Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So, are there vastly different, but overall balanced armies? Or would there be just a few one size fits all armies? I know you tried to answer this before, but I still don't really understand

@Shrike: North-South vs East-West. Bridge is a partership game played by 4 players, notionally sitting NSEW at a square table.

@Nurglitch: No, don't. As you can see above, you can mix SM and Ork play back and forth for variety's sake, but you could also have SM players and Ork players if you don't want strangers using each other's minis. You can have 4 totally different scenarios, and as long as each player in each group plays the same role on each of the 4 tables, the tournament integrity remains sound.

I don't see a problem with armies or sides or tables having an advantage. But I do have a problem with you waving your hand and claiming balance where there isn't any.

As above, it's easy to construct things so that one group has an advantage, even though they switch armies each game.

My criticism are that you are trying to back into duplicate play, something that the bridge world has done for decades, but aren't recognizing that there will be subtle imbalances that cannot be evened out.

Shrike78:

Whether one army list is balanced against another is irrelevant where the players will be playing iterations of the same game against each other.

JohnHwangDD:

No, variety is not a stake, particularly where we want to test player skill rather than the luck of the draw. That is why I propose that the players essentially play the same game several times and from both sides of the table. Where we hold these variables equal, all that is left to the player is their skill in out-playing the other player.

I think that the subtle imbalances will always be present in such a game. There is too much to take into account for there to be perfect balance. However, I think that the imbalances will be leveled down to the single digit percentiles by the switching of players, and armies.

With missions however, I think that It would be best if the hosts of the tournament were to make their own scenario that was kept secret until the first day of the games. This stresses a generals abilities to rapidly acclimate to new... well... changes, and would also help to even the playing field.

Just my idea though

Yeah, sure, each game will be imbalanced, but that's a given in 40k. Someone's luck might be horribly off or whatever. By having the players play both sides of the scenario and counting those games equally, the imbalance evens out over the course of the tournament.

I think promulgating the mission prior to the tournament is a good idea, particularly if it is a non-standard mission, so that not only can the organizers receive feedback before the tournament about it, but players will not have to deal with the imbalances in learning curves that will naturally result from starting with one side rather than another.

Another idea might be releasing a 'training mission' that contains similar themes so that players can develop their skills on both sides of the table, but be different enough from the actual mission played out during the tournament that players will also have the opportunity to adapt and overcome.

I like the training mission idea. It's my opinion, maybe because anarchy makes me giggle, that the learning curve would add to the challenge of such a tournament, and would also serve to create the feeling that people are all starting on the same footing. A feeling that is integral to the entire tournament.

@Nurglitch, with all due respect, I would never play this. I remember how repetitive Cleanse got to be in 3E and have no desire to play the same scenario over and over and over and over. Boring.

Okay, so it's not your thing. That's cool.

JohnHwangDD wrote:@Nurglitch,

Apparently, you're totally ignorant with respect to how Contract Bridge Tournaments work.

That is what you're replicating.

The problem is that you believe that having players "switch up" automatically makes the A and B groups equal.

You are completely, totally wrong.

For whatever reason, the particular terrain / special rules / scenario of their tables might give the A group a 10% edge over the B group.

For example, on table 1, the SM might have the edge, and the Orks might have a 15% advantage on table 2.

So the A group has a solid advantage over the B group based on those two tables. Playing duplicate, that is a huge gap to make up.

So don't bother trying to make it up. Simply declare 2 winners, one from each group.

Lets keep it polite guys. John I admit to being completely ignorant of Contract Bridge Tournaments. Please describe in some detail if you can (assume we don't play bridge).

Edit: Nurglitch are you talking about one mission or multiple missions? If the whole concept is viewed as a "for fun" tournament with multiple missions it might be interesting, if the two opposing armies were as absolutely balanced as possible.

Frazzled wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:@Nurglitch,

Apparently, you're totally ignorant with respect to how Contract Bridge Tournaments work.

Lets keep it polite guys. John I admit to being completely ignorant of Contract Bridge Tournaments. Please describe in some detail if you can (assume we don't play bridge).

I'm very sorry if the above was phrased badly, and apologize if anyone was offended.

Please note that I find absolutely nothing "wrong" or "bad" about being ignorant of how Contract Bridge Tournaments work - it's a niche game, in very much the same way as Warhammer. I wouldn't necessarily expect people to know this. After all, I'm a total n00b at WoW...

If you go through the messages above, I try to inform various relevant / analogous pieces from CB.

Anyhow, I'll start from zero:

Contract Bridge is a card game played with the standard 52-card deck. It is a partnership game, and pairs play against other pairs. What is particularly interesting is that the objective is to become a "Life Master", by accumulating points over a series of sanctioned tournaments. The size of the tournaments determines points, and local tournaments feed into regional / national tournaments. That is, if you win a local / regional tournament, you are qualified for regional / national.

It's a great mental game, and I highly recommend it. Unlike Chess / Warhammer, you only see half the cards at any given time, and table talk is forbidden - it's pure playing skills, without any luck. A good player wins hands (games) by putting together information and making good decisions. Because it is a partnership game, you need to be able to work well with your partner, or things go up in flames. When I played, I didn't have a regular partner, but still managed to win a couple tournaments.

Anyhow, tournament play revolves around duplicate play. Some quantity of numbered boards will be laid out at various tables. Each board is preconstructed, so that board #19 will always give the same player in the same position the same cards. On any given board, the odds may tilt heavily towards one team or the other. But the teams aren't really playing each other - they're playing their analogous teams, and small differences add up over the course of the tournament.

After each board, players are directed to move to a different table / seat, leaving the preconstructed card hands on the table. This movement is what ensures that each team plays each board from the same positions in each group, along with playing each opposing team.

This allows team performance to be compared exactly against other teams in the same situations. Over the course of the tournament, each team has chances to do a bit better on each board. Whoever does better on more boards will win their group, meaning they get points and invites.


Looking at Nurglitch's proposal, it is very similar in concept, but has a couple flaws. First, the need to replay severely limits the number of scenarios and opponent that can be used to test the player. Only replaying 2 games is very limiting and narrow. Having more varied games against more opponents allows for a deeper, broader test.

Cool John.