RTT standards at the Haven

[Asandiril]

Well, like I said, I'm setting up this post to give everyone a voice in how the RTTs are run at the Haven. Please note this is about Games Workshop Rogue Trader Tournaments, specifically. If you want to kibitz about tournaments in general or other game system tournaments, please set up an appropriate post in the relative forum, not here.

So to get things started, I'm attaching the link to the GW RTT booklet and the Player's Bill of Rights, so everyone can see the baseline we use at the Haven. This has neer been a "secret" or a no-no for players to have, but it seems a lot of players are unaware of what actually goes on behind the scenes with RTT judging.
RTT Guidebook:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?community=true&catId=&categoryId=400002&pIndex=4&aId=3400017&start=5

Player's Bill of Rights (or see p.3 of the Guidebook, above):
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?community=true&catId=&categoryId=400002&pIndex=3&aId=3400017&start=4

RTTs are a different creature from GTs or Games Days, and utterly different from tournaments like the 'Ard Boyz circuit or Adepticon. For one, the scoring is more about actual sportsmanship and hobby work, not just "the killing." Battle points factor in greatly (15 for a win, 5 for a loss, per round), but then there's Sportmanship (up to 6 points per round) and Theme (up to an additional 2 per round). Then you've got Bonus Points, the opponent votes (see p.11 of the RTT Guidebook), that can be added in and actually swing who wins.

The 7th Annual 40K RTT as a perfect example. Donovan went 3-0, beating Ron in the final (2-1), but Ron got top votes for Sportsmanship from his opponents, bringing their Overall totals to a tie (97 each). And since Sportmanship is the drop-dead tiebreaker (RTT Guidebook, p.13), Ron was the winner. In the end, they came to an agreement, but the scores were set.


We've got a framework we can use, something tried and true, with room for additions or omissions. We've played around with stricter or looser Theme and Painting requirements, we've focused more on "Best General" then "Best Army." We've allowed unpainted armies to continue (grrr...), and we've allowed bought-painted armies to get full Paint scores (just not Best Painted).

So, with the above information handy to all to peruse, what would players like to see different about the RTTs? The tournaments are for the players, so chime in, people!

[Rorschach]

Very good topic, Jason!

I'd particularly like to know if folks prefer the Adepticon-style Scenarios we tried this past year, or the more traditional RTT scenarios?

[Asandiril]

Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

OK, up almost 72 hours now and only a "Huzzah!" (appreciated) from Dale. Guess that means everyone is agreeable to the methods and scoring of the RTTs and no need to discuss it to make it an even better experience?

[ColGreeley]

Well I am all for including all the points that accompany an RTT event. I feel that the points reflect all aspects of the hobby. And I will always be a believer in the Sportmanship points. I have won this award few times in my GW career and it is the only award I try to win. Knowing that other players enjoying playing against me makes me feel great.
I for one, would like to see ALL points remain for judging in future RTT's.
Thanks for your time.

[eldanesh69]

The only thing I can add is perhaps the players can get an explaination of how to judge their opponents. For instance, when judging sportsmanship was it really the best opponent you have had or just a regular guy? A better explaination might help to avoid the ever present perfect scores.

[Rorschach]

What would be the opinions on allowing TWO lists, which you choose from after knowing what Faction your opponent is playing?

So if I'm running Orks, fer instance, I might have one army for fighting Eldar, and quite a different one for Necrons...

[ColGreeley]

That I am not so sure of. The whole idea is to come up with an army list that can fight against anyone. And if there are opponents that are tougher to fight than others, that is the way it goes.

[MyMyst8k]

Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

OK, up almost 72 hours now and only a "Huzzah!" (appreciated) from Dale. Guess that means everyone is agreeable to the methods and scoring of the RTTs and no need to discuss it to make it an even better experience?

That pretty accurately sums up my thoughts. :D

The only area I can think of for improvement is possibly consistency in scoring for painting (but even that's pretty minor). One brainstorm I had is that judges could offer to explain their scores as they are judging with the participant, if the participant wants to hear why they are being scored in a certain way. This way we avoid the mass of people asking about their paint scores after the tournament ends.

Just a thought. ;)

[SgtBrowncoat]

The clinics to learn about paint scoring and standards would be great, and I would be interested.

Sportsmanship is near and dear to my heart as well, as it seperates our hobby from Halo or Wow.

Are best Army and best General the same thing? I recall some best Generals from past RTTs, but not best armies...

[Rorschach]

Are best Army and best General the same thing? I recall some best Generals from past RTTs, but not best armies...

Best Army is the combined Theme and Painting scores. When GW did away with the old-style Composition scores, this kind of fell to being a 2nd Place Painting. Since the new Theme scores are based solely on Player Sheets, and Votes, it didn't seem like enough of a meaningful award.

Best General is the sum of Sportsmanship and Battle Score, so it kind of ends up being overall 2nd Place, or at least honor those who can win best without also being a dick. And regardless of how well they paint.

So, if your event has Best Army, you're rewarding the hobbyists slightly more, while Best General rewards the play side slightly more.

-Dale

[Vrykolas2k]

That I am not so sure of. The whole idea is to come up with an army list that can fight against anyone. And if there are opponents that are tougher to fight than others, that is the way it goes.


Pretty much, ya.

[Rorschach]

That I am not so sure of. The whole idea is to come up with an army list that can fight against anyone. And if there are opponents that are tougher to fight than others, that is the way it goes.

I can truthfully disagree. The point is to show tactical and strategic prowess (well, and show off cool minis). Many armies can end up in scissor-paper-rock (SPR) situations depending on scenario and opponent. All that teaches or proves is "Whoa, sucks to be you," which is no fun for anybody. Or perhaps recall the infamous GAIN GROUND RTT scenario, which inevitably gave the Loss to Dwarven players, and the Win to Wood Elves.
I think anybody who's played in more than a few Tourneys has hit that moment of "Well - I just can't beat that with what I brought...", even if your list was the "balanced and comp friendly" list.

Two lists still limits your choices, as you can't customize for everything. But it at least grants a STRATEGIC choice, and minimizes the S-P-R factors

Warhammer and 40K aren't as vulnerable to SPR as certain other games. But its there. Standard Guard vs. Dark Eldar for instance, or Ogres vs the new High Elves. Or almost anyone specifically unprepared vs. a Drop Pod or Nidzilla list or Bretonnian list.

-D

[Warmaster]

Alright I was going to stay out of this one but now you have infuriated me :). There is some SPR but I have never fought balanced list to balanced list and thought that I didn't have a chance. It's when you take a balanced list up against a pony that you have the problem. List + scenario can create an SPR but not nearly as bad if you have a balanced army.

The only suggestion I might have would be to publish the scenarios that are going to be used ahead of time. I think that would cut down on the SPR a lot and people wouldn't necessarily hamstring themselves. Or put out 6 scenarios and say that you will use 3 of the ones passed out if you want to keep it a bit of a surprise.

[Rorschach]

It's when you take a balanced list up against a pony that you have the problem.

So, pray tell, how do we stop the 1-trick-pony lists, short of reinstating Ye Olde Comp rules? :-)
Judging from many GT reports, there's little in the current system to stop them.

I much prefer the idea of offering flexibility over restriction. But if people would rather have the hard and fast boundaries, I can go with that too.

[Warmaster]

I think anybody who's played in more than a few Tourneys has hit that moment of "Well - I just can't beat that with what I brought...", even if your list was the "balanced and comp friendly" list.


-D

I was disagreeing with the statement you had right there. If both people are playing balanced and comp friendly lists I think SLP is minimized. I think the RT packet with the voting goes a long way to helping to address that issue. The person with the balanced list that wins all of their games will thusly win the tournment over the person that built the cheesier list that nobody liked. The more tournaments you play the more you realize it's not about taking the killer list its about taking the balanced list and using it well that will win it for you. Unfortunately that has mostly disappeared in a lot of formal gw events as far as I can tell.

As for how you stop the one trick pony armies? It's not going to happen, some people like those lists. It can even be a one trick pony that sucks, but if someone likes the concept and how it plays then you can't keep them from playing it. Sort of like my old "Army of One" I know it's not a competative list and anyone who has played against it once knows how to beat it if they see it again. But it was just fun to play.

[Warmaster]

I'm also hoping that the new Ork codex may help a bit. A lot of the one trick pony armies are geared to go against marines, and those armies that do that will die in droves to orks. For instance right now nobody takes a fire dragon exarch, waste of points everyone says. Well the first time someone goes up agains nothing but cheap orks they are going to wish they had that heavy flamer. So now they will trim out 20 odd points from the list and put the exarch in. Also right now eldar armies especially the tri falcon don't have templates. Someone is going to go up against an orc list that puts a 30 man unit all in base to base contact with one another, harlequins just cant kill that many models and will go down to the return attacks.

[SgtBrowncoat]

Respectfully, I don't think there is any Army match up that is completely one-sided, and while certain scenarios can cerainly tip the scales, I haven't personally run into too many problems with any given scenario, using my Dark Eldar or my Blood Angels.

Personally, I like having to try and plan for as many possibilities as I can when I build a list, and enjoy finding my way though an unexpected situation, even if all I can do is achieve a few secondary objectives. Besides, I like it when that happens, I learn of a glaring hole in my list design that I can work on filling, like spreading a few more anti-vehicle weapons and grenades among my DE for the next game against Speed Freaks or some mechanized list.

Finally, I think that balancing a list to be prepared for what may come is a nice means of natural comp, as players are liklier to spread thier points out and mix a little of everything, not focusing on one unit type or slot to get the job done.

[MyMyst8k]

I'm in agreement with Rich. Balanced lists win the day and after time people learn that their best chance at doing well at a tournament (and enjoying themselves) is to bring a balanced list.

You don't need 'Comp' rules to eliminate one-trick-pony lists because they naturally suffer the fate you describe of running into the scenario/army that they can't do anything about. That is their flaw. No need to resurrect the contentious an impossible to agree upon 'comp' system.

I don't like the idea of having two variant lists because I think the likely outcome would be that people would bring two one-trick-pony lists. One list to deal with marines, and one list to deal with everything else. Having just one list means you have to balance both aspects in your build, which I like.

However, Rich is wrong about the Fire Dragon Exarch. I've had one with the dragon's breath flamer and crack shot (re-roll to wound heavy flamer is so much fun) for the last 6 months. I had another Eldar player actually laugh at me for including him. That is until he fried a squad of fire warriors all by himself. ;)

[Stephan]

On the balanced list issue, I've tried to play nice, balanced lists my whole time in the game, and I can honestly say that running up against another balanced list is the exception, not the rule. I note that many of the people advocating for one list are some of the same people who've fielded the all drop-pod army or the 6 dread army (you know who you are).

The simple truth is that, if it's legal in the list, you can take it, and some lists lend themselves to building beardy/cheesy/broken armies. That's why we go through eras where you see the same armies being fielded over and over. One person figures out the trick pony that works against the vast majority of armies and then everyone copies them. It wasn't that long ago that I showed up to a tournament and easily two thirds of the players had Marine drop-pod armies, or the everybody in a raider Dark Eldar army, or the 8-billion termagants and two Hive Tyrants army, and on and on and on.

Bottom line, once one of these armies shows up, those of us who like to build balanced armies are forced to build an army to fight the cheese-du-jour since we know there's a better than average chance we'll have to face it. If we could take two lists, we could build the genuinely balanced army and then a second list that is suited to combating what we know our balanced list is weak against.

It's also important to note that you won't know for sure what LIST you'll be fighting against. You'll only know what army your opponent has, and he'll be able to choose from one of two lists as well.

[Vrykolas2k]

I can see some of the points, but I still say only one list.
I got into 40k during 3rd ed., with Dark Eldar. Made a 3000 pt army, and that's what I play. All I've ever had for vehicles was one Raider and one Ravager. I won more than 50% of the time with that army, even against Space Marines and Chaos. I never bought into the "clone armies" crap that's so prevalent amongst a lot of people, where one Dark Eldar (or whatever) army looks just like another, except for paint.
Are my armies what others call "balanced"? I'm nae sure... I build around the concept I get in my head and, after a few tweak-jobs between battles (mostly to do with war-gear), that's precisely what I stick with. My armies, in general, seem to win more than they lose. At least with 40k; I've only fought one battle with Warhammer Fantasy.
Of course, I also have different armies for different point-totals, which some consider to be a little daffy. "Why don't you just break the army down?" "Because it's built around this point total; breaking it down would break the army."

[Javin]

I like what they did at Ghengis. A core army with detachments allowed some flexibility in the army.

[Laplace]

The only suggestion I might have would be to publish the scenarios that are going to be used ahead of time. I think that would cut down on the SPR a lot and people wouldn't necessarily hamstring themselves. Or put out 6 scenarios and say that you will use 3 of the ones passed out if you want to keep it a bit of a surprise.

I kind of like this idea. I know, it does not eliminate all problems, but what it can do is encourage people to make balanced armies.

For example, if you plan on bringing a zilla list and see that 2 out of your 6 scenarios involve Escalation, you may think twice and bring some more foot troops.

Or if you find that one scenario just involves objectives and is void of VP as a win condition, it might encouage you to bring more units in general.

It also will help save time because people will have understood the scenario beforehand (those that read it anyway) and it can save on setup time.

[Laplace]

The person with the balanced list that wins all of their games will thusly win the tournment over the person that built the cheesier list that nobody liked. The more tournaments you play the more you realize it's not about taking the killer list its about taking the balanced list and using it well that will win it for you.

The problem is that Battle Points make up the lion's share of the total RTT score. Even if every opponents gives you the lowest score on Army Comp, and OK scores on sportsmanship, you can still win the Overall if you get the full Battle Points and full for Painting. I've seen it happen.

Maybe the problem is we have conflicts about what "balanced" really means. If "balanced" means 4 Troops, 2 Fast Attack, 2 Elites, 1 HQ, 2 Heavies, than that will hose some armies while not-so-hosing other armies.

However if you call "balanced" as that it can beat most any other lists out there, then you will have to include the zilla list, the Eldar skimmer list, etc because they CAN deal with most armies.

So the whole idea of trying to find a uniform definition of "balanced" armies I think is a waste.

[TommySalami]

Maybe the problem is we have conflicts about what "balanced" really means. If "balanced" means 4 Troops, 2 Fast Attack, 2 Elites, 1 HQ, 2 Heavies, than that will hose some armies while not-so-hosing other armies.

For me, at an RTT, I think that "balance" is avoiding redundant units. At least in non-troops slots.

It seems like having more than one of something is when people usually start giving you bad comp scores. Even if you take a fair amount of troops, if you take say 3 falcons, 3 carnifexes, 3 basilisks, etc, etc, you're probably going to get hit on comp.

Not that it's a cure all, nor does it work for every army, but I guess it might work as a rule of thumb.

But, like I've said before, I think people complain about cheese way too much.

[Warmaster]

The problem is that Battle Points make up the lion's share of the total RTT score. Even if every opponents gives you the lowest score on Army Comp, and OK scores on sportsmanship, you can still win the Overall if you get the full Battle Points and full for Painting. I've seen it happen.

Maybe the problem is we have conflicts about what "balanced" really means. If "balanced" means 4 Troops, 2 Fast Attack, 2 Elites, 1 HQ, 2 Heavies, than that will hose some armies while not-so-hosing other armies.

However if you call "balanced" as that it can beat most any other lists out there, then you will have to include the zilla list, the Eldar skimmer list, etc because they CAN deal with most armies.

So the whole idea of trying to find a uniform definition of "balanced" armies I think is a waste.

You can still win overall but if someone with a "balanced" list that max's overall battle points and gets painting will beat the "cheese" list. I'm not advocating trying to find a uniform definition because you can't. One armies cheese is another army making fun of it. My general example of this is Whirlwinds. 3 whirlwinds make non mek tau, eldar, orks, and sometimes horde nids cry, any other army would laugh. It's a perception issue. Did you maximize every single point on the most effective combination in order to win the game at all costs. I still to this day think that using the word tournament is a bad idea :). I would much prefer a Rogue Trader Event.

[SgtBrowncoat]

Maybe the problem is we have conflicts about what "balanced" really means. If "balanced" means 4 Troops, 2 Fast Attack, 2 Elites, 1 HQ, 2 Heavies, than that will hose some armies while not-so-hosing other armies.



Out of curiosity, what armies would that hose?

[Asandiril]

Funny, I was sorta in and out on a conversation like this on Saturday at the store. And I've finally come to the realisation that it comes down to a difference of where some players perceptions come from.

40K is a game of futuristic squad-based skirmishes. The PBI (Poor Bloody Infantry) should be there to capture and hold ground, with mechanised support (tanks, missiles, mortars, cannon, etc.).

Those that were in, or grew up in, the Army or Marines understand that and they generally max out on as much infantry selections they can. Those that never get near tactical field manuevers or actual ground combat <cough*Air Force*cough-cough*Navy*cough> tend to focus more on the Elites and Heavy support, the "more bang for your buck" mentality, not intending to get in small arms firefights or close combat range.

Not to denigrate those in the supportive branches of the military, but even Phil (nemerrle) agrees his Dark Eldar take just the minimum Troops so he can take all the "toys" because he doesn't want to get that close to his opponents except for his Wyches and Bikes. And he was Air Force.

Winning with a balanced army shows not only good Sportsmanship, but great tactical skill. Look at Ron Santoni's armies (I've got most of his lists since 2000 when we began running RTTs). He fields predominately Troops heavy lists and, oh!, he wins with them... even Dark Eldar.

I agree with Rich: they should be called Rogue Trader Events from now on. Tournament brings the wrong state of mind to the process.

[eldanesh69]

Whether its called an RTT or RTE, its still a tournament. Unless hard rules are applied to army comp prior to lists being submitted and/or judging guidelines given (player on player) there will always be problems and general unhappiness with the way GW events are run. Not knocking the event organizers. From personal experience I know how subjective judging can really adversely affect the outcome of events. I couldn't count the number of times I lost (not from painting by the way!) due to bad player judging scores ie cheesy army-despite 50% troops/6 squads, 2-3 FA, 2-3 Heavy never more than 1 wraithlord sometimes 2 wave serpents. When the events are left more to random subjectiveness and less guided objectiveness there will be problems.

[eldanesh69]

Hey whats with the Navy thing? I was in for 9 years and I know the value of troops. Look how I run my 40K fantasy and warmachine armies. Think of sizes of ships- for every carrier group there is one or two big ships(carriers &/or cruisers/heavies& elites) and a whole lot of smaller support ships(destroyers,mine sweepers subs/troops & FA).

[Asandiril]

Whether its called an RTT or RTE, its still a tournament. Unless hard rules are applied to army comp prior to lists being submitted and/or judging guidelines given (player on player) there will always be problems and general unhappiness with the way GW events are run. Not knocking the event organizers. From personal experience I know how subjective judging can really adversely affect the outcome of events. I couldn't count the number of times I lost (not from painting by the way!) due to bad player judging scores ie cheesy army-despite 50% troops/6 squads, 2-3 FA, 2-3 Heavy never more than 1 wraithlord sometimes 2 wave serpents. When the events are left more to random subjectiveness and less guided objectiveness there will be problems.
I think Dale and I pride ourselves in our objectiveness. And we're almost ALWAYS harping people about the high-marking the soft scores, though it seems we're all just great, get-along players at the Haven so those might just get tossed in the future...

GW events have never been some Great Secret that players could not be allowed to understand. The rules are posted up on GW for anyone to download. They, as a company, set up agreeable easily followed guidelines and leave it up to players to decide if they want to follow them or not. Follow them, good time had by all; don't follow them, get knocked in soft score points and get a reputation. Granted, sometimes the reputation is in the eye of the butt-kicked, and yes, we try to look out for those disgruntled scorers and see if they are low-balling because they lost or if there is an issue with the winner (and it's usually easy to see in a 3 match RTT, especially if your other match-ups have good scores from the opponents).


So, I posted up this topic for an open discussion. What do YOU as players want to see? I play when I can, and have always played under these guidelines since the RTT program came out. Dale and I tweak it every so often to accomodate changes in the player base and the experience levels, but we really need to know the "laundry list" of things people want to have considered for change in the Rogue Trader events.

And remember, GW has now begun the 'Ardboyz Tournaments that don't have the soft scores, so if you want to see them gone please participate in those events. Soft scores are a major part of RTTs.

[Rorschach]

A big Soft Score factor is the votes too...if you get none, but your opponent gets a bunch, that can be up to a 14pt swing.

As Judges, about the only Subjective scoring we get to do is Painting, but for that we have clear guidelines. And the swing score there between "Okay" and "Best ever" is maybe 8 pts.

With the Team Tourney coming up, I'll get to do some Theme scoring again. And there will be a newish version of the player sheet, with more discreet check boxes as opposed to the (1-5) scale Ranking. So we should see some nice variation there.

Point is, only your opponents are in a position to say whether your were an enjoyable opponent or not. So its a simple but elusive challenge: Beat your opponent and make them enjoy the experience.
If someone's being a vindictive dick, I'll usually pick up on it and change the scores. About the only thing I can't really do is add votes. And if you're really okay, you should at least get a few votes from your other opponents.
All this is in service of insuring an enjoyable event, as much as possible.
And the only real reason I'd run an event is for people to have fun...if that stops or became de-emphasized in favor of Ruthless Competition, I would cease my efforts.
I don't mind Challenging players...nor encouraging healthy competition. But that's all in service of the Fun.

-Dale

[Asandiril]

Well, since on March 1, 2008, I will be running a Basic Painting Clinic, maybe it's about time I stop preaching and start practicing. In the next few posts, I'll break down the basic expectations usually required to get the points in Painting. It's not really all that hard, especially if you just apply some basic techniques and use your Army Book/Codex as an example.

The requirements are pretty cut'n'dry, so here goes:


1) In your opinion was there honest effort put into painting this army?
This is the effort question! Maybe you know this person, maybe you don’t. Maybe this army was painted in two days, and maybe it has taken months. BUT, in your best judgement do you think this person has tried to the best of their ability, skill, and time constraints to get their army painted? If so, give ‘em credit for it!!!
This one is easy - apply some paint to your bare plastic/metal and/or primered models! You've spent HOW much hard-earned money on them and you're just going to play with them like that? This isn't Risk or Shogun or Life, people. This is a miniatures games, one with a pretty proud tradition and expectations. Look to your Army Book/Code for help, or ask around the Haven. Try to get more than just primer on them.


2) Are all the models in this Army completely painted?
All models in the army must be base coated (no metal or plain primer showing) and as a rule of thumb have at least 3 different colors present on the model. The model does not have to be painted to an expert level, just neatly basecoated to score points in this category. See page 18-21 of the Warhammer 40K rulebook for a great example of basecoating!
Primer is not a color, I don't care if you've used the Chaos Black spray, or the out-of-print Blood Red spray. Get some more on them! At least THREE seperate and complimentary colors here to get the point. And no excuses about "Well, MY army only uses Blood Red and Chaos Black for their scheme." Really? how about the metal on their bolters, or the brazen chains on their icons, Khorne Boy. Did you even bother cracking open your Codex beyond the army list? Look around, even everyday objects usually have 3 or more colors on them, even just different shades of the same color. Don't sell yourself short, it's not that hard to get this point.


3) If they got points for both 1 and 2 check this one as well.
Let’s face it, painting an entire army is hard work. We want to reward anyone who has done it. Look over the entire army again, and check the box to the right ONLY if the ENTIRE army is painted. If you were a nice guy and let one or two primer-only models slip through don’t go soft this time!
Yeah, the "one or two primered models" will NOT slip through; many of you already know this thanks to myself or Msr. Timbo, our resident spot Paint Judge when we need the extra hand. I can understand time getting away from you, heck, I've got no less than 5 armies sitting here in my hobby room all in states of finish... and that's just GW product! Again, you spent a lot of money on your hobby, don't you want to take a little pride in knowing you sat down and cranked out a painted, albeit passibly perhaps, army?

No, we're not all Ron Santonis or Tim/Brandon Morks. But THREE colors on every model is not that hard, especially for those of you who have been in the hobby for a while. Even our Mentor Legion Neophytes have nigh completely painted armies! Some of us have armies/figures as OLD as these kids! And they're not painted! :eek:

[Asandiril]

Continuing Paint posts... the following three are sometimes very subjective, but are almost as black'n'white as the previous three. Again, there are simple steps you can take to meet the criteria (which, yes, I will cover on March 1).


4) Are all the miniatures based up in a pleasing fashion?
What we are talking about here is the plastic slottabase that Citadel Miniatures fit into. Is it covered in flock, gravel, or sand and painted to look like grass, ground, or some part of a battlefield? Bases don’t have to be immaculate or fancy, just nice and neat so they don’t detract from the model.
Alright, this always seems to be a point of contention with players. Sorry, but it's part of the hobby, people. The books give you quick and simple examples of how to do it and it's not bloody brain surgery (yes, I have seen the things Ron or Tim or Taylor have done with theirs... but it's what sets them into the "#9" crowd). Contrary to one local store employee's belief <cough*James*cough-cough*national chain hobby store*> the TOPS of the bases are all that need to be flocked/sanded/modeled. If you want to go hog-wild and cover the sides, too, by all means have fun. But we look at the tops and if they are just flat black/primer or have some effort put into them. Simple green grass flock or GW sand on ALL the bases does the trick, people! Anything beyond that helps with the later scores (ie: #7 - #9).


5) Does the army feature insignia, camo schemes, or eye-catching items?
We are talking about cohesive color schemes, camouflage patterns or army-wide details that make the whole force seem cooler. Did the painter put some extra time to pick out or add cool basic details on the army? A basecoated Ultramarines army with all the matching “U” insignia on their shoulder pads would fit this category for instance.
OK, decals suck. I just about completely agree with everyone on that. I had my like of them when I was a kid building model kits, but not everything has those convenient flat surfaces in GW models. There are tricks, solvents and such, that can be used, but in the end they're frustrating. But you have to use SOMETHING. Simple hand-painted icons and unit markings would fit into this. Urban camo patterns, tiger-striping, even the Tau unit marking system. Not only does it look great on the table, but you can actually keep your unit logistics in order <gasp!>. No more having to figure out if the flame teplate is covering most of unit A or B, because you can just galnce and see the markings! Even simple kill markings help. Again, your Army Books/Codexes have GREAT examples of this, and your fellow players should always be ready to give their tips of what works for them style-wise.


6) Do the character models and centerpieces standout?
Every army has a HQ Commander as well as some sort of special Officer, Veteran Sergeant, large vehicle or even monster. Was extra time spent painting these important cogs in the army? This question is about whether the key models of any army all got the attention they deserve.
Alright, another sticky point. It's easy to make a Space Marine Chaplain or Librarian (at least a non-Ultramarine Librarian ;) ) stand out, but what about a Commander or Veteran Sergeant? What about an Autarch or Exarch or Shas-ui? Simple: try ornamenting them. With a Space Marine Commander, they are "the best of the best," top of their Chapter, right? So why not "artificer" them up and apply some rich metallics like silver or gold on their armor? Edge their shoulder pads, maybe vertical bands on their greaves, maybe their entire helmet? With an Autarch, why not reverse the Craftworld color scheme, such as Saim Hann by having the helmet red and the body white? Or emphasize a compliment color, like an Ulthwé Autarch with a bone-yellow helm, black armor and a deep purple or scarlet cloak? And most of the "centerpiece" models have banners on them, why not make these stand out? With armies like Tau and Tyranids, they have BIG infantry/monster models, take some time to make them stand out of the horde with more than their size. Tau suits look great with a more elite scheme applied than the usual Fire Warrior uniform, remember these guys got there becaus they were better. Tyranids monsters like Hive Tyrants can be made to stand out with brighter color patterns (research online for lizard or insect markings...). Don't settle.

[Asandiril]

Final Painting posts... the following three are really where the hobbyists are seperated from the players. Yes, there is a difference, just look around or take a look at the Wall of Heroes in the back.


7) Does the army look like an army?
Does this force look coherent? Do the various regiments have colors, markings, insignia, etc that tie them together? Think of it this way - could you replace half of this army with someone else’s units and then decide which forces really belonged together? Not all armies are color coordinated or regimental - but small details like the bases can help here. Are some troops painted on desert bases, while others have grassy ones? Is one unit painted up battleworn while others are clean and resplendent?
This might seem to be a redundant question, but it's not. This one is where we start to get in super-close, not the "3 foot table-top" playing distance. We're really looking for that added effort, that pride in your hobby. If you're playing a specific Chapter or Craftworld or Sept or even your own splinter fleet, it had better show. There's no "meant to's" at this level. You either did or you didn't, and we will let you know. Easiest way to get this is a consistent theme across all models - both infantry and mechanised - in the army, as well as the same base/flock treatments. Like if you are rebasing your army and got to all but one unit of your army, don't expect leniency on this point if you field a unit with your old scheme. If it sticks out, it will be noticable.


8) Was extra time and effort put into the painting of cool details?
This question addresses items like the following: model conversions, extra details on bases (like skulls or battlefield debris), super hand painted banners, kill markings on vehicles, battle damage, expertly painted eyes, badges, and that type of attention to cool, but minute detail. Look for lots of up close individual details for this question!
This one goes even further in than #7. We're not talking Golden Demon level here, but some attention to detail is required. You've taken the time to get the army to the prior level, why not kick it up one more notch and show off? It takes practice, but things like conversions, even original sculpts, can put you over the next comparable army. Always push yourself to do more. And yes, we'll be looking at individual models at this level, literally within 6 inches.

But there is a limit. I've got plenty of back-issue White Dwarfs and the old Golden Demon painting books to give examples of gaudy, tacky or just down-right wrong paint schemes and over-ornamentation. Again, use your GW books as a guideline, research online such as the Games Day or Grand Tournament reports and the player entries there, even the White Dwarf 'Eavy Metal articles.


And finally -

9) In your opinion is this army painted to an above average standard?
In other words, this army is painted to a level that you would be pleased to put it on display to show it off to friends & other hobbyists. We aren’t talking about a few well painted characters, but the army on the whole. We suggest looking at the entire army from about three feet away to get the army in perspective.
Once we're to this box, the tauted "#9," we've already gone over EVERY army in the tournament and have an idea of who we need to look at again. Sometimes we call in outside help (like Rob or any other unbiased but experienced player) to look over some of the ones we think are "top" in order to get a community feel as to who deserves the highest marks. We've had tournaments where only one person has, and we've had some where four or five have, just because of the attention to detail they brought and the love of their hobby they displayed.

A basic army can get to this level over time, as long as you apply yourself and keep working at it. I can't emphasize it enough, but the GW books really are the first rule-of-thumb we'd suggest using. They make for great start points and they show you how to get at least 7 out of the 9 points. The last two are really up to you and how much devotion you want to put into your hobby.

[Vrykolas2k]

Funny, I was sorta in and out on a conversation like this on Saturday at the store. And I've finally come to the realisation that it comes down to a difference of where some players perceptions come from.

40K is a game of futuristic squad-based skirmishes. The PBI (Poor Bloody Infantry) should be there to capture and hold ground, with mechanised support (tanks, missiles, mortars, cannon, etc.).

Those that were in, or grew up in, the Army or Marines understand that and they generally max out on as much infantry selections they can. Those that never get near tactical field manuevers or actual ground combat <cough*Air Force*cough-cough*Navy*cough> tend to focus more on the Elites and Heavy support, the "more bang for your buck" mentality, not intending to get in small arms firefights or close combat range.

Not to denigrate those in the supportive branches of the military, but even Phil (nemerrle) agrees his Dark Eldar take just the minimum Troops so he can take all the "toys" because he doesn't want to get that close to his opponents except for his Wyches and Bikes. And he was Air Force.

Winning with a balanced army shows not only good Sportsmanship, but great tactical skill. Look at Ron Santoni's armies (I've got most of his lists since 2000 when we began running RTTs). He fields predominately Troops heavy lists and, oh!, he wins with them... even Dark Eldar.

I agree with Rich: they should be called Rogue Trader Events from now on. Tournament brings the wrong state of mind to the process.


I have to agree here; I'm a marine brat who went into the army. I started with Dark Eldar, one Raider, one Ravager, and a Talos or two... that's it for vehicles (if you want to count the Talos as such). Also one maxed Reaver squad and a small Hellion squad.
Most of my army is ground-pounders.

[eldanesh69]

I was not refering to the judges in any way as far as subjectiveness. Its the players who really need to be given more strict guidelines for their judging to eliminate the subjectiveness. Some people are more gregarious than others and have an easier time gaining sportsmanship scores because they can "give " their opponents a good feeling about losing. Thats not sportsmanship thats manipulation. Army comp is clear but at the same time it is not. Should a list be determined by fluff or what can be taken by the codex? If its fluff, what edition of fluff? Everytime a new edition of the rules comes out or a new codex or even a new fiction book, the fluff changes. Since I started in 1987 the fluff has changed countless times. If its judged on codex then better guidelines on what is expected in an army is needed. I see it as a way that GW artificially creates a way to make tournaments easier to judge(again not knocking the event organizers). By making the existing guidelines vague subjectiveness is built in allowing a way to seperate players from one another. What kind of a question is "would you want to play this army for yourself?" (I think thats similar to the top question for player judging) What if a player really hates chaos not that the other players list is broken or it would not be a fun list to play but the first player just can't stand the idea of chaos.
By using a system where the battle points gained by certain conditions(for instance primary, secondary and tertiary missions) to determine winning and relying less upon subjective judgements, the challenge, fun and competition can be maintained. I am not saying eliminate painting and sportsmanship. Those are important but by adding stricter guidelines those would have less to determine the outcome of a "competitive" tournament that should be about gaming. If you want competitive painting try a Golden Daemon. A fully painted army is great but what bearing does it really have on playing a game? If a player is a jerk( insert stronger adjective if you feel like it) and all his opponents agree then he/she should be eliminated from that tourney as well as future ones. After all, do you have points for painting your chess pieces for a tourney, it is a type of war game. How about judging the Olympic team of a country because their uniforms were not matching? Did Eli Nastasi get bad scores at Wimbelton because he threw fits?
As a caveat, I intend on contiuing playing in GW tournies despite the fact I do not agree with the guidelines they enforce. I just won't win as many awards because I am not a smooth talker and I do not have the skill at painting that some people have.

[Warmaster]

A fully painted army is great but what bearing does it really have on playing a game? If a player is a jerk( insert stronger adjective if you feel like it) and all his opponents agree then he/she should be eliminated from that tourney as well as future ones. After all, do you have points for painting your chess pieces for a tourney, it is a type of war game. How about judging the Olympic team of a country because their uniforms were not matching? Did Eli Nastasi get bad scores at Wimbelton because he threw fits?
As a caveat, I intend on contiuing playing in GW tournies despite the fact I do not agree with the guidelines they enforce. I just won't win as many awards because I am not a smooth talker and I do not have the skill at painting that some people have.

I think that every army at a tournament should be 3 color minimum. I think it makes the game more fun when all the models are painted. Especially if you have nice terrain.

Bare metal or primered black does not allow people to easily distinguish between squads, or easilly pick out special weapons, power weapons, etc. It does actually have a tactical value for the game.

[Rorschach]

I think that every army at a tournament should be 3 color minimum. I think it makes the game more fun when all the models are painted. Especially if you have nice terrain.

Bare metal or primered black does not allow people to easily distinguish between squads, or easilly pick out special weapons, power weapons, etc. It does actually have a tactical value for the game.

This aspect has concerned me for years, but I've always held off strict painting enforcement to encourage that the "new" armies get tried out quickly. BUT, now that local competition has sort of plateaued, I'm thinking seriously of the next 40K RTT (after the Team Tourney), being a Fully Painted Required event. I haven't been a hard-ass about painting (partially because I have such trouble getting painting done) but it IS a big deal sometimes.

Overall, the main reason I see for the soft scores is the these games are not perfect tactical and strategic engines (like Chess or GO) - they require COOPERATIVE Competition to function correctly. There is and always will be the cheesy loopholes or questionable play techniques to take advantage of, thus judging any sort of competition without Sportsmanship or Appearance (measures of the opponent's satisfaction with the match) is fairly meaningless.

Now the 'Ardboyz takes a slightly different tack, one akin to the Privateer Press Steamrollers - once you accept and embrace that all armies will be equally "broken" you can have a competition on a purely play-based model. Sort of a "grin and bear it" approach. I think this works better with the PP mechanics, but it functions well at high points games for GW too. But its far from perfect, and my preferred tourney model (even though, like Mike, I'll never win Painting on my own) is still the Cooperative Model.

You want a pure wargame? Play something with chits and hexes...Miniatures with measurements and custom armies will never fit that bill. :D

-Dale

[Vrykolas2k]

Two-color armies never bothered me, as long as they're done well.

[Asandiril]

After all, do you have points for painting your chess pieces for a tourney, it is a type of war game. How about judging the Olympic team of a country because their uniforms were not matching? Did Eli Nastasi get bad scores at Wimbelton because he threw fits?
As a caveat, I intend on contiuing playing in GW tournies despite the fact I do not agree with the guidelines they enforce. I just won't win as many awards because I am not a smooth talker and I do not have the skill at painting that some people have.
Mike, I know you "come from a different play style" being from California and "played in all the major tournaments" against the local best. I've met a lot of the guys, online and at tournaments and events, too. You are a good player, and your lists ARE fluffy and extremely well-balanced. But you over-emphasize it and feel it necessary to point it out to the opponent, like it's something they might miss. Just play the game. Don't hand out your "post battle analysis" sheet, just ask how they thought the game went and how your list impacted their army. Nothing about having to be a smooth talker, hell I get high Sportsmanship marks when I get to play and everyone knows I'm really an acerbic a-hole with a chip the size of Ireland on my should sometimes. But that doesn't get in the way of the game. As to painting, you don't have to be a Da Vinci. Yes, some of us love to do nothing more than lovingly paint these little plastic and metal models, some of dread them. But as I pointed out above, you don't have to go hog-wild, lock-yourself-in-the-den-every-night-for-3-months, to get results that will score high in painting. It's all about consistency, theme and execution. Ask Troy about his Best Painted Catachan army from the Emperor's Chosen tournament... all he did was rebase all his models so they were matching! (Well, they did do some touch-ups and added a unit or two, but it was done over, if I recall, a 4 day period).

Sorry, your analogies don't hold water. Reason being: all those "tournaments" have their own rules set and scoring guidelines, JUST LIKE THE RTTs DO! So you've actually HELPED the point Dale and I have been bringing up, not brought any detraction or productive counterpoints.

The RTT rules state you must have a fully painted GW/Citadel/Forge World modelled army, you must have the current/valid Codex/Army Book and you must have a legible list in the required points, as well as dice/measuring device/rulebook. That's what you are to bring, it's expected; you don't bring it you're docked. Simple as that.

RTTs are about the hobby experience as well as the game. I don't know how many times I've said it but I'm sure a simple search on this forum and the old can get the count. RTTs are popular because they 1) give structure, 2) are easy to participate in, 3) are easy to run, 4) have scoring that recognizes ALL aspects of the hobby. We've also said that if someone doesn't like the events - don't play. Run your own. There's plenty of space and open weekends at the Haven for us all to have different events that cater to anyones' playstyle, from Golden Demon paint competitions to Ardboyz slugfests, from team events to mixed pairings.

And 2 color armies. I haven't seen one. In the end there's always at least three or more colors when you break it down, from simple details like metal on pipes or grills, to wiring or tubing, to packs or bags. There is always some other color beyond the simple two that might be the whole theme. My Space Marines are Skull White with Red Gore... and there's Chaos Black weapons and unit markings, Codex Gray bags/ammo bags, Snot Green purity seals with Bleached Bone devontionals, Burnished Gold awards, Blood Red lenses, and various colors on the personal heraldries of my veterans/sergeants/officers. But if I set the army out in front of you and you step back 3 feet, you see a mass of red and white, with black on details.

[PURGATUS]

is this thread still kickin'? hey i haven't read the whole thing--it is looong--but i did have one input to maybe add (if it hasn't already been addressed).

- can we add painting scores after the third round [match-ups] into overalls? the quasi-swiss style would be cleaner if player 3 were up against player 4--instead of the occasional player 3 beats down player 7 because player 7 had great paint scores that were factored in before round 2 pairings.

you guys run the bomb tourneys anyways, this is just a minor thing i'd like to see maybe changed

thanks for listening--er... reading... whatever :)

[Laplace]

I always thought that matchups should be based upon battle scores only with the other scores added in afterwards. In what case does painting help your army (except a red paint job perhaps?).

That way you don't have "looks really cool but can't win a battle to save his life" face up against "just have everything primed but can smack anyone".

Finally a note on hobbies. I think it's unfair to say that everyone should be involved with EVERYTHING in the GW hobby. Meaning that if someone doesn't like painting because it's either too tedious, takes too long, etc. they should'nt be looked down upon because of it. We don't criticize people who only paint models saying, "How come you aren't playing any games? The battles are part of the hobby"

I'm not saying that we allow bare metal or just primed models in RTTs, I'm just saying that not EVERY part of a RTT is someone's cup of tea and should not be made to feel bad for it.

[Asandiril]

The matchups Round Two & Three ARE based on Battle Scores alone. They've never factored in ANY of the soft scores. But when ties occur, we have to default to Sportsmanship & Theme (up to that point), and if any other tie(s) then to Painting if needs be.

The statement of "looks really cool but can't win a battle to save his life" facing up against "just have everything primed but can smack anyone" is an impossibility because "looks really cool" wouldn't have a high enough battle score after Rd1 to face "smacks anyone" in Rd2 or Rd3. But in the end "smacks everyone" would not win Overall because their soft scores would be too low.


Finally a note on hobbies. I think it's unfair to say that everyone should be involved with EVERYTHING in the GW hobby. Meaning that if someone doesn't like painting because it's either too tedious, takes too long, etc. they should'nt be looked down upon because of it. We don't criticize people who only paint models saying, "How come you aren't playing any games? The battles are part of the hobby." I'm not saying that we allow bare metal or just primed models in RTTs, I'm just saying that not EVERY part of a RTT is someone's cup of tea and should not be made to feel bad for it.
Again, the point of a Rogue Trader Tournament is being MISSED here. It is a HOBBY EVENT. The painting, the modeling, the building of Theme, the sportsmanship/comradery, the playing of the GAME is all part of the event. Otherwise why the frell would there be judging on it?!? That's like saying "I like to bike and swim but hate running"... and you're entering in a triathalon. It takes ALL parts to make a RTT work.

The intent of this is not to make anyone "feel bad" about not liking every part of an RTT. We're clarifying what's required, how to get to what's required, and what the players feel need some tweaking to work better. I don't play in Games Days, Grand Tournaments, Indie Tourneys (Adepti/Dire Wolf/Necro) or even the Ardboyz because I'm not that hard-core a competitor; I like to play a great game with a good list against enjoyable opponents. I don't knock ANYONE who wants intense competition, or those that just want to push cool models around on the table. If a player "feels bad" about it, maybe they should analyse their reasons for participation and if it's really something they want to participate in. Because if they just want 3 guarranteed games on a given day, there's a thread on here for "Scheduling a Game." That will save them the entry fee, having to "bother" with the requirements outlined for entry, and most importantly a slot for a player who is willing/able to meet those requirements that might have not been able to play because the event was full.

<sigh>
OK, I'll post up a summary of what we've got posted from players as suggestions later on today. Then, hopefully, we can productively move forward from there and get these events to the level we've been growing to. I do appreciate all the POVs brought thus far, and hope we can get where you all want to be, as well.

[Rorschach]

The matchups Round Two & Three ARE based on Battle Scores alone. They've never factored in ANY of the soft scores. But when ties occur, we have to default to Sportsmanship & Theme (up to that point), and if any other tie(s) then to Painting if needs be.

Umm...actually, I've been doing combined scores for round 2 and 3 for years now. The idea, at least for round Three, is that the Top Contenders face one another. And since we had the scores after Round One, and often did have ties, I just started adding them in for Round Two. Mainly, I never liked matches based on the 1 or 2 extra points of Battle score, becasue those often arise by an easy slaughter being compared to a hard-fought win.

HOWEVER, Tim raises a valid counterpoint, which is that a good painter with a Tied Battle Score might end up matched against an unpainted but highly victorious killer in Round Two.

So for the Team Tourney, I'm inclined to use the combined Sportsmanship and Battle Scores to determine matches, using painting only in a Tie. And Theme before that, if I have it.
That way, those who won but are poor sports will end up with each other as deserved, while the cream of the winners crop will still face one another. And poor good painters won't necessarily get slaughtered.

-Dale

[SgtBrowncoat]

Sounds fair to me.


Now a word to you anti-soft score guys:

Don't kill my Rogue Trader Events. they are my favorite thing about my chosen hobby here. I love the Sportsmanship scoring and I love being able to see the awesome paint jobs and army stands and conversions that come with attending an RTT. I don't hate on your 'Ard Boyz and GTs and so forth, in fact, I participate in some of that as well. Those are there for folks with your perspective on soft scores, RTTs are there for folks that like 'em.

I can't say I'm am always right on the ball with soft scores, and I have fielded an unpainted army due to time problems and/or just plain laziness, but given the choice, I would take an RT as described by Jason and Dale over anything else any day. I like to know that efforts I put into the look and theme of my army will go to good use right alongside efforts to know my list and win the games. I love that efforts to keep things fast and fun during the games are encouraged. If I wanted to play a bunch of smarmy jerks, I would play in a Halo tourney instead.


If soft scores aren't for you, I got no quarrel. Just don't try to screw up this unique and fantastic event style for me, because I like it. In recognition of your consideration, I won't whine or complain about your unpainted armies beating me to paste at the 'Ardboys tourneys. Deal?

Furthermore, if you aren't getting enough of the tourneys you like and noone has any issues with it, I would happily consider volunteering to run something for you competitive guys. (Couldn't be that hard to keep track of the score, Zing!!!) To make sure you get plenty of what you want.

Some final thoughts without further ranting:

Painting: Three colors is easy for most armies, especially 40k. Use some foundation paints for the base colors and dip the damn things in varnish.

It's cool if you don't paint well, I don't think my Dark Eldar are anything to write home about, and often receive adequate painting scores.

Sportsmanship: Just don't be a jerk! It's easy, remember that we are all playing a game, play and have fun! Ask questions, be generous, and laugh and cry with your opponent. It's really cool to have a good time with your buddy of the round, and makes the experience better for you, and no manipulation is required.

[Asandiril]

Umm...actually, I've been doing combined scores for round 2 and 3 for years now. The idea, at least for round Three, is that the Top Contenders face one another. And since we had the scores after Round One, and often did have ties, I just started adding them in for Round Two. Mainly, I never liked matches based on the 1 or 2 extra points of Battle score, becasue those often arise by an easy slaughter being compared to a hard-fought win.
Ummm... even though the Guidebook states specifically that Battle Points alone decide pairings and the soft scores aren't factored in until deciding the 4 "winner" slots? The extra "1 or 2" points of Battle score, and ties, gives you a pool of players to pair. The pairing program did that easily. If you had 16 players:
Rd1 - 8 would have 15 points and 8 would have 5 (give or take for the scenario bonuses);
Rd2 - the 8 15s would be paired up against each other and the 8 5s would do the same (Swiss system); resulting in:
4 30s
8 20s
4 10s (and obviously easily paired in Rd3);
Rd3 - there'd be:
2 45s
6 35s
6 25s
2 15s

Then the soft scores get factored for Overal, Best Painted, Best General and Sportsmanship. The only thing to make sure of in round 3 is that players have not played each other in the prior two rounds (which shouldn't be hard in an even set of players). You're doing pool pairings by Battle Points.


HOWEVER, Tim raises a valid counterpoint, which is that a good painter with a Tied Battle Score might end up matched against an unpainted but highly victorious killer in Round Two.
Yes, in Rd2, if the good painter won and the unpainted thug won, then yes, they could end up facing each other. Thems just the breaks in Swiss format.


So for the Team Tourney, I'm inclined to use the combined Sportsmanship and Battle Scores to determine matches, using painting only in a Tie. And Theme before that, if I have it.
That way, those who won but are poor sports will end up with each other as deserved, while the cream of the winners crop will still face one another. And poor good painters won't necessarily get slaughtered.

-Dale
There's the link I posted on the first page. If you don't already have the book downloaded, it's there for you. I've got a hardcopy of my own I always bring, highlighted to death for the pertinent stuff. It's a great help in figuring out the RTT scoring/pairing/winners conundrums.

[Rorschach]

Since GW stopped actually supporting/updating the RTT program (let alone fired all the Outriders), I've only seen the Book as a guideline of principles, not hard rules.
Kinda like how I feel about God. :D

[Laplace]

Bottom line is I guess the organizer can do whatever he/she wants. Of course a good organizer will run it fairly and not pull any "gotchas" on people.

I suspected Dale did the aggregate for awhile. Seemed odd how I would be 1 Win, 1 Loss, and then in round 3 faced a guy with 2 solid wins.

[Asandiril]

OK, so got an update there was a post by Ed for the link on the new site, but now I don't see that post?

But here's the location/link to the RTT stuff:

From the Games Workshop main page, text under "Warhammer" red banner is "Community & Events";
- click the + sign next to "Events" for the dropdown menu;
- then click "Rogue Trader Tournaments";
- then at the bottom of the Rogue Trader menu, you'll see "5. Rogue Trader Tournament Downloads";
- and voila!, the .pdf for the RTT Guidebook!

Links:
RTT section -
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?community=true&catId=&categoryId=400002&aId=3400017

guidebook -
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?community=true&catId=&categoryId=400002&pIndex=4&aId=3400017&start=5


BTW, there's some new wording under the RTT Player Information and General Guidelines (aka: Player's Bill of Rights), particularly {highlights mine):
"Part of the responsibility of hosting an RTT event is adhering to what we affectionately call the Gamer's Bill of Rights";
"If you feel a store or club is not living up to these standards then please contact your regional GW HQ office and let them know!"

Here's the full page Bill of Rights:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?community=true&catId=&categoryId=400002&pIndex=3&aId=3400017&start=4

Ya know, I'd rather you approach us (the Judges and the Gamer's Haven staff) first, to see if a resolution or understanding/clarification can be reached. But I know that some players will more than likely excercise their right to complain, and thus cause undue issues without considering the ramifications of their actions and what it can/will do to the RTTs held by the Haven.

[Rorschach]

I did this weekends matches by:
1st round - Random
2nd Round - Battle Scores, with the overall as tiebreaker
3rd Round - Overall Scores

Was there a problem?

[Asandiril]

I haven't heard anything as to problems. Sounds like a solid way to do the pairings. Since we're moving away from Sportsmanship being a consideration (due to all the "Love In" we seem to have with the players around here...), I'd say that was a right quick and easy way to organize it. Bravisimo, brother!
:D

[Asandiril]

Alright, so Rich (Warmaster) brought up a great idea for expanding our RTE experience by using the Games Day Appearance scoring. And I took a look at the Sportsmanship scoring, and I like it more than the current "select one of three options."

Here's the Appearance scoring:

• Army Appearance Points
We’ve tried numerous checklists, vague levels, and even opponent-judged scoring over the last decade. We know that some people like to convert their models, while others are perfectly happy with taking them straight from the box, some hobbyists love to build elaborate display boards, while others recognize they lack the terrain building skills. After considerable testing, we believe that this checklist goes a long way towards clarifying what we consider the important aspects of Army Appearance.

Although the points show below can be added to 25 points, there is a cap of 20 points. This is to ensure that well-painted armies are not penalized by a lack of conversions, and those well-converted (but perhaps averagely painted) armies are still in the hunt.

Army Appearance Judging will take place throughout the day. As you can see, there are a lot of aspects to cover. We’re confident that by publishing this checklist we can expect to see a great level of Army Appearance at all {Rogue Trader Events} this year.

Again, competitors can earn up to 20 points for the Army Appearance category.

ARMY APPEARANCE CHECKLIST
Painting (worth up to 18 points)
Check One Box
• Army is fully painted, but only to the three-color standard of basecoating. - 5 points
• Army is “beyond” fully painted, additional steps beyond the three-color standard. - 8 points

Check All That Apply to Bulk (80%+) of Army
• Painting is uniform: Not a mix of schemes, styles, and looks - 1 point
• Clean basecoat colors: Base colors are painted neatly - 1 point
• Details: Details are painted such as eyes, buckles, and jewelry - 1 point
• Hand-Painted Details: Details (that are well executed) have been added such as unit markings, banner artwork, blood marks, dirt on cloaks, etc. - 1 point
• Artistic: Banners, markings, and details are hand painted to an incredible degree! - 2 points
• Discernable Highlights/Shading: Drybrushing, lining, shading, inking, etc. (not required to be clean) - 1 point
• Clean highlights: Lines are neat, drybrushing is appropriate, inking is controlled and not sloppy - 1 point
• Beyond basics: Highlights have been blended, shaded, or layered well beyond the basic highlighting techniques of drybrusing and inking - 2 points

Basing (worth up to 2 points)
Check all that apply to bulk (80%+) of army
• Based/Detailed: Bases have basing materials (flock/sand/tiles) or details painted on them - 1 point
• Extra Basing: The bases have multiple basing materials (rocks/grass), extra details painted on them (cracks in tiles), or if extra basing is inappropriate, basing is done very well (eg. rolling desert dunes) - 1 point

Conversions (Worth up to 3 points)
Check One Box for conversions that are appropriate and well executed.
• Minimal: The army has some elementary conversions (head and weapon swaps, arm rotations) or a couple interesting swaps - 1 point
• Minor: Units have multi-kit conversions including head and weapon swaps. This is for more than a few models such as a unit - 2 points
• Major: The army has some difficult conversions that use things such as putty, plastic card, drilling, sawing, minor sculpts, etc. This could also apply to the entire army having very well done multi-kit conversions (see above) - 3 points

Other (Worth up to 2 points)
Check all that apply to bulk (80%+) of army
• Display Base: Basic based & highlighted or detailed display base - 1 point
• Something Special: There is something above and beyond about a model’s painting, the display base, a conversion, or the basing (eg. movement trays are based/highlighted) - 1 point

[Asandiril]

Herein follows the Sportsmanship scoring:

• Sportsmanship Points
Sportsmanship is a combination of things. Its overriding goal is to give feedback to players at the end of the tournament of how their behaviors were perceived throughout the tournament. This encourages people to bring their best behavior and positive attitude, reinforcing the goal that this is supposed to be a fun day of playing with toy soldiers and meeting other gamers.

If you feel you cannot bring a positive attitude and contribute to this type of atmosphere we ask you to please reconsider your participation at our {Rogue Trader Event}, as it may not be the venue and activity for you. Happily there are plenty of alternatives for everyone out there.

Each game players will be given a score out of 10 based on the questions in our Sportsmanship Checklist (shown to the right) This will mean that players can earn up to a maximum of 30 Sportsmanship Points. You will notice that the behaviors expected by competitors are covered in these questions. While you won’t love every game you play (or every opponent) there is a standard level you can reasonably expect to provide you with a positive overall experience.

SPORTSMANSHIP CHECKLIST
Compulsory Trappings – these are the items an opponent can reasonably expect you to be prepared with, including being on time and playing promptly.
• Did your opponent show up on time (or early)? - 1 point
• Did your opponent have all the materials they needed to play (dice, templates, army list, rules for their army, rules for the game)? - 1 point
• Did your opponent play their turns in a reasonable amount of time (taking in account time to plan strategy, and includes playing throughout all the phases)? - 1 point

Game Play – these items include courses of action your opponent took during the game or in deciding what to field in their army.
• Did your opponent measure accurately for both model moves and shooting distances? - 1 point
• Did your opponent solve rules disputes by showing you the relevant passages in their rulebook (or, if that could not be found or remained confusing, was amicable about bringing over a Rules Judge)? - 1 point
• Was your opponent’s army easy to understand with clear conversions or completely WYSWIG? - 1 point
• Do you think your opponent built an army based on the theme of the relevant gaming universe and supplied background for that army (as opposed to a force built purely for winning with little or no regard to that army’s established background)? - 1 point

Behaviors – these items include basic social skills.
• Was your opponent of good humor and amicable when not concentrating on strategy or planning out moves (this does not mean they put on a one man circus for you, but rather was not angry/grumbling/complaining/obtuse during your game)? - 1 point
• Was your opponent helpful in explaining correct rules, explaining how their army works? - 1 point
• Win or lose, was this person the type of opponent you look forward to playing again? - 1 point