Where the Immaterium meets the Internet

Indy GT Circuit: Throne of Skulls by Teri Girl

Indy GT Circuit: Throne of Skulls by Teri Girl

Jun 23, 2011

Teri is a GW Tournament Circuit event organizer, super geek and fan of fluff (or fluff girl, if you will). She can often be caught nerd-raging on her blog, ThatTeriGirl.com.

Anyways, here it is!

Throne of Skulls: The Baby That Got Cut in Half

I spent last weekend in Las Vegas. In a room with about 200 men and less than a dozen women. Not the Vegas experience I imagined myself having – girls like me rarely expect to be playing in Throne of Skulls. It was an amazing weekend of gaming and one of the funnest tournaments I’ve ever been a part of.  I rarely get a chance to play and to be able to play 5 players whom I have never played from all corners of North America was a true pleasure.

Best parts included the fact that food was delicious and plentiful (as those who know me know that my event mantra is that low-blood sugar is the devil to fun games). It was as fun and relaxed as any event in Vegas hosted would be (I showed up to watch the awards presentation in my bathing suit because I was hanging out in the pool as they were tabulating results).

It was an exceptionally fun time.

I should, however, say that I didn’t qualify to attend. I got an invite because I organize GW circuit events (2 this season, just because of the timing of the things).  Moreover, I think my events, with the possible exception of Astronomi-Con, are the least competitive events of the circuit. They are pretty much a soft-scoreapalooza, where soft scores are approximately half of a player’s total score and I also utilize a composition modifier on battlepoints.

Clearly, I’m no Reece Robbins, or TastyTaste – any gal who shows up to Throne of Skulls with a 72 Firewarrior, completely unmounted, all infantry Tau list certainly isn’t playing to win.

That doesn’t mean I don’t know the game, or know how to run events. I’ve run 3 major local events – the first being a split event that was an all-generalship side (formatted in a similar way to Nova Open) and a narrative side – an ‘Ardboyz tournament before Ardboyz was conceived. The subsequent events were narrative events because a) I more throughly enjoyed running narratives story-driven events and 2) because ‘Ardboyz now existed, I had the space to run a soft, fun, community-building event.

I’ll say it outright: baby seal clubbers aren’t usually welcome to my parties.

And so they stay away – because I make it clear that my event isn’t for them and they won’t be attending the types of events I like to run as much as I won’t enjoy having to host them. I make it clear in my event mechanics, in my player’s pack and in how the top players at my event end up winning that you need to be more than a good general to take home the top prize – you need to be a killer painter and one hell of a sport.

The intention of my events is clear and consistent.  Everything about my event, from how I promote it, to how I describe the event in my players’ pack makes it clear that this is a narrative event (I don’t even use the word tournament).

And I think that’s the first and biggest problem I had with Throne of Skulls. The intent was simply inconsistent. Here’s the line that stuck out to me (and apparently everyone else  who took offense to it):

… it’s worth underlining that our games are intended to be played in a spirit of friendly competition, where winning is less important than making sure that everyone has a great time. Throne of Skulls reflects this, which makes it rather different to many other tournaments.

And therein lies the problem. The Throne of Skulls format does NOT reflect this. The following line in the player’s pack reads:

You can help maintain this friendly spirit by not striving for success at the expense of an opponent’s enjoyment.

But there’s nothing beyond those words to either impose that value or incentivize it for players. Think of it like the wishy-washy phrasing  of the Space Wolves’  Sagas – where its is clear that these benefits SHOULD have drawbacks, but there’s nothing to hold a player to upholding those drawbacks.

If you’re unfamiliar with the Throne of Skulls system, here’s a quick run down:

1) Players play games. Wins are worth 3 points, draws are worth 1 and losses are worth nothing.

2) Bonus points are awarded based on “best game” votes. A player with 1 vote gets 1 extra point, 2 points gets 3 extra points and 3+ points gets 5 extra points on top of points earned from winning/drawing.

2) A player’s score is compared that of all other players with whom he shares a codex. The top player of that codex after five games is the winner and has a chance to win top overall.

3) Top overall player is the player whose individual score has the largest margin over the average of the other player’s scores within his codex.

4) A measure that was being calculated were Skulltaker points – essentially Victory Points garnered only for completely destroying a unit. This metric was only used to measure generalship, but did not at all factor into one’s overall score.

A lot of competitive generals, including Reece, have pointed out that the “vote” system and the comparative scoring really adds in too many random elements to truly appeal to competitive players, who want to test their metal straight up against other players who want to do the same – the nebulous aspects apparently put them off.  And I can see why.

On the flip side, for players who aren’t conqueror-style gamers and are, like me, participants and enjoy the social aspects of the game, it too is problematic. Notice that there are NO SOFT SCORES WHATSOEVER. So how can you expect players to want to not beat each other over the head and win at all costs if they’re being rewarded for doing just that?

I want to have fun games, be inspired by unique builds and tactics and actually play the game – let it come to the end of the game, where a single dice roll determines the outcome.  There’s something incredibly EPIC about that.  I’d rather not show up to a table where the game is already decided outright before the end of the first turn.  I still saw at least 5 Mech-Vet spam Guard lists, and many an all-mounted Solitare-style Eldar.

Looking back at the format, you ultimately have a system that encourages players to take the most unsporting list they can within their codex, so to put themselves  above the other players of their codex. Goatboy it up, gentlemen – breaking the game is just so in this season.

Moreover, there were some GODAWFUL UGLY armies present – some were even barely built (I nicknamed him Mr. “Dark Eldar vehicles don’t need crews to fly”.) There were some amazing looking armies that didn’t get voted in the top 3 best painted that should have been rewarded or recognized in some way for really investing in their armies – they got nothing. The two gentlemen I attended with who garnered 2nd and 3rd Best Painted Army votes (along with a few other painting awards) also didn’t get any sort of meaningful bump from the voting system, and here’s why:  The Best Game votes  usually go to players who were the most losing – which makes sense given that you wouldn’t want to jeopardize your own chances at the top prize by unintentionally giving extra points to someone whose score is similar to your own.

Here’s one more kicker: there’s no sportsmanship awards whatsoever- caring about your opponents didn’t earn you any brownie points unless you lost.  Best general (measured using Skulltaker points) got recognized, Best Painted (at least, in the eyes of the staff) got recognized, but because there was no mechanic to score sportsmanship (even it if was a system used completely separate from one’s overall standing, like the opposite of Skulltaker points) it simply wasn’t recognized. Even Nova Open uses a system to at least notify judges if a game has gone awry as opposed to if a guy is just a total douche.  Call me old fashioned, but I’m one of those girls who believes if you’re selling an event intended to be in the spirit of the game and played for fun, you really should have sportsmanship.

There’s been a lot of talk about how ToS just doesn’t satisfy competitive gamers, but as a true hobbyist,  the format also completely overlooked those of us who play for other reasons than flat out competition.

Games Workshop tried to compromise too much on both ends with Throne of Skulls – instead of choosing one or they other, they cut the baby in half. And really, none of us wanted the half of the dead baby we got.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

14 comments

  1. Geoffrey Hummel /

    Interesting article. I ha never considered, after all the bashing from the “competitive” camp, that ToS might be an unsatisfying event for hobbyists as well.

  2. Seems like it was missing things for both types of players. From what I hear they should still get an A for effort, but maybe a C for execution?

    • The gents who ran the event were bootstrapped with the format. Everything they handled was done so amazingly. I’d give them an A for executing within the system they had to, but I’d give the format an F since it totally failed to appeal to hobbyists and competitive gamer alike.

  3. Absolutely fantastic article and one that kinda sums up this whole competitive / tournament gaming thing for me. I’m competitive, because I don’t play games to lose, however I’m not such an unmitigated jackass about it that I want to win at all cost. I want a challenging games against like minded people who just want a bit of fun. I want to see painted armies and get inspiration from that side of things as well, but sadly tournaments don’t do that for me. So I steer clear, and that’s both GW and PP tournaments, although I’m hearing very good things from people about the Infinity tournament scene that’s starting to pick up here in the UK and EU.

    • I don’t think that was the point I was making – there are certainly a pile of criticisms about the Throne of Skulls system from the competitive side as well about it being random and soft.

      Personally, I love 40K. It’s got incredibly bad balance issues (which is somewhat acknowledged by the fact that they’re only scoring lists against the same codex) but I don’t play this game to roll – I love the fluff. The 40K universe is one of the richest sci-fi universes around, but GW hasn’t shown that side of the game in more recent years.

  4. Hulksmash /

    An excellent write up Teri. While I don’t agree with some of your starting points regarding soft scores your article was well written and an excellent example of how the more hobby oriented crowd might not have been as pleased either. Well done.

    • Thanks Hulk! I think that’s the beautiful thing about the independently organized events – if you don’t like my philosophy about soft scores, but that philosophy is the one that carries through my events, you know it’s not your cup of tea. That doesn’t mean either of us are right or wrong – just that there’s a lot of space in the hobby for both of us.

      But if the TOS system they devised appeals to to neither of us, who are they appealing to?

  5. Ghoulking Bob /

    Wouldn’t the ‘Favorite Opponent’ votes qualify as a soft score? And I know that the Favorite Opponent points were the difference for the Best Ork General selection. The guy who took it didn’t have the best overall score of Ork players. So Favorite Opponent had some kind of impact.

    And while you contend that the format encouraged people to ‘Goatboy it up’… How well did those folks do?

    As far as rewarding well-painted armies. The armies they thought were worthy should be posted to the GW coverage pages. A bit of fame and encouragement for everyone that did a good job but didn’t make it into the top 3. 12 painting/hobby prizes is a fair amount.

    I don’t think you can really consider the first ToS to be a dead baby chopped in half. Rather, it should be thought of as a live baby: a bit messy, but full of potential. The baby only gets dead if competitive players and hobbyists each grab an arm and pull.

    • Bob: My point is a wholesale critique of how GW positioned this event and the implications to hobbyist gamers (since the implications to competitive gamers are WELL documented).

      If you want talk soft scores, at BEST they’re 25% of a player’s total score. But that’s AT BEST. I also went over why a Best Vote system doesn’t work sufficiently for actually capturing that metric.

      The guy who did best at “Goatboying” it up won the Skulltaker award – he scored over 6800 skulltaker points out of a possible 7500. (That’s points from wholly destroyed units only – who knows much much more he killed.) The guy who was the event’s best sport walked away with nothing because no optics were given to sportsmanship outright.

      (And the dead baby is an allusion to Solomon’s judgement – the idea that instead of keeping a baby whole and alive and choosing to give the baby to one mother or another, they instead cut the baby in half, killing it for everyone.)

  6. I really can’t agree more that soft scores ARE an important part of an event; there’s a reason the NOVA’s soft score contribution is 60% of the total for Overall (20% sports, 40% appearance for this year) and was 66% last year.

    • My apologies – I’ve heard a lot of heresay about your event and from what I understood it was very interesting bracketing system, but nobody really spoke of the heavy use of paint/sportsmanship scoring.

      (Also, I’m a bit of a fangirl of your blog!)

      • Well then color me a fangirl of yours!

        The NOVA is a 17-track tournament, in a weird sense … the first and most rewarded track is Renaissance Man, which is 40% appearance scores, 40% competitive rating, and 20% sportsmanship. We believe the HOBBY as a whole very comprehensively covers playing the game to win, treating your fellow man with respect, and respecting and applying your talents to the artistic sides.

        We also reward generalship and appearance scores. Generalship wise, the highest rewarded Generalship award is our Tournament Champ, to the 8-0. True to form, while not the overall champion, they are the champ of the plain jane tournament side of things – the gaming.

        We also split the 256 players into 16 brackets of 16 on the 2nd day, so the 4-0 players from Day 1 ONLY play each other, no matter what, mathematically guaranteeing that someone who goes 4-0 on Day 1 will go 0-4 on Day 2 … and the same holds true for all the brackets below, including the 16 x 0-4 finishers from Day 1 … one of them will go 4-0 on Day 2, and win a minor prize/award for being the best general of his/her peers.

        There is a TON of hearsay about the NOVA, and we work to correct it, but anyone who says that it’s a no-holds-barred competitive “ard boyz” type event is talking out their ass, or repeating what they heard from someone …. talking out their ass. :)

        What gives that impression is that we don’t have ties, and we do not scale victories … a win is a win is a win, no matter how barely you win. So, if you want Best General, you have to … win 8 games. At most, only one person will.

  7. Show us your lists!

    • If you googled just a little, you’d not only find long-winded descriptions of my lists but MULTIPLE photos of my lists. ;)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


six − 3 =

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>