food for thought : tournament system

[Simon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAyRyeIJ5xQ

enjoy

[HarasinCreed]

I thought this was really good. But i dont think u should take the sportsmanship or painting score out. The comp can go  as he explains it will be delt with with the system he uses but if you remove the general sportsmanship people could be really stink. And if you remove the painting it discourages people to paint there models because if they are average at painting they know they will not be winning a prize and since it doesnt effect how well they do in the tournament there isnt much point painting the army.

Just some of my thoughts hope u can understand what ive written.
Edmund

[blood_god]

An interesting idea, I would be very interested to see what his mission objectives were for this system, I would wonder how much difference they would make, For example if I wipe my opponent would I then achieve both of my missions and get the full points? It also doesn't take into account the factor of the sportsmanship score being there to stop unsporting behaviour and painting being there so that all armies have some paint on them. But I think the idea has potential...

Mark

[Placator]

It was a good watch and brought up some good points. The sportsmanship in the tournaments I have been to seems to work well, and unless you act very poorly you should get 5/5. I agree that it should remain to safe gaurd against poor play something I luckily have not experienced. All of my oponents have been great to play against.
As for painting there has to be an incentive to paint models, rather than remove it make the margins less I.E A full painted army gets say 8/10 while a great army would get 10. That way it is an encouragment without really affecting the gaming score. Those that are competing for the best painted army can stll compete for a prize also.
To remove all those aspects as he suggests takes away from aspects that are important to the hobby. Some people just want to game while others take a long time painting/converting that needs to be rewarded.

I Think he said it best that if a tournament is a sucess/fun the rest shouldn't matter too much.

[Vaul]

Malorian has often given me a lot of feedback on my own youtube stuff - the guy takes a keen interest in the gw wargaming scene in general.  I don't think that games like fantasy and 40k in tournament play would be as easily to balance as the presentation makes out though - not that they're bad ideas.

[Neil Williamson]

I watched this video by coincidence last week.
Painting and sports can be worked around quite easily if you want to.
Whats been bothering me about it is that it moves from win draw loss to kills.
I can remember some of my tournament games that were absolute blood baths. Any so called victories from them were pyrrhic and under the existing tournament point systems were draws or close to it.
Under this proposal I would get lots of points (yay) but do I really deserve to get all those points compared to somebody say who only got half the number of points but didn't lose any and had a solid victory against their opponent?
I think it encourages a gung ho lets get stuck in approach rather than a measured risk calculating approach.
Will it make some games more enjoyable? Maybe, it can encourage a more cavalier approach.
Does it reward the best general? I don't think so.

[Solarian]

In second Ed times it was all generalship which was based on victory points you gain from kills and/or mission. I dont recall a big problem with sportsmanship or the standard of painting or comp during this time.

A gamming tournament is about who wins the games isnt it? A painting competition is for who is the best painter? Therefore I believe that painting should still be judged at tourneys but that is a seperate prize and no points are added to the tournament score.

Sportsmanship should also be a seperate prize. Good sports get no bonus to overal score but bad sports can be penalised.

Comp scores should not even be considered. Why build codex's with so many possible options then limit them for a tournament. Cutting down variation makes things a little boring. Also if you think everyone will take the same thing on the reverse side then that wont work because tatics to beat those armies are quickly developed.

This is what I like from a tournament, but every tournament can tailor these 4 factors to change its feel. There is no perfect system because everyone is different and looking for different things.

[Neil Williamson]

At Vermintide this year I ran the "Butcher's award" based just on victory points.
The results can be compared to the placings from our usual system.
As you can see the results are fairly similar.
The big difference though is with Stuart's list.
He came third in the tournamnent but very low on the butcher points.
You will have to view this in tandem with the the army lists which Peter posted.
Stuart's army was a large bus and some chaff. The bus was very difficult to take but many armies could also avoid it

This is a very small sample and I would enourage other TOs to also award a "Butcher" medal so we could get more data. However, first impressions are that if this system was adopted for tournament placings it would discourage the "points denial" or defensive lists.

Results of Vermintide are copied here