New CONSTRUCTIVE comments Team Tournament thread

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

Postby Anaxagoras » Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:59 am

As one of the TT Theme judges, I'd like to assure all the teams that the theme judging was taken very seriously, including a decision to re-judge the top 10 teams again just to ensure a commonality in thinking. Could the theme criteria be improved? Certainly-and that is something to weigh in on over the coming year.

My input is similar to big Papa's...I'd like to see Theme devided into a "fluff and appearance" theme category and a "Team Spirit" category. I like seeing teams dress up as band members, daemonettes, orks, wear war-paint, etc. etc...and to thus encourage the friendliness of the hobby. Those people should be acknowledged for that, and it would give another category to "compete" for. It could be a category left out of the final ranking.

Theme, however, I feel to be very important to the hobby...and there needs to be more variety in the coring and more encouragement for creative and thematic teams and displays. Some ideas (Hammered this out in about twenty minutes):

Base Points:

0- This teams' armies show no indication of being a thematic force.

5- This teams' armies could make a believable thematic force (all imperial, all chaos, etc.) but no effort was made to emphasize a thematic connection.

10- This teams' armies show a coherent thematic connection which is emphasized by both appearance and background.

20- This teams' armies were obviously built (both physically and in composition) around a specific theme. Background and storytelling is apparent through either graphics, text or display board, and the force shows a distinct visual connection on the board.

Bonus Criteria, Check all that apply: (3 points each)

0- This teams' army lists show thematic elements (graphics, character names, etc.)
0- This teams' armies are displayed on a base that unites the army visually and thematically
0- This team has found a unique and interesting theme for their forces
0- This team has made an attempt to emphasize their unity and enthusiasm with additional material (shirts, banners, handouts, etc.)
0- This team shows a genuine appreciation for the force they are fielding

Judges' Choice:
(Each Judge revieves 10 points that they may award for exceptional thematic elements, with a max of 5 points awarded to any single team)

TEAM SPIRIT:

Player Vote and Judge Vote
Anaxagoras
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 8:39 am
Location: Macomb, Il.

Postby Wild_Bill » Fri Apr 25, 2008 12:19 pm

Matthias wrote:Bill - you have dumped on AdeptiCon and AWC multiple ties over the past few years and for me to believe you are somehow now a promoter or champion of the convention...you are right I would have to be naive.


See that's the stigma people are worried about and why they don't voice concerns directly. It doesn't matter what I say at this point the initial gut reaction is that I'm being negative or have some hidden agenda. Anyways if we want to continue that discussion it can be done over PM's as I'm sure we are boring everyone else.

As for the rest of that post. The feedback was good. Thank you, the players appreciate it, as does the gaming community. The invitational tournament was a step towards differing hard core players from the not so competitive. It was a good step and would probably go well in other events dividing the dice jocks from the fluff bunnies.
"Sometimes, when Fred dreams he calls out Wild Bill." - Mrs. Fortman
User avatar
Wild_Bill
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:01 am

Postby warprat13 » Fri Apr 25, 2008 12:51 pm

After reading all this shtuff. The thought occured to me. and I might be wrong. But don't some of the categorys that seem kinda theme oriented for awards ect rely on battle points, at least in part, to determine a winner.
Maybe that shouldn't be. Theme to me has nothing to do with battle points ect. Maybe have a players choice for theme tie breakers ? or expand the number of points you can score for theme to reduce the liklyhood of ties but make it a smaller percentage of overall. ex count every two points scored in theme as one for overall. Or break up the categorys more Best (insert army type) force seems kinda like a themed category, but arn't most of the points for these awards built up in non theme categorys? Maybe make theme worth more in these spots. Why is scoreing broke up like that n e ways?Is it so we don't have four space marine ;) players win all the wards?

Oh and I really would like to be able to get my scoreing sheets back so that I could see how my lists broke down. Not just in the team tourny but for all tournys! We get them back as a packet at local tournys and it definatly helps to understand what other people think of your army and gives you a guage where you need to work. Maybe they could be mailed or emailed? for aditional cost or after a period of time? Heck I didn't mind waitin for results to be posted, a couple weeks for sum quality feedback doesn't seem bad!
User avatar
warprat13
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 2:50 am

Postby Matthias » Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:31 pm

Wild_Bill wrote:See that's the stigma people are worried about and why they don't voice concerns directly. It doesn't matter what I say at this point the initial gut reaction is that I'm being negative or have some hidden agenda.


My reaction only applies to you and your veiled/false negative statements given your past associations with this website, convention and some of the people involved. To the PM's I go!

It is a far cry from people having valid questions/concerns about the the state of affairs at the convention or going forward. So let me just restate this point for those that have concerns but do not wish to debate things in public:

I fully recognize there are unspoken issues floating around out there - so to anyone out there that has an issue with how something was run or done at the convention but does not wish to post about it on the forums - please feel free to e-mail me directly at adeptuswindycity (@) gmail.com and I will do everything I can answer your concerns on a personal level or point you in the right direction to someone who can.
User avatar
Matthias
Techpriest
 
Posts: 795
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 5:21 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Postby Carrick » Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:01 pm

biztheclown wrote:The chess clock thing is a really interesting idea. Let's find a sponsor!


I am a massive fan of Chess Clocks. For all the events. The cost spread over every competition table should be very reasonable.
Adepticon '08 - Sixth Worst 40k Sportsman.
Adepticon '09 - Ninth Worst 40k Sportsman.
User avatar
Carrick
 
Posts: 608
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:28 am
Location: Ravenswood, Chicago

Chess clocks

Postby warprat13 » Mon Apr 28, 2008 3:05 pm

I like the idea of chess clocks in theory. But would love to hear sum direct feedback from several people who have tried them.
It does unfortantly give a lil bit of an advantage to smaller more elite army types that have less to do. I personally finished every game I started the whole weekend. But I tend to plan my moves while my opponent is taking his turn that way when it comes to myb turn all I
have to do is turn the gears on my 30 sum models.
Anyone ever thought of getting ahold of a chess club maybe the clocks could be rented or even borrowed for no $$$. There have to be several chess clubs that hold tournys in Chicago. Seems to me the problem with the clocks would be storage and matinence ect. What the heck is gonna happens to 100 + clocks the rest of the year?

Warprat
User avatar
warprat13
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 2:50 am

Postby muwhe » Mon Apr 28, 2008 3:20 pm

At most chess events you bring your own clock. Normally the clock of the black side is used unless it is analog and the white player has a digital clock.

The problem with game time. Is rarely not finishing a game. I'll fly through my turns especially if I think someone is a "slow" player.
It is the disproportional amount of time one player gets vs the other. Whether we make the games longer or shorter it doesn't change the fact that some players will take more than "their fair share" of the time allowed to play the game.

Chess Clocks .. are a complicated add. Got to remember to set them. Got to reset them. etc... It's a lot to remember Especially given that most people 1. don't train with them and 2. are not familar with them. Given that we have enough trouble with people doing simple math and writting their name on the result sheets .. adding chess clocks to the mix asking for trouble.

They might "sound" good in priniciple but might cause more issues than they solve.


I think there are simpler solutions. One might be .. If you can not make it to at least turn 5 in the time frame allowed those games should just end in a draw.
muwhe
AdeptiCon Oracle
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:15 pm

Postby Janthkin » Mon Apr 28, 2008 3:43 pm

muwhe wrote:I think there are simpler solutions. One might be .. If you can not make it to at least turn 5 in the time frame allowed those games should just end in a draw.


Ewww. "I can't possibly win this, so I'll play slow and force a draw" seems like an unattractive scenario.

That's not to say I have a better solution. The only advantage chess clocks really offer is to point out with specificity where the problem was in a particular game's timing. Often, that's obvious (the guys with 300 orks who've never played them before), but sometimes it's counter-intuitive (the guy with the elite army who ponders each model's move for 3 minutes).

Could just try the banhammer - if you fail to finish at least one of your team tournament games, you won't be allowed back the following year? (Subject to individual post-tournament appeal.) Of course, 2 of my games didn't make turn 6 (though I know exactly why that occurred), so even that isn't the world's best solution....

I don't recall a "game ended on turn X" slot on the results sheet, so we can't possibly have useful numbers for analysis on this topic.

(I think we have the chess clock discussion every year post-Adepticon, no?)
Janthkin
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 12:14 pm

Postby muwhe » Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:08 pm

(I think we have the chess clock discussion every year post-Adepticon, no?)

It's a common theme.


Maybe we add a field to the result sheet for next year and for games that make turn 5 or more +1

or at least track the data.
muwhe
AdeptiCon Oracle
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:15 pm

Postby Primarch » Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:13 pm

One thing we did in DBM(different i know) was something similar to whats posted above.


In that game the standard was 12 bounds(turns), so if you didnt have 9 in with like an hour to go in the round(4 hour rounds) then you had an egg timer placed on your board, and you had 3 minutes to do your turn.


Something for 40k could be, "If you havent completed turn 4 with 1 hour and 30 minutes gone in the round, then egg timer till you get to turn 5? Something along those lines. Anyway, had a hard day at work, so am a little fuzzy right now.


You get the general idea. It doesnt penalize everyone, and all it does is help the slower guys catch up to get the full 6 turns in.


Clay
Primarch
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 1:16 pm

Postby warprat13 » Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:21 pm

I dunno about a draw if you run out of time. I could see someone intentionaly stalling for a draw if you do that. Half points is better then having your but handed to you.
My quick fix.
Next year there should be a spot on the score sheets that asks what turn you got to.
does two things: gives planers a accurate gauge on how many games are getting finished, and gives you an oppertunity to adjust scores.
How to adjust the scores is the real question to me. i was thinking maybe knock players that doen't finish games say ten points a turn for example.
Then it penilizes players for the things it should. If you spent your whole game with your nose inyour rulebook because you don't know your rules your score will reflect it. Or maybe both players lose 5 for not finishing the game and then 10 points for for each of your own player turns you did not complete.
It does seem slightly unfair to slower peoples opponents, but then again it is going to encourage those same people to speed up themselves, and to maybe politly ask there opponts to speed it up. Or maybe help them move those 50 man conscript platoons. plus then you both are on the same team in a sense. The team that needs to finish this game to get full points! It makes you wanna work together.
As far as a chess clock showing who took more time: yeah it does do that. But it alone can't prove someone was stalling. I expect my opponets to take longer than me. I play small elitist armys. I use my opponents turn to run stats in my head. think about my movement, shooting assault ect. Along the same lines you could say I was being unfair to my opponts by not taking my fair share of the time.They usualy have a larger force with more decisions to make. By getting my turn done so fast so I was denying them a chance to think and react. I actually have seen this reaction in tournys before. Not that they got mad at me, but it sure is fun watch your opponent scratch their head for a min when things have suddenly turned out way different then they have planed.
In short I am for rules changes that make me wanna be buddys with the guys across the table with me. Not somthing that is gonna lead to finger pointing.
User avatar
warprat13
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 2:50 am

Postby warprat13 » Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:27 pm

also I dont like any kinda timer for turn lenghts. Turns get shorter as you go along there are less stuff to shoot roll saves for ect. i have played games where the setup and deployment took longer then the actual dice time. Seems unfair to put the same time limit on each turn. For chess this works you only move once piece. Warhammer is not so simple.
User avatar
warprat13
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 2:50 am

Postby xNickBaranx » Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:28 pm

I think Chess clocks aren't a horrible idea. I like the idea.

Another crazy option would be something similar to Apocalypse style deployment where deployment cannot exceed lets say 15 minutes or 20 minutes, and anything remaining at the buzzer gets thrown into reserves.

This would help people make timely choices. Usually deployment is the slowest part of the game - especially when some people don't even tray their forces - they repack them away after every game.

Whatever portion of my team I was on - we completed every game.

However, the Championships I only completed 1 game out of the 3.
User avatar
xNickBaranx
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 8:57 pm
Location: Humboldt Park/Chicago

Postby Redbeard » Mon Apr 28, 2008 5:39 pm

Bear in mind that any rule that penalizes people for playing horde armies skews both the metagame and the Rock-Paper-Scissors element of matchups.

Assume that scissors take two hours to cut through paper, but paper covers rock in 15 minutes and rock smashes scissors in an hour.

If you introduce the artifical constraint that taking more than an hour and a half to play gets you banned/penalized, then Paper gets considerably stronger, and rock gets considerably weaker.

Some of the 'power builds' that people complain about have a hard time against hordes. Nidzilla doesn't do well against powerklaws backed up with 30 wounds, for example. I think that very careful attention should be paid to the metagame effect of timelimits.
"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 Generalissimo_Fred » Mon Apr 28, 2008 7:48 pm

We don't have to use the chess clocks to limit the time someone takes. Maybe we could use them in the following way:

If a game does not go at least 6 turns (let's not penalize people for having a random game length from Hell) then one player gets a battle point bonus and the other gets a battle point penalty based on the time used by both players. This would have the best results in the Gladiator.

How about this for the TT, both team players can set up their armies during deployment and do all the talking they want. Once the game starts, however, player 1 on a team can only move, shoot, and assault all the figures for his team. Then on turn 2, player 2 would make all the moves and deal with all the results. This would alternate all the way until the game ends. Only one person per team can do anything each game turn while the other teammate can not do anything (no talking, moaning, pointing, etc..)

This would most likely speed up play in the TT greatly and it wold force Teams to become Teams and not just 1-2 guys who make all the decisions while the other players are there to chat and not really play.
Generalissimo_Fred
 
Posts: 1248
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:31 am
Location: Elgin, IL

PreviousNext

Return to AdeptiCon 2008

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron