The future of US Masters

[godswearhats]

As many of you know, I've been the PNW representative to the US Masters for the last couple of years. With the death of Warhammer, the tournament will have one final hurrah in February 2016 (8th edition, Swedish, with some End Times units)

 

After that, we will be switching systems.

 

It's pretty clear that there is very little support among the committee members for us to switch to Age of Sigmar, so that leaves really only a few options.

 

1) Kings of War

2) The Ninth Age

3) Something else fan-supported

 

I'll be working with tournament organizers around the region to help them run events for whatever direction we take (and Matt Beasley will too, once he takes over from me), so I'm curious as to which system people feel they might be interested in playing.

 

The metro area question is there to help gauge interest across the region. Thanks for answering!

[King Mekhet]

9th Age is absolutely uninspired. It's just ETChammer with a few extra changes, almost none of which I actually like. It's WHFB 8th but more bland.

Furionhammer is actually quite a bit better. He made a real effort to rebalance the armies in a way that's interesting and compelling. That's something 9th Age lacks.

[Don't Panic]

eh i like 9th probably the best  .  it more is a living rulebook of 8th with minor changes that i actually like.  you may say bland but most of the slight changes make the game less frustrating and randomly annoying(im looking at you 6 spells).  that saying, KoW is a supported game.  im glad they spiced it up a bit in the more recent edition but it still is lacking in some areas(magic?).  based on 'appeal' i like 9th but KoW is supported so its probably a more logical direction.  im just stubborn and really enjoyed 8th  .  that saying im pretty much playing only infinity these days .  

[Krieger]

Homebrewed versions of 8th don't interest me.

 

I have tried a few games of KoW AND it's way too bland for me. The combination of poor tactical depth, little variety in the way units behave, and boring fluff. Just kills it for me.

 

I hate to say it but I would rather play AoS with some kind of comp system.

[ClassicFlava]

What do you mean by poor tactical depth? That it isn't very tactically deep? If that's what you mean I strongly disagree with you

[Romes]

Homebrewed versions of 8th don't interest me.

 

I have tried a few games of KoW AND it's way too bland for me. The combination of poor tactical depth, little variety in the way units behave, and boring fluff. Just kills it for me.

 

I hate to say it but I would rather play AoS with some kind of comp system.

I wanted to reply to this because I want people to give KoW a solid try and this comment suggests its not really worth doing.

 

I disagree that KoW lacks tactical depth. I would argue that the restrictions to the movement phase make it far more interesting and complex than the warhammer movement phase. 

 

What it lacks is rules knowledge shenanigans. I've won a lot of games of warhammer having sloppy movement phases because of various challenge/make way interactions, blocking the side of a unit with a cav character, OTS placement, nightshroud dodging, janky combat reforms and so forth. That's not really tactical depth, that's knowing the intricacies of the particular rule set. 

 

It's true that KoW lacks most of that. What is has is a tighter movement phase that, in my opinion, seems more tactically interesting than warhammer. The removal of flier/fast cav/skirmisher movement means you can't just nip out of places and escape after errors. There are no deathstars, every unit you have is vulnerable. You have to be careful where you start and where you go from there.

 

I've played a few games and I would be lying if I said I was good enough at KoW to have a great handle on all of the complexities opened up by the movement phase.

[Sylvos]

Tactical Depth is an oxymoron in a game where you push around little toys and roll dice.  It is a self important term used to make what we are playing seem more of an "adult" game rather than what it really is which is a bunch of dudes playing with dolls.  Yes, you have to think and try to outmaneuver an opponent but at the same token you do that in chutes n' ladders.  

 

The games listed; Age of Sigmar, Kings of War, 9th Age, etc.. all are wargames and all are going to have "tactics".  They are also all products that for some reason people get emotionally vested in and will beat their chest that their toy system is better than yours and you are a big dumb stupid head for playing something that they aren't.  

 

Let's take this approach:  Let's get a consensus of what game is going to be used for masters and what systems have enough interest to warrant people investing time and money into developing organized play so that we may continue to have circuits like the Masters or OFCC.  

 

I am seriously not interested in having yet another thread erupt about how system X isn't tactical but system Y is.  Aidan and by extension Matt are trying to get a gauge as to how the tournament scene landscape looks so that planning may begin as soon as possible.

[godswearhats]

Homebrewed versions of 8th don't interest me.

 

I have tried a few games of KoW AND it's way too bland for me. The combination of poor tactical depth, little variety in the way units behave, and boring fluff. Just kills it for me.

 

I hate to say it but I would rather play AoS with some kind of comp system.

 

This coming from a guy who brought a horde of Tomb King Archers, Khalida and a Folding Fortress to a friendly tournament ;-)

 

@Krieger, I think you really should try 3 or 4 games of Kings of War. Read the fluff. Field your Elves (I did and was surprised by how much I liked it). The tactical depth and the meta game are not in the list building or the rules knowledge (as Matt alluded to) but more in the game play itself.

 

A game with little to no tactical depth would mean that two equal sides of armies would result in a win for the person who rolled the best dice. I don't think any of the games listed have that problem.

 

KoW felt flat and bland to me at first because it ISN'T Warhammer when we really want it to be. Once you can get past that mind set (which I know is hard) it opens up what is actually a solid, enjoyable experience both on the table and off.

[Don't Panic]

yea agreed with sylvos about staying on topic, lets stick to which system we want to play rather than go in the constant circles of why system A is great and system B is not and system C is just garbage.  think we have beat that to a pulp. my bad for going in that direction, guilty as charged....  that saying ive actually enjoyed all systems ive played so far.  im just a little bitter still towards GW which is pretty much the only reason i'm not thrilled about AoS.  someday ill grow up

 

also *cough* lets not gain up on krieger.  i know everyone, besides maybe sylvos and his girly unicorns, has gone 'dirty' before or played to the thin line of it allowed... except me! ive never EVER played something dirty before     

[King Mekhet]

Tactical Depth is an oxymoron in a game where you push around little toys and roll dice.  It is a self important term used to make what we are playing seem more of an "adult" game rather than what it really is which is a bunch of dudes playing with dolls.  Yes, you have to think and try to outmaneuver an opponent but at the same token you do that in chutes n' ladders.  

 

The games listed; Age of Sigmar, Kings of War, 9th Age, etc.. all are wargames and all are going to have "tactics".  They are also all products that for some reason people get emotionally vested in and will beat their chest that their toy system is better than yours and you are a big dumb stupid head for playing something that they aren't.  

 

Let's take this approach:  Let's get a consensus of what game is going to be used for masters and what systems have enough interest to warrant people investing time and money into developing organized play so that we may continue to have circuits like the Masters or OFCC.  

 

I am seriously not interested in having yet another thread erupt about how system X isn't tactical but system Y is.  Aidan and by extension Matt are trying to get a gauge as to how the tournament scene landscape looks so that planning may begin as soon as possible.

 

What profound nonsense.

 

You don't "outmaneuver your opponent" in Chutes n' Ladders. It is a game where outcomes are 100% determined by dice rolls, with zero decision-making involved whatsoever.

 

Warhammer, Kings of War, Age of Sigmar, etc. are all *STRATEGY* games. They involve making decisions on a game board in order to outmaneuver, and thus defeat, your opponent. Wargames are perhaps not *pure* strategy games, as some element of chance is involved, but nevertheless what decides the vast majority of outcomes are player decisions (including how much chance, and thus risk, a player chooses to expose him or herself to...all factors that are known and can be accounted for in advance).

 

 

How then is the relative complexity, depth, and breadth of decisions available for players to make in each game not a relevant factor in choosing the game this community sticks with going forward? Especially considering that we are talking about our relation to the MASTERS event, which is meant to be a test of a player's knowledge and mastery of the game system.

 

 

 

 

Kings of War is a great game. It's a lot more complex than you would think, and the movement phase is actually much tighter and more restrictive than WHFB's ever was. This means you really need to properly plan and execute your moves in order to avoid a catastrophic mistake sewering your chance at victory. As a replacement for WHFB goes it doesn't hit all the same buttons...I think it is quite "bland" in that all the choices feel very generic, and there's not as much differentiating the factions.

 

However it's a much better option than either Age of Sigar (which is a mess), or 9th Age (which is also bland and boring, and worst of all very played-out).

[Sylvos]

What profound nonsense.

 

You don't "outmaneuver your opponent" in Chutes n' Ladders. It is a game where outcomes are 100% determined by dice rolls, with zero decision-making involved whatsoever.

 

Warhammer, Kings of War, Age of Sigmar, etc. are all *STRATEGY* games. They involve making decisions on a game board in order to outmaneuver, and thus defeat, your opponent. Wargames are perhaps not *pure* strategy games, as some element of chance is involved, but nevertheless what decides the vast majority of outcomes are player decisions (including how much chance, and thus risk, a player chooses to expose him or herself to...all factors that are known and can be accounted for in advance).

 

 

How then is the relative complexity, depth, and breadth of decisions available for players to make in each game not a relevant factor in choosing the game this community sticks with going forward? Especially considering that we are talking about our relation to the MASTERS event, which is meant to be a test of a player's knowledge and mastery of the game system.

 

 

 

 

Kings of War is a great game. It's a lot more complex than you would think, and the movement phase is actually much tighter and more restrictive than WHFB's ever was. This means you really need to properly plan and execute your moves in order to avoid a catastrophic mistake sewering your chance at victory. As a replacement for WHFB goes it doesn't hit all the same buttons...I think it is quite "bland" in that all the choices feel very generic, and there's not as much differentiating the factions.

 

However it's a much better option than either Age of Sigar (which is a mess), or 9th Age (which is also bland and boring, and worst of all very played-out).

 

Whatever makes you feel like your game of toy soldiers isn't just that.

[Krieger]

Apparently my opinion struck a nerve lol.

 

Didn't mean to de-rail the thread or start a debate. Just wanted to cast my vote and give a reason why.

 

I just find more pleasure in games with a ton of rules and lots of options. I like pouring over a 265 pg. rulebook. To me that equates to "tactical depth".

 

AoS at least has a lot of rules and options through the war scrolls. I also feel the fluff is the best of the three options.

 

I would like to stress I am just trying to state my personal reasons for my decisions. I am not trying to debate anyone. KoW isnt bad. It's just not for me.

 

 

 

Btw I miss playing all of you :(

[godswearhats]

We miss you too :-)

 

GROUP HUG!

 

OK, that's quite enough of that - back to the topic!

[JMGraham]

Locally, we've been playing KoW for our Fantasy fix, and it's been great. Lots of fun.

 

However, KoW hasn't yet become our "main game". We're dabbling around in a lot of different games systems, revisiting old favorites, and discovering new ones. Thus, while KoW has become the go-to for massed Fantasy combat, it's too early to tell whether it'll have a string tournament draw for our locals here in B'ham. There are so many great games out there, and too few game nights.

[King Mekhet]

 

Whatever makes you feel like your game of toy soldiers isn't just that.

 

It's a strategy game played with toy soldiers. Just like Risk. Just like Chess. The compelling aspect of the game is the depth of strategic choice, which entices you to learn the game, to learn the decisions available to you, to *improve* your ability.The depth and complexity of those decisions is especially important here, given that we're talking about a "Masters" event, which is at least superficially about deciding who is the best player in North America at our game of choice.

 

Honestly though, what's most important about the Masters is the spirit of competition. An entire event dedicated to those players who have put in the time and effort to learn a game inside and out. Where each game you play you can expect to be challenging and evenly matched. Depth of strategy is just as important to that, as without strategy the people you play will just be the ones with the best dice rolls over the preceding season.

 

 

 

 

@Krieger: I too love pouring over a 200+ page rulebook. I love mastering all those same janky shenanigans that Beasley referred to. I loved rolling over ideas about tweaks to my army and character builds in my head throughout the day, and calling up friends to discuss some whacky new list idea I had for the next tournament.

 

Kings of War is a game that is purpose-built to avoid much of that. It is a game designed to put player skill and tabletop decisions above all else, and to shunt army and character builds to the background. Which is really unfortunately.

However the tabletop experience is also top-notch. It's a really compelling game, and rewards planning and clever decisions.

 

I'm kind of torn on it personally. On its own...I'm not sure how invested I would be, just playing in a garage with my friends. However as a tournament game I'm intrigued, and if it picks up steam going forward I would absolutely be more interested in getting on board. Especially given that I already have the models.

 

 

That said...I also have my Darklands models and rulebook arriving soon, and that has me a thousand times more amped up than Kings of War. It's basically the polar opposite of Kings of War: enormously complex rules and unique, distinctive factions that are dripping with flavour and backed up with truly stupendous models. Not sure how it's going to fare as a tournament game, but it definitely has my attention at the moment.

[Jvesal]

Long term I'd like to support a game with an actual company behind. I'm talking 4-10 years here. We need a game that will keep growing and keep getting new players or the scene will die and disappear, and please don't cite BB as an example. BB has a very small buy in (12-13 models) and is more of a board game then serious large scale combat game. It is not even comparable.

 

This is why for me all the fan made editions are out. 9th age especially doesn't interest me, too many arbitrary changes and too much stuffed into one edition. It's like they are actually putting out 15th edition with the amount of changes.

 

This leaves AoS or KoW for me. Honestly, I can't support GW with what they have done to the game and the lack of support, communication etc. enough is enough. I am really liking the lack of shenanigans in KoW and the communication and support from Mantic, the game they have is a little bland true, but I feel like it's only 2nd ed and the game is only going to get better, plus they actually want us tournament players.

[Peanut]

Im no master but I think KoW is a great system and Im not impressed with Sigmar. Not sure im interested in tournaments but I would vote KoW.

[Brother Glacius]

I voted for Kings of War simply because it is designed to be a tournament game. It seems a bit odd to try and take AoS, which clearly isn't made for that format, and squeeze it in.

 

I think it would be easier to try and make an interesting KoW event, than a fair and balanced AoS event.

[Don't Panic]

so im going to open up a pretty big can of worms, so apologies ahead of time for anyone this offends/objects strongly, pot stirring cause im sure it will but i wanted to get it off my chest:

           i wish that masters, regardless of its gaming platform of KoW/AoS/9th etc, just used battle(with objectives if used) for its ranking purposes.  or just a more 'standardization for masters purposes' from the data provided by the TO(yes thats probably a pain in the arse).  The overall for every tournament is just so different and paint can be as high as 1/3 of the points(it is absurdly high compared to events in other parts of the country) which i just dont see how that is a good measuring stick for a competitive event like the masters which grades things more traditionally/standard at their yearly competition.  i still think tournaments should have what they want for their overall, etc and prizes honestly id rather have more prizes go to those that put excellent paint and time into their armies cause they deserve it.  i think it more should be a tiebreaker or something with lower weight applied along with sports.   something that ' slightly separates' two basically equal generals.   they really shouldn't be as decisive as the game itself... obviously just my opinion but ill be frank: it defeats the purpose of competition playing when you start down with a terrible handicap so ill probably bow out of traveling to most competitive events and save it for something that has a more standardized ranking system(infinity's ITS is an example of reference that has recently dawned on me).  once again, this is not hit on the great painters as its an important and well respected aspect of the game.  its just when i think of a master player i think of the best players ive faced against, not really the best painters/enjoyable guys ive faced..

[Brother Glacius]

Bells just announced the southern masters group going to KoW. There really isn't another solid choice. 8th/9th and AoS require adopting a fan made system of balance. KoW is the only one with solid, consistent support from the actual developers. Probably the only issue that could arise is the fact that you have to deal with proxy lists more so with KoW. That shouldn't be too hard to manage though.

[Romes]

           i wish that masters, regardless of its gaming platform of KoW/AoS/9th etc, just used battle(with objectives if used) for its ranking purposes. 

 

Don't panic.

 

While it's up the the TO what to report, it is true that our region tends to put more emphasis on paint and sports then some of the others. (btw we had the highest combined paint/sorts of any region for 2014 masters)

 

Some TO's do choose, for various reasons, to report battle for masters points rather than overall, even though overall is their top prize.

 

I would suggest that what has happened this year across the region is not that different than what you're looking for: Here's a sample of what I know of the tournaments that have occurred and have rankings up for masters:

 

Tshift - best overall was also top battle

GottaCon - don't know

BsB - best overall was also top combo of on board points (battle and scenario)

SPDM - best overall was not top battle, but second best overall was top battle, best overall was 4-1 with best sports and good paint

VoD - only reported battle for masters points

RCW - best overall was not top battle, but second best overall was top battle, best overall was 4-1 with best sports and best paint

KoC - only reported battle for masters points

 

So, I wouldn't be discouraged from traveling because of paint points, as I think the results show that consistently doing well on the table gets you to masters in the current system. I, for example, have consistently done decent in paint and did not place in paint in any of these events (I've never come close to placing in paint at a 2 dayer). I've found that, in this region as much as in the others, fielding a complete and tournament standard army is required, but being stellar is not.

 

*Added: But it's good to hear input, and if there are others that feel this way please speak up. We'll need to start talking through if the region wants to make changes to it's qualification process for next year once the master's format for next year has been determined.

[Jvesal]

so im going to open up a pretty big can of worms, so apologies ahead of time for anyone this offends/objects strongly, pot stirring cause im sure it will but i wanted to get it off my chest:

           i wish that masters, regardless of its gaming platform of KoW/AoS/9th etc, just used battle(with objectives if used) for its ranking purposes.  or just a more 'standardization for masters purposes' from the data provided by the TO(yes thats probably a pain in the arse).  The overall for every tournament is just so different and paint can be as high as 1/3 of the points(it is absurdly high compared to events in other parts of the country) which i just dont see how that is a good measuring stick for a competitive event like the masters which grades things more traditionally/standard at their yearly competition.  i still think tournaments should have what they want for their overall, etc and prizes honestly id rather have more prizes go to those that put excellent paint and time into their armies cause they deserve it.  i think it more should be a tiebreaker or something with lower weight applied along with sports.   something that ' slightly separates' two basically equal generals.   they really shouldn't be as decisive as the game itself... obviously just my opinion but ill be frank: it defeats the purpose of competition playing when you start down with a terrible handicap so ill probably bow out of traveling to most competitive events and save it for something that has a more standardized ranking system(infinity's ITS is an example of reference that has recently dawned on me).  once again, this is not hit on the great painters as its an important and well respected aspect of the game.  its just when i think of a master player i think of the best players ive faced against, not really the best painters/enjoyable guys ive faced..

 

 

I have to politely disagree, only because I think your walking a dangerous path towards what the WMH tournament scenes is where 20% of armies are barely painted and the rest are bare plastic and metal.

 

Sports/Paint should be a part of every tournament, because it is a Hobby and not just a game, there is a reason we have Best GENERAL and Best OVERALL. Because they signify two different things. One is pure battle, the other is a aggregate score including things like Sports, paint and comp in some tournaments. Ultimately though I think a good balance is needed and it is nice to have different tournaments be different in order for us to have a wide range of options for how we like to play.

I really like the themed SPDM that Ricky Fisher runs and I like the more cutthroat events as well, if every tournament was identical in rules/comp/scenarios it would get old fast, and we would lose what makes each tournament unique. Furthermore I think the US Masters already awards Battle as the main component, Finally I would say that what you think the US Masters should be, might not neccesarily be the same as everyone. The masters as it currently stands is won on pure battle, so you are already getting your way. If you have a problem with the people who play/qualified this/previous years because you think they did it solely on "soft scores" well that is another matter all together. But personally I'd rather send 8 guys who are good players, have nice armies, and are great opponents to represent our region to the masters, than to send 8 people who are pure gamers and don't represent the whole hobby well.

[Romes]

Jim,

 

I totally agree that the variety of tournament formats is key. I don't think Nate suggested he had a problem with any players, his comment was on the nature of the system.

 

Also, Nate, after re-reading your post I had another thought. The thought put into the paint scoring and how it affects overall really matters and not all 33% splits are equal. For example, is your goal with paint scoring to reward people who put in the time and love needed? Or to reward outstanding artists? I've been to some 33% paint events where a complete, consistent army that looks good on the table gets *almost* the max score, and the outstanding armies get maybe half a game worth of a lead. Say, I end up with a 29 (all boxes checked) and Jim ends up with a 33 (all boxes checked, + bonuses for awesomeness). Those 4 points are worth about half a game. I've also been to some events where paint was 33% and the paint scores varied drastically to the point where the best armies were getting effectively 33% and MOST armies 15%. That becomes a pretty daunting gap to make up on the table. My point is the percentage breakdown is less important than the specifics of the design and intent behind what and how much people are rewarded for various aspects of the hobby. 

 

I think that as tournaments mature and TOs see more results that design tends to get tighter and become a more accurate reflection of the TO's value system.

 

So, if the concern is the prospect of a poorly designed event, I would totally agree that it's no fun to travel somewhere to walk in and know that the structure as defined means you start out with no chance. And that that concern is something that TO's should be aware of. 

 

But I also agree with Jim that there is value in having soft scores. It's my opinion that soft scores, when applied thoughtfully and with some restraint, help build/attract/retain the kind of people that I want to have at tournaments, and that those people grow the tournaments in turn. Two people yelling at each other over a table covered in bare plastic is not something I've ever seen at a PNW fantasy event - and, to me, that's really important.

[McNathanson]

Romes I just can't resist noting how you consistently articulate my precise gaming philosophy and the reasoning behind it as well.  As someone who used to organize events and spent a LOT of time trying to get the incentives (scoring, prizes, etc.) "just right" in order to cultivate the gaming atmosphere I so deeply enjoy, it's really great to read your posts.  Thanks for fighting the good fight, I know it often feels like a never ending uphill battle!  I also know that when things go right, it's totally worth it :)

[Jvesal]

Jim,

 

I totally agree that the variety of tournament formats is key. I don't think Nate suggested he had a problem with any players, his comment was on the nature of the system.

 

Also, Nate, after re-reading your post I had another thought. The thought put into the paint scoring and how it affects overall really matters and not all 33% splits are equal. For example, is your goal with paint scoring to reward people who put in the time and love needed? Or to reward outstanding artists? I've been to some 33% paint events where a complete, consistent army that looks good on the table gets *almost* the max score, and the outstanding armies get maybe half a game worth of a lead. Say, I end up with a 29 (all boxes checked) and Jim ends up with a 33 (all boxes checked, + bonuses for awesomeness). Those 4 points are worth about half a game. I've also been to some events where paint was 33% and the paint scores varied drastically to the point where the best armies were getting effectively 33% and MOST armies 15%. That becomes a pretty daunting gap to make up on the table. My point is the percentage breakdown is less important than the specifics of the design and intent behind what and how much people are rewarded for various aspects of the hobby. 

 

I think that as tournaments mature and TOs see more results that design tends to get tighter and become a more accurate reflection of the TO's value system.

 

So, if the concern is the prospect of a poorly designed event, I would totally agree that it's no fun to travel somewhere to walk in and know that the structure as defined means you start out with no chance. And that that concern is something that TO's should be aware of. 

 

But I also agree with Jim that there is value in having soft scores. It's my opinion that soft scores, when applied thoughtfully and with some restraint, help build/attract/retain the kind of people that I want to have at tournaments, and that those people grow the tournaments in turn. Two people yelling at each other over a table covered in bare plastic is not something I've ever seen at a PNW fantasy event - and, to me, that's really important.

 

 

Your bang on my friend. I actually have benefited quite a bit over the years due to what I would say is "wonky" weighting in tournaments, i.e where my soft scores in paint/sports bump me up 3-4 spots. But not all tournaments are like that, and I like the good mix we have in the PNW. Some tournaments lean towards gaming more, and some give more points to soft scores, and as far as I'm concerned thats OK. because it means we get a variety of different tournaments.

 

I am actually an advocate of the painting rubrics where the painting score spread is fairly small (like your 4 pt example) and the trick is finding a balance so that the pro-painted/top armies dont get 1% higher than the 3 color minimums. its a balance every TO tries to find and no one system is superior. At the end of the day, I really like the spread of tournaments we have in the PNW and personally hope it stays a mix of hobby/gaming tournaments.