Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Contributors
Blog Roll
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(76)
-
▼
November
(22)
- Dalyth Apocalypse Planning
- combat patrol tourney this Saturday!
- Apocalypse Extinction... and CXI is there!
- Happy Thanksgiving to all of CXI
- A Good Campaign!
- Dalyth Prime Final Rankings!
- Playing Russell's Blood Angels!
- Round Five Battle Links
- Round Five Summaries coming!
- Work In Progress
- Dragon's Lair 40K Escalation League begins!
- Requesting feedback
- When is GW going to realease new FAQs?
- Pictures from Kill Team action last Thursday
- Transmission: Astramalleus Command
- Tyranids Monsterous Creatures
- Aun'el Dalyth Rakithia, to the loyal Shas of Gel'b...
- Personal IM from the Lady Jeremina
- Round Four, Battle Three
- Round Four, Battle Two
- Round Four, Battle One
- Shas'ui Kethran, special combined reconnaissance f...
-
▼
November
(22)
Library
- 1st Post (1)
- 40k (5)
- 4th Edition (1)
- 5th Edition (1)
- Advice (3)
- Battle 1C (1)
- battle report (2)
- Campaign (5)
- core book (1)
- Dalyth Prime Campaign (1)
- discussion (1)
- Fiction (2)
- Iron Builder (1)
- Marines (1)
- minis (2)
- News (2)
- Painting (3)
- Plans (1)
- Psyberwolfe (2)
- Scratch Building (3)
- Tactics (2)
- terrain (2)
- Tournament Pack (1)
- Tournaments (2)
- Tyrus Campaign (5)
- WH40k (2)
- WIP (1)
4 comments:
Seems pretty boilerplate and covers most of the bases. Here's the few things I would change if my opinion mattered:
What you Need:
Two Typed/Printed Army Lists required. One to turn in to judges and one to keep for play. Judges will verify legality and points for the list.
Missions:
Hopefully, at least one round of the Tournament will include a mission written by the organizers. It encourages thinking on your feet.
Scoring:
Are there going to be multiple awards (General, Painted, etc.)? If so, then the scoring makes some sense. If not, I'd change it.
Sportsmanship:
Sportsmanship scores are horrible. They are simply a tool for griefing. Even if they are only worth a few points, it can decide who wins and who does not. If you insist on having a sportsmanship score - don't let it be judged by the players. Have a tournament organizer observe the games and decide.
Composition:
Comp scores are, likewise, a bad idea. Any army that is legal by the Codex should not be penalized. There are some armies who will loose points simply for following their fluff! Many forces would be penalized for executing a cool concept (biker armies, fast strike units, Iron Warriors, Night Lords, etc.).
Not only that, but changing the rules for army composition doesn't eliminate cheesey army builds. It only changes what armies will be cheese within your new restrictions (the 100-marine army comes to mind).
If there are certain forces that you don't want to see in your tournament, ban those forces specifically.
Painting:
It all looks pretty good. Though the 3rd one (painted in a manner that matches the codex) seems in contradiction with the earlier "counts as" discussion. Having a very well painted Lizardman force which counts as a Kroot doesn't match the Codex. So a painter is to be penalized for originality?
Resolving Rules Disputes:
Players in a tournament should never be encouraged to go to other players for a ruling. There is too much conflict of interest. (Other marine players: "Yes...of course Marines can Rapid Fire and then charge!"). The order should be rule book and then judge.
That's all that comes to mind for now. Hope it wasn't too critical, but you did ask what I thought. :)
There are tiny typo bits here and there, so check for things like capitalization.
Lists:
Two Typed/Printed lists. If you're going to enforce the points limits and have players lurking to grief users of ArmyBuilder, then be ready to have a player cross off an option from his list if AB failed to add standard equip for upgrade characters (a specific known bug of the program), or make sure that an admonition to add things up by hand is well publicized in advance. If the player hasn't added up every point by hand, then an opponent's lurking and playing gotcha sucks.
Missions:
No more than one mission should be "custom" or "creative." Most of them seem to suck, and they nearly always seem to favor one army or army type particularly.
Rules Disputes:
If your judge's ruling is final, etc., then by the living God that judge had better actually know the rules. If we're getting those famous "pulled out of (known but unnamed judge)'s ass on a whim" rulings, expect objections.
That's all that catches my eye for right now.
I like your rules and they seem fine. One or two of my own opinions.
I agree with the others that two army lists are best. I would even go so far as three. One for the judges, one for the player, and one for the opponent to look at. I played a game on Thursday with Aaron (which I lost) but one of the problems was that he had one too many men in his assault squad. I would have known this if I read his list. I also thought one of my sister superiors had a power sword when she didn't. Luckily it was caught in time. (silly me!) But in a tourney, I could've lied or thought I did and played it as such.
I like the yes/no questions. That's much better than a "pick a number from 1 to 10" thing. I would also use those numbers for painting and sportsmanship as a tie-breaker, rather than automatically adding them in.
I would also like to see a section, (up to you of course) about how creatively painted the army was. Was it a surprise to see? Did the opponent go "Wow, neat!" when seeing the army for the first time. Again, must be a yes/no question and worth one point. And use this as a tie-breaker for the painting contest.
Also another way to see who is truely the best "General" is to change up the force chart. Have one mission to use another force organization, like on page 192 of the BGB. This will get the players to think more about mission itself than just having a "one trick pony" army.
Just my thoughts.
My thoughts:
I agree that composition should not be judged. As much as certain armies can suck to fight when they take minimum troops and max heavy or fast, if it's legal, it should be OK. Besides, themed armies are interesting. Certain types of armies that are well known to be especially difficult to face (Biel-tan Mech Eldar, Nidzilla, etc.) could be a problem. You might consider deducting points for an army that obviously tooled as long as you let the player know before anything is played and why. But that's something to think about more deeply elsewhere.
I think the sportsmanship question "Did you have fun?" should be reconsidered more thoroughly. If you have to put so many guidelines for people to think about to answer them, they probably need to be worked on more.
To comment on the other comments:
I don't think judges can judge sportsmanship scores for a battle unless the judge can watch the entire battle. That means effectively having a ref at each table. Now, that's not a bad idea to do, but logistically it would be a problem. How many tables are playing? How many games? How many good people do you have to judge at all?
I think that only two army lists should be required, one for the player and one for the judge. There are people clever enough and strategically minded enough to divine an entire battle strategy from reading an army list. And you know you'd have some players constantly looking over their enemies' lists to figure out things like if "What's in that Rhino?" or "Can I get this psychic power off before his psychic hood comes in with his reserves?" or the like. As long as the judge can verify that the list is legal and that models aren't doing things or using wargeer they can't or don't have access to, that's enough.
And that's all I have to say about that for now...
Post a Comment