| Author |
Message |
dlb1969 |
|
Post subject: Galak...
 Posted: Aug 10, 2003 - 05:57 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 18, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 28
Location: Peotone
Status: Offline
|
|
I agree with you in that I didn't see the problem with secret weapons at the GenCon tournament. By the way, I was the one dwarf team with the deathroller. The only reason that I actually brought it was because I've never used it before. In our home league we don't allow star player, secret weapons, or wizards; but that is talking about an on going league where you can actually build your own star players. We are actually voting on secret weapons after this season is over.
Anyway, I too liked the way you went about making star players a risky choice and secret weapons not so risky. I'm just stating that I think it pretty much makes someone think twice about bringing any elf team other than darkies. I also don't see someone bringing amazons either since I don't think they can have secret weapons. I'm pretty sure that lizzies can't either. Anyway, I did like the way you set the tourney up. I guess I'm just against wizards, star players, and secret weaopns(though not as much as the previous two). I wouldn't mind secret weapons if they were balanced to every team or at least if every team had at least one secret weapon choice. I guess what I'm getting at is that I think tournaments should be balanced out so that all the official teams are viable possibilities. When you are playing with star players, secret weapons, and wizards that puts certain teams at a serious disadvantage. I'm not saying it's wrong either way. Playing those disadvantaged teams seems like a waste of time, other than having some fun. There is little chance that you have a chance to win, unless you are very, very lucky.
I don't mind star players or secret weapons if they are balanced, but I'll never like wizards. I don't think they belong in the game at all.
I do agree with you also, after rethinking, that sportsmanship should be included in the final tally. I think that maybe painting should be part of a tie breaker system though. I would still, of course, give out a best painted award.
Dave
GalakStarscraper wrote: dlb1969,
I'll be honest ... you are the first and only person who complained about secret weapons at GenCon. Only 7 teams had secret weapons out of the 60. In fact, most the folks I talked to really like the rules that allowed the weapons a little more front and center time compared to the stars.
The 7 teams:
2 Orcs with B&C Goblin
1 Dark Elf with Poisoned Dagger
1 Dwarf with Deathroller
1 Goblin with B&C
1 Goblin with B&C and Chainsaw
1 Goblin with B&C, Chainsaw, and Bombs
Now forgive me if I don't see this as a problem at all in regards to weapons.
Also, the Underworld Cup was in Michigan last year. Rookie teams, no stars at all, no wizards, no weapons. While I had a lot of fun, I REALLY missed the extras (for me the no stars/no wizards kills my ability to bring the team I wanted).
Bottom line for me ... I had a lot of really great feedback on the star players and that the GenCon rules worked. I've had great feedback that the weapon players rules were good, and when/if secret weapon rules get added back to the game for rookie players than more teams will have them (but Elves still won't (except Dark)). And I really don't have a problem at all with allowing wizards for 150k ... as you'll notice not a single team out of 60 brought one.
There are rookie only tournaments out there ... I just don't think they are as lively as mixing in some of the other rules. Also the Star Players allowed at GenCon made for some very interesting decisions on team building. 2 Orc teams brought Morg at 280k ... they didn't do nearly as well as the Orc teams that didn't because of the fact that he sucked up just waaaayyyy too many resources to have a decent rest of the team.
However, I appreciate your feedback and I'll keep in all in mind for next year. However, even if I take painting out of scoring ... I will never take out Sportsmanship. See I have ZERO problem with a guy who goes 3 wins - 1 tie beating a guy who went 4 win-0 losses for the 1st place trophy if its sportsmanship points that change this. Blood Bowl to me is NOT ABOUT WINNING. Its about a game of tactics to be ENJOYED to several friends from all over the globe. As long as I run GenCon ... sportsmanship will account for a minimum of 15% of the total tournament points. To me a cutthroat winner ... deserves the 2nd place prize if the sportsmanship makes him lose the cup.
Galak |
_________________
"I'll see you on the pitch little man!"
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Xtreme |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Aug 10, 2003 - 09:06 PM
|
|
Da Boss
Joined: Mar 12, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1096
Location: United States of America
Status: Offline
|
|
I agree 100% that sportsmanship belongs in the total points, but I really don't like painting being envolved in deciding a winner. there are a few reasons for this. I think it encourages people to have someone else paint their team. then that leads to how fair it is for the guys who paint their own team but aren't as good. I also do believe that modeling is a big part of the hobby but don't think it affects gameplay. I think the total tournament points should judge how you played the tournament. How well you played and how good of a sporstman you were.
I think that painting should be held seperate and definatly given it's own reward. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Tutenkharnage |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Aug 11, 2003 - 06:36 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 620
Status: Offline
|
|
Xtreme wrote: I agree 100% that sportsmanship belongs in the total points, but I really don't like painting being envolved in deciding a winner. there are a few reasons for this. I think it encourages people to have someone else paint their team. then that leads to how fair it is for the guys who paint their own team but aren't as good. I also do believe that modeling is a big part of the hobby but don't think it affects gameplay. I think the total tournament points should judge how you played the tournament. How well you played and how good of a sporstman you were.
I think that painting should be held seperate and definatly given it's own reward.
Remember that this is a hobby, and that painting is part of that hobby. If you judged everything solely on the on-pitch results, no one would care about Painting or Sportsmanship; if you judged everything solely on the field and Sportsmanship, no one would care about painting.
I don't want to line up against people who use unpainted or very poorly painted teams in my own league, much less a tournament I've paid money to attend. It looks sloppy because it is sloppy. If including these points encourages everybody to take that part of the hobby a bit more seriously, I'm all for it.
-Chet |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
GalakStarscraper |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Aug 11, 2003 - 06:45 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
Also I relaxed the painting standards for GenCon compared to normal GW events. GW asked me to required flocked or decorated bases ... I allowed painted bases instead. Normally GW requires 3 colors ... I went with 2.
However, my view point is that of Chet's that it all part of a great hobby. Also painting points made up very little of the total points at GenCon and next year it will be even less of the total.
Galak |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
AnthonyTBBF |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Aug 11, 2003 - 07:15 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Toronto, ON
Posts: 1313
Location: Toronto, ON
Status: Offline
|
|
Quote: I agree 100% that sportsmanship belongs in the total points, but I really don't like painting being envolved in deciding a winner. there are a few reasons for this. I think it encourages people to have someone else paint their team.
If you have the right system, painting scores can be fair. A system like they had at the BB is best IMO, since it rewards you for painting no matter what it looks like (3 colours, a bit of highlighting, bases flocked - easy stuff). When scores based on ability are added, that's a problem since not everyone can paint to a high standard. I do believe that everyone is capable enough to paint well enough to achieve a good score under the BB system. |
_________________
Anthony - Ex Presidente
www.xtbbf.org
Orion Cup - June 8, 2013
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Tim |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Aug 11, 2003 - 10:20 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Germany
Posts: 544
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
|
|
I agree with Anthony. The target of giving some painting points to be incorporated into the ranking in is to avoid people showing up with unpainted teams.
However, the maximum points should be reachable for even the worst painter, as it's basicly a count of techniques used on a mini than the judgement of the outcome.
If you do not do this, there's no incentive for a "bad" painter to come with a painted team and you'll see some people come up with pure metal.
I also liked the BB system and we are using it in Mannheim as well. Giving 3 points max. for painting compared to 5 points for a game win. |
_________________
NAF Regional Tournament Co-Ordinator - Germany
currently somewhere in NAF Ranking ... 
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Tim |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Aug 11, 2003 - 10:26 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Germany
Posts: 544
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
|
|
Xtreme wrote: #1 in the states WOW 
I never expected to have anything to brag about.
Hopefully I can get some more points at the Underworld.
Uff ... just kept my 18th place by 1.89 points ... must play tournaments ... must win games ...  |
_________________
NAF Regional Tournament Co-Ordinator - Germany
currently somewhere in NAF Ranking ...
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Deathwing |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Aug 11, 2003 - 10:40 AM
|
|
Former President
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
England
Posts: 1289
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
What I particularly liked about the BB was that the guys in the final and the other match-ups for the final game were all based on pure results, and then sportmanship and painting came into it to give everybody (outside the finalists) our final placing and seperate those on the same points through pure results.
Shame it wasn't in place for Res, eh Chet? I'd bet that the 'injustice' at Res had a lot of impact on the system at the BB though... |
_________________
 Ex-UK NTO,ex- Senior Tourney Co-Ordinator, ex-VP and ex-President....because Lycos says that new members don't know who I was..
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Tutenkharnage |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Aug 11, 2003 - 10:53 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 620
Status: Offline
|
|
Deathwing wrote: What I particularly liked about the BB was that the guys in the final and the other match-ups for the final game were all based on pure results, and then sportmanship and painting came into it to give everybody (outside the finalists) our final placing and seperate those on the same points through pure results.
Shame it wasn't in place for Res, eh Chet? I'd bet that the 'injustice' at Res had a lot of impact on the system at the BB though...
Something like this was already in place at Resurrection, assuming I'm reading your description correctly. The teams on Table One at Resurrection were the "right" teams. P and S were added after the fact to determine final seedings.
Resurrection had an impact, primarily in the S points and the points awarded for a win.
Sportsmanship
The Resurrection system, by averages, predicted the following for a field of 80 coaches:
* 0 coaches with 4 pts
* 4 coaches with 3 pts
* 17 coaches with 2 pts
* 34 coaches with 1 pt
* 25 coaches with 0 pts
That's almost exactly what it delivered. This was very poor, since we didn't have 25 coaches who were bad sports, but we had 25 scores that said otherwise. The new system (which awards points based on the number of first-place votes, but groups them) addresses this somewhat.
Wins
Resurrection awarded 4 pts for a win. The Blood Bowl awarded 5 if I'm not mistaken.
Resurrection was a test case. We all knew that going in. I had fun, and Simon Merton had a big smile on his face when he won, that's cool with me.
-Chet |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Deathwing |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Aug 11, 2003 - 12:17 PM
|
|
Former President
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
England
Posts: 1289
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
Tutenkharnage wrote:
Something like this was already in place at Resurrection, assuming I'm reading your description correctly. The teams on Table One at Resurrection were the "right" teams. P and S were added after the fact to determine final seedings.
Resurrection had an impact, primarily in the S points and the points awarded for a win.
Sportsmanship
The Resurrection system, by averages, predicted the following for a field of 80 coaches:
* 0 coaches with 4 pts
* 4 coaches with 3 pts
* 17 coaches with 2 pts
* 34 coaches with 1 pt
* 25 coaches with 0 pts
That's almost exactly what it delivered. This was very poor, since we didn't have 25 coaches who were bad sports, but we had 25 scores that said otherwise. The new system (which awards points based on the number of first-place votes, but groups them) addresses this somewhat.
Wins
Resurrection awarded 4 pts for a win. The Blood Bowl awarded 5 if I'm not mistaken.
Resurrection was a test case. We all knew that going in. I had fun, and Simon Merton had a big smile on his face when he won, that's cool with me.
-Chet
Indeed, but what I was getting at was that the result on Table 1 for the final game at Res. didn't determine the winner. Had the BB system (for sportsmanship and painting, pts per win etc notwithstanding) been in place at Res. then the 'final' would have been between yourself and GeoffP. i.e. we would have had a definate winner and runner up irregardless of painting and sportmanship, then painting and sportmanship seperate the field (and in the case of the BB provided the 'Warhammer Cup Winner', i.e. the coach with the most points with results, sportmanship and painting combined). What I'm trying to get at here is the whole 'sportsmanship/painting' issue. At the BB they were used as a seperator, they didn't determine the overall winner, but at the same time they provided us with a 'People's Champion' as well.
Should sptship/painting factor in results? Yes...
Should they determine the overall winner? No...
The BB had it right in that regard IMO..indeed benefiting from Res being a test case..
(Footnote: Simon Merton's always got a big smile on his face, he was grinning just as much over in France when he finished in the lower half tied with myself and CC winner Xavi..) |
_________________
Ex-UK NTO,ex- Senior Tourney Co-Ordinator, ex-VP and ex-President....because Lycos says that new members don't know who I was..
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Tutenkharnage |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Aug 11, 2003 - 02:02 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 620
Status: Offline
|
|
Ah, I see. Sorry, I missed the inference.
-Chet |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
jmccubbin |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Aug 11, 2003 - 04:35 PM
|
|
Joined: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 152
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GalakStarscraper |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Aug 11, 2003 - 09:27 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
jmccubbin wrote:
You forgot Thrud. 
Galak |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Old_Man_Monkey |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Aug 12, 2003 - 06:07 AM
|
|
Joined: Apr 16, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 1252
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
|
|
| Er, Thrud did in fact play for James' mighty Skaven side but he was in fact indentured to me for the next several years . . . |
_________________
Tournament Organizer - The Three Kingdoms Challenge
Semi-retired NAF staff
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
jmccubbin |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Aug 12, 2003 - 08:00 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 152
Status: Offline
|
|
No he is indentured to you until the end this drive. After that he switches owners.  |
_________________
Officially 0-1-1 in NAF.
At least my team looked good.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
