gjnoronh

Depends on who is defining it various ranking systems may use different approaches. There isn't an 'official' and universal definition. It depends on the rankings system involved. ITC rankings system for example has their own definition I'm sure but I can't quite see on their site how they define it https://www.frontlinegaming.org/community/frontline-gamings-independent-tournament-circuit/itc-2015-season-40k-tournament-format/ In the old days of the defunct tournament scheduling website indygt dot com and their rankings system a "grand tournament" was by definition at least 2 days, at least 5 games, at least 35 players. However that was just for their listing and was influenced by the Direwolf community (which was the equivalent of Warhammer dot org before there was a warhammer dot org, which was TGA.community before this site existed.) So I think you'd have to ask 'why' are you asking and in what context to help you answer.

Ten slots left. . . .

This is genius

Crossroads GT has hit their attendance cap and is taking wait list players only. Da Boyz GT is at 149 total registrations 44 for AoS singles and has 16 slots left for AoS. Gary

Now at 149 total registrations with 44 for AoS Singles alone. Cap of 60 AoS singles players.

You could argue there is even a subset that want list building/experience to trump at the table tactical acumen. The more defined the game conditions are "a priori" the less you need to think on your feet at the table top. I think many of the suggestions from GW (i.e. battleplans and realms announced at the start of the round) over the last year really push the meter towards rewarding players who 'think on their feet' vs those who parse the rules set pre game and find the best army list to win under highly defined conditions. Personally I love that tweak by GW to the standard way scenarios have been handled for decades in Warhammer.

Got it. I'm not sure there is a big group (at least in this thread) arguing in favor of composition rules to up the efficacy of low tier armies. AoS players are pretty much taking the game as it is in terms of army balance (possibly complaining about it.) However those complaints I suspect are largely about the the investment issue I raised in a 2K AoS army vs a 12 man BB squad. I think there is a subset that want AoS to be a highly defined standardized game where list building and skill trump randomness. There is a subset that are happy with AoS rules as written and a subset that want it with max randomness. One way to think of it in the BB analogy imagine showing up to a tournament and being told after checking in all players are -3 move for one of the games of the event or instead a 1/7 chance each game that, that single game is -3 move. That nerfs some teams more then others. Some teams would pretty much give up on scoring at that time. Some coaches would be fine with it, but some even in BB might be unhappy about it. That's kind of like showing up and finding out shooting is heavily nerfed due to Realm rules in AoS. The core rules use it but a lot of players don't use the core rules. BB coaches are pretty accustomed to a moderate degree of variation in rules sets. But take something really wierd (all players strength 4+ are now -30K gold in cost! No players with Block are allowed!) and I think coaches would complain. Just think about the angst some podcasters and coaches have about Piling on changes in BB2016 or roster additions in BB2016 like halfling catchers.

I'm quite a Blood Bowl fan myself and I think it's an excellent skill based tournament game (IMO better then AoS) despite a high degree of randomness inherent in the rules. Risk management, understanding of probability and assessment of the tactical situation are core skills that are really built into the core system allowing tournament games to separate the good players from the average. But I'm not sure what you mean in your post. There are bad and good team builds in Blood Bowl (orcs with all linemen vs a standard 4 BOBs, 4 Blitzers) but the basic list design part of Blood Bowl is largely 'solved' there are really very clear 'heres what you take.' If you mean why aren't people in AoS happy if an army is 'broken' it's because of the high investment (time, monetary, emotional) involved in building a full army only to find out it's not good (or so good your friends won't play you regularly) after that investment. What differs from tournament to tournament in Blood Bowl is intentionally the skill packages, team value and random quirks of home brew weather tables, scoring bonuses etc. List building to those unique tournament specific requirements is actually what I think adds a lot of long term interest to tournament play for BB and separates smart coaches from less smart. For the AoS fans that would be equivalent to sometimes having tournaments at 1,750 pts, sometimes 2250 points, sometimes 2000 points sometimes you use realm rules, sometimes you don't, sometimes you can use Realm artifacts sometimes you can't.

Sure but whether the players use the realms (and presumably per the base Matched Play rules determine the Realm at the table as part of the pregame process) or if we actually use all GW terrain is indeed something posters are taking opposites sides of 'it's optional' vs 'its required if it's a matched play tournament.' As noted before I think a lot of people make unconscious assumptions 'everything I really like isn't optional' while also saying to themselves 'but of course these things that aren't really what I like or that feasible are optional.' It's a highly flexible rules set designed at it's heart for friendly games amongst peers. It can be used for tournament play but there are quite a bit of (conscious or unconscious) assumptions and adjustments to be made to make it work well in that setting. An extra pregame terain set up phase for example is a big challenge given that a sizable percentage of AoS games at 'standard 2K size' aren't finished in 2-2.5 hours. I don't think the GHB 2019 GW suggested model is the best model for tournament play at all.

Why? Competitive play is competitive, winners should be respected for their legitimate achievement even if the rules aren't exactly the same from one event to the other. It's not Magic where there are set highly defined formats. AoS is very open ended and as someone pointed out on the first page that makes it actually a very interesting war game. Inside of matched play even as defined by GW's tournament rules there is a lot of weird stuff that can really mess with the competitive balance at any given 3-5 game event (realm rules as discussed quite eloquently by others here in this thread.) That's pretty RNG or organizer whim dependent competitive balance even if every last rule as written is folowed. There is a lot of variance in terrain from board to board and event to event even if we use all GW products for terrain. While some events use the terrain war scrolls including in the terrain compendium list on line the majority do not. That skews competitive balance from event to event quite a bit. How many events give players ID numbers and badges? That's part of the defined tournament rules from GHB 2019. If an event doesn't give out ID numbers is a winner 'less legitimate.' You might argue heck those ID numbers aren't important (and I agree.) But I think it's a bit odd to say w"e must use all the rules exactly as written" while also saying 'ignore the rules I think aren't important.' Again read upward on this page where the GW run events are generally considered not to be good models of how to run a 'competitive' tournament for decades. It's hard to reconcile that fairly universal sentiment with 'everyone should follow the exact system suggested by GW.'

We are doing whatever is in GHB 2019 or in the app. Which is pretty standard for most events. I must admit I don't recall the WD Fireslayer materials.

Event Title: Da Boyz Grand Tournament Rochester NY USA 2019 Event Author: gjnoronh Calendar: Events USA Event Date: 11/08/2019 08:00 AM to 11/10/2019 12:00 AM Back for our 14th year Da Boyz Grand Tournaments and Gaming Weekend is excited to open registration for 2019. Rochester NY USA Last year we had almost 270 total registrations amongst all the different gaming systems and we anticipate hitting the 300 mark this year. In addition to our AoS singles tournament (58 registered last year cap this year is 60) we are adding AoS doubles which marks the first time in the AoS era we've had doubles as well as singles. In addition last year we hosted the North East US's only Warhammer Underworlds Grand Clash, as well as a Blood Bowl tournament, 40K ITC major, and much much more. Join us this year as of this posting 2 days into registration we have 33 total registrations for AoS already http://www.daboyzgt.com/ Da Boyz Grand Tournament Rochester NY USA 2019

Registration is now open for Da Boyz GT. Now at 33 already registered. Cap is 60 Gary

If you want End Times coverage I highly recommend the Garage Hammer Podcasts covering the End Times books. Best narrative discussion of that time period I've heard https://garagehammer.net/

GW customer service is top notch

Good point - thanks for making it. Agreed I'm coming at it from the long term customer perspective and that helps to have you frame it that way. The vast majority of the advertising from GW is on new Battletomes rather then legacy kits but I'm sure there is someone who fell in love with Spear chukkas or similar units somewhere along the way possibly because of a GW advert for them? But I think Legends/Compendium may cover some of those players needs.

Also I suspect as with any distributor large high volume accounts (FLGS or not) get more priority on hard to get items then others. I've seen that in play with various manufacturers over the years. I also have seen FLGS be 'unable to get' some orders because of ****** ups in how they handle ordering something that they should have preordered but didn't.

Agree with @RuneBrush I can use the majority of the GW models I bought 29 years ago with only the need to rebase them to have them be 'legal and reasonably effective' in the current game. Some of them (i.e. khorne daemons) are in the upper half of competitiveness under the current rules with just the need to add a few support pieces. Some ancient models are noticeably less competitive but that's not necessarily permanent as GW has released battletomes compatible with ancient models (i.e. Beastmen, Gloomspite Gitz) and likely will continue to. Are they going to hit every model or model line that has ever existed in over 35 years of the companies existence - no. But they may hit whatever legacy army that we are currently worrying about. I'm not sure there are other similar gaming companies that I'm aware of that have the same degree of forward compatibility spanning 30 or so years of existence. Certainly in other leisure industries there is even less assumption that the company will provide that degree of support.

Masterpiece Miniatures does some good stuff. Worth checking out.

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. That's because the gaming system is fun, the models are cool and attract 'not serious gamers.' It's not because it's the very best system for rules lawyering tight highly skill determined matches. 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. The business model intentionally created imbalance around new releases in a 6 month span. Something 1-2 years old was usually unplayable. 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.

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 event ever! 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. I don't think we had any last year and possibly the year before. But that's in a highly developed tournament scene attracting highly committed players throughout the country the exact opposite of what the OP has going on. Regionally however 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. Particularly as there are mechanisms to deal with the competitive imbalances that other issues (like height) aren't easily addressed. Certainly whether or not to require painting is a bigger point of concern that folks weigh in on at the local one day event level. 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.

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.

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.

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.