Tournament Organizers - New Objective and Scoring method - Success!

[Maelstorm]

Our tournament (23 players) using the new scoring method went off without a hitch! With a full 25% terrain on every table (including 2 and 3 level LOS blocking items) the new scoring method REALLY leveled the playing field. The uber-net-lists (Tau-Eldar) were balanced against take-all-comers lists!! An outstanding day of gaming!!

And for any doubters – Chaos Marines took 2nd and 3rd place with 2 significantly different lists; 1 list had single Heldrake, the other had just 2.


Scoring: All games are 5 turns or 2 hours.

Your forces are gathering data from ancient alien devices (3 or 5 objectives) spaced evenly on the battlefield. The alien data ports will become active on Turn 2 and burn out at the end of Turn 5 - never to be used again.

Primary Scenario Objective – BRB pg 123 plus the following:
Beginning in Turn 2, score +1 Victory Point for each controlled Objective at the end of your turn

Secondary Scenario Objective – BRB pg 122
+1 Victory Point Slay the Warlord
+1 Victory Point First Blood
+1 Victory Point Line-Breaker

Tabling your opponent:
If you table your opponent during the game: Continue with your movement phase and run phase (only) through Turn 5 to achieve Victory Points. Your Opponent is the judge for your movement. You only score points by achieving Primary and Secondary Objectives by the end of Turn 5.

If you are tabled:
You score any Victory Points achieved while you have models on the table.

Important Note:
You can be tabled and still win the game by scoring more Victory Points before the end of turn 5.

Bye round scoring:
If you get the Bye in a round you will score points equal to the average score of all winning players in the round.

We kept track of Wins/Losses/Ties to sort out any ties in the final scoring.

We used the basic Adepticon tournament rules framework, but inserted our new scoring method and the 5 turn limit. We did not use ANY of the basic 3 missions from the BRB. We adapted 3 missions from the Battle Missions book to fit 6th edition rules. We posted the missions 2 weeks in advance so players could test out their lists.


Please do not hesitate to post questions – I am happy to discuss the event and rules with other Tournament Organizers.

[Aegwymourn]

How many points per player were used?

Would love to see the top 5 or 3 army lists.

[Mr Mystery]

And apologies for taking a negative spin, but did you get much whining from players?

I like the concept you've got, especially as you harvest VPs for holding the objective instead of just going for a last turn mad dash.

[Maelstorm]

How many points per player were used?

Would love to see the top 5 or 3 army lists.

We used 1,500 points to keep it simple.

I'll grab the top 10 list on Wednesday.

The most fun list to see on the table: Chaos Marines with 115 Zombies (fully painted from Zombicide) and 2 Heldrakes.

[Maelstorm]

And apologies for taking a negative spin, but did you get much whining from players?

I like the concept you've got, especially as you harvest VPs for holding the objective instead of just going for a last turn mad dash.

No worries - Very little to no whining at all.

The only person who mumbled about scoring every turn - the resident Tau/Eldar net-list tournament player, he scored below several other lists in games 2 and 3. He played to table his opponents instead of playing the missions.

3 or 5 objectives (based on mission) were placed in the same locations on every table - like the pips on a single dice (die). When the game called for table quarters, one was placed in the middle and 1 each in the non-deployment quarters. They had to work for the VP's - not just stand back and blast away. Multi-level cover was abundant on each table.

The only model I heard complaints about - the Tyranid Mawloc!

[AdamHarry]

Glad to hear your tourney went well. Thanks for posting the results - I was hoping to hear about how the progressive scoring system worked in a tourney.

Out of curiosity did you manage to keep track of points per game or points overall? bit of a data junkie so i'd like to see that stuff if you have it.

Thanks!

[Maelstorm]

Glad to hear your tourney went well. Thanks for posting the results - I was hoping to hear about how the progressive scoring system worked in a tourney.

Out of curiosity did you manage to keep track of points per game or points overall? bit of a data junkie so i'd like to see that stuff if you have it.

Thanks!
I kept the running scores up to the minute using an excel spreadsheet on a big screen TV. Victory Points were kept in a running total for each player, sorted by place. I also kept the average score for each game for players to compare.

[Katharon]

I think that the fact that you penalize players who are capable of tabling other players is a bit troubling. If I have the skill to table someone then I shouldn't be penalized for that fact. I don't mean Taudar either or netlists-o-doom. I'm talking in general. Some players are just really bad at tactics and sometimes the Dice Gods just decide to make someone their ***** for a game -- either way or any way, you should reward players that are actually skillful enough to pull that off.

The fact that tabled players still retain their points is obviously a necessity, specially if you score points total overall and not win/loss ratios for a tournament scoring system, but tabling an opponent should give you something.

[Morgrim]

The fact that tabled players still retain their points is obviously a necessity, specially if you score points total overall and not win/loss ratios for a tournament scoring system, but tabling an opponent should give you something.
How does it penalise players that table their opponent? They then have [x] number of turns that they can grab every single objective and harvest VP without needing to worry about tactics beyond which units are fastest and which objectives are closest. That seems like an excellent incentive.

[Maelstorm]

It keeps everyone focused on the mission to score points.

Even the WAAC players had to focus on strategy and play the missions - The difference in atmosphere was very evident after the very first mission!

[Defenestratus]

I'm all for changing the rules up a bit especially if it shakes up the stiffs in the tournament scene. My only concern would be that the method of gaining VP's favors tough, resilient armies more than quick fragile ones who rely on focused application of force and cunning maneuvering to win the day at the end.

I say this as a player of the much-maligned pointy ears.

[Maelstorm]

I'm all for changing the rules up a bit especially if it shakes up the stiffs in the tournament scene. My only concern would be that the method of gaining VP's favors tough, resilient armies more than quick fragile ones who rely on focused application of force and cunning maneuvering to win the day at the end.

I say this as a player of the much-maligned pointy ears.

Actually pointy ears of both flavors have a slight advantage! There are 3 to 5 Objectives evenly scattered around the table - faster, more fragile armies can get to the objectives and begin scoring multiple Victory Points on turn 2, way before their more resilient counterparts can arrive at the same objectives! It balanced codex armies out very well - you get to play to your strengths.

I appreciate everyone's comments and questions.

[Maelstorm]

Please pass this along to your local Tournament Organizers.

If anyone has the proper connections - please pass it along to the National Tournament organizers (Adepticon, Las Vegas Open, Feast of Blades, etc...).

Thanks!

[Auticus]

I will try this in an upcoming event. There has already been complaining about it though ;)

[Maelstorm]

I will try this in an upcoming event. There has already been complaining about it though ;)

We're already planning our next tournament using the same scoring method - The players requested it.

It's a challenge when players have to think about the mission the whole game. More troops = less OP toys = a more level playing field.

Please post back and let us know how it goes.

[Auticus]

Oh I agree. I think its a fun system personally.

[Veteran Sergeant]

How does it penalise players that table their opponent? They then have [x] number of turns that they can grab every single objective and harvest VP without needing to worry about tactics beyond which units are fastest and which objectives are closest. That seems like an excellent incentive.
Yeah, but if your army has been tabled, you have automatically lost. You don't have any guys left.

I like the idea of a progressive scoring. It prevents certain kinds of exploitative tactics that are not available to every army. But at the same time, if you can be wiped out and still win an objective-based game, you've created a new set of exploits that are available to a different set of armies, using a different kind of non-viable tactic.

Basically, for example, we know that Eldar armies can swoop in using jetbikes which ignore terrain to contest and snag objectives on the final turn. This is exploitative because it's using a game mechanic (limited game duration) to achieve a victory that is not tenable in the "real world".

However, this opens up a host of entirely different untenable tactics. The horde army could, in theory, swamp the objectives early in the game, and simply endure the casualties for long enough to win the game through attrition. This also exploits the game mechanic of limited duration battles by insinuating that they can win, despite being completely wiped out, simply by existing on a spot for a fixed amount of time.

A tabled army controls no less justified of a position than the aforementioned jetbikes do.

Now, I'm not automatically saying the whole system is a bad thing. It may change the local tournament meta away from ridiculous death stars and/or net lists, which is never a bad thing. But a scoring system where an tabled opponent can still win the game is, in general, fairly bizarre unless the scenario specifically is designed around that as a narrative function (Attacker must sit on Objective X to set the bomb!).

[Maelstorm]

The Mission statement dictates the Objective scoring

"Your forces are gathering data from ancient alien devices (3 or 5 objectives) spaced evenly on the battlefield. The alien data ports will become active on Turn 2 and burn out at the end of Turn 5 - never to be used again."

Yes, tabling your opponent can be amusing for some but if your opponent played the mission and scored more points in the end they will win - they collected the required data.

We had a Tau-Dar player table his opponent on turn 2 and proceed to score points in turn 3, 4,and 5 - he won his game by a sizable margin. We had a player bring 115 Chaos Zombies with FNP; He did well in 1 mission, broke even on the second mission, and struggled in the 3rd. Our resident WAAAGH! general brought out 100+ Orcs, he scored somewhere in the middle of the pack.

We posted the missions and scoring method up 2 weeks in advance so everyone had an opportunity to play multiple test games and optimize their lists. The Missions were selected, tested and re-written to make sure they didn't favor one play style over another.

The single person who mumbled about the scoring method - The uber-net-list push-button Tau-Dar player. :D

I appreciate your questions and comments.