The Solent Concept Challenge, 40k and WFB, May 2012, Portsmouth

[chunk]

The Solent Wargamers Club and Core-Games are proud to announce their first tournament of 2012.

This event will be the first mixed event I have held, with 40k and WFB tournaments at the same time. This is a concept event in which I want to trial new ideas and collect information about both systems to improve later events. As such I ask you to keep an open mind, but fully understand that most players strongly disagree with what is presented.

Another Warhammer 40,000 Challenge will be held in July for 1500 points, using a standard rules pack.

Places are limited to 40 players, between both tournaments. Payment is the only way to secure a place.

Please read the rules pack for more details, and I hope you can attend! The comp system presented in WFB rules pack is courtesy of Dan Heelan, many thanks to him for this.

Warhammers 40,000
1) James Karch
2) Simon Clayton
3) Alan Lee
4) Mike Lock
5) Will Clevett
6) Zak Gregory
7) Ross MacIntosh
8) Sharan Reddy
9) Daniel Hill
10) Ben Calvert-Lee
11) Ian Connolly
12) Kenneth Morley
13) Tim Newman
14) Alistair Little
15) Sam Gregory
16) Ashley Kern
17) Geraint Hasting-Evan
18) James Ellwood
19) Ian Manson
20) Mike Foulks
21) Kevin Sharpes

WFB
1) Garry Simmonds
2) Gary Fisher
3) James Clarke
4) James Green
5) Chris Cook
6) Wayne Peters
7) " Hayward
8) Colin Morby
9) David Hayward
10) Steven Ward

[Fubar]

Can you check the rules pack it seems slightly messed up, that or my iPad is having a moment.

[chunk]

Its downloading fine on my PC, let me know if it continues

[Fubar]

Yeah it seems to just be my iPad not liking the fonts used. I'll be up for this, I'll be paying in jan hopefully.

[spikyjames]

I'll be there work permiting.

James

[Kaelarr]

Are you using Swiss selection this time?

[chunk]

The Challenge has always used Swiss-system for round pairings. This is in the rules pack and the blog in my sig

[Battlecult]

I'll be along work permitting, the last Challenge was good fun even if John Jaskinski's GK did unspeakable things to me.

[Peetus]

Last one was some weird grouped ranking system...

[Dorn's Arrow]

No it wasn't. The first round was drawn based on RHQ to try and avoid seal clubbings in the first round and then it was Swiss after that.

[Peetus]

So what is the deal with the first game match ups?

Edit: And i seem to remember some sort of grouping where the top 4 or 8 playesr were randomly drawn against eachother. same with the next 8 and so on unless i was mistaken and thats just how it was set out on the board

[chunk]

The details of the first round match ups can be found on my blog (check sig)

Battlecult is correct in saying that the Challenge (2011) first round was decided by RHQ, and Swiss thereafter. It may of been confusing as I tried to not have players use the same table twice and therefore it appeared to have been 'random'.

I hate having to play on a table more than once. On a selfish note I want as many people as possible to see the boards I've created!

[chunk]

There is now a Ipad compatible version of the rules packin the first post of the thread. Apologies for those who it affected!

[Dorn's Arrow]

The details of the first round match ups can be found on my blog (check sig)

Battlecult is correct in saying that the Challenge (2011) first round was decided by RHQ, and Swiss thereafter. It may of been confusing as I tried to not have players use the same table twice and therefore it appeared to have been 'random'.

I hate having to play on a table more than once. On a selfish note I want as many people as possible to see the boards I've created!

I feel exactly the same; after building up 50~ boards worth of terrain and tables I damn well want people to see them! There's good crunch reasons to move people onto different boards too and plenty of places do it.

[Nanook]

Looks good.

[Malchek]

Hi there I'm a bit confused about the scoring method - can you just explain it to me please? Players note down the results of the game on turn 5 onwards - how do you then come up with their final score for that round? It sounds like you add them up or something? But what happens if players don't complete all the additional turns whilst others do and therefore they can't get the same number of points?

Sorry to be confused I don't know if its just me!? lol

Cheers

Mal

[Dorn's Arrow]

If people can't complete 7 turns of 1750pt 40k in 2 1/2 hours they don't deserve to get the points anyway.

[castellanash]

But what if you finish destroying all enemy forces by say the end of turn 4? Then you've not got the additional points either...

[chunk]

The scoring system is as described, it is clear and concise. It is a system that rewards a player who can complete the full game or table their opponent, as opposed to 'lucking' out on random endings...

But what if you finish destroying all enemy forces by say the end of turn 4? Then you've not got the additional points either...

Page 90, BRB
"Wipeout!
Regardless of the victory conditions, if at the end of any standard mission your enemy has no units left on the table, you win the game!"

The END of the game is always turn 7 (in this tournament).

[Malchek]

Problem is even with two and a half hours some players still stuggle to finish games even five turns - it's easy with a small elite force like deathwing but if you have a horde of orks its a different matter! And if you happen to be playing someone with a horde its not your fault you don't finish all 7 turns!?

Also its not that clear!? If you win turn 5 and turn 6 but lose turn 7 what score will you have? Do you win the game or lose or score 6pts? What victory point tally do you use? From turn 5/6/7 or add them all up and divide by three?

As I said I don't think its very fair having tournament points decided on how many turns you complete small elite armies are automatically at an advantage as they're quicker to play!

I like the idea and see what you're trying to do but don't understand how it would work in practice and I'm not sure it will work :s

Mal