How's this for a tournament idea.

For threads that relate to Non-Asrai Warhammer, Warhammer 40k, Warmaster or any other wargame.

Moderator: Council of Elders

Locked
Joelatron
Bladesinger
Bladesinger
Posts: 830
Joined: 18 Apr 2008, 01:38

How's this for a tournament idea.

Post by Joelatron »

So, basically as a result of the NZ tournaments becoming more and more "restrictive based" composition (shudder). I have come up with this:

My reasoning is that the real "balancing" factors of WHFB are terrain placement and not knowing what your opponent has got on his characters. Special characters are a "known" and can really help some armies (ie give night goblins and Ogres a much needed boost, give orcs killing blow, wood elves s7 etc) but can also be super broken (kuros, anvil guy). Hence the comp system and the strict modelling requirements. I figure that with 30% comp with a discretionary bonus point and fluff justification, it will be very hard to win the tournament with perfect battle points. + the sportsmenship score will also factor in the "fun" factor of the game-which should also stop boring cookie-cutter lists. Anywho...

7th ed WHFB rules
- 2250 points. All armies must be army book legal and from an army book that was released at least 1 month before the tournament date (Chaos dwarfs use the indy list). This means special characters are allowed.
- The official model for special characters must be used if a special character is to be fielded. Special characters that do not have models MUST have a suitable conversion that represents them WYSIWYG incl magic items and for demons the conversion must include all abilities (ie 2 heads for Kuros etc).
- Special characters must be revealed at beginning of match (excluding any special characters that are “hidden” at the start of the game).
- Army books are to be available on request from the other player-and when a special character is revealed, a copy of their rules must be given to the opposing player.
- Games 1 and 2 will be scenario based Wood elves do not get their free forest.
- Games3-5 will be pitched battle.
- Each table will get a selection of 7 terrain pieces. Prior to game, roll a d6 and add 1. This will be the number of terrain pieces for the match. Take turns (dice off for 1st go) to place any terrain from the selection before choosing sides. Normal terrain placement rules apply re: centre of the map.
- Each table should have: 2 hills, 2 forests, 1 building (1 or 2 storied), 1 length of fence (2 GW short and 1 GW long fence) of either soft or hard cover, 1 difficult terrain (either ruin, water feature, rocky outcrop, alter etc.) which if placed, players must agree on whether it is difficult terrain or impassable/ a mixture depending on the terrain in question.
- Matches will be closed book. However, after the match, army lists must be swapped. Any cheating will result in an automatic massacre for the opposition. If both sides cheat then both register a battle point score of zero.
- Units must be WYSIWYG, or as close as possible. Ie if a unit has spears and shields, then the majority of the unit must have spears and shields. Armour excluding shields can be implied (due to GW models not having consistent “armour”)
- Heroes/assassins must be WYSIWYG or as close as possible. Allowance is to be made for models with a hammer (but equipped with a magical sword) or something to that effect. But the general rule is: if equipped with a one handed weapon = must have a one handed weapon. If equipped with a 2 handed weapon=must have a 2 handed weapon. If armed with a ranged weapon-must have a ranged weapon. This includes magical equivalents. 2 hand weapons can be fluffed to include the dagger in the cloak etc. Enchanted shields are excluded from this (ie hero has an enchanted “cloak”) but not normal shields.
- Armies do not have to be painted, however armies consisting of the “grey horde” and black/white undercoated hordes will get a 10% penalty on their final score for laziness!
- First game is based on composition, after which the swiss system will be used.

Composition 30%
This tournament is designed to allow players to take whatever they want, but to subject to peer review as to their choice of army list. Before the tournament a panel of 5 judges (who will not be taking part in the tournament) will give each army list a score of 0-5 including ½ steps. This will be based on their personal opinion and can be challenged once before the tournament if the list is submitted 2 weeks prior to the tournament and the comp score averages out to 1 ½ or less per judge. A challenged score will NOT drop, but could stay the same. Scores will be returned within 5 working days of receipt of list. Players eligible to challenge will be notified. A challenged score must include reasons for the challenge.

All army lists MUST be submitted with a fluff background of no more than 1 page of typed text size 12. This fluff will explain why your army is made up the way it is and the history of your army including the names and background of all heroes. It WILL be part of your comp score. So a crap fluff write up may drop your score, however a well penned fluff may also rise the score, but then again, it may not.

After each match your opponent will have the option of giving you a bonus point for a “fluff” army. This bonus point is entirely discretionary and is to be judged on how “cool” you think the army list is. Cool is defined as “tournament friendly, not over the top cheese, no traditional nasty combos associated with the army.”

Sportsmanship 20%

This is a score out of 4 from your opponent after the match based on how the game went. It is a tick the box system where you decide if your opponent met the criteria. A criterion is to be advised on first day of tournament. Expect it to include things such as “played game in the right spirit, even when things were not going well, no “rubber ruler” moments, issues resolved fairly, no dodgy game moments such as fanatic slingshot, purposeful clips etc”

Each player will also be asked to pick someone they thought was the best sportsman of the tournament from the opponents they faced. This will be used as a tie breaker when the “everyone gets full marks” results come in. If there is still a tie breaker, an arm wrestle will be used as the deciding factor.


WINNING GAMES 50%

Each game will give a maximum of 10 points which makes up the 50% final score.
Scoring guide is to be advised. Expect it to be the usual “out of 20” system.

Awards:
- First
- Second
- Third
- Wooden spoon
- Best painted
- Best comp
- Worst comp “that guy/girl award”
- Sportsmanship
- Best fluff

Painting will be judged at lunch time. Please put your army on display and all players will get the chance to submit their choice of top 3.

Scenarios to be decided.
CAKE OR DEATH?

Visit my blog! www.thebrushofdoom.blogspot.com Lots of battle reports and stuff...with pictures!
User avatar
ArchMagosAlchemys
Witch-Hunter General
Posts: 13755
Joined: 06 Apr 2007, 22:56
Armies I play: VC, Empire, Asrai, DoW, DE, SM, Lustwing, many IG, Adeptus Mechanicus
Location: Lost in the Laurelorn GMT -5hrs

Re: How's this for a tournament idea.

Post by ArchMagosAlchemys »

From my experience, what works 'best', and in order.

1. Swiss pairing on all rounds with the tie-breaker being 'composition'

This means that the two most extreme armies, and the two least extreme armies play in the first round.

In the second round, the two most extreme armies with one loss play, as do the two most extreme armies with no losses.

2. Reasonable, 'unfair', and interesting terrain placed by the organizers. Tables assigned on the first round, some choice or a progression as the tournament advances. For the final, the current first placed army, as a reward, gets to choose three tables to play on, their opponent picks which one of these to use.

3. Some interesting and unknown scenarios. Some Pitched Battles, especially in the early rounds, but scenarios for rounds 3 and 4. Pitched Battle for the final.

4. Separate categories for best painting, best sportsmanship, best army.
If these must be included in the 'total' then painting should be 75% standards based and 25% subjective and sportsmanship should be handled by the organizers.

The second time you run a tournament this way, you will be amazed at the changes that take place as the 'experts' game the system and everyone has a decent time in the first three rounds.
Airmeith: Healer of the Twisted Glade

Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
Julius 'Groucho' Marx

Burn the Heretic!
Treachery Aforth: Witches purged = 0

War of Blood: 3 Daemonettes, last wound Keeper of Secrets
PaW
Newcomer
Newcomer
Posts: 66
Joined: 30 Jan 2010, 21:35

Re: How's this for a tournament idea.

Post by PaW »

I don't like special characters a great deal.

It's funny that you would place the two hardest comp score against each other, I've seen tournaments that do the exact opposite.
Hardest vs Softest, 2nd H vs 2nd S and so on. It seemed to work quite well, for the reasons that it gives the chance for the 'Hard' armies to make up the battle score that they lose at the start of the tournament. To me it seemed to work quite well, and it was surprising how many soft armies, either beat or drew the harder armies. This way at least, oppenents cannot grumble that they cannot be given the chance to reclaim the points.

7 Terrain Pieces seems a bit much, I find 6 over crowding at times. I would suggest something more like d3 + 3

DId you forget all night goblins came first in call to arms ? Comming streaks above me, and probably having the hardest route there.. scary huh? :nod:
So do they really need too much of a buff ?
Wood Elf Record 2250, NZ Tournament Scene 2010
Win : 5
Draw : 0
Loss : 3
Status: Current, 2nd place!
Loss - Woc, Woc, Skaven
User avatar
ArchMagosAlchemys
Witch-Hunter General
Posts: 13755
Joined: 06 Apr 2007, 22:56
Armies I play: VC, Empire, Asrai, DoW, DE, SM, Lustwing, many IG, Adeptus Mechanicus
Location: Lost in the Laurelorn GMT -5hrs

Re: How's this for a tournament idea.

Post by ArchMagosAlchemys »

I suppose that it depends on the size of the tournament, but if you don't match hard vs hard from the beginning two things happen, both of them bad.

Newbies with weaker armies get torn to pieces in the first round and start to not enjoy what happens thereafter.

In the final round,a third or lower ranked player wins too often because the two top ranked players are beating each other to death while the lower ranked players get to slaughter weaker armies.

This kind of loss only needs to happen once before you 'better' players complain.

The long-run effect is a moderation in the power of the armies fielded by the most competitive players, to the benefit of all.
Airmeith: Healer of the Twisted Glade

Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
Julius 'Groucho' Marx

Burn the Heretic!
Treachery Aforth: Witches purged = 0

War of Blood: 3 Daemonettes, last wound Keeper of Secrets
PaW
Newcomer
Newcomer
Posts: 66
Joined: 30 Jan 2010, 21:35

Re: How's this for a tournament idea.

Post by PaW »

Im intrested in the second remark, the first remark I can see is reasonable to assume, but people need to learn how to play there armies versus all types of armies, so i don't see too much of a problem, and thus are also guaranteed a softer game second game right ?

What difference does it make? These two people were forced to play each other earlier on in the tournament rather than the end? The fact that the 3rd place beat up on 4th or 5th vs 6th, isn't it more a testament to skill to push the game and get the big win, to claim first prize.
Can you please explain how placing the harder armies together first avoids the situation of players 1 and 2 playing each other?
This kind of loss only needs to happen once before you 'better' players complain.
'better' ? or 'harder armies' ?
Wood Elf Record 2250, NZ Tournament Scene 2010
Win : 5
Draw : 0
Loss : 3
Status: Current, 2nd place!
Loss - Woc, Woc, Skaven
Joelatron
Bladesinger
Bladesinger
Posts: 830
Joined: 18 Apr 2008, 01:38

Re: How's this for a tournament idea.

Post by Joelatron »

The issue is not when the "hard" armies face each other. The issue is that there are 2 types of tournament players.

The first is your classic WAAC player whose aim is to 20-nil every game.

The second is (the vast majority) of players who go because they like the challenge of playing people outside of their normal gaming group and because they enjoy playing.

The problem is not when someone in the second group does really well (which happens alot), but when someone in the first group ruins the tournament experience of someone in the second group. Not through unsportsmanlike behaviour, but through different intentions in playing the game.

Hence making sure that the hard lists play each other first to let the field stratify into the two groups with obvious cross over.

In the tournaments I play in there is an obvious first group and an obvious second group. Comp dictates first game with swiss system thereafter. I have never had to play a game against someone in the first group, still do reasonably well in the tournaments and most importantly, have a really fun time. If i had to play a WAAC list player in game one, my tournament experience would be lessened.
CAKE OR DEATH?

Visit my blog! www.thebrushofdoom.blogspot.com Lots of battle reports and stuff...with pictures!
Gahnz Nmi
Newcomer
Newcomer
Posts: 29
Joined: 12 Feb 2010, 08:15

Re: How's this for a tournament idea.

Post by Gahnz Nmi »

The one thing that is stopping me from whole-heartedly supporting the "more comp" crowd, is that it's a score based completely on personal opinion, and usually the personal opinion of different people, who likely have different standards. Tournaments are for people who enjoy winning, challenges, and playing lots of games. Comp scores do not increase the enjoyment of any of the three aforementioned things, and positively wrecks the first if given too strong an emphasis.

One case that often comes up is a player in our play-group who really, really likes Daemons. He runs mono-Khorne, does his best to use Khorne's magic number, and frequently leads with a Daemon Prince, or a Bloodthirster using sub-optimal equipment. He does everything a Daemon player can do to bring down the power level of the army without outright forfeiting, and yet he still gets terrible, terrible comp. In fact, he gets about the same comp as the 28 power dice Tzeentch mega-magic or 50 Shade Dark Elf Deathstars. He could get lucky and meet players who notice, and know that he's trying to go with fluff and playing nice, in which case he gets a nice comp score. Or, he could go up against one of the knee-jerk cheese-callers who give him 0 comp the moment he sees Daemons. Another problem about Comp and Fluff is- what if the people don't know your fluff? It's not reasonable to expect every participant to have read every piece of fiction, and I for one suffered a bit of a hit in a tournament a few years past in which my Alpha Legion had their Chosen squads painted in Ultramarine colors (with obvious Alpha Legion emblem and signs), riding Ultramarine Rhinos. Some people I played against didn't know that Alpha Legion's modus operandi is to impersonate other Space Marine Chapters, especially the Ultramarines, and I was marked down in the incorrect assumption that I didn't manage to finish my army and is using borrowed/non-theme fitting models. Comp is a way of limiting pure power-gaming, and I cannot think of a much better system off the top of my head, but it certainly isn't perfect, and certainly will upset a lot of folks if emphasized too much.

One question though... What does WAAC stand for? I've seen it used a few times around, to talk about the real hardcore crowd, but cannot figure it out for the life of me.
PaW
Newcomer
Newcomer
Posts: 66
Joined: 30 Jan 2010, 21:35

Re: How's this for a tournament idea.

Post by PaW »

Then you need to find some new comp judges.
Yes yes its subjective, and some may slide a little under the radar, but it does mean that soft lists are more encouraged, as some of the toys may not be taken where they ordinarily, there would be no reason to take them.
Wood Elf Record 2250, NZ Tournament Scene 2010
Win : 5
Draw : 0
Loss : 3
Status: Current, 2nd place!
Loss - Woc, Woc, Skaven
Hopeless Hero
Trusted Bowman
Trusted Bowman
Posts: 157
Joined: 20 Dec 2009, 04:21
Armies I play: Wood Elves
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: How's this for a tournament idea.

Post by Hopeless Hero »

WAAC stands for Win at All Cost.

I like the idea for this tournament. It seems like it would be balanced to me, but I of course belong in group 2. I like to bring a balanced army that covers as many of my choices as possible, except units which I don't like for one reason or another. I also like to field things because I like the models themselves over their actual statistics. Generally my win or loss comes down to tactics and die rolls, and not my list (Though sometimes my opponents).
"Knowledge is what you know, Intelligence is how you use it."
-Me
Gahnz Nmi
Newcomer
Newcomer
Posts: 29
Joined: 12 Feb 2010, 08:15

Re: How's this for a tournament idea.

Post by Gahnz Nmi »

PaW wrote:Then you need to find some new comp judges.
Yes yes its subjective, and some may slide a little under the radar, but it does mean that soft lists are more encouraged, as some of the toys may not be taken where they ordinarily, there would be no reason to take them.
The local tournament circuits have players judge their opponents on comp, and generally do the judging after the game, so it gets a little iffy. If it is done by one person, it'd surely be more fair, but just like having bad luck and having your SAT essay marked by someone with the opposite opinion, having comp being judged by a person who thinks a certain army is overpowered is always a factor. Even more so if you're using a rarer list, as most people aren't equally experienced with all armies. Then again, the rare lists are rare because they're not so blatantly abusable, so I guess it evens out.

If I were to try to get people to take a more balanced list, I'd impose a percentage limitation on different categories of units, instead. Example would be- no more than 25% of your points on characters, etc. It won't be fool-proof, and any number you come up with will likely clash with at least one army's style out there, somewhere, but it encourages people to take different things, and also gives a limitation to force people to adapt, instead of bringing Ye Olde Cookie Cutter. If they want to win and think they deserve to win, they better be able to write a list with a points restriction! :D
Hopeless Hero wrote:WAAC stands for Win at All Cost.

I like the idea for this tournament. It seems like it would be balanced to me, but I of course belong in group 2. I like to bring a balanced army that covers as many of my choices as possible, except units which I don't like for one reason or another. I also like to field things because I like the models themselves over their actual statistics. Generally my win or loss comes down to tactics and die rolls, and not my list (Though sometimes my opponents).
Ah, thanks. I was trying to piece together the acronym in my head, and it quickly got into really weird ones like "Wham! Another Army Crushed".
Hopeless Hero
Trusted Bowman
Trusted Bowman
Posts: 157
Joined: 20 Dec 2009, 04:21
Armies I play: Wood Elves
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: How's this for a tournament idea.

Post by Hopeless Hero »

Warhammer used to use a percentage system, and they're are a few rumors flying around that they'll go back to it for 8th. It was broken down into a Percentage on Characters, monsters, warmachines, and maybe some others... I didn't play then, a friend was just telling me about it last week as I was laughing looking over his old WE and Undead army books... I'm so glad I didn't play during Hero Hammer... I would have hated it.
"Knowledge is what you know, Intelligence is how you use it."
-Me
Joelatron
Bladesinger
Bladesinger
Posts: 830
Joined: 18 Apr 2008, 01:38

Re: How's this for a tournament idea.

Post by Joelatron »

I created the tournament around the idea that there would NOT be any hard comps. Soft comps were to be in name only, and then only to stop really, really stupid lists getting in.

Hence no percentage restrictions etc.

Glad to see people like the system though :)
CAKE OR DEATH?

Visit my blog! www.thebrushofdoom.blogspot.com Lots of battle reports and stuff...with pictures!
User avatar
mkoop
Horsemaster
Horsemaster
Posts: 308
Joined: 12 Feb 2009, 22:18
Armies I play: Asrai, VC, Beasts, HE, Khador, Circle

Re: How's this for a tournament idea.

Post by mkoop »

I do not like player scored comp. In my experience certain clubs will come to a tournament together and tank comp regardless allowing their club higher chances of a victory, there is no way to prevent it really.
Joelatron
Bladesinger
Bladesinger
Posts: 830
Joined: 18 Apr 2008, 01:38

Re: How's this for a tournament idea.

Post by Joelatron »

mkoop wrote:I do not like player scored comp. In my experience certain clubs will come to a tournament together and tank comp regardless allowing their club higher chances of a victory, there is no way to prevent it really.
hence why in my system player comp can only give a max of 5 points over the tournament = can't hijack tournament
CAKE OR DEATH?

Visit my blog! www.thebrushofdoom.blogspot.com Lots of battle reports and stuff...with pictures!
Locked