|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Mar 22, 2021 5:56:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by voodoo on Mar 22, 2021 6:47:57 GMT -5
I have no clue why events still use win record as the deciding factor when the spread of battle points is the way it is. The second AND 3rd place finishers earned more battle points than Nanavati, but by virtue of him winning 5 in a row, he took the top spot... I understand the thinking, but I'd be pissed if I was those guys.
|
|
|
|
Post by artonas on Mar 22, 2021 6:49:52 GMT -5
He had the triumph of St Katherine, didn't realize it was a decent character. But looks like MSU is the way to play.
|
|
|
|
Post by Frosty the Pirate on Mar 22, 2021 6:50:09 GMT -5
Not even surprised a little that Nanavati won with that Sisters List.
The 3rd-place player's Drukhari / Craftworld list is 10000% lols. 80 Wracks for objective flood/camping while the craftworld's provide an all-forgeworld-based firepower line up. Shows how awful the "real" craftworld's codex is currently when the only thing taken from it was 5 mandatory-troop-slot rangers and Doom/Guide.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Mar 22, 2021 7:30:14 GMT -5
I have no clue why events still use win record as the deciding factor when the spread of battle points is the way it is. The second AND 3rd place finishers earned more battle points than Nanavati, but by virtue of him winning 5 in a row, he took the top spot... I understand the thinking, but I'd be pissed if I was those guys. yup, that's a holdover from how ITC works.... those 2nd/3rd place guys were BETTER than Nanavati (scored more battle points throughout the tournament) but ITC so they don't win... I'd be pretty pissed too |
|
|
|
Post by artonas on Mar 22, 2021 9:02:41 GMT -5
Most events I thought were running something similar. Wins are the primary and Battle points are used to determine ties and such. I’d be a bit annoyed if I won 5 games and was the only one to do so but lost cause of my points. Sports don’t go by goals between games.
|
|
|
|
Post by Frosty the Pirate on Mar 22, 2021 10:26:43 GMT -5
(For the record, this post doesn't condone the ITC method, this is just my reasoning of the logic of why they would do that)
I think with the ITC, they measure wins first over battle points is because Winning a 55-54 hard fought game with a lot of points denied and is still a win, where as if you go purely on battle points, losing 95-92 is far better than winning 55-50.
There is also the argument that some armies are just capable of running up the scoreboard and creating high-scoring-losses better than others, and hence why they are still using W/L over Battle Points I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Mar 22, 2021 11:27:07 GMT -5
I understand their logic behind it. I also hate when ITC decides that they always have to do their own special something to the established system that this time THEY helped create!
the whole idea behind 9th's missions, scoring and secondaries was to create consistency among ALL regions (ETC, WTC, NOVA, ITC, and base rulebook all having different scoring and missions was a mess)
I'm sure it must have been all spelled out in the tournament player pack beforehand so no surprises of course. Plus this is high level tournament play, so they all have a different way of operating as opposed to local RTS's anyways.
So it's not like it affects anything locally of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by rae125 on Mar 22, 2021 12:15:04 GMT -5
I’m just getting back into tournaments how do we do it at nexus wins or points? Points can be skewed In my opinion because good games between two high level players will probably have a lower point difference than the average game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Mar 22, 2021 13:03:33 GMT -5
Battle points for Best General, add in sports/painting for best overall.
In the club champs this year, win rate corresponded pretty much exactly with the battle point spread, and we haven't had a 9th tournament yet where the person with the most battle points wasn't also the most winning lists. So thus far at least, that worry has not materialized. It's pretty hard to get alot of battle points without actually winning... sometimes you can lose and score quite a bit of points, but generally speaking, you aren't seeing people win the game with low points unless they are also not getting past turn 2. And in those cases, it can skew the battle point rate, HOWEVER it also can give a win for someone who actually might not have won if the game would have gone to turn five.
So in the end, what I've seen thus far at least, is that the most important thing is for games to proceed into the later turns. That gives a solid battle point score and a more consistent result. If it's a close game between two high level players, they're not scoring very low on battle points (because you know... primary and secondary are known and high level players maximize their points as efficiently as possible). ie: Navanati's lowest scoring game was an 83... that's not exactly a poor battle point score!
|
|
|
|
Post by artonas on Mar 22, 2021 13:54:45 GMT -5
My main concern is that in the last event I went to, I had an opponent forfeit and the points stopped there. I don't recall the points at all but if the standing are done solely on points then should I have made him keeping plating if it was 40-10 after 3 turns? He doesn't have a chance to catch up but I could still get another 30 points at least.
The mission pack from clubs doesn't show what do to in that case just a tabling which of course of course can still win in these new missions. I don't want to cause issues but I feel as though a win at 40-35 is still better then loosing 80-50. If games don't finish then slow play can also cause an issue as well as you wouldn't get your max points. I haven't played in awhile but I guess I'm alone in this mind set.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Mar 22, 2021 14:08:00 GMT -5
well if your opponent forfeits, as per everything I've ever said at a tourney, you get your remaining turns to keep scoring.
The points definitely do NOT stop if you have someone bail on you.
You don't need to have him keep playing (as when someone gets salty and gives up it's usually more trouble than it is worth to make them keep going) but you certainly get your remaining turns to score. So you talk it out - I'll move here and here next turn, thus gaining my points for primary. I also will therefore get engage, etc. etc.
If your opponent forfeits, their models are destroyed. So if you took assassinate etc. you would score those points.
People get salty and give up. It happens. If it happens in one of my tournaments, call me over to the table and ask, in front of your opponent (so it's all up front) what happens with points. I'll then tell you and your opponent you get the remaining turns to score, and any of his models if he wants to give up, count as destroyed. If the opponent has an issue with that they can keep playing.... or you know... pack up and go... because I take issue with someone trying to chipmunk a person's score.
If slow playing is an issue, I can do something about it, but only if I'm called to the table... and only if it's not 15 minutes left in the round!
9th is such a deadly edition, it's super hard to intentionally slow play someone, as so much dies in the first two turns, and the game only goes to five turns at most. But if you find that an issue, call me over to fix it. That's my job!
|
|
|
|
Post by lightcavalier on Mar 22, 2021 14:28:04 GMT -5
If slow playing is an issue, I can do something about it, but only if I'm called to the table... and only if it's not 15 minutes left in the round! 9th is such a deadly edition, it's super hard to intentionally slow play someone, as so much dies in the first two turns, and the game only goes to five turns at most. But if you find that an issue, call me over to fix it. That's my job! The only issue ive run into with slowness so far, it wasnt the game that ran slow.....it was that fact that 45 minutes in we hadnt even started turn 1 yet because selecting secondary's, deploying, and other pre game admin was like pulling teeth with my opponent. Lots died in the 2 turns we played.....but honestly I didnt even realize we were running out of time until we did. Ive been much more vigilant since then. |
|
|
|
Post by rae125 on Mar 22, 2021 14:48:04 GMT -5
Battle points for Best General, add in sports/painting for best overall. In the club champs this year, win rate corresponded pretty much exactly with the battle point spread, and we haven't had a 9th tournament yet where the person with the most battle points wasn't also the most winning lists. So thus far at least, that worry has not materialized. It's pretty hard to get alot of battle points without actually winning... sometimes you can lose and score quite a bit of points, but generally speaking, you aren't seeing people win the game with low points unless they are also not getting past turn 2. And in those cases, it can skew the battle point rate, HOWEVER it also can give a win for someone who actually might not have won if the game would have gone to turn five. So in the end, what I've seen thus far at least, is that the most important thing is for games to proceed into the later turns. That gives a solid battle point score and a more consistent result. If it's a close game between two high level players, they're not scoring very low on battle points (because you know... primary and secondary are known and high level players maximize their points as efficiently as possible). ie: Navanati's lowest scoring game was an 83... that's not exactly a poor battle point score! That makes sense I have not played a lot of 9th so far so most of my thoughts are coming from theory crafting. Looking forward to actually getting out and rolling some dice |
|
|
|
Post by raceygaming on Mar 22, 2021 15:17:59 GMT -5
Ya it's a hard tight rope to balance. I think ITC went wins over points for 3 reasons:
1. It's different and they wanted to stand out in the crowd cause they need to stay relevant. If the books rules are good enough that the dont need adjustment then why are people paying extra for ITC.
2. At a top level of play and with "clans" or teams or whatever they are called, there becomes big opening for time to become a meta weapon; which is just shit.
With potential slow play, having to call judges, and "team mates" you could see people trying to chipmunk scores by only getting to the 4th turn vs some one who is doing well (better than a teammate). That means people could miss out on upwards of 15-30 pts each game. Over a 5 or 6 game tournament that's way more than enough to rewrite the standings a couple times over.
3. The win/loss also lends itself to a hard cut off if shit goes sideways. Let's say you are in a area and something happens (fire alarm), some one quits,etc you can just be like who has more points at the end of turn 3 wins. You dont need to get to turn 5 to declare a winner. Rather than falling behind in schedule.
I think the systems of wins has slightly less area for abuse then overall points but it's pretty close. Also you create a meta that favors armies that can score early and big over armies that need turn 4-5 to really pull out the wins.
|
|
