Inquisitor Grand Tournament 2013 - 30/03/2013

[greenstuff_gav]

who trusts that we as adults (as we mostly are, certainly at tournaments) are not so petty

i am, Mr. Poopy-pants! 

in seriousness tho, on a technical issue, would arranging players by tables be difficult (i refer to Marcos' amazing number-crunching for player spots at the last GT)?
when signing up, could players make note of which scale(s) they are willing to play at? for example i can pretty much play a couple of my warbands at either scale

[Shannow]

i am, Mr. Poopy-pants! 

Oh how I've missed you Gav

[Heroka Vendile]

who trusts that we as adults (as we mostly are, certainly at tournaments) are not so petty

i am, Mr. Poopy-pants! 

in seriousness tho, on a technical issue, would arranging players by tables be difficult (i refer to Marcos' amazing number-crunching for player spots at the last GT)?
when signing up, could players make note of which scale(s) they are willing to play at? for example i can pretty much play a couple of my warbands at either scale

That requires you to have the same models in both scales. While we're a fairly casual bunch when it comes to the tournament, we still have rules, one of which (I'm pretty sure) is that the same characters must be used in all scenarios to provide as consistent an element as possible for GMs scoring a player.

I'm very much on the fence about integrating 54 and 28 into a single scoring sheet.

One big issue I feel is that by having the IGT specifically played in the official Inquisitor scale of 54mm, it proves that the interest in the original game and models continues to exist over 10 years on. It hopefully proves to GW that they shouldn't just dump the range and seal the vaults on it. If half of the attendants turn up with 28mm, it simply doesn't have the same impact.

I'm all for mixed-scale campaign days and such, I think some really cool things could come out of those – I'm just really not sure mixing scales at what is essentially our main self-promotion to GW is such a great idea.

[MarcoSkoll]

I vote for an integrated event, and we can always tweak the formula in future if need be. Sure there may be some differences in how people score one another, but we have that anyway as everyone scores people slightly differently depending on their preferences already.

Stormgrad put it quite well on Skype tonight, but I can't remember his exact wording, so you're getting a paraphrased version...

The scoring at the event has that nicely mutual nature - you score the people you're competing against and, in turn, they score you. Okay, you don't get to score everyone, but it's essentially randomly picked (this time, while the combinations of player numbers were known from the start, the assignment of those numbers was mostly down to Tzeentch), so it's a fair random sampling.
The moment you separate off half the players so you can't score them but you're still competing against them, that symmetry starts to break down. It seems less fair, because you never even had the chance to score those players, let alone the opportunity.

Now, me personally - I think my real worry is that we could see people (of either scale) opting out of the IGT because they feel that the competition isn't fair. We are not without precedent - we had that this year with Bloodpact.

I think, at least until we've had the chances to best patch the disagreements between the sides, it's best to start with what is effectively two separate competitions. There's no risk of anyone taking offence to any scoring fairness issues (either because the 28mm players think its weighted towards the 54mm players who've got prior GT experience or that the 54mm players think the 28mm crowd are scoring with shorter yardsticks) - any that haven't already existed, at least.

I would like to see it that we could run an integrated GT, but it is a radical change to be making all in one go.
So far, the majority of the two groups have never met, don't talk on-line, or have had any contact at all. I think the number of people who've been to an event for "the other scale" can be counted on one hand, a number that the INQvitational won't dramatically change.

So, I don't think the best starting point for trying to patch this relationship is to be having the two sides competing against each other.
I know it's most of a year away and things could improve before then, but we should be making the decisions based on whether the prejudices and disagreements have been patched, not whether they could be. If, eight months down the line when it's time to put the briefing pack together, everything's peachy, everyone's getting along and we haven't got people worrying about if it'd be fair... well, under those circumstances, it would be entirely appropriate to re-evaluate the decision.

~~~~~

But, unlike Heroka, I'm not sure that 28mm attendance is without its impact. It does show to GW that there are some "hidden sales" that Inquisitor is generating. The 54mm models might not be shifting, but hey - keeping the books on the website has conjured up some 28mm sales too, so it's making more money than you think it is.

And given how much attention the staff pay to what actually happens on the Inquisitor tables, they probably wouldn't notice that half of them are at 28mm. But they might notice player numbers. If the events team hears "Yeah, about thirty of us, all up here to play Inquisitor", then it'll impress them a lot more than the 9, 17 or 11 we've had in the last three years.

Also, the INQ28 scene has itself some real attention. The Forge World team watch the INQ28 stuff on Ammobunker, John Blanche and Molotov are in contact with each other... we can't hide INQ28 from GW. But it does mean GW will notice an event with 28mm at it more than 54mm alone.

I think including 28mm at the GT is a very good thing for Inquisitor, but I definitely don't want to see that marred with disagreements.

in seriousness tho, on a technical issue, would arranging players by tables be difficult (i refer to Marcos' amazing number-crunching for player spots at the last GT)?

If the case that players could swap scales (which brings its own issues), both more difficult and easier.

More difficult in that there's too many input variables to be able to pre-calculate it as I did this year. It'd have to be calculated on the day (possibly even on the fly), based on which scale people wanted to play each game at. It'd also complicate the algorithm.

Easier in that the larger the pool of players, the more options where players haven't met yet.

[Kaled]

What if the top score was the player (or GM or modeller etc) whose score was highest compared to the average of the people playing at the same scale?

So if the top Inq28 player scored 70 points against an average score of 50 for Inq28 players, and the top Inq54 player also scored 70 points, but against an average score of 60 for the Inq54 players - then the Inq28 player would win. This could be done for each category and for the overall prizes. Then it doesn't matter if one scale scores with a different yardstick to the other.

Or there must be other ideas for ways in which an integrated event could be run. We should concentrate on those rather than on reasons why it wouldn't work.


EDIT: I realise the above isn't a perfect solution as Inq28 is weighted the same as Inq54, and there will be differences between the two groups, however I don't think that assumption is unreasonable. Certainly in terms of P&M there's a broad range of abilities at both scales - probably with a higher average ability level in the Inq28 community. In playing terms I don't see that there should be anything between the two groups as the scoring is on the characters you create and how you play them. When it comes to GMing, the average ability is probably higher amongst the Inq54 crowd.  (Marco - you have more experience of both groups, would you say that's a fair assessment?)

So that assumption is not going to a perfectly level playing field, but there are enough other ways in which the scoring is not perfectly fair that I don't think it's significant enough to worry about.

But I'm sure someone out there will have a better solution or can improve mine, such that we can make this event work...

[Koval]

Ultimately the fact that it's the same game shouldn't mean there's much difference in how the two scales are viewed. Both should be as equally valid as the other. I fall into the 28 camp because A) I hate working with metal models B) there's a wider array of bitz from which to build C) I simply don't have the dexterity or the skill to use modelling putty of any type for anything more than filling gaps. However, I see no reason for anything to separate 54 from 28 apart from the scale of the models used -- my approach is "some people prefer one, some prefer the other, and it's not worth arguing about"

For administrative purposes, I'd support keeping the two scales separate (separate games, scorecards, P&M) but I honestly think Shannow has it right here. It's the same game at the end of the day, so who cares if it's at 54, 28 or some other scale?

[Kaled]

If they're kept separate then they're really just two different events that are taking place on the same day, which defeats the idea of trying to integrate the two sides of the Inquisitor community.

However, given the ambivalence that has greeted previous suggestions of a dual scale event and the fact that most people are looking for reasons why this event should be two separate ones rather than looking for ways it can work, I'm beginning to think that the majority of both the Inq54 and Inq28 communities would rather not mix and that events should be pure one scale or the other.

Does no one have any other ideas about ways in which this event could work at both scales?

[DapperAnarchist]

Perhaps the IGT is the wrong place, because it is, even in a very mild way, competitive. The less formal structure of a Conclave or campaign day might be more appropriate. I'd quite like to be able to bring both 54mm and 28mm (though currently I have only 3 INQ28 models), but having to bring the same characters in both scales would be impossible. If I could bring two different sets of characters, one in 54 and one in 28, and then use either depending on what the GM and other players prefer, that would be quite tempting.

[Van Helser]

Ah, a debate!  That's better.

Taking on board all that's been said so far, it would seem that there is a voice against running the IGT at both scales this time round.  It would seem that the main problem of accepting both scales is the element of competition and perceived imbalances in both player experience, modelling options and actual gaming (terrain and scale effects).  The split between 54mm and 28mm is by and large absolute, with only a few individuals straddling the lines.  Thusly, it's difficult to know what effects a twin scale tournament would have.  Experience is going to be key to working out whether it would work. 

As I said to begin with, perhaps it is too early for the IGT to go down the twin scale route.  Without testing the waters with a "non-competitive" event, we may never know if an IGT at both scales would work.  Perhaps it can't: there may be genuine effects on game outcome caused by playing at different scales (for one it would take much longer for a 28mm character to ascend the stairs on one of WHW's standard Inquisitor buildings we're used to playing on); and the perceived unfairness of being unable to play against all competitors, amongst other arguments that have been put forward.  My suggestion at the moment is to try events that encompass players of both scale with no requirement on players to bring warbands that they don't want to use.  GMing at your least favoured scale is a way to open eyes to the other way of playing and could lower prejudice either way.  A consensus actually may not be that far away.

Ruaridh

[Keravin]

My own opinion is that we can all continue to put obstacles and reasons why not to do a joint scale event.  That's really easy, but I don't think continuing to operate like that and not take the first step will help resolve things.   

The sooner the IGT as the main event in the Inquisitor calendar embraces both scales the better.

[Kaled]

I agree, why put it off further? If the plan is to integrate 28mm and 54mm at the IGT at some point, then lets put in place a plan to do it for next year.

Molotov has the INQvitational in the summer, so lets run a dual-scale campaign day in autumn/winter, and then we'd be in a better position for a dual scale IGT in 2013.

[MarcoSkoll]

What if the top score was the player (or GM or modeller etc) whose score was highest compared to the average of the people playing at the same scale?

I had thought of that, but I think it could actually exacerbate the effect that the same player might score highly differently depending on which group they played with.

When it comes to GMing, the average ability is probably higher amongst the Inq54 crowd. (Marco - you have more experience of both groups, would you say that's a fair assessment?)

Well, I GMed both games at the Bash, so I can't comment very fairly on GMing.

As Stormgrad says though - it did take longer to get games through, but at least some of that was down to the reduced scale (and thus slower movement, harder shooting, etc). Also, not having to be done and dusted in an hour fifteen meant we could take some more time over it.
We did pick up pace in the second game though once people had re-cemented their grip on the basics, despite the fact I had thrown in some of my characters too.

Molotov has the INQvitational in the summer, so lets run a dual-scale campaign day in autumn/winter, and then we'd be in a better position for a dual scale IGT in 2013.

Under such circumstances, then I'd look on it differently. It would have done something to break the ice rather than starting out with a competition setting.

However, my assumption was that we had enough events on the table (RobSkib, Karandras and Bloodpact) that we would probably have to wait until the dark side of the next IGT to get my plans for dual-scale campaign day in. Mind you, I think only Rob actually has a date so far, so it might be that we could just jam something into November/December and tell anyone who hadn't got their date in by now to lump it.

[Kaled]

I admit I've lost track a bit. Quite a few people have talked about running an event, but which actually have been arranged?

[MarcoSkoll]

I think only Rob has a date. If the others have booked or contacted WHW yet, I don't think they've told us.

[Kaled]

That's September right? So a Winter Conclave is do-able maybe? Assuming there's enough interest...