MavenCon - ACTA Tournament Debut!!!

[B_Steele]

Hello all,
I just thought I'd let everyone know here, as fans of ACTA, that Mongoose Publishing will be unveiling their new US Tournament Format at the smallish gaming convention called MavenCon in Indianapolis, IN on March 8th (the con is from thr 7th to the 9th). If the tournament goes well, this will likely be the new tournament format used by the MI at other official Mongoose events, so you should swing out and take your chance!

The tournament pack can be found at: http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/pdf/Battle_for_Sector_14.pdf

The convention information can be found at:
http://www.indymavens.com/cms/

The event information can be found at:
http://www.indymavens.com/cms/modules/eguide/event.php?eid=75

Alright! I hope to see as many of you "locals" there as possible!!!

Cheers all,
Bry

 

[Burger]

It doesn't explain what "Composition" scores are?

The fleet building rules do seem to rule out most of the "cheese" fleets quite nicely though. Poor Drazi get the blunt end again however, their Battle level ships suck...

 

[B_Steele]

Argh...

An entire paragraph got left out of the tournament pack. Until I get it fixed on the pdf...here it is. :evil:

Before the Matches Begin
Every entrant is to arrange their fleet’s models, proxies or counters on a central location for all entrants to see, along with its official tournament fleet roster. Then, one fleet at a time, each entrant will judge his fellows on their Attractiveness of their fleet’s sanctioned Mongoose Publishing painted miniatures. Counters and proxies are allowed for play, but are considered strikes against the overall Attractiveness of the fleet itself. The fleet is to be scored between 1 (bare metal, all proxies or counters, etc.) and 10 (beautifully painted Mongoose-scale miniatures), with 5 being roughly average. These points will be used by the judge(s) to determine the Most Attractive Fleet Award at the end of the tournament. NOTE – Ships that have not yet had a Mongoose Publishing miniature released can have a suitable proxy, and fleets should NOT be marked off for Attractiveness because of THOSE model.

At the same time the entrants are judging the artistic Attractiveness of the fleet, they are to be inspecting the tournament fleet roster as well. Before any games are played and outside opinions formed, the entrants are to judge their peers on the overall composition of the fleets. Points are to be given for the fleets’ obvious avoidance of well-known “cheesy combos” or an abundance of so-called “broken ships”. Entrants should award fleets for their versatility and narrative content. The fleet is to be scored between 1 (a fleet built against the narrative of the race, just for winning, or advertised as “cheesy” on the Internet) and 10 (a well-thought out and versatile fleet created with the Babylon 5 story in mind), with 5 being an average tournament-style fleet list.

Once this pre-playing score taking has taken place, the tournament organiser and judge(s) will take all pre-match entrant sheets and pair the entrants randomly for their first match.

 

[Burger]

Ah, sounds good

 

[DaBogmu]

Awsome.

 

[Triggy]

I've never been a fan of composition scores due to their subjective nature. Even with a proscriptive set of marks for composition, the makeup of the marks is subjective. The problems start when half of the players consider something innately cheesy (e.g. Gaim) despite the player picking a fleet designed for fluff, not performance (e.g. I've played Blood Angels in 40K since 1989 but got hammered on comp in a couple of events because in 3rd ed. of 40K they became inherently cheesy according to most people - is that fair or right?)

However, I look forward to seeing how this turns out

 

[Chernobyl]

4 prizes mentioned on page 4 but only 3 examples given...I'm assuming the missing example is 3rd place? 8)

chern

 

[B_Steele]

Double Argh...

Most Attractive Fleet – The player who scored the most points during pre-play scoring for their fleet’s Attractiveness.

 

[Davesaint]

Bry,

I really don't like the placing of composition points into your overall score, just like I hate having sportsmanship points in overall placement. They are both arbitory and are most subjective. My preference is to have sportsmanship and composition awards that are separate from the admiralship award. IMO sportsmanship and composition scores are the most abused form of retaliation in tournament play. A player could sit there like a lump and say nothing except for good game at the end and get a 2 for sportsmanship because he wasn't talkative enough, or someone could think he was cold, or apathetic to the game. While the Judges can overturn this, it's hard to prove that the score is incorrect.

If you want to give an award for the best painted fleet, or the best "fluff" in the fleet, go ahead, but you shouldn't punish a player who is a good admiral, but a lousy painter.

Just my 2 cents.


Dave

 

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

I'm ready!!

 

[B_Steele]

I really don't like the placing of composition points into your overall score, just like I hate having sportsmanship points in overall placement. They are both arbitory and are most subjective. My preference is to have sportsmanship and composition awards that are separate from the admiralship award. IMO sportsmanship and composition scores are the most abused form of retaliation in tournament play. A player could sit there like a lump and say nothing except for good game at the end and get a 2 for sportsmanship because he wasn't talkative enough, or someone could think he was cold, or apathetic to the game.

I have played in/judged several tournaments for several different game systems that use this format, and it actually tends to be pretty fair. Most players are not so vindictive as to kill their opponents' scores, and judges should be aware of those who do.

While the Judges can overturn this, it's hard to prove that the score is incorrect.

A good judge should be walking the tables during the match and taking observations. Not to mention, if someone scores someone REALLY low...I will go and ask why. If they don't have a good or at least reasonable answer, it is something I note of them. Someone repeatedly scoring players harshly (when others are not doing the same for the same player), will find themselves on the borders of having their scores adjusted instead.

Additionally, this is even less a problem due to the average of all three scores are what makes up the Admiralship points. Unless a player gets scored low all three games (which is only likely if they actually deserve it, if you think about the chances), they will still score an above average Sportsman score. The same kinda goes with Composition, but that is even easier - as it is the average of ALL the players, not just three.

If you want to give an award for the best painted fleet, or the best "fluff" in the fleet, go ahead, but you shouldn't punish a player who is a good admiral, but a lousy painter.

I agree about the painter thing. Which is why there is a separate Appearance award that has nothing to do with the Admiralship. While I think that Appearance is important, it has nothing to do with the playing of the game - which Composition and Sportsmanship do.

Generally, I find that most players agree with that assumption too.

I just can't wait to see the tourney in action, you Chicago guys should come down and join up!

-Bry[/quote]

 

[thehod]

Are you allowed Admirals?

 

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Hey Bry, have you updated the PDF yet?

 

[B_Steele]

Are you allowed Admirals?

I can't see why not. It would turn your Battle-level ship (Flagship) into a War, which would suck up 4 of your FAP, but sure.

Hey Bry, have you updated the PDF yet?

Nope...but soon. I promise!

-Bry

 

[lastbesthope]

Well I'm not overly happy about counter fleets getting shafted on the composition score I must say. If the scores for composition and atttractiveness were completely seperated in the scoring then it would be fairer but it seems like they are interlinked.

Also a pure WS (OR even a WS/WS2 mix) fleet for the ISA is not viable in the rules, whereas in the show it is often used.

If you do add an Admiral to a Raid level ship, making it cost 1 Battle PL, would that be able to qualify as your flagship?

LBH

 

[Taran]

Weee! I can be there!!!!
I'll probably even have my ISA fleet completely painted up.

Now, I just need to get some BSs and a Stuteeka...

 

[B_Steele]

Well I'm not overly happy about counter fleets getting shafted on the composition score I must say. If the scores for composition and atttractiveness were completely seperated in the scoring then it would be fairer but it seems like they are interlinked.

They are. Attractiveness is only part of the Most Attractive award, not tourney score. Composition is scored separately (but at the same time, before the first match) and has nothing to do with models or proxies brought, just the fleet list.

Also a pure WS (OR even a WS/WS2 mix) fleet for the ISA is not viable in the rules, whereas in the show it is often used.

That is true, unless you would decide to drop an Admiral (important character) in one of those WS/WS2 and make it a Battle slot to fill your Flagship requirement. Which, by the way, we almost always see in the show (Delenn, Sheridan, Ivanova, Marcus, etc.).

If you do add an Admiral to a Raid level ship, making it cost 1 Battle PL, would that be able to qualify as your flagship?

You are correct!

-Bry

[/quote]

 

[Ripple]

Planning on trying to be there, so good to see.

Concerns -

Scoring - the inclusion of the fleet composition and sportsmanship scores worries me due to the subjective nature of the results. Not just a poor sport trying to tank someone, but other issues.

Should the class clown do better at the tourney because he's more fun than the studious quiet player. That would likely be present in peoples scores across the board and would not be mitigated by averaging a number of players score.

Should friends who attend together get an advantage due to being familiar with each other? It may not be obvious, just a bump of a point or two due to shared in jokes and a similar view of the rules.

Similar thing with composition. We see plenty of disagreement here on what is fluffy and what is not for fleets. Psi Corp, should it field motherships or not... the Shadow Omega... just using one without the ISD stamp of approval will lose you points with some players. But how many choices do you have?

Fleet List question -

The limit of four examples of any one design is very limiting to some races that have very few designs. How many legal Raider builds are there? I understand purchased aux craft are exempt, but this puts the player at a VP disadvantage, so only still an issue. It's also limiting for races that have known to be sub-par battle level ships. (Use of the Admiral option may rebalance this to a degree, just re-read that post.)

Ripple

 

[Burger]

For the sportsmanship points, may I recommend Hash's method.

Both playes assign a sportsmanship score of 0-5. Then both players get the average of the 2 scores. So for example if both players give 5, they both get 5. If one gives 1 and the other gives 5, they both get 3. If one gives 0 and the othe gives 4, they both get 2.

The thinking behind it is that a bad player would abuse the standard system by maliciously denying his opponent points, no matter how sporting he is. But with this method, he is also denying himself points. So he won't do it. But a good player will follow the rules properly, and if he has a bad game, won't mind taking a slight points hit to mark his opponent down.

 

[Da Boss]

Sportsmanship is a difficult one - people tend to give each other high marks in my experience - especially if it is in the open usually beacuase it was good fun but also sometimes to avoid arguments / confrontations....