Adepticon 2012 wrap up...The Results

[Brettqpublic]

There will be a lot of planning on next year.

Team tournament rounds will be longer, but not sure if we will do 4 rounds

The Masters will most likely be a one day event

There may be a multiple day, long play event going(tentative name is "Turn 6 tournament). Sorta a hybrid between an open play event and tournament. Over the weekend you will have to play 3 games and each round you will have a list of players you can play against(with similar scores). But you will have the choice to fit in a 3 hour block for a game throughout the con(like from 9 AM to midnight Friday and Saturday, 9 to 3 on Sunday)

We may not run organized play late into the night(except the Turn 6). The goal is to wrap up any events before 10 and just have open play at night. That way event organizers can get some open play in and/or sleep a little more. This may change depending on what people are willing to volunteer for.

And Saturday night there will be a 3 hour block around 6 PM so that the volunteers can all go out for a meal together.

Of course this is Dan's plan in April 2012, what happens in April 2013 may turn out to be very different.

The Turn 6 idea sounds interesting but I would hope it would not replace the standard qualifier/masters format. One stumbling block I could see with it is people having to frantically track down opponents or wait around until one of them shows up.

[mattbird]

I'd really like a two day Masters event. This tourney is going to be even bigger next year, and to try and cram enough rounds to truly determine the winner in one day sounds no fun. No need for the single elimination if people are complaining about it - but it should take more than 4 wins from a soft draw to claim the prize - and 5-6 games would be a lot for one day.

I think if 4 games is enough for the mega-huge GW events, a 30-40 Malifaux event with 4 games should be fine? As much as I love this game, I don't see attendance exploding to the 100+ level next year...

[Gruesome]

I think if 4 games is enough for the mega-huge GW events, a 30-40 Malifaux event with 4 games should be fine? As much as I love this game, I don't see attendance exploding to the 100+ level next year...

I don't know much about GW events, I just know that after last year's four round event, I was not interested in playing anymore.

After this year's 3 round qualifier, I went out to dinner, relaxed, then played another 3 rounds in the story event later that night.

Perhaps qualifier in the day, finals that night, rather than story? I dunno, but I am not personally interested in how other games organize things, only in what makes for an enjoyable day for me.

But, I also understand that other people might be concerned with getting the absolute most statistically relevant scoring by including as many rounds as possible, regardless of what a grind it might be to other participants. I also know that by having masters on a seperate day, we lost a lot of qualifiers that were more interested in finishing out OTHER games instead.

I can't really say that catering to them is real high on my personal agenda, though...

There is also nothing saying that I can't drop out after three rounds and go for a swim and let people play 12 rounds for all I care.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Gruesome

[nilus]

The Turn 6 idea sounds interesting but I would hope it would not replace the standard qualifier/masters format. One stumbling block I could see with it is people having to frantically track down opponents or wait around until one of them shows up.

Nah Turn 6 would be its own thing. Separate from the Team tournament and Masters(although the story encounter may roll in with it). The plan would be to have official start times for the rounds(basically every three hours from 9 to midnight) and possibly a ringer player if someone absolutely can not find an opponent.

---------- Post added at 11:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:28 AM ----------

There is also nothing saying that I can't drop out after three rounds and go for a swim and let people play 12 rounds for all I care.

Well except for the fact that too many drops always causes the Tournament software to crash on me. At least the last round of the Story encounter only started 15 minutes late this year.

[Guy in Suit]

I don't know much about GW events, I just know that after last year's four round event, I was not interested in playing anymore.

Last year I went 4-0 and finished fourth - but this was more due to the scoring and pairing mechanisms that were used. 4 rounds i enough for 32 players - I am just assuming there will be more than that.

[nix]

4 rounds determines a definitive winner with a single win condition at 32 players. 4 rounds should cover up to 50 players just fine with the tie-breakers involved. I do advocate heavily that the Masters and Qualifiers should stay TP->Diff->VP.

[nilus]

4 rounds determines a definitive winner with a single win condition at 32 players. 4 rounds should cover up to 50 players just fine with the tie-breakers involved. I do advocate heavily that the Masters and Qualifiers should stay TP->Diff->VP.

I know, I know. Masters will always be TP first. The question is do people like Diff first for Team tournament or prefer something different next year?

[mattbird]

re: qualifier/ finals

I think that's just too many events to commit to for many people, as evidenced by the number of finals drops (5 out of 8 who qualified? is that right?)

[Brettqpublic]

Nah Turn 6 would be its own thing. Separate from the Team tournament and Masters(although the story encounter may roll in with it). The plan would be to have official start times for the rounds(basically every three hours from 9 to midnight) and possibly a ringer player if someone absolutely can not find an opponent.

Awesome! I was so bummed about not making it this year but family first. I so want to fast forward to next year.

On a side note I was curious why you went with 30SS for the qualifiers and masters? And as a follow-up do you feel the games ran smoother at 30? I ask because I play at a couple of different venues in MI and 35SS seems like the industry standard.

[Guy in Suit]

I liked 30SS - no idea why they did it - but it definitely forced hard decisions during list building and rewarded players who were more adaptable - For example I played a Collette list with 2 Coryphee and Cassie and... that's it. Also played Collette with two pairs of perf/mannies and no coryphee, totally different lists, was nice to see.

[nilus]

On a side note I was curious why you went with 30SS for the qualifiers and masters? And as a follow-up do you feel the games ran smoother at 30? I ask because I play at a couple of different venues in MI and 35SS seems like the industry standard.

We did it to up the challenge. People are use to 35 stones so we thought dropping it 5 would make them rethink there normal lists and force them to make hard choices. Personally I prefer 35 myself and I found when drafting my lists I always seemed to not be able to bring everything I needed or wanted. It also means less crews were running at a full 8 stone cache.

As for running any smoother. Not sure 5 extra stones would have made much difference.

[rancor709]

I loved the 30 stone format. It forced me to think in my list design and it was difficult to bring filth. Id always prefer the game at 30 because of the limits it puts on the crews.

[Gruesome]

I loved the 30 stone format. It forced me to think in my list design and it was difficult to bring filth. Id always prefer the game at 30 because of the limits it puts on the crews.

Ditto. Forced more choices. That 5 stone difference weirdly feels like the difference between being able to cover all your bases or not.

[nix]

I find that the 30SS point is very good for competition specifically do to the reasons posted above. I know in our area several of the groups view 35SS as "casual" and 30SS as competitive.

Personally, I think the hard choices is best for planning a competitive event. There is a fair amount of skill demonstrated in not only choosing the right crew at that level for your strategies, schemes, and opponents but also in playing the crew you do bring to its fullest. At 25 stones certain crews (Henchmen specifically) gain strength over others, while at 35ss and higher other crews gain strength. Its really at 30 and 35 that crews are very balanced.

[Brettqpublic]

We did it to up the challenge. People are use to 35 stones so we thought dropping it 5 would make them rethink there normal lists and force them to make hard choices. Personally I prefer 35 myself and I found when drafting my lists I always seemed to not be able to bring everything I needed or wanted. It also means less crews were running at a full 8 stone cache.

As for running any smoother. Not sure 5 extra stones would have made much difference.

Thanks for the reply. I think there's a great deal of value in shaking up the normal point totals. It makes some things that are normally auto-includes a critical decision.

I liked 30SS - no idea why they did it - but it definitely forced hard decisions during list building and rewarded players who were more adaptable - For example I played a Collette list with 2 Coryphee and Cassie and... that's it. Also played Collette with two pairs of perf/mannies and no coryphee, totally different lists, was nice to see.

Exactly! Plus, I think it makes it a much harder choice to max SS out.