Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

gjnoronh

Members
  • Content Count

    342
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

150 Celestant-Prime

1 Follower

About gjnoronh

  • Rank
    Dracothian Guard

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Just a comment on the quality of the rules front. I think it's inarguable that AoS isn't a tight rules set highly suitable for intense competitive play. I do think GW does tend to focus on 'is this a good rules set for fun play' (which could be competitive, or narrative or open.) It's possible I'm sure to make a very tight rules set that is also 'fun' but it's probably harder. GW historically goes with making the game they think gamers who are trying to have fun are attracted to and anything else is a bonus. Give GW deserved credit for generally making games that lots of people want to play. Yes they are bigger and it's easier to find a game but that's not all of it - AoS when it launched was a much smaller community then it was at peak of WFB but it rebounded quickly with lots of new players joining the community over the last 4 years. Blood Bowl survived roughly ten years of no GW releases on basis of it being a very fun rules set (and a great player community who took the ball and ran with it.) It also happens to be a very clear rules set for competitive play but that's not what it was designed for IMO. Xwing in 1.0 was historically a tighter rules set (I haven't played 2.0) and was largely quite a lot of fun though the business model made it less so. I've been hearing for roughly 25 years that X, Y, or Z new game was the greatest new product on the world and that game was going to replace GW games completely in a year. Almost all of those systems have gone out of business or are now a small fraction of their peak success. GW's toy soldiers are amongst the few things I bought 29 years ago that I still own and can use as intended all these years later. That is pretty amazing. Think about it what else do you still own and use that you bought decades ago.
  2. I guess we'll just have to assume there may indeed be a cadre of very serious tournament players who would rather have less folks show up at their first A) 2015 we had AoS Grand Tournaments tournaments I know I ran one that was roughly the first or second in the US. There were plenty in the UK in that first year. Just because AoS didn't have official rules for points didn't mean we couldn't and didn't figure out ways to have competitive (and fun) tournaments! B) While some rules packs have gotten specific about rounds in the last 1-2 years I don't know of any that has a specific comment about which era of model you should use or what to do in case of using an older model with a different height profile then currently. I.e. here's the Adepticon AoS pack which appears silent on the issue https://www.adepticon.org/wpfiles/2019/2019aoschamp.pdf While certainly in my event we've left the door open for square bases the number has dropped over the years. But that's in a highly developed tournament scene. Regionally outside of my events folks don't seem to care at the small one day event level - even for stores that have no connection to my event or direct experience with the rules set. Certainly whether or not to require painting is a bigger point of concern that folks weight in on. The standard at serious high level competitive events across the globe is to require painting - why aren't you defaulting to that for your advice to the OP? Probably for the same reason I'm saying not to obsess over rounds vs squares. Not requiring painting or rounds gets more folks in the door which is the most important hurdle for a first time event.
  3. It's the first time they've ever had a tournament in the OP's region. Exactly how many serious tournament players ( who have apparently never attended one) could there be? I suppose someone who hasn't played at a tournament ever or hasn't podiumed at a large event may think of themselves as a 'serious competitive gamer' but maybe they are misunderstanding what their skill and experience level is. Would your local highly competitive gamers be worried about someone using 25 mm rounds instead of 32 mm rounds? If so why haven't you advised the OP on specific guidelines for managing that issue. How about someone using an original metal Blood Thirster that is around the height of a current SCE Decimator they've got it on the current round sized base but with true line of sight they can hide it behind a 2.5 inch tall hill quite unlike the current thirster. Again the square vs round is an oddly specific competitive modeling and basing concern to primarly focus on given that there are a lot of potential serious competitive concerns that can come up in a toy soldiers game that has had a lot of changes in the pieces over the last 30 years. In a large tournament that dates back to the start of AoS the only real issue we've run across is wrong size round. Our rules pack is specific for how to deal with that and squares.
  4. Unless of course you actually require people using squares to use the right round sized base for piling in - which I've said in every post on this subject. Most rules packs don't require that of wrong sized rounds. Wrong sized rounds cause the same competitive advantage potentially (or disadvantage) but isn't a drum you are beating on. Less rules packs are specific on that. Reminder per OP's goals "The tournament is aiming to attract as many players as possible to enjoy the game. " Seriously it's a one day tournament at a local store if they get 8 people I'd very proud of the start. It's not some sort of competitive death match with money on the line. Does anyone think someone taking switfthawk agents with squares is going to be able to be wielding a competitive advantage against DoK on rounds? It's also possible that at the first in the area level 1-2 players means the difference between having a tournament or having 3 people show up and not being able to have much of a three round tournament. I ran a 58 registrant AoS event and a 110 person 40K event at Da Boyz last year - I think there's about 10% of that that would consider themselves 'highly competitive gamers.' The other 90% are there to drink beer and have fun playing with man dollies.
  5. I know Deadscribe has strong opinions on rounds vs squares - it really isn't essential. Except for piling in where you can use blank bases. But you know your player base sounds like you were worried about folks with legacy armies earlier in this thread being able to compete. If that's not a big chunk of your player base you don't have to worry about them. Contextually I run the largest AoS tournament in the NE USA we have always allowed square bases. Since AoS launched we've never had a problem where someone felt it was a competitive advantage. We do require someone to bring blank rounds for Pile In purposes to measure. The serious players switch, the new to AoS guys are on the bottom tables and getting stomped by and large. We have however had complaints where someone had a ROUND base that didn't seem to be the right size (GW has changed the sizes for some units up and down since AoS launched or initially didn't have round base sizes listed) and opponents felt it gave their opponent a competitive advantage.
  6. I'd disagree about square bases. If someone has legacy square bases ask them to bring (or you can supply) empty rounds of the appropriate size to be used for determining how many models should be able to pile in. It's not hard to work out, and if you have a lot of legacy armies in your player base (and clearly @frostfire does!) then making it easy for folks to show up for the first AoS tournament in the area is the main priority. This isn't going to be hyper competitive AoS this is going to be 'gee does any of us actually enjoy tournament AoS, and do we ever want to do a tournament again. AoS' Getting the legacy players who haven't decided if they like AoS in the door for their first tournament is important. They already are going to have under powered armies (barring Free Guild AFAIK) don't exclude them further by requiring them to rebase.
  7. While I often disagree with Dead Scribe - this is pretty spot on for a first event. Note point 2 depends on your community level of experience. There are lots of people who get pissed off when they pay money to be in a tournament and the guy across from them has grey plastic. I've received that feedback during the first few years of AoS when my event allowed unpainted in order to try and fill enough seats to keep the doors open. There are certainly those who won't come if painting is a requirement, but there are also those who won't come if painting isn't a requirement. But for the store level one day first time tournament you are trying to get in people new to AoS and the tournament scene - go with allowing unpainted. Figure out tie breakers and your scoring system both per win/loss result and whether soft scores (sportsmanship and paint) are part of your final overall winner determination. Publish it in the rules pack. There are arguments to be made in either direction again for a first run tournament it's probably easier to do battle only. However seeing a guy who was a bad sport, with an unpainted army win the Overall might turn off players who wanted to try out tournament play and hated seeing 'That Guy' win. 'That Guy' (or Girl) is the one who doesn't care about the model aspect of this game, the one who is a 'rules lawyer' pushing the envelope, who is generally looked at by their peers as the guy no one wants to play in pick up play or in a tournament. You may lose the 'average hobbyists' for future events if they have Negative Play Experiences. In my experience in a well developed regional tournament scene lots of folks specifically avoid tournament play because they are afraid of running into another version of 'That Guy' often with 'one of Those Lists." Again though for a first time event it's probably easier to do just battle and then take feedback from your community in what they want to see in the future. Figure out your tournament software. I like Warscore http://warscore.net/ which is free and highly modifiable by the user but BCP (best Coast Pairings) is also a well regarded product - it doesn't to my understanding handle soft scores very easily. If it's a small event you could just do excel or a paper results table. Count your heads prior to the event - know who is definitely coming, who is probably coming and who is at some level of commitment below that. You need 4 to do a small 'tournament' If you have limitations on space and may likely hit it get folks to commit before the folks who pre register get dibs. If the TO is ringering (playing if there is an odd number of players) decide if they are eligible to win the thing overall prior to the event and who answers rules questions in a game the TO is involved in.
  8. Also for what it's worth I know that some of the current playtesters for AoS /40K are the head TOs for the largest highest stakes events for those systems in the world. At least two of them have a podcast and one of them talked pretty in depth about his playtest experiences during their podcast review of an army book. No I'm not going to say which podcasts - or events but if you are a serious competitive player you've absolutely heard about their events and probably tried to parse their rules set and results. Maybe those guys running those events don't understand the top levels of competitive play - but having heard them talk through their thoughts about books I think they've got at least as good of a grasp (and far better then 99% of people) then anyone else I've heard/read talking about it.
  9. I also know several of the past playtesters personally the ones I know were widely regarded as amongst the best competitive players of Warhammer in the US. At least a few of the current GW playtesters are members of this forum including Ben Curry who runs this forum. As noted some of those names with writer/playtest credit podium at big events. Sleboda was working for GW in the past possibly when he was a playtester. GW has talked about their internal playtest process somewhat in a Jervis article in WD from January of this year which I think is well worth reading for those interested. I've also been involved personally as a playtester for companies other then GW. I can only talk about that experience in relation to my background in medical research. In terms of data science it's quite hard to get enough playtesting to get truly statistically useful data. It tends at best to be 'this feels too weak' 'this feels too strong' - not we tried this unit 100 times each against these 20 different armies and had enough results to draw a clear statistical trend. If a game takes 10 minutes and was just two options red vs black you could get the reps in. In a game like AoS with lots of variables (big variance in skill from 'average gamer' to top tier player, 20 or so units per book + various internal variants vs 20 or so opposing armies and 18 or so battleplans in circulation and high variance in terrain found on the tabletops in the player world) and a long (2-3 hour) game time it's quite hard to get enough reps in to provide statistically actionable data. First weekend after an AoS book drops there's probably thousands or so games played with the book (rough estimate total sales of a book x 10%-25) - a lot of data gets generated quickly! There just isn't a way to get thousands of games or even hundreds of games with a closed internal playtesting model in the context of the timeline for release for AoS. Along those lines I've also in the past worked directly with the head fantasy rules write in various WFB editions on collating questions for the GW FAQ. There were questions that came up during that first month of games that they hadn't thought of (and neither did I when I first read an army book or during my first ten games) that came up because many many many gamers (thousands) playing a game tend to find the edge cases and suboptimally rules that a smaller group (even if it's 50-100 or so ) of gamers/rules writers miss. I bring that experience working with the FAQ team up because it really illustrated for me how a book 'being out in the wild' provided a lot of data that even careful individual readings missed. Could the internal and external balance accuracy of books be better? Absolutely. But it's hard to get enough playtest data to scientifically guide us to that accuracy. You can get a feel and a general sense from the playtests but it will miss things.
  10. 100% but I'm old and I've been in the hobby a long time. When I was just starting we were proxying using Army men half the time.
  11. From what I'm hearing from folks who have painted models with the new primers it's a lot smoother then Corax White which is important for the paint to flow appropriately. You are right varnish too if you don't own it.
  12. There are going to be plenty in your local FLGS's on release day. Don't forget you are going to want the primer as well and medium
  13. And he said on twitter took him 1/2 the time to do vs his traditional NMM approach. He had some issues with the consistency to get the results he wanted but thought that was an experience issue for him.
  14. Evaporation occurs due to exchange of liquids (water mostly) from the paint into the air. That occurs between the air in the container above the paint and with exchange of air through the gaps in the space between bottle and paint pot lid to the surrounding air. Storing it upside down means there is less volume of space for air exchange between the liquid paint and 'air under the lid' as there really isn't any. The liquid paint doesn't diffuse through the gaps around the lid - there is some exchange between paint and the air at those gaps in the lid but it's not as much because the space is less. By keeping them in an air tight container you are essentially creating a 'humid' environment when you aren't using the paints for an extended period of time. This reduces evaporative loss as well. It won't matter as much if you use them every night but we all have those periods when the paints get put away and we don't think about them for a some time. When I crack that lid after a long period of not using you get a big whiff of paint solvents 'new paint smell' that loss is happening all the time in more open set ups. How often I add water depends on how the paints look like. In the past I'd just go through the entire collection once every 6 months to a year and open every pot check the status and add water if I think appropriate. I haven't done that for a bit (and I've thrown away a few pots in the last year so that may be related!) Dropper top ones I deal with less often because it's more of a pain in the neck to do. Its too late when it's a dried out mess, but if things are starting to look a bit too thick in the pot you should add some water. If you are going to always be diluting your paint on the palette anyhow a little more water may keep it at the right consistency to use out of the pot.
  15. Speaking of old paint still in use - here's a pic from my choices from Purples when I was working on some Blood Bowl Dark Elf stuff. I've got some of my original 1990 GW paints and plenty of my stuff from the 90's and early 2000s. Storage (Upside down in an airtight container for any paint but not inks) and maintenance (checking paints every now and then adding some medium or water to paints getting too thick) helps a lot! https://twitter.com/Khornelord/status/1136436798509527041
×
×
  • Create New...