PDA

View Full Version : Questions about tournaments



polobuch
02-11-2009, 11:30
As no doubt the quasi totality of you all know, the warhammer system is based on points: poor troops are at 2 points; like hobgoblins; and very goods troops can be over 40 points;like chaos knights; right? So when i learnt that some Tournaments have very odd system of armies fairness that are allowed to only come with certains sizes of armies: let me get this clear there are 4 types of armies now for a 2000 pts tournament:

at 1999 pts: Deamons
at 2000 pts: VC, Bretonnia, Skaven.
at 2250 pts: The rest
at 2500 pts: Ogres, Chaos dwarfs, DoW, Khemri and BoC.


How come it has come to this? what is the point system for then?


I am sure that there are some of you out there that know people who work at GW, and who could tell us why it lost controle of the point system. Bloody hell I thought they employed people to game test? have these said people been fired, or are they looking for some other test players? what is realy going on?

this is not a rant but only some questions that need some answers.

thank you!

JHZ
02-11-2009, 11:42
GW has just given up. They "let" us house rule games and "give" us freedom over the rules. In other words, they just churn out army books and leave the balancing to the players, because it's cheaper.

The sucky thing about these new tournament composition rules is that though I play daemons, my army has just gotten worse with the new army book (I can pretty much manage draws and minor victories/defeats), and now I can't even do my usual armies, but actually have to dig into that cheese to even stay where I am at the moment. So rules intended to balance out the cheese is just, at least in my case, forcing me to start topping the army with it as much as I can, in order to stay in the game.

narrativium
02-11-2009, 11:50
Those aren't the conventional tiers at the moment (you have Bretonnia tiered as more powerful than Dark Elves, Lizardmen and Warriors), but I know players who've put Ogres and Beasts competitively against high-tier forces and done well; there's a skew, but not as severe as some think. One upcoming tournament, to be held among a number of elite players next year, is the Bad Dice Masters, which will be using a particular comp system to help take the extreme combinations out of the game.

There's also the question of whether the point system has been lost, or whether policy has simply shifted over the last six books or so, which have been considered more powerful than those which preceded them. The competitive playing field is levelling.

But then, the army books aren't written for purely competitive play. They're written for narrative campaigns and scenarios and friendlies and themes, and it's hard to assign a singular points value for all the situations or army compositions a unit might find itself in.

And yes, they employ people to test the games - though, they've had to work on the external playtester policy since some of those people broke their NDAs and posted rules on places like Warseer far in advance of the rulebook's release.

sorberec
02-11-2009, 12:00
What you've posted above would be a tier system (although a pretty odd one as I've not seen Brets and Skaven in the 2nd tier and VC and Dark Elves are normally higher up, but I digress).

This is just one of the ways tournament organisers are trying to balance the armies out so that people don't just take Daemons/Dark Elves/VC for the auto-win. Other ways are restricting what stuff can be selected from army lists (i.e. not being able to take the same special or rare choice twice, not being able to take certain combinations of magic items, or combination of these as well as tiers).

The reason it has come about is because GW design the army books to make money. They are designed for "friendly" play - not for making balanced tournament armies where 2000 points of one army is capable of beating 2000 points of any other (assuming both players are of equal skill). Therefore the independent tournaments are resorting to these systems to try and restore balance (emphasis on the "try" part).

sorberec
02-11-2009, 12:01
Doh! Stupid slow update times from my work network

ewar
02-11-2009, 14:36
The reason it has come about is because GW design the army books to make money. They are designed for "friendly" play - not for making balanced tournament armies where 2000 points of one army is capable of beating 2000 points of any other (assuming both players are of equal skill). Therefore the independent tournaments are resorting to these systems to try and restore balance (emphasis on the "try" part).

I agree with you that they've lost control slightly. The thing that gets me, is that were the books balanced correctly then it would make friendly gaming much easier.

I think it's almost harder in a friendly game to be completely outclassed by an opponents army before you've even rolled a die, as it automatically puts you on a slightly unfriendly footing - at least at tournaments you know that it's no holds barred cheesefest.

However it should also be noted that balance is coming back - all the 7th ed books (excepting Empire and OnG) are well balanced against each other and can provide a reasonably even game. Pre-7th ed books stuggle.

Poseidal
02-11-2009, 15:14
Hmm, looking at that, the '1999' is an interesting way of comp for the top tiers. Though they do have one less Core required.

Maybe you 'downgrade' the point tier for the army, while having the same (or very similar point limit).

So for top tier, the handicap is: 1 less character, no lord, 1 less Special and Rare, but needs one less core.

Would this work well? It means less Flamers, Hydras and Bloodknights; characters (and combos) are more limited than other armies but the army isn't totally gutted.

polobuch
02-11-2009, 23:20
funny you mention that Poseidal, My 2 two favorite types of games are at 1999 and 2999, less magic too with such restrictions and just as many regiments. Do a lot of people play like this?

Thanx all for your answers!!