MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Feb 23, 2007 16:19:14 GMT -5
I like the suggestions Paul but I purposely do not want to include references to the rules and here is why. I have been right alot when it comes to rules debates, but there are also times I have been wrong. Consulting the BGB, codexes or a judge insures fairness and can be done to add to the game and a players overall understanding. To me, I agree that a "rules lawyer" is not fun to play but someone who is learning and says "Show me" several times can be alot of fun as well, therefore the number of times rules were referenced should not be a factor in fun.
As for fluff, I will consider a rewrite.
Doc, thanks for the compliment, it is not secret that it was based on your scoring, I have always like the Hall of Heroes sheets and think they have been one of the most fun and fair tourneys I have taken part in. Where is the typo?
|
|
|
Post by Goldeagle on Feb 23, 2007 16:24:25 GMT -5
Then how about just using the phrases "friendly discussions" and "no arguments"? The reason I think these should be clarified is because in truth a great game is where you focused on playing, not figuring out how to play. And while sometimes it is necessary to have a friendly discussion during a game to clarify what takes place (especially with a noob or even old guys who are a bit rusty at rules mechanics), how often would you call these great games? I would say these are often good games, but rarely great games (though they might be if you played the right old guys ;D ) ... and never are they the best game you played in a long time. By the way "the could have gone either way" is a necessary reference to one of DaBoyz greatest sportman and belongs in any comp rules we create
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Feb 23, 2007 16:40:39 GMT -5
" could have gone either way" is a necessary reference to one of DaBoyz Excellent point, in the spirit of Kemp it will be included.
|
|
Iron Warrior
Moderator
The Iron
Iron Within! Iron Without!
Posts: 2,573
|
Post by Iron Warrior on Feb 23, 2007 17:08:03 GMT -5
LOL yeah thats awesome. Include it.
Intersting thing, I was thinking about the one game I played against NYCowboy at Gagg con and I tired to score his army as an example using this system, he pretty much got average or above average in all selection but...
Fairness and Fun Factor..not to pick on him but. By the book of what is says he scored a 2 on Fairness And again by the book he scored a 4 on Fun Factor (it was a great game)
Odd.
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Feb 23, 2007 17:39:21 GMT -5
Version 3 online...
[ftp]http://www.frontiernet.net/~dpl909/40K-ScoringSheet-ver3.pdf[/ftp]
|
|
|
Post by Goldeagle on Feb 23, 2007 17:44:38 GMT -5
That my friend is the way the cookie crumbles. I assume this means that his army was min/maxed, thus the system handicaps him on fairness. But even though he stacked his army so that he should win most games you guys managed a great game or even a rare awesome game (i.e one "that could have gone either way", but whenever a 40k game turns on the luck of a grot one might call it awesome and rare imho ;D).
|
|
|
Post by Goldeagle on Feb 23, 2007 17:54:18 GMT -5
Hey Doug, just a few more comments and I will relent ...
1) on fluff, leaping from the page of 40k fluff would be more appropriate because that includes codexes, etc ... not every army has had a novel written about them and morever many may not have read all the novels (me for example), but I have read most of the rule books and codexes ...
2) on fun-factor, great games do not have to be one your best games ever... just an exceptional great game! As written you are making giving out 4's too rare, while I would say many of my GT games have been great games and thus 4's, I would say I have only had two 5's in my GT experiences (one a win which ended with a death or glory attack and one a tie in which a squad of Imperial Fist terminators drug down a Khorne Greater demon by rolling 66666 on their to wound rolls).
3) same comment about #5, as written you would never give one out ... just say one of those rare absolutely fantastic games, one of my best games ever (i.e. this is different from saying the best game ever) ...
Well done Doug. I think you are creating a system here that will keep the spirit of the game alive.
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Feb 23, 2007 18:00:56 GMT -5
Again, I am shooting for 3's so I find nothing wrong in making the standards for 4's and 5's more elusive. I think if the bar is not raised to this standard, you will see nothing but max scores which should not be the case. Again 3's are the standard here, you need to be exceptional to get 4's and 5's.
Novel or writing to describe the 40K fluff, I am sure the person scoring should get the meaning.
Thanks you for understanding my point in this type of scoring sheet. My hopes are that it will help enhance play by encouraging people to play the flavor of their army, not just "what's good". It also gives the option for people to bring tough armies that are built to win by handicapping them so they are on the same level as other softer more fluffy forces.
|
|
|
Post by skyth on Feb 23, 2007 18:13:03 GMT -5
I like the suggestions Paul but I purposely do not want to include references to the rules and here is why. I have been right alot when it comes to rules debates, but there are also times I have been wrong. Consulting the BGB, codexes or a judge insures fairness and can be done to add to the game and a players overall understanding. Plus different areas use different rules interpretations. That is something to consider also. It doesn't make the other person a bad person. Well, the problem is that alot of the time it seems a rules lawyer is just someone who has a different interpretation of the rules than 'you' do and can actually back it up with the written rules. (I know this is my jaded view again.)
|
|
|
Post by Goldeagle on Feb 23, 2007 18:14:04 GMT -5
I agree with you that 3's are the standard, and I think your system achieves its goal. But I still think the language is wrong for the fun-factor (i.e. it suffers from the same over exageration that the sportsmanship forms GW has been using suffer from). I also think that many games at GT's are exceptional because they draw exceptional opponents, but I don't agree you would create maxing out by making a change here, since 4's are not maxing out, they are just better than average (they are great games after all). Most games at your standard RT would be 3's not 4's and almost never a 5. Like I said before, I can only recall two GT games I would call 5's out of maybe 50-60 games I have had at GT's. But your language would say only one of these was the best game I ever played ... and it restricts me to knowing that at the time I give out the 5 ... thus a literal read of the language with a thoughtful person would say never, never give out a 5 ...
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Feb 23, 2007 18:25:26 GMT -5
Looks like we are on the same page then Paul. The wording here was designed purposely to help restrict 4's and almost eliminate 5's. You are a veteran of many GT's, and I have played in several as well. To me nothing is worse than the opponent that gives max scores for everything, meaning that every game was the best game ever, against the fairest army ever, the most beautifully painted force ever, that the whole 40K universe was built around. Likewise, a player who scores his opponent straight zeros or something outrageously low might have some explaining to do as well, not that these instatances will no occur but it should help mitigate them. Under this scoring system even Chris may never score a perfect 20 for soft scores, and that is OK. A score of between 10 to 15 should be the average and perfectly acceptable. This way battle points are not completely nerfed by soft scores, nor do they dominate the way that the overall winner is determined.
|
|
|
Post by dragons3 on Feb 23, 2007 18:53:46 GMT -5
I THE LIKE 3'S IDEA, EVERYTHING HAPPENS IN 3'S, THE BIBLE, THE TRILOGY (STARS WARS), THE DRAGONS BIRTHDAY AND OF COARSE HIS LUCKY NUMBER. DOUG SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON THIS SCORE SHEET, LETS GIVE IT A TRY AT THE NEXT TOURNEY. IF ANYONE WANTS TO TEST IT ON A THURSDAY NIGHT, I GAME (THATS IF ANYONE SHOWS UP). OR FIRST SUNDAY OF THE MONTH TOURNEY, IF IT STILL EXISTS. AN EXAMPLE GUIDE LINE WOULD HELP TO EXPLAIN THEME & FLUFF OR EVEN GOOD PAINTING FROM AVERAGE, JUST TO SET THE PLAYING FIELD SO NO ONE IS EVER SURPRISED. AND THANKS TO ALL FOR PARTICIPATING ON THIS WEBSITE AS OF LATE, AND FOR THOSE WHO HAVEN'T, GIVE UP A FEW MINUTE TO SHOW YOU'RE STILL ALIVE, HAVE A NICE DAY,CIAO!
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Feb 23, 2007 19:05:33 GMT -5
Wow, you almost posted something intelligent Puffy! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
First of the month, that would be next week, does anyone want to play, if so I would be happy to run the tourney. Start a new thread and let's get a show of hands for interest.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Dude on Feb 24, 2007 1:38:28 GMT -5
Doug, just for something different, rate my ranger army. you've seen it enough times.
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Feb 24, 2007 11:15:59 GMT -5
OK, Gabe here goes....
Fluff- Yes, you play a fluffy all ranger army. I would say that you have gone out of your way to make it resemble its fluff, but I also remember seeing scorpions too. I would say most likely 4, but again I would like it in from of me.
Painting- Solid 4.
Fairness- Probably a 3 because rangers although losing thier distuption table to the new codex gained a bonus to cover saves. This coupled with the proper farseer power makes this between an average and tough army. I do not remember seeing anything unique so a 4 would be out of line.
Fun Factor - Depends on the game, but for arguement sake a 3.
Total -14 ( which falls right in the vaerage rang, actually slightly higher )
|
|