Greetings all Liber Players for 2008!!

Its getting closer to the event, and I thought I would take some time to get some feedback on the event this year so far, from the players before we get there, so if you have any thoughts, ideas, or indeed things your not clear on regarding the tournament place them here! What do the players need from their T.O's!?

I am keen to get this going in true WargamerAU posting style!

Dan
The Golden D6

Can you give us more ideas about the Hero please.

Cheers
Hagen

Can you scrap the comp system and use last years system? Seemed to work fine.

I'd qualify that and say parts of it worked fine. Certainly don't think everybody shared the view that all was rosy.

However, regardless of that I think it would be unfair to now ditch the published comp scheme that people have either been building armies to or playing games with.

Pete

jase thats the understatement of the epoch.

my army would get a higher comp score if it changed my army to be 95% the same as the most hated army from last year, odd system that tells me that i have to tool my army up to get more points.

couple things the TOs can clarify is:

1. you state the comp scores should be a bell curve, so somehow a normal distribution. if the scores (other than the 9 TO points) are a yes no question, and anyone can achieve them (unless you are on of the armies screwed by some of the dumber questions), how can it be a bell curve?

2. These questions:

* Does the army have a clear theme? (2pts)
* Is this theme interesting, and within the ethos of the 40k universe? (3pts)

are they a "yes" all the pts, or a scale. if a scale whats the subjective criteria used to dertmine if you are good enough to get the full marks? i;d prefer a simple yes/no system, as used at KF, where Andrew rightly figured it was not up to him to decide if your theme was 'worthy' or not, just to check to see if you had one and it could be followed.

3. why do i have to field mech tau to get more comp points? i get more as i can take over 200pt squads, i get more as i can more easily get more points in troops, making it easier to get over the 700pt marker. weird since mech tau was the most hated army last year.

4. assuming you are keeping the comp system, can you please clarify exactly what the 0-3 comp points per TO are for:

so far i have read that:



this says that the to points are for army balance in the totally biased views of the TO, and that its there to punish sneaky combos (supposedly only if the TO thinks its a sneaky combo).



this is referencing the idea that the TO points are to make up for where the system has failed, so you get the points if you have been hard done by because your army gets screwed by the arbitraryness of the system.


this talks about being there to punish armies who get the arbitrary points but should not have.

so what are they for:

1. top up points for those armies who don;t get a point due to failings of the system, but 'deserve' a boost

2. armies the TOs like, for whatever reason

3. bonuses for "balance" whatever that is

4. penalties sneaking combos (somehow, i guess everyone gets full marks and you lose them if you have combos).

5. punishing armies that get some of the category points but on some biased beleife, should not have (presume scoring as in 4).

so which is it? or do we guess. becuase currently due to taking tau i am either going to need to take mechtau to scoop up all the flat points and guess about which TO points i am getting or take my army that drops some of the goofier comp points for not being mechtau and hope that TOs don;t hate tau or have not decided i have an odd combo.

Missions:

Hero has been arguably the worst mission at liber in the past, eithe rbecuase the hero ability was too random, or the penalty to harsh, and the powers were either really good or blah.

this year we are supposed to beleive that you have fixed 3 (4?) years of not quite getting it right, picked a version that is perfectly balanced between the 3 choices, that none of the playing D6 have any inkling about which option is best to choose, and we are supposed to choose in the dark, with no ability to actually use tactics.

so basically its a crap shoot, pick the ability thats either hardest to use or just crap or versus the wrong army, you know you get a combat monster and hes even better at beating up tau than every other model in the army.

Liber is supposed to be about the best players competing. so why on earth not make the options open and let the better players use strategies to use the options that are there.

i would much rather have that than the current version of, guess an ability a month before the event, then when you show up, make the most of the one you picked in the dark, and just hope your army, opponent or choice is not completely worthless, putting you at a stupid disadvantage. becuase that never happens in tournaments with goofy rules.

thats all i can think of for now.

AL

As much as I hate to do it, I agree with Al.
I like missions that add variation with extra missions etc, but sometimes the random nature of the missions can give a distinct advantage to one force or another before the game has even commenced.

so not the hero mission for our BOTD game then

Whoa, Al... thats a long list 'o' stuff! I will take a peek and post some responses...

To Start with!
The Hero mission has been re-written for this year, I am going to playtest it to make sure it works... and then put it up for scrutiny... I ask players to be patient As far as what the Hero does, the mission to be playtested has 3 different types of Hero for you to choose from. Further details will be forthcoming after playtesting!! As far as the model goes it can look like whatever you want, but mostly make it look... er.. HEROIC!

A quick note on the comp system is that we are endevouring for players to come along with an army of their choice, and you get points for that army. We don't want players designing the most powerful army within the limitations of a comp system for their army. This is not like a regular tournament comp system. Its different, and well not really designed for players to be able to break it easily, the T.O discretion at the bottom is to ensure no favoritism but I do agree players need some guidelines as to what to expect from our judging. I will get Brad, Rat, and myself to post our thoughts on a good army.

More to follow from Al's post...

Dan

Well, please get on with sorting the hero out. I would hate to put a lot of effort into making one kind of hero only to have the mission rules published and find the option I have selected crap.

In general wargamers HATE random luck, when its supposed to be about skill. I think you will find you get much better buy in if you publish the details and let people make an informed choice. Less death threats too.


It come down to how the hero works for me.
If the hero provides some capabilities on their own (like the combat hero has the stats of a greater daemon) then you want to pick a hero that complements your army.
If the hero buffs nearby units (say reroll to hit for the combat hero) and reroll to hit when shooting for the shooting unit. then you are better taking a hero that exagerates your strengths. (take a shooting hero and put them next to your best shooting unit is better than reroll to hit in CC for a Tau army.


BTW please don't change the comp system, my army is fine. Al and Jase can just suck it up.:-)
Please do clarify what the umpire bonus points are for though.

Hey Kargan,

We are not expecting anyone to choose their hero before they have seen the mission, what we are saying is you will need to provide a hero model. You can decide on what type of hero before the round at the event. And we are working to get something out in the next week or so....

Thank you...

PS Less death threats? where is the fun?

Are you saying that whichever style of "hero" we build, it can be another style in the game if we wish?

If that's so, then spelling it out clearly at the beginning would have saved a lot of angst.

Michael

Also I tried wiring money using the details emailed but was advised by my bank that the details are incorrect!

And in regards to hero, I thought I read in the player pack that we had to state what kind he/she had to be when submitting the army list?

And in regards to hero, I thought I read in the player pack that we had to state what kind he/she had to be when submitting the army list?

I thought this as well.

What the D6 are now saying appears to be quite different to the original information. Seems a lot of the players were under the impression that we had to guess what kind of hero we wanted, so decide what a close combat Tau hero would look like, make the model and then find it's crap when we see the player pack.

Hands up who thought this?
If it's make a generic blob as a hero, wait till we see the opponent and table and then pick what type of hero it is that's a bit different.

BTW the NZ nationals is a highly political tournament and usually has some very strongly worded exchanges. One year I heard an umpire recieved threatening letters about the comp.

In regards to the maths comp system. I have always found that math comp hamstrings some armies, whatever scheme is used. This year i am lucky that the army I planned to bring looks like it fits well into the maths comp formula being used for this event. Al and jase are less lucky and their theme is preventing them getting as good a comp score as they might like.

I suspect many players will be faced with the choice that they break their own theme to tick more comp boxes or take the army they want and get lower comp.

Interesting to see that mech tau armies do much better in this math comp system than foot tau. Is mech Tau the kind of army you are encouraging???

Some themed armies do really bad at maths comp. Say you take a veteran IG regiment, you spend a doctrine to get veterans and then get hammered for having 450 points in elites and duplications. Most armies where the player has selected a limited pallette of units for their theme do badly in math comp.

Guys read what the D6 are saying.

They are playtesting "Hero" and will repost it for scrutiny

THEN

You decide what type of hero you want (probably taking into account the final mission if you wish).

THEN

Time passes, you submit your list and go to the tournament.



However I would say that I, for one more, would not mind in the least if they lost the mission or decided not to play it. It is singly one of the worst tournament missions I've played...even the concept is silly - two armies lined up trying to run past each other into the opposing deployment zone (Sorry Kane but it's nothing I haven't told you before). And it's one less model to make.

Not sure why you think that my army does not fit in to the math comp system very well? In fact, I do very well out of it, almost perfect.

My comment of the Liber Comp system was just going along the lines of "If it ain't broke...."

Pete how does what you wrote match the D6 latest instructions?

"You can decide on what type of hero before the round at the event."

Based on the latest instruction you can wait until just before the game starts.

I think there needs to be a recon style mission in the tournament pack and if the D6 want to dress it up with an additional Hero providing additional points if they are in the enemy deployment sone at the end of the game that's OK.

I don't think many people risked using the abilities last year. Al was one I know that did and got a good result out of it.

>As far as what the Hero does, the mission to be playtested has 3 different types of Hero for you to choose from. Further details will be forthcoming after playtesting!! As far as the model goes it can look like whatever you want, but mostly make it look... er.. HEROIC!<

Just like that "further details will be forthcoming after playtesting"

I read that as once they undertake further playtesting they will give us further details. At that point we will have further details and based on these further details we will make our choice. In the interim and before we get these further details they are saying that your hero does not have to be modelled any particular way other than heroic.

Given last year your hero was most heroic (won prize for best hero) I'm guessing you you've a headstart on us in terms of the modelling part.

Last year I didn't have a whole new army to paint in 3 months.

This year getting the army ready is the priority.

I know this may sound stupid....

but cant we all just think about enjoying the tournement...???

I couldnt care less what the missions, comp, points system is because Liber is a freakin fun as weekend, where you get to sit back in what is essentially a boys club.


I understand the kiwis have i guess, a lot more riding on the tourney, plane flights and ####.......but seriosuly. make a hero. deal with it.

Im making a combat hero, coz it will look cool. ........ not a clue about what hes gonna do.


but hey. my opinion. I will no doubt have all this thrown back at me aye?...

And sheep stations!!!!!

We are all putting up our sheep stations!!!!

I'm with Badfang. As long as long as the TOs have done the groundwork then we should all be happy little campers.

This year I am looking forward to:

1. Leigh's latest hairdo
2. MBJ shouting the bar with his winnings from Deal or No Deal (faint chance but I live in hope)
3. Asking Brad if he really is T.J. Leyland on a witness protection programme
4. Watching the inaugural Liber animus "So You Think You Can Dance" section

Pete, your post dropped off some of the list... don't worry, I'll update it for you.

5. Seeing Kane's army in the flesh
6. Kane playing in a tournament
7. Kane talking less
8. After ditching the TO job, Kane finding a new way to stroke his ego

And hey, I adored Hero... just because everyone else didn't ain't my fault. It wasn't as flawed as the original Storm or hold, surely

What is it, Take-a-swipe-at-the-ExTO Day?

Just shaved a new one in 2 days ago pete....





Also.....Im taking a screen shot of this ....

Sorry, Kane.... who?

Is he some local celebrity, or last years personality?



Cheers
Hagen

Liegh, be quiet, adults are talking.

seriously though, if i was mates with the guys running the event and had helped set it up and was driving across town to enter i would probably not care how the rules were worded or what problems there were either as i would know the way they think and so would probably know their intentions behind various wordings of rules etc.

as it is, i am paying for flights, accomodation, rental car etc, and don;t have the advantage of inside knowledge, or even understadning by close proximity. So i want to make sure the event is as good as possible, in the rules area, so that there is a) less time spent on the day seeking heaps of feedback, and we actually know what to expect before we show up.

we are already seeing some idiosyncracies with how the hero mission is being percieved between what is written in the pack and what the TOs are saying the situation will be. it could be the only case, but i doubt it (the comp system proves its not the only case).

personally i think that asking and taking feedback is not somethign that one day you decide you are good enough to stop doing, TOs with heaps more experience and knowledge than the D6 have asked for feedback for years, and i have given them that feedback. they did not alwys like it or agree with it, but the Tos who put their egos aside, took it in the spirit it was intended and however they moved ahead, the event was better for it imho.

my opinions about the upcoming liber are more confident now than they were before the TOs posted this thread, bluntly i got the feeling i was throwing a pile of money away for the death throes of a once great event. the TOs decision to take feedback, and adress the quite legitimate concerns of people attending who are not in the inner (once removed) circle is a good sign and makes me more confident of the event being as good as the legacy Kane left for them.

Whether the TOs choose to go with my reccomendations or answer the questions with the answer i want is irrelevant, as long as they clarify the questions i have one way or another. the point is not to get my way, or an advantage in the event, just to simply understand it better and clarify some of the more vague parts.

and finally, sure i could just build a hero and show up, then decide to read the rules, but considering how well you did with your deathwing when you just showed up and the decided to work out a) how to play your army, and what the rules of the event were, i would have thought you would have learned to prepare a bit more.

AL

I play warhammers.

barely

touche'

Leigh,

You know the rules!

NO TOUCHE-ING!!!!!!

Ego deflated? Check!

Orright Players....

I got Pete Dunn signed up for the inaugural Liber Animus "So You think you can Dance" section, and someone named Kane? was invited? If anyone knows said Kane can you please return him to the T.O's so we can send him on his way? or at least set up a kiddy table for him to play on? Perhaps a folding card table?

To clear up the Hero mission, look the way the Hero model looks doesnt impact on the mission. I agree with the way Pete put it. Once you have seen the Hero mission and indeed choose right before you start playing, its entirely upto you. You are not required to make a decision on which type of Hero until the event. However that doesnt change that you will have to bring along some form of Hero model. So the mission will be up for scrutiny ASAP. I apologise for the player pack it is both unfair for players to choose something without knowing what it does, and also when submitting the list. We like the Hero mission as it is a part of the Liber tradition, so it stays. I personally have had some troubles with it, but it was always a fun game.

COMP...
Ok... our system does not encourage mech tau, nor does it discourage it either. As a player should be focused on bringing what they would like to play with, not necessarily what will score them max comp. And if someone brings a crap mech tau list then great you get the 2 or 3 points in the top section but you still gotta get passed the 9 comp points. The details of these comp points will be posted soon.

As for mates, at the moment, Myself and Brad are talking almost exclusively about Liber, and not really letting anything out to the rest of the group. The rest of the group has not been consulted on many topics that concern the entire player base, I have seeked out some members of the group as well as invitees to get their perspective on some of the rule queries, but not one member of the GD6 has an advantage.

Al, Leigh would be the last bloke we leak info to!

NZ boys, I am always happy to help or indeed make a rulings or clarify things for you, as both me and Brad value your attendance at the event.

Dan

PS Has anyone found this Kane bloke yet?

ok,

let me clarify. i don;t think you guys are slipping inside info to Liegh (not that it would help him if you did, as he won;t start his army until may anyway).

but, Liegh knows how you guys think and what your ideas about comp and sports etc are, so can decipher what you have written inthe packs a lot easier than i can. which is why its importnat to have a avenue for clarification, which you are doing.

a point re comp:

You say: As a player should be focused on bringing what they would like to play with.

however, the fact is that you have free points available for showing up with the 'right' army.

if the comp points are not there to alter players army design to the one that you want to see, and you expect people to ignore them and field whatever they want, then comp is pointless.

with regards to "making itup in the 9pts from the TOs"

if i have dropped 2-3 pts in comp becuase of my army, yet another army has not dropped those points, and we are both as themed or balanced or whatever, then i just lose out.

the only time the TO pts are going to help is if an OTT army slips through getting all the tick box pts, and i don;t, and you guys spot it.

the point about mech tau, is that when i compare my army to the most hated mech tau army from last year, on the tick boxes, it gets as many if not more comp points than mine, and the things it does not get, are easier for it to make up than the ones i don;t get.

ie, its easier for the mech tau army to change his list to avoid duplication than it is for my (decidely non mech) army to find the pts for troops over 200pts.

so there is an imbalance. now i could build a mech tau army that would be as well themed as my current army (or even more, as its easier to get across the visual theme of being fully mobile), but get more default points. it would not be exactly the same as last years one, but it would definately be much better game play wise than my army.

the only reason the mech army could lose the TO pts is becuase the TOs know that Mech tau is a list to look for, becuase we (at the very least) brought it up. with all the armies in 40K, and with 50 players, how many other situations are there where the softer list gets less pts, but the 'harder' list is still themed and gets bonus pts. and TOs don;t notice becyase they have not seen it before or just miss it. how do you decide between 3 umpirs with 3 pts each, how to divvy up the 25 marine armies as to which should get 0,1,2, or 3pts. its a very small scale, and there is no way you can address all the issues with comp with 3 pts an umpire.

now you might say, well its only a couple of points, but a) i beleive in doing as much preparation as possible, for the free pts available (which is why i will be making a display board, despite not being a fan).

and b ) placings in tournies are regularly decided by very few pts, i personally have lost 1 GT by 1pt, and another by 0pts, so a couple of tourney pts can make a big deal.

now i am not under any illusion that this will stop me winning the event or anything (not knowing how to use my army will do that for me), but we have a system that causes an imbalance, and so it needs to be sorted. i would say drop the system but its too late now, so it needs to be pulled apart as much as possible to make sure its used to a) achieve its actual goals (which the pts might not do), and b ) does not screw anyone out of a placing due to pts being missed.

and finally, its been nearly a week guys, can we get a move on the answers to the comp system questions we put to you? you have answered hero, but the comp system still needs to be cleared up (so i can ask about the sports system next).

AL

I too agree on speedier answers.

both of you guys have internet access at home...and yes...have busy lives..but dont we all?


random note for Al...

I have already prepared my list and playtested it THREE whole times....

preparation is kick ass.......well not really...but 1500 points is assembled too.

Anyway....prepare to be amazed at my level of prep for this tourney..just for you

Ok,

The comp system is not pointless. We recognise that there is no formula to grade armies that will mean players will all be bringing armies we like, nor does peer comp. It is true that no comp system really works at all, so we took a new angle on it. I do not wish to start a comp debate, please keep comments constructive on this comp system for Liber V.

We have chosen lots of different elements from comp systems, that we like.
We also know that each armylist is different in many ways.
We realise that what every player thinks it great comp is different.
So we took these factors in and have made a comp system that would allow a player freedom, using whichever armylist they want.

The final score from the comp system, will give us a score based off how many of these elements that army has, and whether it is an army that we as players would take to a tournament. We also realise based off the above information that some armies cannot fullfil certain criteria easily that others can, this is not unbalance, this is going to happen regardless of the system. Thats why we extended the number of points so that our T.O scores can fill in the gaps.

The comp system is not suffering from an inbalance, I cannot reiterate the point enough. The comp system is not changing before the event. And let me point out that we wrote the comp system to cover the most amount of armies, that DOES NOT I shall repeat those words DOES NOT mean we are favoring another type of army as a preference eg mech tau (So can we stop saying we do? Why has no one mentioned that a fire warrior army with 2 units in devilfish get all the points? or is that just me? And will probably have more chance of getting T.O points as well.)

Now to be honest I think players are focusing way too much on this topic, I realise your coming from New Zealand, and you want to do well, since their is some outlaying of cash, but bring the army you want? We want the event to be good fun with good fun armies. If you bring an army that ticks a lot of boxes you will do well in comp. 3 T.O. scores bring balance back to the lists, eg... If you bring mech tau, and you pick up early points then the T.O. judged portion of the system will level it out.

So... Hope that clears it up, the system stays... Its up to players how they deal with which boxes they tick, and then how they appeal to the T.O. judging, which will be posted as soon as we have something.

Dan

My last comments about the comp system are as follows...

Having spoken to my fellow T.O's about their 0-3 point categories, and these will be subjective as per judge. Each judge will be looking for in their opinions dodgy combinations, excessive use of particular items of wargear or weapons. Basically anything that didnt get picked up by the first 2 sections.

If you wish to score well take an army that you honestly think will be heaps of fun to play against. Things to watch out for... lots of repetition of wargear, characters with lots of wargear, lots of big units with lots of upgrades, this is as clear as it gets. We will not be posting all the dodgy options or even entering into what is or isnt. Yeah its a hail mary gamble, but if you bring an army to play in the spirit of the game, and have fun and an army that your opponents will find fun then you will have no problems scoring well in this category.

The judges will give their scores independant of each other as to assure no favoritism. The scores will also be given in comparisions to all the lists at the event. Eg the judges will be judging all the lists so they will be giving scores based loosely off what other players have taken.

We believe all players that have been invited are of similar mind when it comes to acceptable army selection.

So don't ask us what we think, ask your fellow Liber players what they think... post your lists in a Liber thread and ask whether it would be fun to play against. If your a Kiwi, talk to an aussie about what our community likes, if your an Aussie, talk to a Kiwi.

Just remember we are all gaming for fun... not for any other reason...

Dan

Im gaming for Hagens love...............



.........its not going very well.....



sigh

D6

What the deal with giving away 42 points for losing every game.

why not just have 0pts for losing.

When you calculate the % breakdowns are you using 120 battle points or 78 (the ones that we are actually playing for)

I just ask because if you use 120 all of a sudden your so called 40% battle actually works out to be less then 30%.


Also can we have an all states/territories/islands blood rule rather then just a no NZ on NZ day one. I relise they have a lot further to travel (and at a greater expense) then us NSW players but at the end of the day we are still traveling and it kinda defeats the point if we are going to play they same people we play at every NSW event.

I agree with Trip re "blood rule" for NSWers and also South Australians (though some of the stories I've read in the press this week suggest that the South Australians may prefer to keep it in the family).

Personally I also agree with Trip on the points breakdown.....13/10/7 is very tight. If you are giving points for a loss I'd prefer a wider differentiation . However I appreciate it maybe reflective of what you want to achieve.

Pete

Leih... you always will have a fathers love from me - tempered with a well developed sense of hopelessness and its associated pity and exasperation (I'm sure BMJ in particular will empathise with me here in this perception of you).



Dan - a timely reminder, and one that should be reinforced

Cheers
Hagen

Pro's of it being so tight: There is not a lot of risk in playing for a win if you're currently sitting in a draw, however you stand to lose just as much as you stand to gain, so are probably safer to just stay with the draw regardless.

Con's of it being so tight: The welfare points make an absolute mockery of the claimed points breakdown. Two losses and a draw being worth almost the same points as 2 wins is .... odd.

I suspect however that it is an unintended effect, despite being worked out by a committee, I presume it is just a case of no one having sat down and done the maths.

Trip, when you consider that most people will be getting between 50-75% of the battle points available also, that percentage drops considerably lower than the 30% it would otherwise work out to be as well. Typically people get a much higher portion of the available points in the soft score categories, as it stands it would really not surprise me at all if the top 3 had in the vicinity of 80% of their total score being made up of softscores.
Not that I think there's anything wrong with that at all, so long as that's made clear to people .

Proxy

It's typically the same for the soft scores as it is for battle points. I think most of the soft scores end up with people averaging about 75% of the maximum and no one scores less than 50%. Thats much the same effect as the battle point awards.

I have not seen any tournament results where people get 0 for comp or sports or painting so the same argument that is being made about battle points needs to be leveled at the comp scores. If the worst performer in game play should get 0 battle points then the worst performer in each soft score category should get zero in the soft score category as well and then all the other results scaled to fit a normal bell curve distribution so that the average is 50% of the maximum and half the people are above and half below that score. Just like exams used to be scaled.

And do you remember how much people complained about having their essults fitted to a bell curve? Lets say the standard of sports at Liber is very high. I hope this is the case, certainly it is rumoured to be so. Now you want those who are awesome but slightly not as awesome sports as everyone else to get 0 points? Sports, comp, painting are set against objective criteria (as much as possible) so that the playing field is level and facets of the game other than battle points can be encouraged to be increased. Not so make people compete against each other for being better sports, etc.

Bell curves end up with huge potential for scoring unfairness... Surely exams taught us that?

As they say in the classics......

"IT DOESN"T MATTER WHAT YOU BRING!"

Another timely reminder...

On the Battle Scores front... Proxy, obviously if you compare 3 games to 2 there will be some discrepencies? Thankfully each player at the tournament will be playing the same number of games... odd?

We don't feel that losing a game to 0 is good.. in fact we dislike the idea, in fact I personally play these games for fun, and at no point do I find losing a game and not scoring any points to be fun. We also do not want battle to dictate the winner of the event. To be honest the wider the points spread on Battle the worse the army that players will show up with because winning becomes important. Whilst winning is fun, it is not all the hobby or indeed this event is about. I would also like to add whilst the feedback is great, it will be taken on board for future, as unless there is a monumental mistake, the player pack won't be changing.

The event is about good blokes, like minded hobbyists, who are getting together to enjoy a weekend of participating in their hobby. No one needs to bring pink slips, or the deeds to their sheep stations because we are not playing for keeps.

At Liber its more important for everyone to have a great experience no matter where your coming from, than for one player to have fun. Relax, and enjoy gents...

I think it is exciting hearing all the feedback and talking more about the event...

Dan

Perhaps I've confused the issue by being a bit complicated or advanced in the explanation - trips simplifies it better.

Bottom line is the tourney is not 40% game play, but now that that has been confirmed, no one can be surprised or disappointed. I didn't comment on it to try get you to change it, but rather to avoid anyone doing really well in battle points, but not so well in the other categories and being disappointed at their end result being lower than they anticipated, due to battle having a real value lower than the perceived value.

Well, given that we are all top blokes we should all score well!

And after all, "some people" say it's not a competition anyway (rather a weekend of getting together with other "Top Blokes" to test your mettle and jaw a bit) - so placings/awards are just a byproduct and we should be happy just to participate.

I know I always have been.

Cheers
Hagen

However you do it it is still likely to be a bell curve. It just might have an average of 8 out of 10 and a los score of 5 out of 10 effectively the bottom score person has gotten 0 and everone else is some way above that.

I like sports systems that are clear about what that are marking. I also like it when sports is not equal to game enjoyment.

It happend to me recently when my army stopped playing for a turn and I spent the next 3 turns watching my army get eaten. It wasn't a really enjoyable game for me nor for my oppoent because the lst 3 turns were just a mopping up operation. Should I mark my opponent as less sporting for a game like that. I don't think so.

Some players and some armies like to use cat and mouse tactics. It's consistent with their background and force selection. I would expect a Ravenwing army to play hide and seek and try to overwhelm part of my line. Should I mark the player as unsporting because they don't engage me in an infantry based war of attrition? I hope not, otherwise we would all bring Deathguard.

Personally I think the system stands up fine. I like the idea that the only people that have read all the lists get a say in comp. It’s very hard to make a really good “system” for comp and I think having three experienced players giving an objective comp score against the rest of the field is invaluable and could possibly create a genuine handicap in the field.
Post your list to get an indication of how your list might be viewed and then make decisions from there if you desire a high score.

As for the battle points I personally like 20 – 0 systems for various reasons, mostly there honesty. This 20-7 system is going to be close but it really comes down to the missions and ability to score extra points. This system is tight, and is really set up so good generals with high comp will end on top because point-harvesting armies will already be taking a hit. From what I can see getting top comp will also be very hard so that gap will also be close. I think sports are going to play a very big part in working out the top order and I’m fine with that.

I have to say there is a lot of pressure being applied that seams a little unnecessary. I have never seen so many pre-tournament questions, complaints and judgments binging past in a public forum. I don’t even have to deal with it and it’s stressing me out. I think Brad, Dan and R@t will do a great job and run a really great tournament. At the moment how this system plays out is all theory and we really will not know how unsuccessful or successful it has been at creating a really enjoyably tournament till after the fact. The reality is this is the system and if it does not achieve the desired resalts then there will be changes.


Shnoogens

Conor

*edits to clarify*

I lost track of this thread in being busy running my own event.

My point was exactly what Proximity said, I have no problem with the %'s what ever they happen to be I just have a problem with with it beind advertised as 40/20/20/20 when it isn't and was trying to clarify what the actual %'s were.

As for not enjoying getting 0's I think we are all smart enough to relise that if we get 7 we have effectivly gotten 0, being given 7 sympathy points is not going to make me feel any better about failing to score any points. Its just makes the calculations more complicated, which increases the chances of errors occuring.


Another piece of feedback, maintaining of list of who has paid and what lists you have received is a great idea particully if you don't have the time to send out individual confirmations of receiving them.

Hey Blokes,

I will be posting a list of who has and who has not paid in the next day or so... Apologies for not posting it earlier.

As for the battle points, I don't understand how the percentages are any different, the maximum you can score is still 40% of the overall? And really the 7 points for a loss exists purely to help balance out comp. As in the biggest problem with a 20 - 0 scoring system is that it basically excludes all comp scoring, players just take harder armies because their is more points in battle than comp. So this way it makes you blokes think about what your doing more...

Really enjoying the feedback guys...!

Dan

The problem is by having a minimum score of 7, you're essentially making each round a result of 0-13...which means it will not actually be worth 40% of the overall scores