Jump to content

Las Vegas Open 2017 Results + Lists


Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, wayniac said:

Warhammer should not be overly competitive (IMHO of course).  There are (IMHO again) much better competitive games; warmahordes, infinity spring to mind as being tightly-tuned for competitive, dare I say it, cutthroat type of play (not being a tool, of course, just hard lists).  Warhammer has always been the combination, laid back but still strong (nothing egregious) with more emphasis on painting and the hobby in general and even *gasp!* narrative and themed stories than "just" trying to win.

If you don't want warhammer to be "overly" competitive you probably should adjust your event schedule. (or be more accepting that is IS a competitive game at a tournament... to MANY of the people there).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 162
  • Created
  • Last Reply

as soon as you give some kind of reward for paint and/or sportsmanship you're inducing a bias in the notion of competition. 

For an event to be purely competitive (ie: best  at the game) you should be allowed to play with unpainted model and get no reward no matter how nice you are.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, broche said:

as soon as you give some kind of reward for paint and/or sportsmanship you're inducing a bias in the notion of competition. 

For an event to be purely competitive (ie: best  at the game) you should be allowed to play with unpainted model and get no reward no matter how nice you are.

 

You mean like every competitive scene in sports where they have awards for having good sportsmanship and being be best in certain categories. 

 

The non non painting thing is bull. You can't turn up to an football game to play not wearing your jeans and a wife beater. 

Why are we even fighting this when it has been the standard and will continue to be. 

 

To be the best in Warhammer is all areas not just gaming. That's why we have best general awards. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, broche said:

as soon as you give some kind of reward for paint and/or sportsmanship you're inducing a bias in the notion of competition. 

For an event to be purely competitive (ie: best  at the game) you should be allowed to play with unpainted model and get no reward no matter how nice you are.

 

Is it that difficult not to be a ****** to people you're playing with? Shake hands, wish them luck, tell them good game at the end. It's a social game, there is an implied social contract and a good sportsmanship score helps to reinforce it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly do not understand why 'competitive Warhammer' always seem to exclude painting and social skills.

You can compete at being best painter, and you can compete at providing the best gaming experience for your opponent, just like you can compete in being the best list-builder and or best at winning the scenarios.

Plus there is a big element of luck in the playing part, where as the painting and social part is not dice(/luck) dependent, so that even cuts out that random factor there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Spiky Norman said:

I honestly do not understand why 'competitive Warhammer' always seem to exclude painting and social skills.

I did not imply that. To me it's clear that it's part of the game. 

I'm just answering thoses guys that argue (but without any arguments, still waiting) that the army where (and i quote) terrible. 

A player could just play a suboptimal army because that all the model he have painted. Or he have this really nice painted model that is overpriced, but he know he is likely to score more for presentation if he include it. Alternatively, i could have a crusher army but a lose a game on an allowed take back.

So if you want to criticized the best army list, in my opinion you would need an event that is sorely focus on that. Otherwise there's just to much unknown variable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Spiky Norman said:

I honestly do not understand why 'competitive Warhammer' always seem to exclude painting and social skills.

Because, traditionally, any sort of competitive game only focuses on pure wins.  Magic, X-Wing or Warmahordes, for example, the winner of a tournament is only the person who emerges from all their games undefeated.  Nothing else matters, it's entirely a matter of at the end of the day, the person who went 4-0 is the champion and winner of the tournament.

But, as I said before, Warhammer is almost unique in the sense that as a game it encompasses (or tries to encompass) the entire "hobby" and not just who wins all their games.  GW pushes that approach (after all they consider the hobby to be the combination of collecting/painting/playing, in equal measure) with their focus on "forge the narrative" (which, granted, is more of a 40k thing and has become sort of a meme) and multiple styles of play.  Therefore, i think it's perfectly find for "competitive Warhammer" to be about the entire Warhammer hobby: Painting, social skills AND generalship, in relatively equal measure.  After all, given that we know and tend to accept the fact Warhammer is often less balanced than it perhaps should be (and certainly less balanced than competing tabletop games), this makes more sense because the Warhammer hobby is more than just winning games, where competing games are often focused entirely on that.

5 minutes ago, Mikester1487 said:

At the end of the day I don't think any of us want the game turning out like this:

 www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2011/01/24 

Felt relevant to post here.

Also as a Warmahordes player I take offense to this.  It very rarely turns out like that, even at competitive levels, because the balance in Warmahordes is much closer than it is in Warhammer; a subpar list could still have some tricks (the main issue would be running into lists for which you have you counter).  In fact, ironically, the scenario presented in that comic is often more likely to occur in Warhammer (although arguably more in 40k now than AOS) because there's a good chance that, depending on your opponent, what you show up with may have zero chance to be effective.  I get the joke it's meant to convey, of course, but I've seen that situation come up a lot more in Warhammer (again, mainly 40k) than I've ever seen it in Warmachine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

I'll be honest... those are some pretty terrible lists. Really seems like a beginners tournament and not a real competitive event.

Why was somebody allowed to bring a battalion that includes a Realmgate?

 

The Wardens of the Realmgate was used at The Warlords (a GW Event).

I emailed the TO for Heat One some time in advance of Heat One to check the Realmgate was included within the cost of the Battalion and received clearance for this and indeed encouragement to use it.

It's a powerful battalion (although it introduces a big element of chance). Losing 2 Protectors out of 10 turn one of the game (double ones for Hazardous Journey) is painful. Rolling a double one for the "Come Out" roll in game 6 - think of a Dice Table - also happened in game 5 - this jams the Realmgate for Battleround One. 

This was the core of my Casinostrike List. It's a lot more fun than Warrior Brotherhood for both you and your opponent.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, broche said:

For an event to be purely competitive (ie: best  at the game) you should be allowed to play with unpainted model and get no reward no matter how nice you are.

I'm as competitive as anyone out there. I like large events, good players, and hard lists.

I did this for years with Ard Boyz (no paint, no sportsmanship), making it through multiple rounds and playing at the GW Bunker for the finals. I say no thanks to this style of play. Modeling and sportsmanship are part of the game. Even the top level competitive game, for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎11‎.‎02‎.‎2017 at 0:12 PM, NoTurtlesAllowed said:

How much time does a player put into making lists, building, converting, painting, basing, reworking lists? Then how much time does a player put into playing the game? When I weight it like this, I think that the hobby side is much more time intensive and encompassing. To me, I want to be rewarded for this time.

The problem with soft-scores is that they are highly subjective.

I've been to events and looked around at all the armies and thought that I had a good chance of winning Best-Painted and then not even gotten a Nomination. That hurts far more than going 0-6!

Sportsmanship is equally highly skewed by popularity and luck. I wonder how many genuinely very nice people, who just happen to be rather shy, have failed to get a sportsmanship vote?

Best painted is tricky, but I do feel a negative sportsmanship adjustment is far fairer - everyone starts with full sportsmanship points and players have the option to down vote People they feel were unsportsmanlike, if a Player gets two or more down votes then they lose their sportsmanship points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Equally I feel the comparisons people are making with other games like MtG or Chess are rather unfortunate.

I can see the parallels (combos, alpha strike etc.), but a miniature wargame is a very different beast to a card game (or Chess). In Magic I have no real attachment to my deck of cards (apart from money). If something isn't working, I swap out some cards - or I build a completely new Deck. In AoS (and other miniature wargames) one invests a lot of time, effort and love into building, designing and painting an army, often picking only those models that one finds visually appealing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, pforson said:

The problem with soft-scores is that they are highly subjective.

 

What you call 'soft scores' are the only way many olympic sports are being determined. There are judges, who decides a score on a scale.

If that method is good enough to determine winners and losers in the olympic games, it is good enough for a wargaming tournament.

That's my opinion at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Spiky Norman said:

What you call 'soft scores' are the only way many olympic sports are being determined. There are judges, who decides a score on a scale.

If that method is good enough to determine winners and losers in the olympic games, it is good enough for a wargaming tournament.

That's my opinion at least.

It's official - Warhammer will be an Olympic event in 2018! ?

Truthfully, though, I agree with your point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Spiky Norman said:

What you call 'soft scores' are the only way many olympic sports are being determined. There are judges, who decides a score on a scale.

If that method is good enough to determine winners and losers in the olympic games, it is good enough for a wargaming tournament.

That's my opinion at least.

I'm not sure I totally agree with the comparison.

Art is not Sport and cannot be so easily judged. Would you judge a painting based on the amount of different colours the Artist had used? Or how many techniques they had demonstrated? - I certainly wouldn't.

I appreciate that some 'sports' could be considered an artform (I'm thinking perhaps Ice-Skating). But even then, the variance in artistic expression is surely less than that of painting? - If an Ice-Skater falls over, was it intentional? - probably not. How would one define 'falling over' in terms of painting?

I once didn't win Best Painted because the Judge didn't like the colour pink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Spiky Norman said:

What you call 'soft scores' are the only way many olympic sports are being determined. There are judges, who decides a score on a scale.

If that method is good enough to determine winners and losers in the olympic games, it is good enough for a wargaming tournament.

That's my opinion at least.

While that's true, those judges are far more qualified as judges than the random folks at an event.  Plus, the same set of judges evaluate all participants, not just the ones they happened to see.  Lastly, the don't compete against the people they judge. 

Really very different. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in adepticon they have a set of criteria for painting, so it's a fair soft score. I guess it left some room for subjectivity, but in general you can predict your score by looking at the painting chart. For me that would be equivalent to an judged olympic sport.

However sportsmanship is clearly biased. Once you have played in a couple event and start knowing poeples or you're part of a big team you're more likely to score high (it's a soft collusion effect).

I would rather like an approach like pforson is suggesting: You start with the max, then if someone complain a judge could deduct point to a player commiting sportmantship foul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't get me started on sports scoring.  Actually, you've gotten me started....

Here's my premise.

The worst 5% of the games you'll ever play in your life are remarkable from a sports context.

The best 5% of the games you'll ever play in your life are remarkable from a sports context.

The 90% left in the middle are virtually impossible to rank one after another from bottom to top - they are all unremarkable from a sports context.

Any event organizer with a sports scoring scheme that attempts to finely/minutely craft a scoring scheme to pick out best and worst sports, or to determine placing between (for example) a tie at 31st place in the standings, or what have you, is fooling themselves if they think they are getting a genuine result.

A simple thumbs up/thumbs down will weed out bad apples.  A "favourite opponent" scheme will pick out a best sports.  But any attempt to try incorporating sports scores at a deeper level than this is doomed to be arbitrary and flawed.  There's no meaningful objective way to do it, and any subjective way will provide inaccurate and inconsistent results as each "voter" applies their own subjectivity to the task.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi All,

First time posting here but I was at LVO 2017 and I want to point out that while there was a soft score component in requiring a favorite player vote to win per GW who was running the event, this is *not* caluculated in the Best Coast pairings app or in ITC standings at all to my knowledge. The scores you see if you look at the event in the BCP player app are the raw scores before modification for soft scoring. If your goal is to be as competetive (or "filthy") as you'd like, you can absolutely still "win" tournaments even if you never get a prize at said tournament. You can also even win the overall ITC for the year without a single "best player" vote in events that use that. The ITC doesn't care about soft score votes.

As for how hard or soft the lists were at the tourney, tbh, I think its safe to say we just have a somewhat immature meta at this point. This game is just picking up steam in the US and hasn't really found its legs just yet. I finished 13th in the tourney and played my first real AOS game exactly 2 months before LVO, and there were a lot of people who did similarly well but were just as new as I was. Also, soft scoring components like this are somewhat common in a lot of local metas in the US (particularly in souther california, which probably represented the region with the largest turnout at LVO) so I imagine some people may have deliberately tried to steer clear of the netlist stuff that causes the most negative play experiences, because they knew it may cost them a top spot and prizes, even if they won every game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Spiky Norman said:

What you call 'soft scores' are the only way many olympic sports are being determined. There are judges, who decides a score on a scale.

If that method is good enough to determine winners and losers in the olympic games, it is good enough for a wargaming tournament.

That's my opinion at least.

Actually, they purposely attempt to make scoring in Olympic events as objective as possible (I think it's one of the requirements for inclusion).

Which is why in gymnastics (for instance) a specific routine scores a certain amount of points and then each mistake drops it by a set amount.

Obviously there is still a subjective element, but it's minimised.

Now, that said, the same thing doesn't really apply to painting (beyond absolute basics) as styles vary so much, but such a system probably could be applied to sportsmanship... but then you would effectively have to train every competitor to judge under that system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judges in a Golden Daemon also does not give out scores based solely on personal taste either.

 

We can certainly argue how things like painting and sportsmanship should influence winners of a Warhammer event, because there are obviously some ways that are better than others, but that the painting and social aspect of Warhammer should play no part in determining winners and losers is still something I have not seen a good argument for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could another reason why the U.K. Scene is "sharper" than the US scene is because of the density of events in the U.K. Compared to the US?

Unless you're willing to do some serious traveling it's just not possible to attend multiple GT events easily here in the US where as the U.K. Seems to be much more condensed. I look on the events page here on TGA and it's dominated by U.K. Events.

I think as Frontline gaming with the ITC and Games Workshop themselves continue to really back AoS here in the states we will see a sharpening of lists.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...