9th Age US Masters

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

    Our beta phase is finally over. Download The Ninth Age: Fantasy Battles, 2nd Edition now!

    • Gene has stated that he will be at Buckeye and I've told him to represent. LOL So he will be there to discuss since he is the Mid Atlantic Chair.
      B. "MF’ing" Jones - Member of the CGL .

      DL/ADT - TT

      Campaign Design-Broken Isles

      Freelance Design

      PT Team-Mid Atlantic USA

      CGL 2018 Worst Player Winner

      CGL 2019 3rd Place

      The post was edited 1 time, last by skipschnit ().

    • Continuing the conversation from the Michigan GT thread in a more appropriate place here.

      @Truckeye, could you please summon those few you have discussed the masters with to this thread so we can restart some discussions?

      Perhaps we could as exec board to make an announcement directing anyone interested in helping organize the masters to come to a particular thread (new one should be started for that).

      We could then have some discussions and perhaps use the polling tool to either elect some chairs or just make some decisions. Granted, the system is flawed because it would be difficult to monitor whether those who are voting are actually from the US. I wonder if conditional groups could be set up to ensure someone has USA as their location on their profile.

      Just spit balling, because I know Jeff isn't super interested in being the driving force (call me out if I'm wrong, Jeff).
    • I dont mind, but I dont want to be self appointed, because I dont want a divided community. Gosh we had a facebook page and I pushed everyone to come here to talk about it. I dont recall all their sign ons here. Several commented earlier in this thread.

      @Angrymiguel
      @Fergus
      @billr
      @Pinkus
      @LenTheTyrant
      @bubafett
      There were guys from KS, LA, and more from the Mid Atlantic. I just dont know what they go by,
      US Masters Representative for the Midwest
      Beast Herds Army Support (retired)

      buckeyebattles.com
    • LenTheTyrant wrote:

      Also UB should not be counted. Absolutely not. We are already letting player rack up points and rankings on small one day 10 man events... Quantity over quality for some people who are on the top 25 list. This will of course shape up as more events happen.
      I would love to know why a small 10 man event is considered more legitimate thana 60 person UB tournament? So if I can gather 10 people I can just have a tournament every weekend to rack up points?
      “You can never know everything, and part of what you know is always wrong. Perhaps even the most important part. A portion of wisdom lies in knowing that. A portion of courage lies in going on anyways.” -Lan Mandragoran, EotW


      Dovie’andi se tovya sagain.
    • I'd love to represent the NE if nobody else is up here. Also you made a great point nicereap. UB tourneys seem to attract a decent amount of talent.

      Granted, would love them to be 5 games vs 3, however I understand why it's setup like that.
      2012 ETC Eire - WDG
      2013 ETC Eire - VC
      2014 ETC Wales - DE
      2015 ETC USA - WDG
      2016 ETC USA (c) - VC
      2017 ETC USA (c) - VC
      2018 ETC USA (c) - VC
      2019 ETC USA - VC
    • one compromise could be to weigh UB like a mid level event but not full credit for a 60 person event. It brings up another question though, if we are giving credit to players for best overall wins, that includes sports and paint at most events. UB would obviously not have paint. Could do sports, but basically is just Battle points right?
      US Masters Representative for the Midwest
      Beast Herds Army Support (retired)

      buckeyebattles.com
    • You beat me to the punch.

      This was one of the most devisive factors of 8th Ed. Masters (right behind comp). Should the Masters represent the best tacticians, or the best representatives of the hobby as a whole?

      My vote is hobby, but that's one man's opinion.

      That gets very tricky, though, because I'm sure a lot of the one-day tournaments that are being included don't use paint scoring (blind statement with no research).

      Perhaps this first year we accecpt overall tournament results regardless of the criteria (so it's up to TO discretion whether or not to include paint and sports). This allows players to adjust their armies a bit more freely to 9th Age without NEEDING to paint the fun units they're now able to take. It also helps the community expand a bit while we are still gaining traction by allowing by allowing UB tournament results.

      We can then get more organized for next year and start making decisions about what direction we want things to go.
    • The warscore system is weighted so that more players and more rounds count heavier. Im not sure the exact formula @billr used and certainly can be tweaked. I also think we had it set up to only take your top 4 point scoring events. So spamming 10 man events isnt infinitely cumulative to beat out someone that was in 3 GTs and a 1 day.
      US Masters Representative for the Midwest
      Beast Herds Army Support (retired)

      buckeyebattles.com
    • I'm not a big fan of UB being included. I was also never a fan of small 10 man 3 round events counting for anything as well.

      Old Midwest system set the minimum too high, but there should still be a minimum. We'll end up with the top most active people and not the top best people. The person who wins Buckeye should receive a ton more points than someone who won 5 really small 1 day events. Heck someone that ends top 10 in a 100 man event should also get more points than a 10 man event.

      And please make this years Masters be a qualifier for next years.
      --
      Pinkus
      Warriors of the Dark Gods Army book committee member -Retired
    • If UB was included I would personally be pushing for it to be only viable for 1 or 2 out of the 4? possible weightings you can have. It IS a tournament, and it has ETC team players, and other very skilled players from around the world in it, so quality of the competitors is far more provable than in some 10 man event. And in fact an American hasn't won the UB tournament yet.

      However, I could see how it could be abused, just like you can abuse a 10 man event, which is why I would be pushing for a cap on it, and I think even 2 is pushing how much influence it should have. The tournament I'm currently running takes 6 weeks, and with the numbers we have been pulling, it's likely to extend to 8-10 weeks, since 3 rounds isn't enough, so someone can't really just slam out these tournaments quickly for easy points, it's a 2.5 month commitment, and if they decide to stop playing because they are losing they sit out of the next one. That can obviously change if other people start running tournaments as well.

      I'm honestly fine whichever way it is decided. I just thought being the person organizing these tournaments I should at least fight for it a bit. That, and it seemed odd that a 10 man event of joe schmoes was considered more legitimate than a tournament of 60 with skilled players from across the globe, all because one was on a virtual tabletop and one was on a real tabletop. It's the exact same game, same mechanics, same strategies involved, you just can't cheat in UB in the movment phase :P It measures the true arc during a wheel instead of the chord which is how EVERYONE, in real life incorrectly measures the wheel, so maybe UB is just the better choice due to the higher fidelity to the rules? :P jk ;)
      “You can never know everything, and part of what you know is always wrong. Perhaps even the most important part. A portion of wisdom lies in knowing that. A portion of courage lies in going on anyways.” -Lan Mandragoran, EotW


      Dovie’andi se tovya sagain.
    • Although I think my competitive days are behind me, I'll chime in a little bit.

      You could always do a hybrid system, combining both tournament placing qualifications and tournament rankings. Figure out how many total people you want, for example, 40.

      For example, the winner of a 5 round tournament with at least 40 people is qualified. Maybe go two 2 for 41-60, 3 for 61-80, 4 for 81-100.

      Fill up 20 spots with those players, then the other 20 based on combined tournament rankings.


      So you get the best of the players who have the time / money / good fortune to be able to travel to or live near multiple large (and small) tournaments, and you also potentially get the best of the players who can only go to one or two major tournaments.
      Classic Ogres for the win! My Blog
    • Pinkus wrote:

      You could also run a UB league that ends with the top guys playing in 1 final event on UB that boasts its top 3 people get US Master bids.
      I have considered that, although currently the numbers from the US are so low I can't even do a break away tournament for US players.

      Currently the tournaments are international, which has the side effect (not sure if it is positive or negative) that you can end up with the top 5 spots not even be eligible for the US masters, So it's entirely conceivable that a tournament could offer no points of note to actual US players, Which could be seen as a mitigating factor to the fact there is no hobby or paint etc. Unlike in person tournaments, unless the USA just produces the best of the best tournament players, it isn't going to flood the results. An in person tournament will almost always have a US masters eligible player scoring top points. The current international one could go for several months before a US player performs well enough for it to matter in the 9th age masters circuit.

      But at the same time it offers a way for someone who isn't near major GT's to at least try and work on his masters score. Or soemthing like what super zombie said could be done for those without the capitol to hit every tournament in the US.
      “You can never know everything, and part of what you know is always wrong. Perhaps even the most important part. A portion of wisdom lies in knowing that. A portion of courage lies in going on anyways.” -Lan Mandragoran, EotW


      Dovie’andi se tovya sagain.
    • you could run a US Masters Qualifier and we could all spread the word. Only allow US players (somehow verify? lol) and see how that goes. One of the initial reasons to consider UB is those players that are stuck in KoW areas that all the events went to KoW. They only have the chance for long travels, UB, or small events.
      US Masters Representative for the Midwest
      Beast Herds Army Support (retired)

      buckeyebattles.com
    • I guess everybody needs to decide what constitutes a Master. A good painter, a good tactician, a fun person to play, or all the above with weightings? Is it the same as 8th edition, or different because 9th Age is indeed a different game.

      Judging by how the rules were meticulously made by the community, I'd guess the tactician portion would be most heavily weighted with some countries/metas using the numerical representation of tactics the #1 weighting, but those are the "serious" countries like Germany, Poland, Denmark, Sweden and Italy to name a few.

      Other like-minded-9th-Age-fluent-countries use a blend. Take England for example. They encompass sporting, painting and tactics, though they handle it a bit differently. The tactics portion is 90-95% relevent with the other stuff blended in so that people don't show up grumpy with unpainted models. They also hold separate rankings for paintings and Best Painted that don't include battle points scored.

      The ETC is pure tactics and battle points are awarded for just this. You can argue sportsmanship and painting are mixed in as well, though if you're bad sporting in their eyes, you're simply cheating and will be penalized by the ref and painting is min 3 colors with movement trays.

      Though I haven't been exposed to the USA tourny scene for too long, I've heard many arguments on both sides with all the fluff aspects being incorporated into determining "The Master" (remember Alex Schmidt anyone? He's a good guy and an incredible tactician, though painting/sports always seemed to plague him).

      As for UB tournies, it seems they are the only tournaments actually running 9th Age games the way the creators designed it to work. In Europe T.O. sometimes created what we called fluff-tournies where fun extra objectives were made up. In the States, these fluff-tournies are already more the norm than the exception, which given the newness of the game is bizarre unless it's just that the T.O.'s got so comfortable "refreshing" 8th edition tournaments they are forgetting that they're personal freshness interventions are not required (at this current time at least).

      Having said all that, why not ask the 9th Age originators for their input? Perhaps the executive committee and rules committees can guide our American community in the direction they'd best see fit to increase awareness for their game? I don't have all the answers, but that may be a good start. We've already abandoned their scoring rule sets with most major US GTs <60 days after version 1.0 dropped, the least we could do would be to ask their opinion of what a "9th Age Master" would be?
      2012 ETC Eire - WDG
      2013 ETC Eire - VC
      2014 ETC Wales - DE
      2015 ETC USA - WDG
      2016 ETC USA (c) - VC
      2017 ETC USA (c) - VC
      2018 ETC USA (c) - VC
      2019 ETC USA - VC