Just now, Orkimedes said:

As with any tournament, you get a mix of all skill levels. You have to start somewhere.

All of the players that won invites are excellent players and the competition level was, generally, quite high.

Then we should not think about " unfamiliarity with the rules, inexperience with timed games, etc." as @NeonWolf suggest.
They were excellents. So they absolutely knew they were either slow playing, or biaising games by any means.

This is why we got such a boring top 6 when there is so much more lists potential for winning out there. But this need to be able to go for a full game strategy. Those top 6 lists are like "I won if the game is less than 3 turns", because after 3, the luke/boba get killed most of the time, and they lack the tools to impact the game further away.

My comments are referring the entire 62 player group, not just the top 6.

1 minute ago, NeonWolf said:

My comments are referring the entire 62 player group, not just the top 6.

Mmmh... Indeed. Perhaps not all the guys in there was "tournament proof". Tho LVO is a quite large tournaments event.

But still, how did the top 6 manages the games ? Were the last match (like final) more than 2 and a half turn ?

8 minutes ago, RaevenKS said:

Then we should not think about " unfamiliarity with the rules, inexperience with timed games, etc." as @NeonWolf suggest.
They were excellents. So they absolutely knew they were either slow playing, or biaising games by any means.

This is why we got such a boring top 6 when there is so much more lists potential for winning out there. But this need to be able to go for a full game strategy. Those top 6 lists are like "I won if the game is less than 3 turns", because after 3, the luke/boba get killed most of the time, and they lack the tools to impact the game further away.

That is a gross generalization.

All six of the top cut games were played to completion. All of them were also recorded; I would encourage watching them to pick up tips.

Many of the early round games were time shortened, but that is no reason to disparage the players or their lists.

1 minute ago, Orkimedes said:

That is a gross generalization.

All six of the top cut games were played to completion. All of them were also recorded; I would encourage watching them to pick up tips.

Many of the games were time shortened, but that is no reason to disparage the players or their lists.

Hey Ork, where could one find these videos

1 minute ago, Orkimedes said:

That is a gross generalization.

All six of the top cut games were played to completion. All of them were also recorded; I would encourage watching them to pick up tips.

Many of the games were time shortened, but that is no reason to disparage the players or their lists.

I'm looking forward to saw the replay, indeed.

Just now, manoftomorrow010 said:

Hey Ork, where could one find these videos

Nick is posting them on Impact X over the course of this week. First one is out today I think.

@Neonwolf
"The one person from my local area (that means something entirely different here than in other parts of the world ) that was able to attend said that out of the 4 games he played only 1 of them actually went to Turn 3, the rest were over in turn 2 due to time limit.

The 2 hour time limit is fine, but when you plan to play a 6 round game and only finish two, it completely skews your strategy and lists. It would be interesting to see if @Orkimedes has the info on game rounds completed to go with lists and Battle Cards. It could shed some light on why the Top tier lists are what they are."

Holy smokes, yeah that'll do it.

@Orkimedes
"That removes a ton of strategy from the game.

I would rather see chess clocks or longer round times."

I think a good prep starting point would be to establish what a reasonable setup time is.

For example: Layout is, timer for both setup and another timer for rounds. Any excess time NOT used by a player in their part of the setup phase gets tacked onto their play clock. Similarly, any "over" time is docked from the player clock of the person who wastes it.

Here's a rough guesstimates on the upper limits and how much that totals (refine as needed with dry runs):

Place Terrain: 30 seconds per piece. Upper limit of 15 pieces per player (15 minutes) (obviously this time is done away with, or severely reduced, if the tables have fixed pre-placed terrain and players only place barricades (or nothing at all).
Reveal and Choose battlecards: 1 minute per selection per player, +30 seconds grace time per player (5 minutes)
Resolve Objective card: 30 seconds per player (1 minute)
Deploy units: 10 minutes per player (20 minutes)

Total setup time: 41 minutes

Play timing allocation:
1 minute allocated to command card selection
1 minute allocated per activation (breaks down into approximately 30 seconds to move and 30 seconds to fire on average).

Max hypothetical army size right now is 14 units (6x rebel trooper, 3x proton strike teams, rebel officer, 3x at-rt, 2x X-34 = 731 points)
Min hypothetical army size is 4, but hitting the cap would probably require at least 6 (3x snowtroopers, vader, emperor, 1x at-st)

So, players need time to place/play units is divided somewhere between 6-14 units (average 10). Mean about 21 total minutes per round, or 126 minutes play time for all 6 rounds.

Total: 167 minutes, or just under 3 hours.

Bear in mind, these estimates erring on the side of being generous, and later rounds 'should' require less time for a player to get their decisions made and enacted.

Which just leads to the question of how to enforce?

Players who go over their time either suffer an automatic forfeit or some kind of point penalty (i.e. -1 victory points, for each minute wasted beyond allotted time).

I think the intent to spread to two days next year means the play time does not need to be compressed.

That also needs to be considered.

I'm also unlikely to ever attend due to costs, so my opinion may have little weight.

After looking over the Maximum Firepower document for Adepticon I think that is a reasonable amount of time for a round.

15 minutes for Battle Card selection & Deployment
120 minutes for 6 rounds
15 minute cleanup

Making it a two-day event should really change the round time, it will just allow those that make it into the top cut a chance to rest (or party or whatever) before they have to go into 2-3 MORE rounds of gameplay.

1 hour ago, NeonWolf said:

After looking over the Maximum Firepower document for Adepticon I think that is a reasonable amount of time for a round.

15 minutes for Battle Card selection & Deployment
120 minutes for 6 rounds
15 minute cleanup

Making it a two-day event should really change the round time, it will just allow those that make it into the top cut a chance to rest (or party or whatever) before they have to go into 2-3 MORE rounds of gameplay.

That's the benefit of the same guy running LVO and Adepticon ;) We can learn from out limitations and improve for next time. The only reason LVO had such a tight schedule was because we could not add a second day of play in. Next years LVO will be 2 days, 5 rounds swiss + one round Top cut (3 games each day).

Oh and its 15 minutes set-up, two hour game, and 15 minutes to finish the round you are on, then 15 minutes of tear down and re-pairing.

Oh and whoever said their friend only got to round 3 in one game, should tell that friend they are on crack. All of the games at least made it to R3, and that was a concede. Ork will soon be releasing a break down of all our data that will help shine some light of what turn the average game ended on, battle card trends, list trends, etc. From a TO standpoint, I think we're going to land on late round 4 to mid round 5. The Adepticon schedule should be enough to get more games to Round 6.

For how much work was put in to the event and how much better it was than GenCon and NoVa, I am highly disappointed in how judgy these responses have been. I don't think anyone here has thanked him for getting this wrap-up done so quickly, and then continuing to break down the other 120 games of data for us.

Shout out to Neon and a couple of others for complimenting the tables though, we tried real hard to make those look good.

Hope the tables at adepticon are as good :-).

I think Legion events have similar issues to similar 6 turn miniature games (40k, Fantasy, Flames of War....). The round times are enough, but some people have larger lists, or play too slow (or both). Generally as players get more experienced they play quicker though - so things should improve over time.

It can always arose suspicion though when a “gun line” style list regularly doesn’t get 6 rounds in.

Just made it through all the slips. Here is the breakdown for those curious.

0-2 turns: none

3 turns: 13

4 turns: 37

5 turns: 19

6 turns: 22

Not all of the players filled in the "Final Turn #" field, so unfortunately we only have that data for 91 of the 125 games for which there are slips.

I've made my views known on incomplete games on other mediums; I definitely get the frustration with unfinished games. The game was designed to be played for six turns. I won't get on my chess clock soap box, but I'm glad that the round times are increasing for Adepticon. I think it will help also as the community gets more experienced.

@NeonWolf who was your friend? If he only finished two turns he didn't put that on any of his report slips.

So 4 turns seems the average and probably where my games have been. I think tournaments aiming to have 5 turns the average would be the sweet spot so Adepticon having a bit more time should achieve this.

14 minutes ago, DarkTrooperZero said:

So 4 turns seems the average and probably where my games have been. I think tournaments aiming to have 5 turns the average would be the sweet spot so Adepticon having a bit more time should achieve this.

That seems fair. Most games are decided by the end of turn 5 anyway.

Thanks for the info.

Facts vs rhetoric and hyperbole 🙂

4 minutes ago, Dave Grant said:

Thanks for the info.

Facts vs rhetoric and hyperbole 🙂

Yup, that's why we save the slips.

On 2/12/2019 at 4:40 PM, RaevenKS said:

Come on, wasn't the LVO suppose to open "the gate" for the World ? Wasn't then it suppose to be played by almost "the best players in the world" ?

I mean, seriously.

Highly unlikely yet I'm sure at least a minimum of one could of been there. For a long time it's been one of my pet peeves, the winner of a tournament or attendees being claimed best in anything for that matter. When in reality, they are just the best that knew about it and was able to attend! I strongly just don't believe in any tournament ever to have existed or ever will, the (or even Thee) absolutely best will know about a given tournament and be able to attend it. However, that doesn't mean the ones who are there aren't very skilled, potentially one of the best, or even are thee best.

Without getting into specifics; say there is a world's strongest tournament, meanwhile thee (one & only) strongest person on Earth lives in a remote village with no internet etc. In fact that person IS the strongest, while the person who won the tournament is really just the strongest that attended and knew about it but by fact not the strongest in the world. But certainly will be Claimed the "strongest in the world". LOL

When it comes down to it, there is always a mix bag of skill levels everyone attending is not equal. While each who won, won for a reason. The way I personally look at it, I wouldn't knock any army build unless were able to personally defeat it majority of the time. Learning how they played it and against what leading to a win is an educational opportunity, used and did something you may not or have thought about.

When it comes to diversity, it sort of doesn't exist like other tabletop war game that been around for a while just yet for legit reasons... the game is still fairly new being out for almost 1 year. Maybe by year 2-3 there will be so many different types of units there will be all sorts of builds. What heavy are you going to use differently!? There is only one. Only two different corps. Etc etc. Give people a break, they are building what they can with the limited units & limits to unit type, and perhaps financially too.

1 hour ago, Tokous said:

Highly unlikely yet I'm sure at least a minimum of one could of been there. For a long time it's been one of my pet peeves, the winner of a tournament or attendees being claimed best in anything for that matter. When in reality, they are just the best that knew about it and was able to attend! I strongly just don't believe in any tournament ever to have existed or ever will, the (or even Thee) absolutely best will know about a given tournament and be able to attend it. However, that doesn't mean the ones who are there aren't very skilled, potentially one of the best, or even are thee best.

Without getting into specifics; say there is a world's strongest tournament, meanwhile thee (one & only) strongest person on Earth lives in a remote village with no internet etc. In fact that person IS the strongest, while the person who won the tournament is really just the strongest that attended and knew about it but by fact not the strongest in the world. But certainly will be Claimed the "strongest in the world". LOL

If it makes you feel any better, I directly address this in my English lessons. People prefer superlatives over caveats which is fine as long as everyone knows what 'World's Strongest' actually means.

14 hours ago, Orkimedes said:

Just made it through all the slips. Here is the breakdown for those curious.

0-2 turns: none

3 turns: 13

4 turns: 37

5 turns: 19

6 turns: 22

Not all of the players filled in the "Final Turn #" field, so unfortunately we only have that data for 91 of the 125 games for which there are slips.

I've made my views known on incomplete games on other mediums; I definitely get the frustration with unfinished games. The game was designed to be played for six turns. I won't get on my chess clock soap box, but I'm glad that the round times are increasing for Adepticon. I think it will help also as the community gets more experienced.

@NeonWolf who was your friend? If he only finished two turns he didn't put that on any of his report slips.

Good data! That's really useful from a TO standpoint.

Get on that chess clock soap box man, I think it will be the best thing for the health of Legion tournaments in the long run. Actually that and some sort of scoring gives more than just a W-L result to help separate the field in large tournaments.

I am a frequent TO for Armada and the round time thing is a bit of a catch-22. Keep the rounds short to keep your players engaged and the day moving, but then some games don't finish. Make the rounds longer and you end up with a portion of the players sitting around bored, which is a negative play experience as well.

On another issue - how did coordinated fire turn out as a command card? Was it as fearsome as the discussion/theory was suggesting?

8 hours ago, Ophion said:

On another issue - how did coordinated fire turn out as a command card? Was it as fearsome as the discussion/theory was suggesting?

I found, and still find,Covering Fire far more menacing.

9 hours ago, Ophion said:

On another issue - how did coordinated fire turn out as a command card? Was it as fearsome as the discussion/theory was suggesting?

I can't speak to LVO, but I have been paying attention to it locally just in case. I'm currently running a league and have a tournament coming up. As far as I can tell, all Imperial players are using Coordinated Fire. I've tried to observe most games and, as far as I can tell, we're capping in the 4-5 range for aim tokens. Devastating. That's not to say I won't continue to keep an eye on it, but the requirements for build, order of activations, board position etc to really even approach max value have been a bridge too far in basically every game.

14 hours ago, Ophion said:

On another issue - how did coordinated fire turn out as a command card? Was it as fearsome as the discussion/theory was suggesting?

Very few players (I think just 4-5, by my count) were abusing it in the way that I was concerned about (Veers/Boba/relay). Most were just throwing it in to existing lists without practice or optimization and hoping it would work.

We had John Griffin (the winner) on our recent cast. He did a good job walking through how to get the most out of it. It’s a good listen.

Basically you set your floor at three tokens after the first unit (with spotter and one aim action) and then just pass that same stack around, moving and shooting. You don’t really need more than three aims per unit.