|
|
Post by Mark Wightman on Apr 27, 2009 23:05:39 GMT
It is supposed to be a Warhammer tournament, not a Warhammer without the bits a couple of players don't like tournament. I can understand this point of view, I just don't agree with it. If something is broken in a game then I think we should fix it. If I thought for a moment that GW had play tested any of the SC's then I'd be much more comfortable using them. However, GW don't seem to bother, and worse they seem to yo-yo between useless/broken SC's from book to book. Maybe we should have two Warhammer comps this year? The usual 1500pts league without SC's, and perhaps a knockout 2000pts no-holds barred cheese-fest. |
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Apr 28, 2009 7:21:47 GMT
I think Warhammer and indeed fantasy games should be about special characters and mighty hero's.
I think the argument against them is poor if you look at the people that used them and where they ended up in the league as well. Aside from John of course the special characters seem to have had little or no difference and having played John I can't see how an SC would impact how he played (thats meant as a compliment by the way).
I think in 1500 points some lists are weaker than others but thats not to say that you can't play round weaknesses and work to your strengths.
Personally I think SC's add a little character to the game (as it were) and I gain a greater sense of satisfaction slaying an SC too.
Deamons are quite powerful it has to be said but people will start to work out how to beat them.
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Apr 28, 2009 8:51:14 GMT
If something is broken in a game then I think we should fix it. We're talking about a tournament where the Shadestar, 3 Engine of the God Lizardmen, 14PD Tzeentch Daemons and other extremely powerful builds will be possible. As some army books are easily more powerful than the average, why aren't you adamant about removing those? Surely you strongly believe that some magic items are under priced, why not all of them to be sure? The options in Warhammer aren't all completely balanced, if you start removing them arbitrarily it harms the legitimacy of the event. |
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Apr 28, 2009 9:32:55 GMT
As long as you don't ban the ring of hotek I'm fine ;D
I love that little guy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark Wightman on Apr 28, 2009 13:22:14 GMT
If something is broken in a game then I think we should fix it. We're talking about a tournament where the Shadestar, 3 Engine of the God Lizardmen, 14PD Tzeentch Daemons and other extremely powerful builds will be possible. I'd be quite happy if the tournament was fully-comped, but given the reaction of the purists to the suggestion we ban SC's - we'd never hear the end of it. Are you really happy playing against that sort of beardy army? I'd rather not. As an aside - it's interesting that all three of those examples are from books that weren't valid last time we ran the tournament. I'm sure we could think of other bent 1500 pt lists, but none quite as bent as those three. Ban em all. Everybody to use Orcs & Goblins, maybe Ogres at a push ;D |
|
|
|
Post by John on Apr 28, 2009 15:29:39 GMT
I'd be quite happy if the tournament was fully-comped, but given the reaction of the purists to the suggestion we ban SC's - we'd never hear the end of it. I think the goals of a comp system are admirable, I just haven't seen a system that worked well yet. It also can cause issues in a club environment when you start asking players to mark down each others armies. Are you really happy playing against that sort of beardy army? I'd rather not. I'd also rather not face them, but I'm not proposing allowing them but banning things that are less powerful (SCs) which is the position you have taken. I don't like the idea that players are being told what they can or can't use in the club warhammer tournament. Maybe players who don't want to face cheesy lists and special characters shouldn't be entering competitive events, and should instead stick to friendly games where they can agree limitations with opponents. |
|
|
|
Post by John on Apr 28, 2009 15:32:45 GMT
As an aside - it's interesting that all three of those examples are from books that weren't valid last time we ran the tournament. I'm sure we could think of other bent 1500 pt lists, but none quite as bent as those three. I certainly couldn't. There were a couple of good Deathstar armies but none can cover all weaknesses as well as the Shadestar. Weirdly I can see how it sneaked past GW as the combo wasn't that obvious, simply allowing Stegadon spamming on the other hand was sheer laziness or a blatant attempt to sell the new plastics. |
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Mawson on Apr 28, 2009 16:01:46 GMT
I don't think I've actually encountered a comp system at all as yet.
The general issue with most of the GW army books/codexs is that they're not actually designed for competative tournament style play. They're designed for friendly play, where most of the options are primarily designed for the character they add to the army, not their effectiveness.
Obviously the rules guys do a reasonable amount of balance checking, otherwise the points system wouldn't work properly at all.
But what is reasonably balanced in a friendly game environment, when both players are trying to have a fun interesting game, is not nessessarily anywhere near so balanced when you really start to push the margins.
GW only started providing an outlet for tournament play (i.e GT's etc) because that was what a lot of the more involved members of the GW gaming community wanted, but the events arm of GW is pretty small beer compared to the designers and the retail areas.
Given the non competative gaming focus of the army books it's pretty much inevitable there are a number of balance issues with nearly all the armies.
I'd be interested to hear any suggestions about how to try and balance things up for a tournament without putting undue restrictions on army construction.
Given the players and the club I don't think it's too likely that anyone will field something like a Shadestar, or the Quad-Steg lizardman army.
For myself I'm obviously going to try and maximise my armies effectiveness as much as possible given the model selection I have, and might be willing to buy prior to the start of the league. It's a competation after all, and good list construction is one element towards a decent league performance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark Wightman on Apr 28, 2009 17:24:31 GMT
I don't like the idea that players are being told what they can or can't use in the club warhammer tournament. Maybe players who don't want to face cheesy lists and special characters shouldn't be entering competitive events, and should instead stick to friendly games where they can agree limitations with opponents. I think this is perhaps where the main difference of opinion is. I see our club tournament as a "friendly" one, so I guess I'm trying to agree the limitations in advance. It's clear that others would prefer it to be a no-holds-barred event. I'm not saying that's wrong, and I'll certainly play either way, I'd just rather we all fielded armies that were fun to play against. Maybe banning SC's won't achieve that, but I think it would help. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark Wightman on Apr 28, 2009 17:30:57 GMT
As an aside - it's interesting that all three of those examples are from books that weren't valid last time we ran the tournament. I'm sure we could think of other bent 1500 pt lists, but none quite as bent as those three. I certainly couldn't. There were a couple of good Deathstar armies but none can cover all weaknesses as well as the Shadestar. Weirdly I can see how it sneaked past GW as the combo wasn't that obvious, simply allowing Stegadon spamming on the other hand was sheer laziness or a blatant attempt to sell the new plastics. I think the Stegs were a deliberate decision. Perhaps not to sell extra models, but because somebody thought it would be "cool". The Shades I think were a mistake. An upper limit on the size of the unit would have stopped all the shadestar nonsense. GW have been steadily dropping the upper limits for some time now. Hopefully the specials and rares in next few books will bring them back. Yeah, right  |
|
|
|
Post by John on Apr 28, 2009 17:48:32 GMT
I think this is perhaps where the main difference of opinion is. I see our club tournament as a "friendly" one, so I guess I'm trying to agree the limitations in advance. It's clear that others would prefer it to be a no-holds-barred event. Did you not think the last Auctori was a successful event? I ask because the army lists people were fielding were undoubtedly designed to be highly competitive. For the past two years the Auctori has not been treated as a 'non-competitive' (friendly) tournament. If I look back at the armies that you, I and Stephen have used over the last two years I find it hard to think of any way they could of been improved to be more competitive. I would be very surprised if the armies fielded in the next Auctori will be less so (although I do hope people hold off from the extreme lists). If people truly want a 'friendly' tournament then banning SCs isn't the way to achieve it, and I have no idea what would. |
|
|
|
Post by dave3 on Apr 28, 2009 20:32:39 GMT
True, people have been playtesting thier lists, to get them "just right",so it can be said that there is an element of competativeness. The main objective for the tournie, I started in the beginning, was to generate games and to stop people just turning up, and sitting round the only game at club and chatting. We have succeded in this, well done chaps! Let us continue in the same way without resorting to needless unpleasantries. I always think that a passionate debate means people care about the club, and what it does. This is great and what it is all about. Let us be carefull not to alienate members,however, no 2 tear tournaments. Just a game of Warhammer! If we have a definate start date, this will stop all the tweaking and "oh just a practice game" games. Just get in and do it! I will play (and probably lose again) with whatever anyone throws at me, because that is what we do in the GLADIATORS...KAP'LA!! ;D
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by ralkr56 on May 5, 2009 11:05:55 GMT
Ok then 3 issues :-
1) Special Characters - lets vote then and let democracy rule. Personally if they get included I will probably swap to a DE army this year and have loads of fun.
2) Dates - I have decided to extend the date when your choice of armies must be in to the end of the Monday Club night on 11th May. The purpose of this is to stop loads of play testing and delays to the kick off (including me as one of the worst offenders). Other dates remain the same. If you have not submitted an army choice by this date I will assume you do not wish to take part in this year's competition.
3) Game maps - preference seems to be for pre generated ones. I will some generate some (probably 8) at random ASAP (no rivers this year, using 6 terrain pieces as the norm) and add in a couple of extremes - lots of terrain and no terrain.
Any thing else we have not discussed. Oh the points system - we will use the same system as last year. We will keep table quarters and I expect there will be loads of masscares again.
|
|
ashleigh
Member
Today's special - Squig Soup
Posts: 143
|
Post by ashleigh on May 5, 2009 21:03:20 GMT
Lovely - i'm glad that's all sorted!!
I would love to take part and will be using goblins - just goblins - a nice friendly, no chance of winning, fun army! I'll be contesting Dave for the wooden spoon!!!
Bring on the elves!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by ralkr56 on May 6, 2009 21:03:29 GMT
2 confirmed then Daiv with Lizardmen and Ashleigh with Goblins.
|
|
