|
Post by El Capitan on Feb 4, 2007 17:37:14 GMT 1
Preliminary board for discussing this years 40k Tournament
|
|
|
Post by James 40K Champ *** on Feb 4, 2007 17:43:36 GMT 1
i propose T shirts with my face and T2K7 Champion on them XD
|
|
Simon
Unydun
Fantasy & Magic Champion 2005. Leeds co-ordinator
Spongeman
Posts: 693
|
Post by Simon on Feb 4, 2007 20:41:08 GMT 1
I propose actually running the three tournaments separately this year (or maybe four tournaments if people fancy a Lord of the Rings one).
Puts an awful lot of pressure on Tim and I having them all together. Plus there can be a whole lot of focus on one game style at a time (warhammer would not seem as bad because you wouldn't be playing a better game just afterwards).
|
|
|
Post by James 40K Champ *** on Feb 4, 2007 21:30:51 GMT 1
Maybe a good idea.. the 40k could be spread out a bit and the other smaller ones could be compacted into a few days.
For 40k I think we discussed trying to do all the group stages together, i.e. get group A all together for a weekend and do all their games, then group B seperatly, and the finals could just follow however best fits
|
|
|
Post by El Capitan on Feb 5, 2007 0:48:47 GMT 1
I propose that we scrap the tournament and murder brown for that t-shirt remark As for some working guidelines for the Tournament All those wishing to be entered must confirm by the 31st March There will be 8 places in the Tournament, last years podium winners will be automatically entered. The top 5 players in the club thereafter will play a qualifying group, with the top 3 also gaining entry. All remaining entrants will play each other in a group with the top 2 earning play-off matches against the 2 that did not qualify in the previous qualifying round. confused? The Tournament will use the OGC 2nd edition modified rules, and players will choose armies to the value of 2007 points. The Tournament will be split into two groups of four, with last years 1st and 2nd podium winners being seeded ins eperate groups. This will then go onto the knock-out stages
|
|
|
Post by LukeG on Feb 15, 2007 15:49:32 GMT 1
Any idea how we're going to run these qualifiers yet? Beyond the fact that it'll be a pain in the arse.
|
|
Simon
Unydun
Fantasy & Magic Champion 2005. Leeds co-ordinator
Spongeman
Posts: 693
|
Post by Simon on Feb 15, 2007 19:23:18 GMT 1
Can we come up with dates for the tourny as well ASAP as I need to book it off work soon to make sure I get it.
|
|
|
Post by El Capitan on Feb 16, 2007 14:42:26 GMT 1
Ill need a consensus from participants about the date. Do we want to run it across a week or across weekends???
|
|
|
Post by James 40K Champ *** on Feb 16, 2007 18:53:16 GMT 1
Id say a combination of both???
Do one heavy week, everyone who is working can just get whole week off, and then for ease can always slot the odd game in just before or after the main week?
|
|
Simon
Unydun
Fantasy & Magic Champion 2005. Leeds co-ordinator
Spongeman
Posts: 693
|
Post by Simon on Mar 8, 2007 22:51:29 GMT 1
Just confirming my entry into the tourny
|
|
Simon
Unydun
Fantasy & Magic Champion 2005. Leeds co-ordinator
Spongeman
Posts: 693
|
Post by Simon on Mar 21, 2007 0:10:29 GMT 1
Ok, I've booked a stint in July for two weeks from the 2nd onwards, I cannot do the 17th nor can Tim as it is graduation ceremony for him and Abby which I want to go to. Are we still planning on splitting up the 40K and warhammer tournaments into separate weeks? That way we could squeeze 40K into one week and then run warhammer in the 2nd one, keeps tactics focussed for one game.
|
|
|
Post by El Capitan on Mar 21, 2007 9:44:17 GMT 1
That'll be decided at AGM in late May / early June but keep ideas coming.
Tournament will run in Southport during the first 2 weeks of July
|
|
Simon
Unydun
Fantasy & Magic Champion 2005. Leeds co-ordinator
Spongeman
Posts: 693
|
Post by Simon on Mar 25, 2007 15:50:44 GMT 1
Tim has confirmed that he will be entering the tourny
|
|
|
Post by James 40K Champ *** on Apr 12, 2007 9:08:58 GMT 1
On the issue of missions. Now we have always used a policy of no missions during a tournament. This is to try keep each game as equal as possible as occasionally missions can grant one side a large advantage. But Ive been thinking about it and taking them away also poses some imbalances. A lot of missions, in fact the majority, involve the centre of the table, or advancing towards the enemy. Missions favour more balanced armys, with the tactical capability to deal with many different thing. A lack of missions may allow for an all out shooty army to be more powerful than it should be, as if they sat back and picked targets before, the advancing enemy would capture objectives. With no missions, a shooty army has no disadvantage to sit back blasting, and a combat army has to work much harder to bring its troops to bear.
Now Im not saying we should nescecerrily reintroduce missions. Just pointing out that its not all as black and white as that.
|
|
|
Post by El Capitan on Apr 12, 2007 12:51:58 GMT 1
Your right. The simple presence of a mission typically deny's some of the appeal of an all shooting army. I think the most fair mission would be take and hold or Drop Zone VS Drop Zone. I don't think we could stomach it for the Tournament though, although it should certainly be up for debate at AGM, I wouldn't we totally 'miffed' if everyone voted to have missions in the tournament again. We just have to keep out Luke's desire to have custom grenade launchers that fire vortex grenades at rapid fire from inside a power field
|
|
|
Post by James 40K Champ *** on Apr 16, 2007 12:19:45 GMT 1
Lol true that.
I would personally quite like to see missions reintroduced. And anyway, missions is just another point on which a good commander can work with.
The only downside is if you get a really crappy mission vs a really good one in an important game. I think I would personally like to see missions return. And maybe we could look at which ones to use like you say, take and hold. I do like the idea of Drop zone, more than likely no one would score points, but it would discourage a shooty army hiding at the back.
|
|
|
Post by El Capitan on Apr 16, 2007 14:32:57 GMT 1
The actual reason we took missions out is actually based on Tyranids. In game terms, when you fight Tyranids you have one of the three tyranid missions which apply to both players and change the game length to six turns etc, however these are so thematic that they do not fit with the rest of the game. Otherwise it would be Tyranids with no missions at all.
|
|
Havok
Cbayghan
Internets?
Posts: 167
|
Post by Havok on Apr 16, 2007 17:35:45 GMT 1
Recently every game I had with missions I lost. Which is 2 of the 4 games since I started playing the Legion lol, so naturally I frown upon them, however like Brown says a skilled general can utalise them well, I however cannot claim to be such due to lack of experience (I've forgotten everything I had learned years ago about 40k tactics) 6 turn battles... I almost killed myself after a normal game
|
|
Adoni-Zedek
Unydun
From the Crossroads of the West...
Posts: 551
|
Post by Adoni-Zedek on Apr 16, 2007 19:56:44 GMT 1
In one tournement I participated in, missions were used, but they were set before hand. And each side had the same mission. (Both sides had Assassins, or Take and Hold. That was it for me, I lost my first two games and was out. But it was 3rd Ed, so I wasn't super familiar with the rules). The missions were only revealed to the players at the start of each game.
You'd need an impartial referee to set the missions up (but I'm sure you have one anyway), and really, both players don't need to have the same missions, as long as the missions are carefully selected to be balanced. Of course, this means no race-specific missions, like Trap, Terrorize, or Anihillate, and special terrain would be needed for things like Bunker Assault.
An interesting idea for dual Take and Hold would be to have two objectives, each a third of the way in from the edge. And then you have each side's objective be the one on their right (or left). Just an idea.
|
|
|
Post by James 40K Champ *** on Apr 17, 2007 11:39:21 GMT 1
True, having sombody impartially set the missions before hand could be quite good. But everyone we would trust to be wise enough to set fair missions, is envolved in the tournament themselfs, so not so much of an option for us. Missions arnt so bad for us because we have capped VPs available from missions to 5, but that still is a game winning amount in many cases.
I see how Nids complicate matters, that is a bit annoying. It would be biased to use the same mission for every battle, ie always take and hold, because some armys would be better suited and prob end up winning on that basis. Perhaps it is just a bit too complicated to try and keep fair when its a knockout tournament and in the latter games every victory point counts.
|
|