A veteran Gamer Point of view?

The place to discuss all that was! Visit the AdeptiCon website (www.adepticon.org) for past coverage, event results and photos!

A veteran Gamer Point of view?

Postby TimSchmidt » Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:25 pm

Ok, first a note on my login name, it is me; I really dislike the ability of the Internet to allow people to hide behind a neat name. That’s just my Point Of View (POV) that said...here are my thoughts on the convention.

It takes a lot...of hard work and planning to pull off this and any convention and I can image the all-consuming time that this one takes.... so a BIG THANKS to the TEAM at ADEPTUS WINDY CITY for bring us gamers a great weekend of gaming.

Also hats off to all the players that came and made the weekend fun.

Now to my Point of View (POV)

POV-The scoring system from painting and theme needs to be published so teams preparing can have an idea of how this will work.

POV-Could the Team Tournament and the RTT on Sunday, have limitations on Forge would kits, like only kits that represent items in your army list and not Forge world Rules. I will be the first to say that this might not be the greatest for me, as I like forge world, but in a competitive situation it seems that having to explain rules on how your forge world kit works, can cause problems. Also I wonder how TESTED the rules are for balance? Might help in creating fewer headaches for the AWC people. Really don’t want them to get frustrated.

POV- could composition of an army be done before the game is played, also maybe some of the sportsmanship like the first three or 4 questions. By the way I really liked the question method of sportsmanship.


Those are my POV!
TimSchmidt
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:49 pm

Postby artificer » Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:23 pm

I'm one of Tim's teammates, but this was my first year at Adepticon, so take my thoughts on the whole matter with a grain of salt.

1) definitely, major, big props to the whole crew who not only got everything together, but kept it all moving smoothly.

2) I agree that a published list of 'standards' for painting and theme would be helpful.

3) I disagree with Tim on the FW issue. Plenty of players don't know all the codices, so not knowing all the FW rules isn't going to save them. In any tourney you are going to come up against new things, I believe that FW should STAY one of them.

4) I think the sportsman/comp questions mentioned above would be ideally suited to being scored before-hand. That way, possible bad feelings over a loss (or just over-competitiveness) wouldn't tarnish the basics of these scores.

5) I have no basis for judgement, but I too liked the specific questions for sportsmanship. Perhaps having comp scored this way would be helpful too, and leave less room for 'abusive scoring'?
Only the Dead Have Seen The End Of War
- Plato

'07 TT - No More Kicking
'08 TT - Casus Belli
'09 TT - Cede Malis
'10 Paint Judging and Terrain Monkey
artificer
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 6:26 pm

Postby Redbeard » Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:45 pm

artificer wrote:2) I agree that a published list of 'standards' for painting and theme would be helpful.


Seconded. Although painting to a checklist isn't realistic, I would like to know if there is some checklist that is done for theme. Are matching shirts worth a point? What about dressing up like someone in your army? Do you have to carry a bigass banner to meet some checklist criteria? Or can you have your army display the theme, and skip out on the dress-up and makeup?
"All very successful commanders are prima donnas and must be so treated."

George S. Patton
User avatar
Redbeard
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:55 am
Location: Homewood, IL

Postby calltoarms » Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:12 pm

I agree with the thoughts here. As to the forgeworld rift, that's what made gladiator so unique, was the ability to PLAY forgeworld there. I think in team, and championship, it was abused. GRANTED< those players will NOT win the tourney due to horrible theme/comp scores, but dang if theyr'e not going to take out people alone the way.

I also think that ALL SCORING criteria should be published. Many of those playing in the team event, etc.., were helping run other events. Obviously, form this and their past experiences, they knew how the event was being judged a bit better than first time teams. Publishing the criteria, ALL OF IT, levels the playing field.

Finally, so many times, the game clock would run and either I or my opponent was in the back of a messy, pushing, obnoxious line to try and find which table we were at. There's got to be a better way to do this, either on the overhead projector, or place the list in 10 places instead of 4.

Overall, best tourney I've been too, and I've traveled quite a bit.l
calltoarms
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:07 pm

Postby Shotgun » Mon Apr 02, 2007 10:10 pm

As one who has run to set up table assignment sheets, unless you have ten people to set up ten sheets (and you never will) the rush to see the table assignment then blocks in the people hanging the sheets. 90 teams, 360 players...its going to take time. And its time that you as a player has no control over.

My best advice. If you are a "slow" player and you are diving into adepticon learn to play faster. There are only so many hours in the day and they are used as best as they can be by the event staff, just use the time available to play the best you can.
Shotgun
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:44 am
Location: Denver, CO

Postby muwhe » Mon Apr 02, 2007 10:34 pm

I think we might have a better opportunity to use the screen for table assignments as well now.

In prior years we never had the free standing projector stand. So the projector always took table space, was blinding people, and was generally in the way cords and computer wise.

With the computer stand we used this year. It allows us to use computer resources without having to setup, and tear it down each and everytime. Which was a hassle.We basically left it up all weekend.

Table assignments to the screen .. if and this is the big if we can format the table assignment sheet so that all the table assignments appear on one page or some quick powerpoint slide show that repeats ..... might help with that issue.
muwhe
AdeptiCon Oracle
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:15 pm

Postby Redbeard » Tue Apr 03, 2007 3:19 pm

artificer wrote:4) I think the sportsman/comp questions mentioned above would be ideally suited to being scored before-hand. That way, possible bad feelings over a loss (or just over-competitiveness) wouldn't tarnish the basics of these scores.


I think the only sportsmanship question that could possibly be scored beforehand would be did they arrive in a timely manner...

5) I have no basis for judgement, but I too liked the specific questions for sportsmanship.


I did too. However, in the name of self-improvement, I would be interested in knowing what I did that my opponents didn't like. Not who scored me, but - for instance - did they think I picked up the dice too fast - or that I moved my guys too quickly so they weren't able to tell if I had measured accurately or not. There's a fine line between playing fast enough to get your round in, and playing too fast so that your opponent doesn't acknowledge that you're being accurate and not trying to be shady. I don't care who makred me down, but I would like to be able to work on specific areas of my game that may have offended opponents so that I am more fun to play against in future.
"All very successful commanders are prima donnas and must be so treated."

George S. Patton
User avatar
Redbeard
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:55 am
Location: Homewood, IL

Postby Lazarus » Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:15 pm

Posted by:TimSchmidt

POV-The scoring system from painting and theme needs to be published so teams preparing can have an idea of how this will work.


I would like to see that. Our team did pretty good overall despite having practically no knowledge whatsoever on what we needed to improve on....now, we have a better idea...


POV- could composition of an army be done before the game is played, also maybe some of the sportsmanship like the first three or 4 questions. By the way I really liked the question method of sportsmanship.



I much prefer scoring of comp before someone plays you. Too often (like in the chapionships) you get someone who is less than thrilled at the beating they took and they take revenge on your soft scores becasue of it.
One guy zeroed my list which simply amazed me....guardians must be really scary..lol

All in all a great event and I'll look forward to it next year. Hats off to the staff.

Lazarus.
Lazarus
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 3:51 pm
Location: Florida

Postby Shotgun » Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:28 pm

I think the best thing you could do from a paint/theme standpoint is go through the past adepticon coverage and look at what the winning armies put out there. I think its pretty well cut and dried what the adepticon standard is, I'm not sure what else there would need to be done to spell it out. Sure, you could publish a checklist and then everyone will get exactly the same score or lie to the judge stating that they did it exactly like the way that is required to get the check mark.

Plus, alot of the team event is subjective and needs to be up to judges discretion. Unless everyone is comfortable with someone who uses a bed sheet and their kid cousin's crayolas to chicken scratch out a banner getting the same score as someone who weaves their own tapestry into a banner.

As to painting...paint as well as you can. In fact, if you want to win best painted paint ever mini to the absolute best of your ability. The standards have gotten that high. I almost think that one of these years the winner is going to have to be the one that paints every mini coming from the same light source and every model is in a slightly different position in relation to that light source.
Shotgun
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:44 am
Location: Denver, CO

Postby Matthias » Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:06 pm

Just to give some perspective on paint judging. With 90 teams and 360 players to judge - things get difficult. You want to be able to give each team a fair shake and that means judging 360 armies during the downtime of the tournament (which there isn't much of). Think of it this way: 5 minutes on each army = 1800 minutes or 30 hours of judging. The checklist format for painting is the only way this can be accomplished. It allows us to have multiple people do paint judging at once and keep the deviation in scores to a minimum. Not to say that certain armies score more or less when viewed by a specific judge - but the checklist attempts to keep as tight as possible of a reign on the score variations. Does this stop people from bringing armies they didn't paint? Does this stop personal preference in shading style or basing? No.

If you think about it - there are hundreds of little spots in a tournament this size where points come and go, and in the end only so much can work under auspice of being a perfect system.

To give some idea how I looked at paint judging this year: 28 points is dead average according to the system. Before I ever look at an army I assume they already have that. From there I adjust each 1000 points accordingly. Some up, some down. In many instances all 4 armies will be more or less identical. At that point I ask if they deserve a raise in scores across the board (that is jumping all four 7's up 12's when the armies might really be only 10's)...if not then I often raise 2 or perhaps 3 armies up one notch which sometimes results is odd scoring if you look at it. Paint judging is done independent of theme (even more so this year than in the past). No bonus points were awarded for display bases and the like. It was raw painting, basing and well planned/painted conversions. Period. Everything else was relegated to theme.

You also have to be careful when comparing scores from year to year. Judges change. Criteria change. Top scores fluctuate. No one is feeding your army into a scantron machine.

In the end this is still about a game. About fun. It will never be a perfect system (no matter how much certain people want it to be). The game is full of holes. Players interpret rules differently from town to town. Some players will take advantage of your lack of knowledge. Some players abuse the sportsmanship/comp scoring. People have different styles. Judges will sometimes make errors. It's bound to happen - so if these things override your ability to have fun at any event, then are you really playing the right game? After all - you have already submitted to the will of chance by playing a game that is determined by rolling hundreds of dice...
User avatar
Matthias
Techpriest
 
Posts: 795
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 5:21 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Postby appleton_cop » Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:39 am

If I may add to Tim's thoughts (he and I talked about it there). I think FW gives an unfair (there's that word) advantage in RTT style events. Go nuts with the Meiomic (sp?) spores in the Gladiator. IMO those things are icing on a big nid cake and really kind of overkill. Other FW items that aren't just upgraded models aren't generally legal outside of the Gladiator, just need to be removed. For all the Eldar guys with 5 basically unkillable tanks and 25 troops, you have to know you are getting soft scores tanked for that stuff. If you don't know that's a power gamer army well that's your fault.

Adepticon goes above and beyond with FAQ and rules posting before we even got there and that was and is great. In general I'd love to see judges go back to grading for Army Comp to reign in some of the foolishness that some lists bring. What ever happened to a 33% troops comp? Or something similar.
Sometimes you win, Sometimes you lose, Sometimes it Rains, Think about that for a while....

Nuke: Bull Durham
appleton_cop
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:36 am

Postby hornblower » Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:08 am

appleton_cop wrote:Adepticon goes above and beyond with FAQ and rules posting before we even got there and that was and is great. In general I'd love to see judges go back to grading for Army Comp to reign in some of the foolishness that some lists bring. What ever happened to a 33% troops comp? Or something similar.


The main problem with a % of troops comp is that not all armies troops are equal. Some armies rely heavily on troops to be competitive (Cult Chaos Marines) where other armies troops are simply below standard and to take a high % simply makes them sub par.

That being said, I too am not too keen on allowing the FW army lists. My team faced off against an Imperial Armor Armored Company and faced a list that had a 45 point Trojan tank as its only troops choice.

Overall, I don't find the items in the FW books overly effective for their points, but the AC list in there definitely allows for some abusiveness.
User avatar
hornblower
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 9:50 am
Location: Mason, MI

Postby artificer » Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:06 pm

hornblower wrote:That being said, I too am not too keen on allowing the FW army lists. My team faced off against an Imperial Armor Armored Company and faced a list that had a 45 point Trojan tank as its only troops choice.

Overall, I don't find the items in the FW books overly effective for their points, but the AC list in there definitely allows for some abusiveness.


I didn't think that Armoured Company was a legal list this year??

I think for the most part FW items aren't all that big of a deal. If anything I think they tend to be a bit OVER-cost (points wise) for what they do. Especially when compared to the newest codices.

Look at the Gargantuan Squiggoth (which we took)
Fully kitted out it goes over 300 pts - it's
a) toughness 7
b) 8 wounds
c) LOW BS.

for that many points you can have 2 Dakka fexes with twin linked to hits and re-rolls to wound, MORE total wounds, almost as tough, and 2 scoring units.
Only the Dead Have Seen The End Of War
- Plato

'07 TT - No More Kicking
'08 TT - Casus Belli
'09 TT - Cede Malis
'10 Paint Judging and Terrain Monkey
artificer
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 6:26 pm

Postby Redbeard » Wed Apr 04, 2007 1:04 pm

artificer wrote:I think for the most part FW items aren't all that big of a deal. If anything I think they tend to be a bit OVER-cost (points wise) for what they do. Especially when compared to the newest codices.

Look at the Gargantuan Squiggoth...


Forge World has two problems.

1) The big stuff is overly expensive for what it gets you. As you mentioned about the gargantuan squiggoth. Fact is, most titans, baneblades, etc. aren't worth their points in a tournament.

2) The small stuff is too cheap for what it does. Super-spores at 35 points, crazy griffon shells, giant chaos spawn, the new thudd guns & super mortars...

It's the second part that makes Forgeworld problematic in a tournament, not the first part.
"All very successful commanders are prima donnas and must be so treated."

George S. Patton
User avatar
Redbeard
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:55 am
Location: Homewood, IL

Postby Soulmage » Wed Apr 04, 2007 1:28 pm

I'd agree. After some experience I don't think FW is appropriate for an RTT style event.

Cyclops tanks and other cheap units are just waaaaay to effective for their small point costs.

Gladiator. . . bring it on.

RTT/Team Tournament. . stick to the codecies.
Soulmage
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:19 pm

Next

Return to AdeptiCon 2007

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest