Inquisitor Grand Tournament 2013 - 30/03/2013

[RobSkib]

I have booked it provisionally, just for the sake of having SOMETHING in the books. I'm massively swamped under by my Final Year Project at the moment, so I won't be able to start organising it properly for another 3-4 weeks.

I'm still good for running it unless someone desperately wants to take that booking for whatever reason, but for the time being I've got the 15th/16th of September still in the diary to run the Summer Conclave.

On that note, it's probably worth pointing out that at this stage I have no intention of making my event mixed. This is not due to grievances with the 28mm range (I fully intend on recreating my warband in mini and attending the mixed/28mm events) but because the plans I have are complex enough without the addition of an extra scale of models.

That said, if someone comes up with a slick way of integrating the two scales that would work with my Top Secret Planz, I'll definitely reconsider. At this stage, I'd much rather have a (relatively) smooth day of 54mm gaming than a choppy day of mixed-scale gaming.

Is that alright for people to wait that long, or would someone prefer to take that slot for a mixed event?

[Kaled]

That seems to be the only solution that will bring this to a conclusion, but it seems to me it just pushes the issue off for another year rather than trying to resolve it in a positive way. Would it really have mattered if the scoring was slightly biased? It's just supposed to be a bit of fun.

Furthermore, given the amount of ill feeling this thread is likely to have generated and the fact that it's turned into yet another 54vs28mm argument means I wouldn't be surprised if we struggle to get enough Inq28 players to make it viable - we already struggle to get enough Inq54 players. (And to be honest, at times it made me wonder whether I'd even want to attend given all the bickering about what is essentially just two groups of like minded people playing the same game but with slightly different sized playing pieces.)

I vote this thread be purged by order of the Arbites for inciting public disorder and we start again with a more positive discussion of how a combined IGT could be made as exciting as possible.

[greenstuff_gav]

MOD MODE=ACTIVE

i've done my best to tidy it up so only discussion of the events themselves is here, the rest has been split off.
if anyone has questions / points / things i've missed, PM me. otherwise let's try discussing intricacies of scale in the other thread please.

/MOD

[Heroka Vendile]

I'll just repost the event-relavent part of my last one:


Actually you know what might be the simplest idea for the 2013 IGT? Run parallel GTs on the same day/place/times/etc, keep the scoring of the two scales separate, but (in addition to having the best GM/P&M/Overall awards in each scale) also have a "Grand Master" prize for the highest overall score in either scale – with the prize being a small bonus or joke trophy added to their existing "Overall winner in X scale" prize, rather than some great big I R CHAMPION prize.

It also means the prize pools can directly reflect the number of players in each scale, which seems fair.

This way we get a joint event that doesn't really raise any issues with scale difference and it's effect on gameplay, yet still produces a nominal "outright" single winner (not that we're a community with an "only the winner matters" attitude).

This will also give [the organiser] the opportunity to compare average scoring biases within each scale and thus determine whether or not a single scoresheet would be workable for the 2014 IGT.

[MarcoSkoll]

My own contribution to the subject of trying to make this viable has been added to my "dual scale event" thread, and I invite you all to discuss it there.

But to summarise, we move that up the calendar so it's before the GT so we're not making our first mixed event competitive (or even pseudo-competitive), and potentially run the IGT scoring in the background to give us an idea of how much scoring/scale bias there might actually be.

[Kaled]

And my post above was a reply to that when Heroka originally posted it. I was agreeing that his solution seems the only workable one for the moment.

[MarcoSkoll]

The worst outcome would be if the IGT turns into a competition between Inq28 and Inq54, rather than between Inquisitor players. If <lots of bias> then the P&M round is going to be determined by whether there's more 28 or 54mm players - which would be a real shame.

It has occurred to me that a possible solution here would be to work out the average given by each scale of players, then take half of each of those scores. (Essentially averaging the averages.)

This way each scale's voting would have a completely equal effect on the score.

[Kaled]

Since about half of the scenarios I remember from previous IGTs could have been run at either scale, some Inq28 GMs could run games for (and thus score) Inq54 players and vice versa. Plenty of scenarios I've played in (and run) don't require NPCs and any terrain/markers they did use could have been used at either scale without looking too out of place.

By encouraging (but not mandating) players to bring scenarios that could work at either scale it would mean some of the symmetry in scoring could be added back in, and might push people towards designing clever scenarios rather than just hoping to get points by building some big vehicle or cool NPCs (something I too have been guilty of in the past).

As for scheduling games, we could have tables that show who is playing on each table in each round, and who is GMing that round, then match GMs to tables. Everyone could GM at their own scale, or swap to the other scale depending on what scenarios everyone has brought.

[Kaled]

Continued as my phone only allows me to post so much text in one go...

Or, more radically, the change the rules for the IGT so, much like with terrain, there's no guarantees which scale you'll have to GM for. That would encourage good scenario design, force people to think about the challenges of playing at the other scale, and, most importantly, get people mixing together. Those people who decide they really need a particular NPC would then have to build them at both scales just in case, which would give them a chance to try modelling at the other scale (or they could arrange to borrow a model from a fellow participant).

I suspect my first suggestion will be more popular. But given that everyone gets plenty of notice for the IGT and thus more than enough time to figure out a scenario (even if some people do leave it to the night before), I don't think this one is unreasonable and would be better in the long run.

Either way, I still think we could/should have integrated scoring.

[Charax]

I really, really don't like that second idea, especially with regards to forcing GMs to have an NPC at both scales if one is needed for their scenarios.

In my view, any switch in scales should be entirely optional - if someone wants to GM at 54mm, and is prepared for that and doesn't want to play or GM at 28mm, the IGT is not a good place to say "No, you've been drawn to GM at 28mm, tough" - that'll take the fun out of it, and the IGT is supposed to be fun, right? Forcing Inq28 (or Inquisitor, for that matter) down the throats of those who don't want to play it is not a good strategy, and is far more likely to cause antipathy than integration.

just have a checkbox on the entry form stating the scale/s the player will be bringing and whether they will be willing to GM/play at a different scale, that way you can try your scale-swapping experiments on willing participants, rather than dragging someone kicking and screaming into a scale they do not wish to play at.

Scoring won't be very different, everybody's playing the same number of games (although if all the boards are the same size, inq28 games effectively get twice the space, maybe that should be taken into consideration)

[Van Helser]

I agree with Charax on that count - as the organiser I don't want to deny anyone the opportunity to play the way they enjoy it. Encouraging all players to attend no matter the scale is a noble goal, but mandating how to play is not my place.  Allowing the entrants to choose how they want to participate is much more in line with the ethos of Inquisitor.

Ruaridh

[Kaled]

Don't misunderstand me, as with terrain and having to GM a second game, there could be some element of choice just no guarantees that everyone would get their first choice. No one ever wants to GM a second game, but sometimes someone has to for the event to work and participants are advised to prepare for that eventuality. I'm suggesting that we could do the same for scale.

[Charax]

I really don't see that going down very well at all, it's subverting the GT to push an integrationist agenda. It would work better as its own dedicated event where everyone goes in willing to swap between scales.

frankly, the possibility of being forced into a scale I don't want to play in would be a dealbreaker for me.

[Keravin]

Stick up a poll so you can figure the current lay of the land.   

[Kaled]

I think any poll should ask (at least) two questions. Firstly, the short term one of what form the next IGT should take? And secondly what should the end goal be? Should we be aiming to eventually have a tournament that integrates the two scales as fully as possible? Or keeps them entirely separate? Or somewhere in between?