View Full Version : Would you attend a tournement with no best general award?

20-10-2008, 20:10
Hello, I am currently throwing around the idea of hosting a large format tourney in Minnesota for Warhammer.

One thing we have discussed is making it a Minnesota Nice tourney and eliminating the current best general award.

There would be an Overall Award (no painting scores included), Best Sport, Painting Award, Best Tactician, and the Wood Spoon, possibly a few others.

Someone in our club brought up that he thought people would not show up if we did not have a Best General award. I simply do not want to award some one a prize for bringing the toughest list.

Would you show up knowing that there was no award solely based on battle points?

20-10-2008, 20:55
I think it's a great idea and brings alot more aspects of the hobby to the tournament scene. I'm not sure about your area but a lot of people around here have not great attitudes towards tournaments for encouraging overly powerful list building and not awarding what truly makes a great tournament: Great battles, nicely painted armies, a good time, maybe a few beers at the same time also.

I'd go for it

20-10-2008, 21:45
I'd probably attend...but I have a question - how is "Best Tactician" different from "Best General"? Unless you're having "tactics" down as a "Rate your opponent" question as well. Never seen a Tactician award before, so just wondering.

20-10-2008, 22:00
Alot of tourneys up here have been using objective points in the games. For instance you award tactician points for getting messengers across the board, or killing your opponent's general. Typically objective points are focused on getting people to battle in different ways, for instance giving someone a point for taking and holding a hill, there are lot's of ways to do it.

Some tourney's give awards based on it because it shows that you are a good player that can focus on more than getting your Star Dragon into combat. Obviously there is almost no way to get objective points without first doing well in the games, so yes it could be considered a best general award but it awards you for more than killing every man on the table.

I actually never had thought of having it as a player rated system, it would work if people were honest about that kind of thing up here. but I find player rating systems hard to use. Often times you will see everyone give the top marks, and one person will get one below top and be bitter. Or you get a club that will intentionally score low. Anyway you look at it those systems can be abused.

20-10-2008, 22:02
I think silly awards like "Best Miscast" and "Best Wipeout" would be good.

20-10-2008, 22:06
I think silly awards like "Best Miscast" and "Best Wipeout" would be good.

I think a Hero Of The Day award would be great too, an award for the most spectacuarly performing model

20-10-2008, 22:13
True - I've seen firsthand the abuse of player-rated systems.

And the Tactician Award makes sense now - thanks!

20-10-2008, 22:16
That's like asking me if I'd like some cake when you're out of forks... Hell yes! ;)

20-10-2008, 22:19
We are thinking about some of the funnier ones out there, one thrown around is the fluffy bunny award, the person with the best composition score and the worst battle points. Make it like rabbit ears they have to wear. Lots of ideas, I am simply afraid that some of the players would be turned off by not having the award.

I know of no better way to handle sportsmanship still, but that is really the only player based system I will use, the rest are subjective, and too easy to manipulate and the reason i say that is because I have seen it too.

Hero of the day would be great too, we have talked a little bit about it, but it could be rather hard to implement, how do you determine which hero is the best? Or do you simply go with the one that got voted for the most times?


20-10-2008, 22:24
You could always have players record the number of kills each character makes, as well as the number of times the character dies. Then just deduct the number of deaths from the number of kills and bam - best performing hero of the day.

Although, that favors Wizards quite a bit, so you may want to separate Casters and Combat Characters.

20-10-2008, 22:29
When is the tournament and where in Minnesota is it? I'm new to WH and have been but if things work out I might be able to bring a TK army. And if anyone needs a Minnesota Nice tournament it is a new player with a TK army.

21-10-2008, 08:51
Well I would attend (if I lived over there and didnīt had alot of other important things to do) but it would feel a little dull not getting anything for winning the most battles, I wouldnīt mind not getting something valuable but giving the winner a diploma at least would be fine. What if you are lucky and this keeps out the powergamers and keeps the fluffy and fun gamers in, then wouldnīt the fluffy fun gamer who won the most battles by a fair game be alittle dissapointed not being mentioned in the award cermony.

21-10-2008, 08:54
I dont attend tourneys but I'd actually be interested in that one!

21-10-2008, 10:35
1) Don't allow players to judge other players for any category.

2) Best Tactician - Hmm. Tha's very difficult to judge accurately. Simply fulfilling a scenario's objectives would not be sufficient as some armies will be better at achieving certain objectives e.g. Armies that can hold - VC and Daemons will find Capture the flag to be easy. Armies that move fast can traverse the board easily etc.
I can't suggest a better alternative unfortunately.

21-10-2008, 23:16
Whats wrong with Best General?

22-10-2008, 00:19
It gives people a reason to bring nasty lists.

Typically you will see, here any ways, in the tourney scene. Some lists will be fair and balanced, hoping to score an overall award, by being good sports, having a nicely painted army, so on.

Then you have the types that bring a list that will crush every opponent they can. By crush I mean like 3rd turn crush, making the game a very one sided battle and no fun for their opponent.

The Best General award helps further the second line of thinking, knowing that someone will probably have a better painted army, have better sports scores, and so on they result in just making broken lists.

I guess by eliminating it your goal is to get more of the first type and have a more even playing field.

22-10-2008, 00:23
The tactic points vary and some will favor one type of army vs. another. The take and hold is still doable to every army, it is just how you get here. You're right for VC and deamons it's easy, but it also keeps them in one spot, making them an easier target.

There are lots of different ones, I have not worked on them, but some could favor the magic side of things, and some could be combat oriented.

One of the best last year at a tourney in WI, to use a good example. Every player at the begining of the round was given 5 tokens that they could use to re-roll a single d6. For everyone that you did not use you got a tactical point. That might not be exactly right, it seems a little too good, but it was something like that.

22-10-2008, 00:34
If it was reasonably close I'd come with enough notice. :D

22-10-2008, 00:46
The world needs more tournaments like this.

Lord Dan
22-10-2008, 04:15
I'd be there.

I used to work at at a gaming store, and the system we used worked like this:

Players were to write up 2,250 point lists and hand them in before the game. They had to have a copy of their list to show their opponent at any point during the game. Scoring worked as follows:

Best sportsman: Player voted. Give them a score of 1-10, and only one "10" could be awarded. Any score lower than 3 had to be justified on the paper.

Best painted: Player voted. After the second round, players were to set up their armies on whatever table they played on. Players would then go around and choose their favorites for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place. This avoided the issue of players simply choosing their opponent's armies out of apathy.

Best General: This was both player voted and judge voted. Players would, as normal, tally up their overall score by adding together their victory points and subtracting their opponent's. The judges (usually myself and one other person) would go through the army lists that had to be sumitted and compared it to a checklist to determine a seperate "comp" score which awarded or deducted points based on the balance of the list (I don't have the checklist on hand. I'll see if I can get my hands on one).

Players then multiplied their comp score (which was out of 10) with their battle points to get their "general score". What ended up happening was pretty cool. The balanced lists, who usually got only a couple thousand battle points, would end up getting a comp score close to 10, which boosted their points up pretty high. The armies that were unbalanced usually got twice the point as the balanced lists, but ended up getting comp scores closer to 2 or 3.

So here's just an example I remember:

Dave's Orcs and Goblins:
Battle points: 2,600
Comp score: 9
General score: 23,400

Will's Tree List:
Battle points: 5,800
Comp score: 3
General score: 17,400

1st, 2nd, and 3rd is then based on the general scores of the armies. It's not perfect, but we had some great tournaments over the years.

I wanted to try to find a way to incorperate the sportsmanship score into the general score as well, but the numbers just got way too large to deal with.

Hope this helps.