Saturday's RTT

[JohnHwangCC]

I would generally that 2000 pts is better than 2250 precisely because compulsories take a larger portion of one's Fantasy army, in the same way that 1500 pts is better for 40k.

I think a band-handicapped tournament as suggested would be interesting, especially if my DoW were at 2500 pts.  Of course, if they got rolled even with extra points, that'd be pretty sad.  Hmm...

[Matt]

i think the standard tourney list should be 2k instead of 2250... if we restict the points then it restricts just how good a lord can get without compromising his army and how many uber units and magic items can be used

Actually, I think the opposite happens.  At 2000 points, I'd still take uber lords, it's the softer stuff that doesn't make the cut.  If you don't have an uber lord, good for me, you have even less of a chance stopping my 5 assassins and 6 levels of magic.

After 2000 points, I've maxed out my heroes as much as I can, and the only place I can put my points is into units.

If you want a more tame tournament, run it at 1800.

-Matt

[Qrab]

At 1800 points Daemons would still dominate, VC might be toned down, and TK wouldn't be playable.

[CK]

The bigger issue is trying to make a tournament out of a game that was never designed for tournament play. The only real way to fix it is to have a separate set of tournament rules.

[captkurt]

The bigger issue is trying to make a tournament out of a game that was never designed for tournament play. The only real way to fix it is to have a separate set of tournament rules.

Which is mostly what the ETC is trying to do.  The banding to skew the points is one method, the banning and adjustment of certain items is another.  Even MTG, which arguably was tournament designed from the beginning, makes it a regular process to ban and edit certain cards.

I would really like to see a 1999pt tournament, or a 2250pt at 1999 restrictions.  Also a banded RTT might be interesting as well.

Also I think that the WFB system requires that the soft scores be weighed heavily in any scoring system.

[God Of War]

i think lizards should be in tier 2, as it doesnt seem fair to give them access to ANOTHER EoTG while i have 2k of troops

[Matt]

Which is mostly what the ETC is trying to do.  The banding to skew the points is one method, the banning and adjustment of certain items is another.  Even MTG, which arguably was tournament designed from the beginning, makes it a regular process to ban and edit certain cards.

I would really like to see a 1999pt tournament, or a 2250pt at 1999 restrictions.  Also a banded RTT might be interesting as well.

Also I think that the WFB system requires that the soft scores be weighed heavily in any scoring system.

I don't know if more points would help Tier 3 armies.  Another 250 points would just be 1 or 2 more blocks of infantry that can't compete.  Tier 3 armies reach a point where they are so outclassed, their units just don't stand a chance.  I had a round of combat where a 5 wide block of dark elves killed 17 models on the charge. 


-Matt

[Fellblade]

I think daemons, Vampires, and Vampires were the top 4 running armies.

I was going to check the score sheet tonight at the store but they already removed it.

[JohnHwangCC]

Which is mostly what the ETC is trying to do.  The banding to skew the points is one method, the banning and adjustment of certain items is another. 

Even MTG, which arguably was tournament designed from the beginning, makes it a regular process to ban and edit certain cards.

I'm not entirely sure that banning is the best approach in which players build and create their own armies.  Fundamentally, there should be a notion that you can field anything.  Similarly, I'm not sure that editing is good, either.  Fundamentally, items should do what players expect them to do. 

IMO, the balance issue is best addressed via additional cost penalties.  That is, if Steam Tanks are too good, them make them also cost a Special and/or a Hero slot, and/and increase the points cost by some amount.  So, you can take those 2 Steam Tanks if you really want to, but you will be giving up a lot of other tricks and toys in the process.

That's why, the banding with different points is very interesting to me, as you notionally can still build your army, but it just won't have as much stuff in it.  I don't know if a couple extra blocks would make that much difference, but I like to imagine that it would make the games more interesting. 

Matt makes a good point on basic points, but what if the Tier 3 armies could take a half-step towards the 3k limits:
- an extra Lord or 2 extra Heroes
- an extra Special or an extra Rare
Or, what if a Tier 3 army could take up to 500 pts of an Allied Tier 1 or Tier 2 stuff?


Anyhow, the main reason I wanted to note was that, for Magic, while they do ban the occasional card, and they do "edit" things, that's the exception rather than the rule.  The older cards are revised only insofar as they do not conform to the current general rules.  For example, OOP "Interrupts" become modern Instants.  But Magic operates under the basic principle that you should be able to play every card in the format, along with the notion that every card should do what it says.  So Dark Ritual will always add BBB for B, even if BB for B might be better-balanced.

[Gobbla]

I have some experience with uneven point games from the Looser League a while back.  That is not a panacea, either.  If an army is struggling to compete, adding more points (more mediocre units) has the problems Matt mentioned.  It also may be that there are more goodies in the book to put in the army like another EoTG, but the player simply does not have extra models, and does not intend to buy them.  Lot’s of players don’t want to build uber armies.  Lot’s of players have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to build armies larger than 2250pt.  And, if there are any added in slot or unit restrictions, the situation can get out of hand.

I think banding might work in a tournament (maybe), but in a league with ever changing lists, I can tell you what will (what did) happen.  Players with fewer points will bring better stuff to counter what they see as a major disadvantage.  When facing an opponent who has a 500pt. advantage, they are going to bring their A-game.  Their A-game obviates the 500pt. advantage, and then some.  Maybe after a few leagues, everyone will get comfortable with the points disparity, but initially this is asking everyone to become a playtester.  Plus, it’s no fun to loose to a smaller army; it’s no fun to beat a smaller army.  Either way, the player with the crap army looses.

Not saying banding is not a good idea, just pointing out some pitfalls.  Instead of going larger, you could go smaller.  You might consider a sliding scale.  Instead of VC’s always building to 1999pts., let the relative tier position of the two armies determine the point level.  Say 2250pt. is the base army size (btw, playing 10 2500pt games with any Tier 3 army is going to be a chore).  If opposing armies are in the same tier, they both use 2250pts.  If they are not in the same tier, the “better” army takes a point deduction.  The greater the spread, the greater the deduction.  So, a Tier 1 army gets 2000pt. playing a 2250pt. Tier 2 army, and 1850pt. against a Tier 3 army (or set the break at 1999pt., wherever you like).  That way, top tier armies can bring Lords against other tier 1-2 armies.  You can use the build break at 1999pts. to account for major disparities. 

Something like:
Same Tier, both armies get 2250pt.
1 Tier difference, better army gets 2000pt, not better army gets 2250pt.
2 Tier difference, better 1999pt., worser 2250pt.
3 Tier difference, better get 1750pt., crap armies get 2250pt.

Surely a 2250pt. Ogre army can compete with a 1750pt. Daemon army.

[rudedog]

Now that, Mr. Gobbla, is something to think about...

[Qrab]

If I dropped my Daemon Prince and 10 Core Daemons from the army I fielded on Saturday, then I would have a 1745 point army. I'm not sure that a 2250 point Ogre army would be competitive. Would be something to test.

[captkurt]

Well that idea definitely has some merit.

[Matt]

If I dropped my Daemon Prince and 10 Core Daemons from the army I fielded on Saturday, then I would have a 1745 point army. I'm not sure that a 2250 point Ogre army would be competitive. Would be something to test.

Init 2, T4 and nearly no armor means that after the 1st round of combat, ogres typically lose.  Ld7 means they typically run.

Now if I could use Rhinox, You'd see a Bruiser, 2 butchers, 2x3 bulls, 2x20 gnoblars, 2 scrap launchers and TWO units of 3 Bull Rhinox.  Any leftover points could go into iron guts.

-Matt

[The Fist]

Why cant you use rhinox?