|
|
Post by Horst on Jun 28, 2010 1:11:41 GMT -5
in defense of malice, the game we played last round was decided more by mission type than by the fact that his list was hard... The kill a single troop unit thats upgraded is definitely in favor of some armies more than others. Of course he chose his 10 man unit of wraithguard, with maugan ra and eldrad attached.... I'd have done the same. The fact is, he has an 800 point death unit, that I have to kill to win, with T6, always in cover, and always re-rolling all saves because of fortune... while he has to kill a unit of normal marines for me. yea... its an uphill battle to begin with. of course, his pen 6'ing 3 rhinos turn 1 with scatter lasers through my smoke didn't help  but the point is, if it wasn't for the mission type being dedicated on killing a single unit, the game could have definitely gone either way. Having to kill an 800 point super unit is just hard as hell. So, yea... the point of this ramble is, when making missions, we need to consider every possible powerful combination out there, and try to make the missions balanced to everything. The mission I played sparks in at the last tournament, for example... it was called suicide squad. The way that could have balanced, is to not allow independent characters to join the squad marked as a suicide unit. I mean it would make fluffy sense, HQ's probably wouldn't join a "suicide" unit... and boom, ultra hard to kill units with 2 characters attached are no problem. This is just an example... I mean, another mission that was imbalanced for certain armies was the VIP mission. If you packed a transport, your golden. I'd imagine malice was at a disadvantage for that mission, having to footslog across the board. Another solution to this problem would be to implement the comp score pairing i've discussed before on this board. Going into the last round, me and malice had equal battlepoints. However, I had a significantly better comp score. Malice, under my system, would have played someone with a higher number of battle points, or someone with a similar amount of battle points and a similarly bad comp score. Whatever, just food for thought, I don't care WHAT you all implement as rules, cause its all fun imo. |
|
MajorSoB
Moderator 
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Jun 28, 2010 2:16:21 GMT -5
You know Steve, I am glad you mentioned FUN, maybe my words havent gone completely to waste.
You see as long as I am involved I want our tournament to focus on fun. I do not want our tournament to become another 'Ard Boyz competition with painting thrown in. We have tried to focus on the player not just their victories. This is the reason we have consistently awarded players who have tried but sometime have come up short. This doesnt mean we do not want skilled players to come and test themselves, we most certainly do and we have also awarded their victories as well.
The major difference is that we have tried to stress comp and encourage players to bring armies that are fun to play as well as play against. Most people do not consider being tabled by leafblowers, tervigon spam, nugle-lash lists, etc fun games to play. In my opinion they are ultra hard list that you let play themselves. I am not saying these lists do not have their place in our hobby, but they are not what we are trying to encourage at our tournament.
Back to the dig that was lobbed at me about special characters. It was a group consensus at last years debriefing that character combos seemed to break the spirit of fairness and make some games miserable. Sparks' list was one but not the only combo that was complained about. As I recall the Khan and Tigerius combo was also a source of debate as well. Rather than strip special characters completely from our tournament and remove the builds that they make possible ( Wolf Wing and Deathwing for example ) we decided that one character would be OK although we all know that there are some potentially abusive single characters too ( Vulkan and Mephiston to name two ). Tell me how I should have responded to this post? To add some info, I explained this very same position to my son less than a week ago when he requested to bring two special characters, the answer to him was also no for the same reasons, and he was much more polite in his request.
Steve I like your suggestions and I am glad you enjoyed yourself last year, although I do remember you werent as supportive of Sparks' army build right after last years tournament. I am curious as to why you have changed your mind?
Bottom line. Our tournament will have comp. One special character is a limit we imposed to help encourage "fair and balanced" lists. I also know that certain gamers will also seek other ways to gain an advantage if they cant by making a harder that average list. While we cant please everyone we are trying our best to help keep things on a level playing field. You know there is an old saying that goes like this " If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem." With this in mind I welcome suggestions as to how we can accomplish our goals. Feel free to start posting them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Horst on Jun 28, 2010 3:02:33 GMT -5
oh, I still don't like spark's list  It was nasty to begin with, and the mission gave him a bonus on TOP of that... I did make a few critical mistakes in our game though, which I think, had I played differently, I could have pulled it off. I let my terminators charge a useless unit of bikes, because he was blocking my charge with them, rather than get back in the raider and play conservatively, to hopefully go for the draw on the primary, and win the secondary and tertiary. I should have realized I wasn't going to kill that unit of wraithguard, and not wasted my time even trying. with only a 12" range, I could have just stayed out of their way. I will shed no tears if I never see a similar list again... though part of me wants a rematch, same lists, to see if I could pull it off |
|
|
|
Post by honsou on Jun 28, 2010 4:33:50 GMT -5
still this falls under the you can't please everyone category, do what you guys think is right for the tournament and if someone playing in it has a problem screw them they paid for the ticket, they knew what they were getting into..
|
|
|
|
Post by chumbalaya on Jun 28, 2010 7:32:44 GMT -5
You should derive your enjoyment from the person sitting across from you, not how well he managed to gimp his army  Whining about your opponent's list being good and ruining his fun is about as mean-spirited and WAAC as it gets. No list is unbeatable and player skill trumps it any day anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by smittyrj78 on Jun 28, 2010 11:33:46 GMT -5
No, my decision is based on my dislike for the a-hole list that you brought last year. What part about our tournament seeking to promote comp friendly armies didnt you understand? Instead of bringing a balanced middle of the road list you chose to bring some broken crap that sucked the fun out of every game that the unfortunate people who were unlucky enough to play you had to endure. Let's face it, all you care about is winning, and yes, YOU are one of the reasons for this limitation. Good job. I expect you will find some way of bringing some broken crap again this year, and I promise you that you will be rewarded for that as well, or maybe you will stay home, either way it suits me just fine. Anything else you feel like whining about?  I hope that their group comes again this year. Next is Spark's list last year may be a tough list but it was also a tough army to play. A great portion of his success had to do with the fact that he is a solid player. I bet you if you gave that list to a lot of players they would still have a lot of trouble playing it successfully. I am undecided on my stance on special characters, I do agree certain combos are pretty rough but not all are that bad. Also no one said you couldn't bring two special characters but if you do as it stands you will be dinged in comp. How much you are dinged has not been decided. Sparks did bring up a valid point that this decision to limit characters should be based on something more than just 20% of the winners. This tread was started based on a question in the INAT and needs to be brought back on track or stopped. |
|
Iron Warrior
Moderator
The Iron
Iron Within! Iron Without!
Posts: 2,573
|
Post by Iron Warrior on Jun 28, 2010 12:45:15 GMT -5
On a side note, since we are playing the statistics game, the number one complaint about last year with nearly 85% of the surveys saying that they were dissapointed or didnt like the all the special Charatcers they saw last year.
I support Dougs views in this and I am aiming to support the one charatcer limit as a Orginizer and judge this year.
You can play with one crutch why bring two, unless of course you cannot stand on your own two feet when you play.
I dont very much like the INAT, my personal opinion. We as judges sit down look at it. Replace what we think is blantently wrong or mis worded and use an edited version of it.
SoB/Iron Warrior for Daboyz 2010! VOTE NO on Propsition 2C!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Krusty (zack) on Jun 28, 2010 13:34:35 GMT -5
SoB/Iron Warrior for Daboyz 2010! qft (or chumby and dragon, which ever seems good to you guys ;D) |
|
|
|
Post by hyv3mynd on Jun 28, 2010 15:22:28 GMT -5
I also know that certain gamers will also seek other ways to gain an advantage if they cant by making a harder that average list. While we cant please everyone we are trying our best to help keep things on a level playing field. You know there is an old saying that goes like this " If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem." With this in mind I welcome suggestions as to how we can accomplish our goals. Feel free to start posting them. It's statements like this that are worrysome to me. We all have fun playing, that's one of the reason we spend $100's of dollars and 100's of hours painting. There should be consequences to poor sports and cheaters. However, there are several hundred ways people could argue one list is "harder than average". Local politics, drama, and personal bias can effect how one judge could score one army compared to another. Example: The May MG tourney featured judged comp scores. The first place army utilized 3 tervigons and 3 carnifex's. The second army featured 2 demon princes and 2 demolishers. Both armies received full comp yet one space wolf player received a "0" for using giant spiders as thunderwolf calvary in a chaosy themed space wolf army. Judge's call was actually "If you wont take the time to buy the models, I wont take the time to score you". Keep in mind Canis is the only GW TWC model available. June tourney at Boldos was player scored comp and I lost points with a list that had no dupes, and most points spend on troops. Not trying to be part of the problem, but part of the solution. If you're going to dock comp points for "harder than average lists", you better post a rigid scoring outline at least a month in advance. I would also allow players to submit their lists in advance for comp scoring, and allow them to alter it before the tourney if they aren't pleased with the judges comp score of their list. |
|
|
|
Post by chumbalaya on Jun 28, 2010 18:52:19 GMT -5
It's statements like this that are worrysome to me. We all have fun playing, that's one of the reason we spend $100's of dollars and 100's of hours painting. There should be consequences to poor sports and cheaters. However, there are several hundred ways people could argue one list is "harder than average". Local politics, drama, and personal bias can effect how one judge could score one army compared to another. Example: The May MG tourney featured judged comp scores. The first place army utilized 3 tervigons and 3 carnifex's. The second army featured 2 demon princes and 2 demolishers. Both armies received full comp yet one space wolf player received a "0" for using giant spiders as thunderwolf calvary in a chaosy themed space wolf army. Judge's call was actually "If you wont take the time to buy the models, I wont take the time to score you". Keep in mind Canis is the only GW TWC model available. June tourney at Boldos was player scored comp and I lost points with a list that had no dupes, and most points spend on troops. Not trying to be part of the problem, but part of the solution. If you're going to dock comp points for "harder than average lists", you better post a rigid scoring outline at least a month in advance. I would also allow players to submit their lists in advance for comp scoring, and allow them to alter it before the tourney if they aren't pleased with the judges comp score of their list. Yep, those were my Chaos Knight TWC and Spiders as Wolves that got the shaft. Needless to say, I wasn't a fan. QFT for the rest. SCs aren't a crutch, no moreso than any other unit in any book. They're a legal choice in a Codex, like Tactical Marines, Obliterators and Hellhounds. For some people, myself in particular, characters are required to field an army. I wish I didn't have to pay a 275 point tax to field Wolf Guard as Troops, but that's just how things work out nowadays. Blanket statements like "SCs are overpowered" are as laughable as saying "all Fast Attack is overpowered" or attempting to ban tanks with an AV higher than 12 or weapons that fire more than 2 shots. All that accomplishes is alienating players and screwing up balance worse than the original perceived imbalances. What about Aun'va? Coteaz? Ahriman? Asurmen? Ezekiel? Chronus? Bastonne? They're all characterful choices for a themed army and in no way overpowered. Any kind of restrictions will only serve to hurt compy, fluffy themed armies and older Codices. Even with a plethora of arbitrary restrictions, IG, any new Marine army and Tyranids can field a wide array of competitive armies. Tau, Inquisition, Eldar, and Necrons get the worst of it since they only have so many options to begin with due to having an older Codex. Any restriction can be worked around by players to create the most effective army in the system, particularly if they have a 5th ed style Codex with a ton of viable options, but the collateral damage to other players, not the intended targets of said restrictions ends up hurting them more. So please, if you care about running a balanced, competitive tournament where any player can win, don't hobble the hobbyists and people with older Codices to kneejerk against the flavor of the month, who are much better equipped to work around anything you can set up. |
|
|
|
Post by malice on Jun 28, 2010 19:07:11 GMT -5
No, my decision is based on my dislike for the a-hole list that you brought last year. What part about our tournament seeking to promote comp friendly armies didnt you understand? Instead of bringing a balanced middle of the road list you chose to bring some broken crap that sucked the fun out of every game that the unfortunate people who were unlucky enough to play you had to endure. Let's face it, all you care about is winning, and yes, YOU are one of the reasons for this limitation. Good job. I expect you will find some way of bringing some broken crap again this year, and I promise you that you will be rewarded for that as well, or maybe you will stay home, either way it suits me just fine. Anything else you feel like whining about? Not whining - just pointing out the flaw in your decision making and justification behind. We don't really care what limits you put on. If you feel the list was broken, so be it. It's nothing we have not heard before about the wide variety of lists that we have brought over the past 14 years of tournament play. From foot to mech to big characters or no characters, it doesn't matter. Hell - Courtney said Yriel would have been tougher in the list than Maugan Ra before the event. You should have heard our debate. So I obviously didn't bring the toughest list. You helped make a point though. You have allowed your own personal bias towards a certain build to influence your idea of "better" comp. This is the same thing that will always happen with player based comp scores and judges trying to implement their views of good comp. We can bring any number of different armies as shown this past year (walking eldar with two SCs, HTH nids with no SCs, and somewhat generalized chaos lists - with one SC). Each one of those unique forces was rated low in comp. Yet only one had two special characters. I guess it's time to ban HTH nids. Steve at least seems to have looked at this somewhat objectively. He had to deal with a mission that was tougher and knows that he made some mistakes. Side note: Steve - think about the early part of the game. There are other mistakes that you have not mentioned historically. Most of this was probably due to not understanding the army that you were facing. But there is more to learn there from a generalship standpoint. I'm sure after this year, you will have even more army combinations or units to ban. Hopefully, we can have some influence on that once again. |
|
|
|
Post by jay on Jun 28, 2010 19:55:52 GMT -5
Well this thread went way off topic. We should be discussing how wonderful the Blood Angles FAQ is!!! I am the DaBoyz GT Tournament Organizer. The buck stops with me. We are going to receive a lot of good and negative feedback. I do not kowtow to anyone, when it comes to the GT (not even my wife). Yes there have group of people that have been shaping the final details of the event. The details are still being work out. Also if anything is posted on forms and it is not posted by me, then it is hearsay. Everything goes through me. We will be using the Independent National Warhammer 40,000 (INAT) it has been posted on the DaBoyz GT web site for months. We will be using INAT FAQ v4.0, the link will be revised. It can be found on Dakka Dakka www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/299658.pageCheck out who is on the council. To answer a couple of other questions: Comp will be at the GT. It is the “DaBoyz” way. There will be scoring guidelines for it. You will receive 10 points for submitting your lists early. This will do two things; allow a panel of judges to judge the armies independently for Composition and to make sure we have legal lists. The document is 90% complete, but I want to make sure this is 100% before we put this out on the street. Please hold off questions until it is posted. I think even chumbalaya will be pleased. |
|
|
|
Post by chumbalaya on Jun 28, 2010 20:47:32 GMT -5
I think even chumbalaya will be pleased. Is that a challenge? I'm sure I'll find something to nerdrage about  |
|
|
|
Post by Catachan Colonel on Jun 28, 2010 23:00:52 GMT -5
Also no one said you couldn't bring two special characters but if you do as it stands you will be dinged in comp. Actually it was announced that there would be onlt 1 named character allowed this year. You can read it here. It states a hard limit not a comp ding. After talking with Jay, Rob, James,etc... and gathering online feed back it looks like this is the information on next years event so far. -October 15-17, 2010 -U of R Campus, Fredrick Douglass Hall ( same as last year) -40K event, 1850-2000ish points (TBD), 5 rounds, battle, comp, sports and painting with some adjustments, only 1 named character restriction, limited to 100 players |
|
Iron Warrior
Moderator
The Iron
Iron Within! Iron Without!
Posts: 2,573
|
Post by Iron Warrior on Jun 29, 2010 3:30:15 GMT -5
No and I suppose you agree that every unit in a codex, though legal (no kidding thier in the codex, no need to say this) is fair and has a justified point cost...just becase GW says so. To think that is rather niave of you.
Certain unique characters are not over powered like the ones you mention and im am certain many players would not mind seeing them played. Some characters are grossly over powered or under costed like other units in the game. One takes these SCs to gain a certain advantage thier other HQs dont provide. In some instances this advantage can be game deciding pr play a big factor in the games they play. Some players will build around the characters special rules and advantages while this may be ideal and even considered clever or smart, it may be game turning or breaking depending on the characters chosen. 2 such chosen SCs well...lets say it doesnt make much for a fun game.
You do not need a SC to make an army. It is not a requirement, the force org does not say 1+ SCs.
Lets even steer this a little back on topic. I Dont care who are or how good you think you are as a player, Snickrot and Ghazkul running rampant in your back lines is not something many player can deal with. I personally, if I were on the "council" for the INAT would have taken a better look at that ruling. I find it grossly misworded and misinterprested. That one sounds like it either slipped past them or allowed to be approved by an apathetic vote. My opinion.
I would like to point out, no one ever said that EVERY special Character is overpowered. Lets keep the "blanket statements" to a minimum pls and thanks. Unless we make a list saying what charas are allowed and not allowed (which is assinine) The only way to limit or rein in the use of the powerful or under costed SCs out there is to limit the number.
Also remember and take this into consideration. The number one complaint last year was the appearance of all the SCs out there. I dont think SCs were taken into much consideration last year when comp was concerned. Im not sure as I didnt judge it last year. We are trying to improve on this based on our feedback we recived last year. Why would you think we are hobbling to anyone when we are just trying to make better our commitment to improve our tournament each year. The alternative to limiting the number of SCs would be large point loss per SC used. I would suspect seeing either one of those implemented. *cough*
We arent banning anything from the codexs but we arent running an Ard boyz either. So keep that in mind when you make your lists this year. Amyways..Hearsay
|
|
Whining about your opponent's list being good and ruining his fun is about as mean-spirited and WAAC as it gets. No list is unbeatable and player skill trumps it any day anyway.
