D.net tournament - gathering ideas

[Marchosias]

Rowena had an insteresting idea I think might be worth exploring :

A tournament where the members of this site would battle against each other! There are many good generals here but only one can be the D.net Champion, after all. So how do I imagine this?

1. technical

As we are from various places all over the world, the battles would have to be held on Universal Battles (well, if some generals manage a live game, why not but it seems improbable).
Because planning such a game would take some time we would need a long enough time limit in which the battle would have to happen. For example, one month for each round of the tourney.
I think five rounds could be nice, using the Swiss system as in normal events.

2. the armies

One question is if we should restrict the participants to some races.

The first possibility is that only Dark Elf armies will be played. Most members of this site play them (surprise! ) so they know the army and would be able to field something they like; on the other hand, the armies might look quite different from the usual tournament builds because what is strong against elves is not neccessarily strong in an all-comers list and reversely. This might and might not be a good thing. In addition, so many mirror matches might be somewhat boring to some.

Another way would be to say that everyone can play any army except Dark Elves. This would probably bring more interesting battles but on the other hand it would limit the poor players that only play DE and have no experience with anything else. Another effect would be that we would see normal tournament builds (if such thing exists at all) that have to be prepared for every threat (except DE but this should hopefully not play an extremely important role). This would teach us the most about other armies but the least about DE in particular.

Or we could just combine the approaches and allow everything. I would then expect a large number of DE armies but a significant portion of other races as well. There would be many battles featuring DE, teaching us a lot about our army; still, the number of mirror matches might be quite high. It is probable that the lists would be tweaked somewhat to reflect the meta of many elves but not as strongly as with the first option. Middle ground in all aspects it seems.

3. points limit, comp, scenarios and such things

This is of course dependant on the answers in the previous section.

There will probably be a heated debate about this. One reasonable option is to simply play uncomped Warhammer. I do not think using any army restrictions would work as the systems evolve to reflect their meta which would probably be different from ours; besides, the comp in February would probably different from the comp in June, whatever system would be used.

On the other hand, should we allow all armies our meta would probably be "normal" enough so that the restrictions would make sense (more precisely, almost as much sense as they normally do, even if that might mean very little for some generals).

Another sensible option would be to go for the middle ground and use no army restrictions but ETC rules changes and FAQ, for example. Or something like: "ETC FAQ, but only where it does not contradict the basic rules".

I do not think we are willing to do our own comp pack. If someone volunteers to propose it, though, it might be an option as well.

There might be a possibility I am overlooking of course.

4. End times?

We can allow everything from it, parts of it (for example new units but not new characters, all new models but not new magic or any combination actually). Or we can restrict it all.

---------------

So, ideas? Opinions? Is there interest in such a thing actually?

[Rowena]

I just have to correct one point: this was not my idea. Some kind of tourney was suggested my more people around the druchii.net invasion event (as its grand finale?), I just mentioned that using Universal Battles would make it much easier, as no plane tickets woud be involved. And not that I would be against meeting some of you in person, if it happened.

[Amboadine]

Or we could use the painstakingly put together Druchii.net FAQ
In theory I am up for this but would first have to learn how to use UB system.

Would also need to understand the logistics in timezone differences and sheer time requirement needed to complete each game.

Will have a think about this.

[direweasel]

I'd be interested in theory, but the devil is in the details, as they say. Additionally, I'd need a lot of help with this whole "Universal Battles" thing, since I've never used it.

I'll leave others to argue the details, I was merely expressing interest in the concept.

What I really REALLY wish is that we could work out some sort of ongoing campaign kind of thing, like we had in our local game store once, but that's a much bigger undertaking. Let's just start with this and see how it goes.

[Daeron]

Hmmm... Interesting idea I wouldn't mind trying to join, or move a bit for a few RL matchups for this.

[Thraundil]

I would definitely be game! Especially if someone would post a guide to universal battles such as - must you pay in order to play properly, how do you set up armies, how do you move, is there a chat so one can talk to ones opponent during the match, can you "save" the game and pick it up another day if it takes too long, so on so forth.


With regards to "the system": We here on druchii.net play a vast amount of different local tournaments, each using different composition systems, and some not using any at all, or very light ones. It therefore seems prudent to simply play uncomped warhammer, to truly test the skill of the generals. Bring your most dirty! Point ranges around the 24-2500 area seems like 'normal' tournament size. For simplicity, however, I might suggest that simple line of sight is used? Measuring the height of things in a universal battle approach seems painstaking and impossible whether to suggest the ETC F.A.Q. or not is another question. It answers many things that is not clear in the BRB, but it also changes certain things, and several players may be unfamiliar with it (american guys and gals, for example ).

With regards to End Times... Since the 50% lords and 50% heroes is official rulebook now, I'd say we should use that. But in order to keep things 'simple' and to keep it about generalship and not random dice (which i honestly think the end times magic rules are!!) I suggest no end times magic rules, that is, we use whats in the BRB. Also, no end times special characters are allowed, or everybody would field Malekith, 600 pts worth of witch elves in one big unit, and the rest would be full of masters on pegasus. Or at least I know I would. And that would probably be a little boring and a little trivial, and certainly not show my prowess of command, but just how dirty you can make something

Final thought is to allow special characters from the core books or not. Certain races have grossly powerful special characters whilst others have lackluster choices. Some races are hardly competitive without SC's (example Lizards) while others can still be super brutal even without (example warriors and daemons). I'd say no special chars, again if we want every race to be played theres no reason to add another layer of complexity.

Finally, my vote is: all races open. Only dark elves will quickly be boring. Anything but dark elves might be interesting. But all races open would be, I think, the best option and the most natural
I would in this case probably command a northern incursion in the form of Warriors of Chaos

[Marchosias]

Glad to hear that my vision is very similar to yours, Thraundil. It might be that we are both playing near the ETC community, of course.

Universal Battles has a guide that should be sufficient I think. It takes some practice, moving the soldiers for the first time can be painstaking but one gets accustomed to it pretty fast.

It is entirely possible to play without paying anything or even without registering. Paying for PRO account brings several perks: you can save your army and load it instantly before each game instead of assembling it again and again, you can create your own units or load maps. Even without the pro account, though, you can rename your units as you wish and add descriptions to them so confusion can easily be avoided.

You can save your match for later but only if you have the PRO account.

(it is actually quite cheap, too - 8 dollars for 6 months, 29 dollars for a membership that will never expire)

The game on UB takes longer than a real life one as it is somewhat more difficult to measure everything and shuffle the models. On the other hand, if you account for travelling as well it is quite comparable, at least in my case.

And yes, there is a chat; there is an option to lock the room so that voyeurs cannot enter and disturb; and there is a generator that rolls all kinds of dice, including artillery dice.

I am kind of a fan of the version "all races except DE". It is the most wacky one. Such a restriction would make no sense with a low enough number of participants, though, so maybe we should first gather applications. Though it is kind of weird to demand applications without stating what for exactly.

[Amboadine]

Well February was due to be the month of a new tactical challenge for Druchii.net

As was the case with the latest painting competition. Active members are coming up with ideas quicker than the mod team

What this goes to show is that we have an active (although maybe small) community with many a vibrant idea to revitalise the forum and encourage participation. For that I think we should all be grateful.

If other members have ideas on competitions etc, perhaps you would consider posting them in this sub forum Druchii.net suggestions

Now we could look to take this idea and run as the tactical challenge. But I think this is a project with a scope that would actually need a small team to put together the 'entry pack' and manage the logistics, as to not overload one individual with the need take the entire responsibility. I am happy to take this from a mod point of view on the forum, but would be looking for volunteers to help realise this project; Marchosias I am obviously looking at you here as a minimum as it is your brainchild this time around.

Of course I am equally happy to leave this as an independent idea for others to drive and sit back and just enjoy participating myself

First steps to kick this off would I believe the following;

- Discover the extent of interest.
- Project team and scope
- Assess CPS and time investment required
- Develop rule pack and entry requirements

There are plenty of other steps to consider but without knowing the amount of interest this will generate, it is hard to assess the amount of work required.

Then there is a further question; if there is limited interest here, do we then perhaps contact other fora to assess if we look at this in a different way. Team tournament versus asrai.org or ulthuan.net for example.

@Marchosias - please let us know if you would like mod support here, or you are happy to continue developing this yourself. No offence will be taken regardless of the answer, although I reserve the right to place an assassin on stand by

[Marchosias]

Team tournament versus asrai.org or ulthuan.net for example.

This is an insanely cool idea. We should choose our champions first, though, so I would prefer to do our own tournament first.

I have nothing against other people helping me or outright doing it themselves. The more they do, the less remains for me.

On the other hand, I think this tournament would not require that much time from the organizer. Some advertising, updating some page with results, determine pairings for the next round - this cannot last that long. In live tourneys, organizers can do all this in a half hour break. Which does not mean I won't be glad if someone else does it. The problem is the initial advertising and devising the player pack. With this I would definitely need help.

For starters: let us say we go for 2500 points, all races, 50% lords and heroes, end times units allowed, no special characters, vanilla 8ed otherwise, no comp. This seems reasonable but we would need some scenarios to discourage folding fortresses and similar boring lists. Does any of you have an experience with tournament scenarios? What were the objectives, how important they were compared to victory points, what was the result of each battle (20:0 system opposed to just win/draw/loss or something in between). The objective should be something you can accomplish even if you are losing by 500 points, otherwise it just amplifies the margin of your loss.

By the way, Amboadine, what should the tactical challenge have been about (or will be about)?

[Amboadine]

By the way, Amboadine, what should the tactical challenge have been about (or will be about)?

To be honest this is still work in progress, but ETs inspired is my plan.
Trying to come up with a something not yet done on the forum.

[flatworldsedge]

Quick note as I charge around the house getting ready for work! Love this idea - I'd love to take part. Definitely like the "all races", 50% characters, generally 8th ed version. Personally I'd leave restrictions to a minimum, but I'm not so experienced as a general outside of DE, Beastmen and WoC... So have not seen all the vicious lists other races are capable of creating.

[Thraundil]

Well being the best general is also about finding the best "holes" in your army list xD

I'd say two more restriction suggestions.

1) max 12 PD to be used in each magic phase, to set a stopper for the retard prospective in the big purple sun generating 50 power dice

2) Folding fortress cannot be taken. Just because.

Other than that, I'd say we should be good to go! 20-0 scoring system seems the most balanced.


With respect to tournament scenarios, it has to be done delicately. Including a blood and glory where the first person to break the opponent is awarded say 900 or 1200 VP, whilst the second person to break the opponent is given 600 VP (so that its not instant 20-0 upon breaking) can work. Kind of like what ETC is doing. It encourages list building to include banners - or races such as vampire counts, daemons and so on can just well, not waste points on banners at all.

The point one must stress is: if you make the scenarios too game deciding, lists will only be built to tackle scenarios which is one kind of boring. If you make the scenarios unimportant, they will be ignored. Something along the lines of ETCs idea that 17 BP can be earned via VP diffferences, the final 3 BP is earned through the scenario. This means the scenario is still important even if you seem to be crushing your opponent - and, equally, if you are losing, the scenario can limit the defeat by a staggering 3 BP!

I think you should go ahead and advertise this, so I can win the glory that I know belongs to me

[Wrathbaby]

This is a brilliant idea, I'd like to participate although like others, I'll need to get some practice on UB first. Would eternity king lists be allowed?

[Marchosias]

Would eternity king lists be allowed?

Only if someone really demands it. There are too many new combos that might be potentially gamebreaking and too many new lists that could be very hard to cope with if they should catch someone offguard. It would create too much uncertainity for my taste. On the other hand, we have some clue what normal lists are capable of and can devise our armies with them in mind which should then (in theory at least) lead to interesting battles.

[DA SAVAGE]

What about the players who aren't me most experienced and still want in(me). could we do different divisions of some sort? also i would need to learn how to do the site which would possibly take me a while. For less experienced it should be all armies no comp 2400 if we do that or for the people with less stuff would there be a 100point or 1500 point group? And just normal plain old kill the other army scenario it would be the easiest. Sorry for being all over the place with this just love the idea!

[Marchosias]

What about the players who aren't me most experienced and still want in(me). could we do different divisions of some sort? also i would need to learn how to do the site which would possibly take me a while. For less experienced it should be all armies no comp 2400 if we do that or for the people with less stuff would there be a 100point or 1500 point group? And just normal plain old kill the other army scenario it would be the easiest. Sorry for being all over the place with this just love the idea!

I do not think dividing people in divisions is a good idea. We will probably not have that many participants. You need to get the experience somewhere, after all. Besides, the pairing system works in the way that in each round after the first, top players meet each other and bottom players likewise. So after some expert smashes you you should meet an easier match.

The beauty of UB is that it totally does not matter how many models do you own as you can copy the pixel soldiers as many times as you like. And while smaller games are perfect for learning they tend to be quite rock-paper-scissors and therefore not suitable for tournament play.

Scenarios

We can't just play battleline when no other comp is in effect. The armies then tend to look quite funny. Warriors of Chaos with 15 chariots and a demon prince and such (not saying this is the strongest uncomped build but it surely is painstaking to play against). Similarly, a DE army with 10 heroes on steeds, some core and some wizard and tooled up dreadlord or two is bent as well.

Since uncomped play seems better as this is something most players are at least somewhat familiar with (everyone has the rules if nothing else), we need the scenarios to fight those extreme armies. If we can find some good ones of course.

For example, I am not really convinced about blood and glory. Yes, players will want to avoid breaking before the game even starts but they can do so by taking two units of cheap fast cavalry with banners that can be hidden behind some hill the whole game. And breaking the opponent does not seem as something the losing player can concievably accomplish in a normal case. Therefore, it only amplifies the margin of victory.

On the other hand, consider this:

Code: Select all

Capture the quarters
The table is split in four quarters. You can claim the quarter for yourself by putting more units with fortitude there than your opponent, general and BSB excluded. Each quarter you claim in this way gets you one additional point.

Here I am willing to believe that even the losing player can score some points - you can claim quarters even with your army scattered and hiding behind hills. However, in this particular case I fear fast armies are at an inherent advantage. How is a VC player supposed to claim many quarters if facing DE for example? Vampire Counts armies usually need to stay compact.

This is why I asked if anyone knows a tournament that uses scenarios to a good effect.

[Marky]

I would love to participate.
1 battle a month should be okay. I prefer only DE becaus I'm not used to play most other armies, except the occasional try out;
Normal magic rules and no End Times stuff (except 50% cap and lore of undead). I'd prefer it to be uncomped. I'd like to play with some scenarios (don't have to be the BRB ones).
I alsoo like it to be closed list (where you don't know which magic items and/or assasins they got.

But I definitly want to participate .

greets,
Marky

[Marchosias]

OK, let us discuss the draft of the first few scenarios.

First, general terms:
- 2500 points
- no special characters
- new units introduced in End Times books allowed, lore of undeath allowed without restrictions
- no End Times magic, no End Times factions
- current rulebook + GW FAQ and errata used, no additional sources
- simple line of sight under ETC explanation (note that other parts of this document are not used)
- units that are fleeing or reduced below 25% of their starting size on the end of the battle yield 50% of their points

Scenarios
In each battle, exactly 20 points are divided between the two players. 16 points are divided based on victory points where 1 battle point = 250 victory points difference. The remaining four are rewarded for scenario objectives.
The scenarios are not listed in any meaningful order.

1. Blood and glory
Deployment and fortitude as in rulebook. You gain two battle points for breaking your opponent first, one for killing his general, one for preserving your own.
Rationale: it forces to bring some flags because otherwise you lose 2 battle points very easily. If you are losing on victory points you are likely to try to preserve your points, you might get one additional battle point this way for keeping your general alive. Similarly, even the losing army can hopefully kill the opposing general with some effort.

2. Dawn attack
Deployment as per rulebook with the following exception: you are allowed not to roll for any of your units and deploy it wherever you like. However, this unit is then worth 100 points more. Characters may join such a unit for no additional penalty. 2 scenario points for killing more fast units than your opponent, 2 more points for preserving more than your opponent. A fast unit is defined as a flyer, a unit with movement 7 or more or a unit that can scout. (Question: what about random movement?)
Rationale: compact armies are handicapped but not that much. Gunlines are either risking bad deployment (if they do not pay to deploy as they like) or a big defeat (if they do that). Fast units have an advantage in this scenario so I linked the scenario points with them. For the first two bonus points, it is advantageous to have few such units, for the other two, you should bring as much as possible. Not sure if this works.

3. Table quarters
Deployment as in battleline. The table gets divided in four quarters of the same size. At the end of the game you count units with fortitude (excluding BSB and general) in each of the quarters. The players who has more such units in a quarter gets one point. A unit cannot occupy two quarters at the same time - the players have to decide simultaneously in which quarter their units actually are before counting begins.
Rationale: just another scenario that makes banners significant. I fear, however, that it puts fast armies at a big advantage. How are dwarfs or VC supposed to deal with this?

More later, hopefully. Comments welcome.

[Marchosias]

A little improvement to the table quarters scenario: All non-hero units can contest the quarters. Units with a banner count for two points, all other units (including monsters) for one. This way, you can claim the board with gyrocopters and dire wolves which should hopefully mean that any army can have a shot at this.

[Searinox Nagharha]

as for the Fast Units in Dawn Attack, most units that fall under this (like Fast Cav and Scouts) generally dont run in big numbers so is quite easy to wipe them out. especially if you dont have much of them yourself.

[Marchosias]

Perfect. Fast units give you a big advantage in the table quarters scenario so it is only fair if they make your life hard in another battle.

I would love to se the rulepack down in the following few days and start the registration so that on the 1st of February we can draw the first pairs. However, we would need two more scenarios, ideally infantry-oriented (meaning that you can only score the additional points if you have some infantry in your list). Ideas?

[Marchosias]

I changed my mind, there is no point in forcing Bretonnia to play infantry. Some all-cav builds are stupid but it is better to allow everything than to ban them together with some fine armies.

Anyway, more proposals:

4. Sacking the camp
Deployment as in battleline. At the end of the sixth turn, you count how many ranks each player has in the opponent's deployment zone. Characters are ignored (they can beef up the number of ranks of a unit though), incomplete ranks are ignored, if there is a unit with less than one rank remaining (or a lone monster for example) it counts as 0,5 ranks. The scoring is then as follows:
If both players have the same number of ranks in the enemy deployment zone: each gets 2 scenario points
If a player has at least one rank more: 3 points for him, 1 for the opponent
If a player has at least three ranks and at the same time he has more than twice as many ranks as his opponent: 4 points for him, nothing for the opponent

Rationale: I wanted to promote infantry in some way and infantry units have many ranks. At the same time, the scenario is not as restricting as the watchtower for example where you *must* have an infantry unit in order to win. A scattered army can still race to the deployment zones and hope to grab a few points there. This scenario probably favours wood elves with their high mobility and long ranges somewhat but again, their cavalry mostly has not many ranks.

5. Arch enemy
Deployment as in blood and glory. Each player nominates two units or characters of his opponent. Those units will then be worth one scenario point each for the player who kills or preserves them.
Rationale: Well, I am really not sure about this. I wanted a nice bloodbath for the end but this is not as apocalyptic as I would like. If someone only has a few redirectors it can screw him badly; on the other hand, avoidance armies hardly give a damn, especially if they have six units of fast cav. And if their mage bunker gets labelled, well, losing this unit is a disaster anyway. This will only be used if no better idea sparks.

In conclusion I just want to remind you that you can propose scenarios, too.

[Searinox Nagharha]

as for the last one. the Tourny Im going to in April might have a scenario you'd like.

Deployment is as in Dawn Attack and all your champions are basicly desperate to show of there skills and must always Challenge! if possible. Yet unlike normal they are able to choose which target accepts the challenge instead of the enemy.
the Underdog bonus is increased from 50 to 100 VP and as Secondary Objective you can earn extra Battle Points for winning challenges that you declared, winning ones that you accepted, having killed more Champions/Characters then your opponent and having a Core unit with a Champion alive within the enemies Deployment zone.

[Marchosias]

Thanks for the suggestion! I am trying to come up with scenarios that do not alter the rules of the game. In this scenario: poor sorceresses! Even a unit of five dark riders with champ can be dangerous for them in this scenario. Congaline them, charge their mage bunker, challenge the mage: you will lose by ranks but you should stick for a while, hopefully killing a mage or two. In addition, WoC are in a big advantage over Woodies or Tomb Kings here.

I think I would just use something boring:

King of the hill
Deployment as in battleline. The player who has a unit (not a lone character) in the centre of the board when the game ends earns four scenario points if the unit has a banner and at least a rank and three points otherwise.

The bad thing is that this scenario is harsh to the losing player. The good thing is that it punishes somewhat avoidance or cavalry/monster heavy armies that do not have many ranks but not by a large margin. I hope at least.

[Searinox Nagharha]

It will play right into a VC players hands tho ;P just drop a huge unit of skeletons with a banner there and a Necro behind it