just send your results of battle points in. Do whatever you want the day of the event. Is it not the best of both worlds? 

NOVA took an ITC vote. 40ish in favor, 40ish completely indifferent, 8 against.

What was the vote thing about at NOVA? 

[svnvaldez]

34 minutes ago, Deadkitten said:

What was the vote thing about at NOVA? 

It is completely irrelevant for this thread. It was a vote to send NOVA scores to the USA independent tournament circuit so players could get credit for their placing for year end rankings (like the UK masters). We can dm if you want more info.

 

4 hours ago, gjnoronh said:

 Some things  (sports and painting) that i suspect your club doesn't like (based on our past discussions on this forum) haven't been open to feedback. 

I brought it up in response to this. Sending in scores to the ITC would allow a TO to score an event however he wants using whatever rules he wants but then he could send battlepoints placings to the ITC making both hobby and competitive gamers happy.

There are a few caveats for this to work.. such as swiss pairing players each round based on battlepoints and only adding in soft scores at the end of the event for best "Overall" placings.

Note that NOVA doesn't even send placings based on battlepoints. They just send in best Overall placings. The ITC has no rules on what the TO decides to do. Even thou I still think NOVA should send battlepoint placings not Overall placings many players are fine with this solution.

[Sleboda]

5 hours ago, svnvaldez said:

Additionally I have no issue what so ever with paint or sports scores as long as the event is an ITC event and submits pure battlepoint placing to the ITC.

Why should an event have to be part of any group, let alone that particular one, in order for it to be ok that they have paint and sports scores?

[svnvaldez]

1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

Why should an event have to be part of any group, let alone that particular one, in order for it to be ok that they have paint and sports scores?

See below.

6 hours ago, svnvaldez said:

That's why I like the ITC so much. Just send your results of battle points in. Do whatever you want the day of the event. Is it not the best of both worlds? 

4 hours ago, svnvaldez said:

Sending in scores to the ITC would allow a TO to score an event however he wants using whatever rules he wants but then he could send battlepoints placings to the ITC making both hobby and competitive gamers happy.

Its a different discussion but soft scores have no place in determining a winner of a game. They do determine a winner of an event. I would not attend an event that did not have a best general award with  equal prize support in comparison to overall, sports, paint, etc... since what I value is the best general award.

Most events do  not celebrate each equally (LVO does awards for battlepoints, paint + battlepoints, and paint each with equal prizes, BOBO in the UK also does equal prize support across the 3 but events like NOVA last year had no best general). What an event can do however is send their scores to the ITC (there is no requirement to send, no money involved) . That way even if best general is not celebrated equally at an event the player can get his ITC points and compete in that sphere. That sphere is large  AOS ITC had 1000 players last year and 7000 40k players last year.

The ITC also has a hobby painting track. Which only tracks a players paint scores he accumulates over a year. Thus even if a player went to an event that only had best general like many 1 day 3 game events he can be awarded for his hobby.

I am aware of no other group that tracks a players achievements when they play AOS in the USA (in AUS Herald of War tracks placings in the UK Ben Curry tracks placings). If there are any other groups that do and require no money to join or additional work for a TO (other than emailing the placings) I would recommend the TO to submit placings to that group as well.

@gjnoronh  Da Boyz GT is sending its scores to the ITC correct? "Results of this event will be submitted for ITC rankings however we likely will not provide bonus points for win streak. " I think that's wonderful. Its still not the event for me but many people I talk to are sure to be very happy and I thank you for sending them even if your just sending the Overall placings.

[svnvaldez]

An ITC discussion has nothing to do with "Competitive Event Game Concessions" so lets not derail the thread by discussing it further.  A new topic could be opened or you could message me.

[Sleboda]

9 hours ago, svnvaldez said:

Its a different discussion but soft scores have no place in determining a winner of a game. They do determine a winner of an event. I would not attend an event that did not have a best general award with  equal prize support in comparison to overall, sports, paint, etc... since what I value is the best general award.

That's fine, but my question was why you think an event needs to be ITC-compliant to be allowed to have painting and sports scores.

Why can't you have a painting score at your event even if you don't participate with some irrelevant, external, ego-driving bro-tallying system? As in, "brah, if your event doesn't report to ITC, then it can't have a painting score."

[The World Tree]

3 hours ago, Sleboda said:

 That's fine, but my question was why you think an event needs to be ITC-compliant to be allowed to have painting and sports scores.

 Why can't you have a painting score at your event even if you don't participate with some irrelevant, external, ego-driving bro-tallying system? As in, "brah, if your event doesn't report to ITC, then it can't have a painting score."

He's saying that he'll only go to an event if it is ITC-compliant because he values the scoring placed there. He doesn't care either way about sports/paint because the scores are being sent over to ITC anyway so he gets what he wants. He's effectively suggesting that ITC does not conflict at all with having paint and sports scores as the gaming scores are what are submitted to ITC. ITC being independent on that specific tournament means it doesn't compromise the capacity for tournaments to add their own flavour (this is how I understood him at least).

 

As for concessions, I recently had someone try to concede at the heat and I persuaded them out of it, but in hindsight I regret it. Not for reasons of gaming but because I felt bad forcing someone to play. Life's too short.

[Dead Scribe]

21 hours ago, gjnoronh said:

So your local gaming store has no terrain over 2 inches high and just a handful of pieces per board.   The next tournament you go to has multiple pieces that are big enough to block line of site to Bloodthirster - fliers on top of these pieces are completely out of range of counter charges from non fliers and there are large areas requiring substantive vertical movement to go up and down to get to objectives.  Are you playing the same game in those two locations or is the 'meta' going to shift significantly?

Your local gaming store just uses book missions, you go to Blood and Glory one of the larger tournaments in the world and secondary objectives are now part of the determination of winner and loser of the event.  Are you playing the same game? Will the same armies be good? 

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/10/01/a-new-kind-of-matched-play-scoringgw-homepage-post-3/

Some events jumped right into full realm rules rolling randomly at the start of the game, some events didn't use them all at least early in AoS 2.  Is it the same game?

You wouldn't believe the number of times I set up for a friendly game and my opponent says "Mysterious terrain I never use it." 

Lots of players have never open  the Scenery Warscroll Compendium  on the GW website much less used the rules from it.  

My point being there is a lot of variance in how people's local groups and tournaments play the game without 'comp' a lot of those choices have a substantive effect on the 'meta' of what's good and bad and the tactical complexity of the game.     I don't think there is a single right answer on how people should play I just think it's important we realize how incredibly different games of AoS may be from each other despite theoretically all using the same rules.   

 

@Sleboda   Joe I can't speak for the country but I think a lot of TO's are looking for feedback pre and post event.   I've got a formal feedback process built into the rules packet at my event but in my experience even informally TOs are listening and tweaking based on input.     You may choose to go anyway to an event you don't like the rules pack for but most people are open to (polite) feedback and suggestions.  They want to make the event the most people will want to attend.   

We play to adepticon standard.  If we're going to LVO then we play to LVO standard.  Both of those are similar enough.  If an event or tournament is not standard or follow a tournament standard of one of the two majors, we don't play in it.

[Sleboda]

31 minutes ago, The World Tree said:

He's effectively suggesting that ITC does not conflict at all with having paint and sports scores as the gaming scores are what are submitted to ITC

Ah. Well, that's not what he wrote, but if that was his intent, it makes more sense.

Still not a fan of such systems, but at least I get the point now.

[gjnoronh]

This year we did submit overall rankings and did calculate win streak bonus points.   I had to go through each player round by round to determine win streak - multiple hours.     

There is an alternate system in the US created by Masterpiece Miniatures team that uses the more meaningful (IMO) ELO system that chess uses to reflect difficulty of win vs a given opponent given their skill level ( and at least in other gaming systems where it;s used also the armies involved.)    They launched it in the last four months.   Individual players have to register to submit their results

http://elo.masterpieceminiatures.com/

Overall tends to be a larger award then Battle, Paint, or Sports at most events - because it's a tougher hill to climb all three hills.  But some events do 4 coequal awards or all sorts of other mixes.  What's right for that TO is up to them. 

[RuneBrush]

On 3/8/2019 at 6:19 PM, Sleboda said:

I take it you're not in the US?

The large distances and times between events actually make voting with our feet an unattractive option.

Like the saying goes, there's no such thing as bad pizza.

In other words, even if you really don't like the event's rules, you'll often go anyway because at least it's toy soldiers. It ends up creating the false impression that people were ok with the house rules when really they just had little to no options.

Nope, I'm based in the South West of the UK and use our antiquated public transport system to get to events so can empathise a bit with the difficulty of getting to events.  I'm also under no illusion that voting with your feet always makes a difference especially for events that will fill up whether or not you attend.  But what I would say is that a game shouldn't be purgatory - sometimes sitting at home is preferable to doing something that you would fundamentally not enjoy.

ps - pizzas should be savoury 😋

On 3/8/2019 at 7:59 PM, svnvaldez said:

I believe that the TO should not advertise that the tournament is matched play if they are doing this, advertise  yourself as a narrative or open play event (You could even call it organised play if you want to invent new terminology). Matched play rules are layed out in the core rule book.  If a tournament is calling itself a matched play event I expect to play matched play.

Matched play guidelines start on pg 308 of the core book and continue to 311. Matched play has been supplemented with 2 community articles (the one titled "HIDDEN AGENDAS" and the one titled "ORGANISED PLAY RULES GUIDELINES"

When I read post on this topic I wonder to myself if people even bother to read to the Core Book front to back.

I'm know this is going to come over as really pedantic now, but you've highlighted something that's really key - "Matched play guidelines".  That's the point, they're not a set in stone rule system for how to play games, they're a broad set of guildelines to provide event & game organisers somewhere to start.  It's also worth pointing out that p309 states under the section of Tournaments "Often, special 'house' rules will have been created for the event, and no two tournaments are eve the same, keeping things exciting and interesting".  So not only do the Matched Play guidelines say it's OK, they actively recommend it to make tournaments unique.

I'll get off my pedantry box now 😉  The point I'm trying to make is that event organisers should be able to change things up based on what they want to - most are gamers too so they'll be trying to make an event that if they were playing they'd want to attend.  Just it needs to be communicated clearly enough that people can make that decision on if it's an event they want to go to or not.

I do  completely agree that I'd love to see us lose the "tournament" bit of TO and clarify a tournament as a specific type of event, the trouble is that it's ingrained in the wargaming vocabulary in the same way as we hoover the floor (despite not owning a Hoover brand vacuum cleaner) and refer to all hook and loop tape as Velcro.

[Sleboda]

On 3/10/2019 at 8:48 AM, RuneBrush said:

 

I do  completely agree that I'd love to see us lose the "tournament" bit of TO and clarify a tournament as a specific type of event, the trouble is that it's ingrained in the wargaming vocabulary in the same way as we hoover the floor (despite not owning a Hoover brand vacuum cleaner) and refer to all hook and loop tape as Velcro.

I agree on renaming. Perhaps EO for Event Organizer?

I think we can evolve the language. Heck, if "meta" can find a (totally wrong) place in gaming language, anything is possible. 😋

[gjnoronh]

The NEO network (narrative event organizer) has moved to EO's 

But then what do you call competitive event organizers (CEO's?) 

 

 

[Dead Scribe]

The narrative events are still plenty competitive.  

EO would be fine by me.  

[Chickenbits]

This thread made me so glad that the Swedish tournament scene has moved away from killpoints alltogether. Being forced to play a game where it's obvious that you've lost is the biggest waste of my time I can think of in Warhammer. Play against a slow player and you will be able to see me crawling and shaking in my chair.

I'd MUCH rather concede and then just chat with my opponent, or walk around and check out other games. Of course you learn a lot from playing games were you lose, but I usually learn all my lessons in the events leading up  to the loss. Grinding through my opponents meatwall for 2 hours while he ranks up points isn't gonna give me any enjoyment. I just think "okay, I need some way to deal with durable tarpits like Fyreslayers in the future." and move on.

All of that said, if there are points my opponent could get from us continuing to play, then of course he can have those. Take my 2k kill points. It's why I'm glad I'm no longer in the 40k tournament scene, as that scoring system (ITC) essentially FORCES you to play the game as it doesn't use a fixed point system (20 pts for a win, 0 for a loss, etc), but instead gives you points depending on what you achieve during the game, meaning that it's often hard to "predict" exactly what's gonna happen. Yeeesh.