Caanaan and I played in a team tournament this weekend ran by the Hive Fleet Indy crew. CaulynDarr ran the event by himself, and did a fine job considering.
The tournament was scored according to your win/loss record, with the two teams that went 3/0 splitting the top prize, and the 2/1 team with the most victory points receiving 3rd place. There were 14 teams in total. The final scores haven't been posted, so I'm not sure where we fell within the group, but we won 2 games and lost 1, and scored around 2800 victory points over 3 games. This being my first team tournament, I thought we did pretty good.
The list we ran was split up as follows:
14-man Crusader Squad in a Land Raider Crusader
2 5-man Crusader Squads with lascannons, one with a Rhino
Inquisitor Lord Karamazov
2 6-man Inquisitorial Storm Trooper Squads
2 squadrons of 3 Penitent Engines
We ran into some trouble when Farmpunk pointed out that Karamzov could only be fielded in armies of 1500 points or more. Caanaan had overlooked this restriction, so we scrambled at the last minute to rearrange his half of the army and wound up including an Inquisitor Lord with bolter/crossbow combi-weapon and excruciators with a multi-melta gun servitor and 2 warriors with plasma guns.
I'll post battle reports of the games later, but I wanted to talk about what the tournament did right and what left room for improvement.
I really liked the team format. New tactics were needed to face different combos, and it was neat to see the combinations that people came up with. If this type of tournament became more frequent, I think it would be cool to see more people making themed team armies. I would like to see one or two of this type of tournament every year in addition to our normal tournaments.
There were a few things that could be improved upon, but overall I had a great time. I wanted to make sure I stressed that none of the things I took issue with diminished my having a good time, and my criticisms are intended to make a better event in the future.
Prior to the event, I would have liked to have seen a statement that clearly spelled out how the tournament was scored, and what the schedule was going to look like so that I as a player know what to expect. CaulynDarr took over as TO only a few days prior, but it would have been nice to know how long each game would last, and what time to show up. The posting on the website said to be there at 11:00, but the first game was supposed to start at 11:00. There could have been some time scheduled to register each army, and figure out pairings prior to the starting time. Inevitably, some gamers will wait until the last minute to show up, and it usually makes the entire tournament start late.
Each game was given 2 hours to complete, which I felt was not enough time. At 2000 points, most games were not getting finished. I don't know if that is a result of most of us being used to playing games at 1750 points, but I think 2.5 hours was needed.
I would have liked to have seen printed mission sheets to give each player a reminder of the victory conditions as well. At the beginning of the tournament, it was explained that victory points would be used as a tie-breaker between the 3-0 teams to determine a winner, and the 2-1 team with the highest victory points would take 3rd place. I don't remember hearing that victory points would be used as a tie-breaker in the games, and that there would be no draw results. There were several people who, at the end of game 2, were surprised to find this out. A printed mission sheet could have resolved this issue.
The terrain was themed by table, and looked very nice. The problem with this was that the terrain was very inconsistent from table to table. The first table I played on had only impassible terrain, with no area terrain. The last table I played on had only ruins, which were in the 4 corners of the table with nothing but some hedges in the center of the board. I prefer to see a little bit of each type of terrain on each table, so as not to benefit one type of army over another too much.
I want to say again that I had a great time, and I look forward to the next event by Hive Fleet Indy. They have a 1750 point tournament scheduled for November 6th. I hope to see some of you there.
As I said before, caanaan and I are going to a doubles tournament this weekend. I have been told that there is one more slot available, so if there is another pair out there that would like to attend, please contact Spaguatyrine at:
aaronaleong -at- yahoo -dot-com
The tournament will be at Games 2 Die 4, and will consist of two 1000 point forces per team. Registration is $20 per team. There are no soft scores.
Caanaan and I are taking Black Templars and Witch Hunters. Both armies are close-quarter fighters and are ready to bring the pain. They also both suffer from old codices, and could be outclassed by a good player with a newer book. We'll have to rely on wits and shenanigans to prevail. Here's what I'm looking out for:
Spaguatyrine has stepped down as TO to play in the tournament with his son. I'm expecting to see a combination of his IG and Thunderwolf Space Wolf armies. Spaguatyrine is a good player, and this army combo could be really tough.
Scottydont has won multiple tournaments with his Daemons and Vulkan Salamanders. These two armies paired together could be quite nasty. Scottydont's son has started playing his Daemons, with some good results (he nearly tabled me at the last Hive Fleet Indy tournament I played in).
SandWyrm and Farmpunk would pose a threat with their IG and Witch Hunters duo. This army would create quite a gun-line, and would act as the paper to our rock.
There are several other good players in the area that, if paired together correctly, could be quite fearsome.
In the end, I don't know if we will face any of these match-ups, or if they even exist. We'll come to the tournament in our usual fashion; ready to have a good time and give other players a challenging game. I hope to see some of you there.
I've been asked to help organize a GT-level tournament in the Indianapolis area. The group consists of guys from The Back 40k, Too Competitive Hurts!, as well as other local TOs.
I used to play in GWs Grand Tournaments quite a bit from around 1999-2004. I've never been a particularly competitive player, but I enjoy the competitive atmosphere of a tournament. My philosophy has been to try and master the list I have, and figure out how to play against the so-called "tourmanent lists."
There has been much discussion in the last year in our local area regarding tournaments and soft scores. Some claim that soft scores have no place in a tournament setting, that only battle points should be considered. After all, Warhammer is a game. If I play the game better than you, I should place higher than you, right? Others claim that Warhammer is a hobby, and includes other aspects like painting, sportsmanship, and (dare I say it?) composition.
I have played in both types of tournaments, and have had a lot of fun in both. My question to all of you is this: In a GT-level event with upwards of 100 players, do you think that all aspects of the hobby should be represented in the scoring, or should battle points be the determining factor of a player's ranking?
If you think soft scores should be included, how much weight do you give them compared to the battle points? Should battle points be 33% of a player's overall score? 50%? 75%?
If you were to travel to another city for a large event, how would you like to see the scoring break down?
Let me know how you like this new format of monthly review. I enjoy highlighting what's going on in Indy besides what I am up to. Again, if you have a blog related to Indy, send me an e-mail at: email@example.com
I attended a tournament at the Game Preserve in Bloomington (home of Indiana University for the non-hoosier readers) this past weekend. There were only around 13 players, and nearly half of those were from the Muncie area (home of Ball State University). Among them were members of the Rites of Battle blog.