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.

This may be a little obtuse, buts lets say a player tables their opponent, but fails to achieve any of the 3 victory conditions? Obviously VP's would kick in, assuming their opponent did not somehow win KP's. So under your scenario, would it be possible to table your opponent and still lose the game based on a deficit in kill points?

My initial response would be - Play the Mission - making the answer to your question, Yes. We had issues with some of our tournaments for awhile where players just played to kill everything to get full points for tableing their opponents and it became a not so fun event pretty quickly (might as well of just said "Most VP Wins")
I guess what I'm trying to say is if it becomes a "wipe out your opponents army for full points" scenario then it very quickly turns into a situation where there is no need for any other mission objectives.
But these are the kind of questions and what ifs that we need, so let me think on it.
Thanks for the input.
-Shane

That is why I was asking, as some people might design an army solely with that intent.

It does raise some interesting scenarios playing with or against high KP armies, particularly if you have a low KP army. Concentrate on killing your opponents troops, and enough KP's to exceed your total, and you win, whether they wipe you out or not.

There is a pro and a con either way. And too, with group team play, some groups could try to show up with a ringer type of army specifically designed for this purpose.

The other argument is if tabling is allowed, then the high KP armies have at least a kernel of hope if all of their scoring units are destroyed and they have given up more KP's than their opponent has in their army.

I'm fairly neutral; but I would like to know ahead of time.

I'd be ok with whatever on this one.

Most times though - if you table or get tabled - you win full points and the other guy gets nothing. If you get totalled wiped - one side of me says you kinda deserve zero points....but what if you are tabled and the other guy has little to nothing left as well.....sigh....

At the high end play level I hope we have at this thing - you'll have people that are very capable of tabling others. So it's a good thing to consider.

Not all missions have to have the 'Wipeout' Rule. For variety maybe include it in a couple of rounds.

I 'prefer' wipeout to be in effect but it does not effect my enjoyment of the event if it isn't.

In most instances, if you table someone, you will more than likely win VP's. However, VP's are only a tie breaker if the first three mission objectives are not obtained. The only problem is KP's, because you can theoretically win KP's but still get wiped out.

Ive never liked the full points for tabling your opponent thing. I played a game about a year ago with my nids against orks. I was tabled, ork player had 1 deff kopta with a wound on it left, def a very close and bloody game. Should he get full points for that?

Eidolon wrote:Ive never liked the full points for tabling your opponent thing. I played a game about a year ago with my nids against orks. I was tabled, ork player had 1 deff kopta with a wound on it left, def a very close and bloody game. Should he get full points for that?

I dont mind it. At the end of the day is does not happen that often. I am not saying I have not seen players pull it off multiple times but it is still rare.

It is a high risk, high reward. In order to pull it off you have to commit fully to the attack. Usually if your opponent recognizes your attempt to do this option and it was going going to be a Scissors meets paper game. Many times there are things to do that mitigate the guy from getting the complete wipe out and thus denying the objective he was trying to achieve.

Another thing to think about is the team captains may be able to use this as an option in their tactical plan for setting up their initial match ups which adds an interesting equation to that process.

I recently played in a Team championship in France that allowed the wipe out rule. I did not see to many wipe outs occur.

How about this? ...
lf you table your opponent, the minimum points you can receive is 15 points. So even if you table your opponent but manage to still lose Kill points, you still get more points than your opponent. Making the round : you (15) Opponent (10).

-Shane

I thought you were just going straight win/loss?

How are you determining what is a minor win? What is a major win? And what is a massacre?

If we are using the minor/major/massacre breakdown, then that is an entirely different animal, and I would suggest tabling someone should garner massacre points. As sabote said, it is a high risk, high reward proposition

W/L/D or W/L is the best format for a tournament, IMO. That way you don't have to wipe your opponent out to get max points and it opens the field to lots of different types of armies, not just those capable of crushing victories.

THE SIEGE wrote:How about this? ...
lf you table your opponent, the minimum points you can receive is 15 points. So even if you table your opponent but manage to still lose Kill points, you still get more points than your opponent. Making the round : you (15) Opponent (10).

-Shane

Shane, I think maybe you should shoot a pm to some of the tournament organizers here on Dakka and get some advice that way. By posting a "what do you think?" in a public thread, you're going to get every tournament-goers opinion on how it should be run, how it should be scored and what they like best.

Rule #1 - You can't please everyone.

puma713 wrote:

THE SIEGE wrote:How about this? ...
lf you table your opponent, the minimum points you can receive is 15 points. So even if you table your opponent but manage to still lose Kill points, you still get more points than your opponent. Making the round : you (15) Opponent (10).

-Shane

Shane, I think maybe you should shoot a pm to some of the tournament organizers here on Dakka and get some advice that way. By posting a "what do you think?" in a public thread, you're going to get every tournament-goers opinion on how it should be run, how it should be scored and what they like best.

Rule #1 - You can't please everyone.

Since you are not going to please everyone with a decision you make you can always put it to a captain’s vote. This is how the ETC does it. The captains of each team vote on how many points, missions etc. at each year’s events. This is so each team will have somewhat of a say in how they would like to play certain rules/conflicts.

Of course I would only allow paid team (captains) doing the voting.

I doubt most people really care how he scores the tournament. However, there is a certain amount of gamesmanship that goes into selecting army compositions depending on how the games will be scored.

If it is a straight win/loss, then you take an army that you think can eke out a win, and you play for a minimal win, because that is all you need. If it is a tiered victory system, with minor/major/massacre, then you take an army that you think can maximize points.

Similarly, if tabling your opponent is/is not going to garner maximum points, then players need to know ahead of time in order to optimize their army designs, and alter their gameplay.

This is even more important in a team environment, where you basically have a game within a game concerning the match ups.

Me thinks that certain individuals have been making "suggestions" outside of the public forum arena. This is not a problem; however, I would like a firm set of rules in place so that I can start to concentrate on my army design. With three months away, that is not really an issue yet...

With three seperate mission objectives, at first glance, it seems pretty obvious how to break out a tiered victory approach. However, winning 1-0, 1-0 then +1 seems a little too easy to achieve for a massacre.

I am playing in a tournament in two weeks based off of the ATC style missions, and we broke out the tiered scoring system as follows:

Draw - win only 1-0, or actually tie 0-0 or 1-1

Minor Win - win at least 2 of the 3 points in the scoring system (could be 2-1 or 2-0)

Major Win - win each of the 3 ways to score, regardless of margin of victory (here you could win 1-0, 1-0 and +1), but you have to go 3-0 in the scoring system

Massacre - hold all 5 objectives and win KP's

Makes it difficult to get a massacre, but that is the way it should be. Nor am I suggesting this is the best way to do it. This was just a quick and easy approach for a 3 round local tournament.

You should give any points to a player that is tabled. Not looking good.

So - this seems to be the crux of the questions:

Overall Team vs. Team scoring:
option #1 - straight won - loss at the end

Pro's - considered more "competitive"

Con's - no method to seed teams - which unbalances the competitiveness.

Option #2 - Score points for each of the three victory conditions for each game played in each team. So 10 points for capture/control, 10 points for Seize ground, 10 points for Kill Points - in the case of draws - give 5 points to each team. At the end of the team vs. Team - the team captains total up the points total for all 5 games.

Pro's - makes every condition of every game important. Smooths and balances the results of a close, hard fought game. Increase's the competitive aspect - as you can lose/draw a game and not be knocked out.

Con's - more record keeping.


Other questions:

Tabling - does a tabling automatically result in a win (max points) or do you still look at the victory conditions even if a tabling occurs. See pro's/con's here both ways - personally don't care either way - just need to know in advance. If somebody wipes their opponent off the table with minimal losses - its' a no brainer. If you wipe them out but have little to nothing left yourself - that's where the questions come in. Just decide one way or the other - whichever Shane thinks best.

Tie Breaker - with either way to score the head to head matches - need to have clearly defined tie breakers at the end of the tourney as well as how to handle ties in the individual games

Overall - up to Shane - just trying to help consolidate the questions (hopefully).

One thing to remember. This is the first year for this so there will be some learning room. My recomendation is to let Shane run his event and lets see how it shakes out. He does have some experience at this and is a very capable TO. Maybe ETC will refer back to his event and say "this is how they do it" hehe. Shane is great about listening to feedback after events and my hope is to see this event grow to a massive number.

I hate it when the TO polls the audience.

I don't know if it is polling the audience so much as people suggesting that there are scoring discrepancies with almost any way you choose to run a tournament.

Some times the best thing to do is to come at this from the reverse angle. Determine the desirable outcome(s), and then force eveything else to adhere to those end results, and discard ideas that don't.

Straight W/L makes the game much simpler, which means it will run smoother. The more variables you introduce the more room there is for complications.

5 players. The team that wins more games wins the round. To win a game, you score more objectives. In the case of a tie on objectives, you go to VPs for tie breakers.

Simple, easy and straightforward. That definitely gets my vote (if my vote means anything! haha)

I prefer w/l to battle points, gives armies like tau that can win but rarely massacre a chance. And I agree with everything reecius has said.

W/L is a different play style, and IMO, is somehwat more boring. You end up with more conservative play, more slowhammer, and a higher likelihood of teams having tied scores at the end.

Tiered scoring means more competitive play. People cannot be content to barely eke out a minor win, as it is barely more than a draw or a minor loss. It forces people to actually play aggressively in seeking points, rather than having one or two good turns and then playing "not to lose."

If you do go with a tiered points system, this mission is almost tailor made for a 4 tiered system (13/15/17/20 or however the points break out), rather than the normal 3 tiered system (13/17/20).

After mulling it over for a while I would probably rather see some sort of a tiered system in place.

Although to be fair, I am actually more concerned about the amount of time we are given to play each of the games more so than what the ultimate scoring system will be. If we do not have at least 2 1/2 hours per round, I would almost rather not play.

Looks like they did update the scoring system:


SCORING:
Each Mission Goal will be Worth 10 Game Points if Achieved, 5 Game Points if Drawn, 0 Game Points if not achieved.
So, Possible Game Points EACH Round is 30 Maximum, 0 Minimum.

Example Possible Results :
A.) Player 1 Wins Kill Points, Player 2 Wins C&C, Both Players Draw Seize Ground - Total Game Points Player 1 (15), Player 2 (15)
B.) Player 1 Wins Kill Points and C&C, Both Players Draw Seize Ground - Total Game Points Player 1 (25), Player 2 (5)
C.) Player 1 Wins Kill Points, Neither Player Wins C&C or Seize Ground - Total Game Points Player 1 (10), Player 2 (0)

I like it. Very simple and easy to follow. Allows for high risk/high reward game play.

I would still like to know the time allotment for the rounds though...

And since the number of teams is going to max at 40 - you could go through all the rounds and have undefeated teams with a pure won/loss.

I agree that a point based system based on each of the mission objectives per game - and w/l/d will bring a wider range of points - while still maintaining the competitive aspect of the game as well.

Will still have to figure out some kind of tie breaker system just in case though - because if he doesn't have it - it's sure to happen!

Think he's got a schedule out there someplace - with four games sat and 2 on Sunday - but not the detail schedule for games - they would have to be 2.5 hours at minimum I would think - plus the time between games is going to be more than a regular tourney - with the team captains doing the matchups and all.

Ok.
I think Ive got the input I need here on the points system.
Will make a final decision soon.

Game time limit is 2.5 hours with an additional 30 mins for captains to pair off players. (3 hours total)

Also - I am getting A TON of questions about the event that are plainly stated on the website. If someone posts a question here that I dont have on the site, I get it answered and on the site within 24 hours.

In the Meantime, the Website has been updated with all of the other Games Workshop Events at:

http://www.diceheadsiege.com/15801.html

There are 2-man team event Friday Night and WHFB and 40k singles Events on Fri Sat and Sunday.
All events should be over by 5:00 and everyone should be ready to leave by 6:00, 7:00 at the VERY latest.
-Shane

Straight W/L is great, no need to have alot of things to record. People should be playing for the win not the draw, yet you shouldn't be forced to massacre to do well. That is why using Straight W/L is so great.

Someone might say well we might need a tiebreaker at the end. There is a simple one. It's called strength of schedule. You just look at the scores of the teams they played.

Ex: At the end of 5 rounds..

Team A is 4-1, played 5 teams who scored 2,1,2,4,1
Team B is 4-1, played 5 teams who scored 2,1,2,4,2

Team B wins the event since it's SoS is 11 and Team A's SoS is 10. Though it is a narrow margin that is when a tiebreaker is needed.

Any updates on the confirmed pre-registered teams?

Im really glad they aren't using strength of schedule. I think pure W/L would be a lot more competitive. There are always some people who will agree to a draw if they don't think they can win.

Windy City Kamakazi Piolets from Chicago
WRECKING CREW EAST
Borderlands Gaming
Fixed Dice
Team Ragnarok
Blade N Bolters
Team Taledo
Paul Murphy and a Yet Unnamed Team
Jeff O'Neal and a Yet Unnamed Team (Alabama)
+2 other local teams Yet unnamed
I have 5 other teams that have yet to confirm but are all 90% definite. Puttiing us at around 16 teams right now.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I take everyone's input seriously and I do realize that I can't please everyone but I do find it extremely important to know what the majority wants in an event - especially a first year event like this.
The Decision on Scoring has been made. Thanks for all your input!
I will post it up within the week.

THE SIEGE wrote:Team Taledo

I would assume this would be a mistype on Team Toledo. After all we can't make that mistake, they are the home to the "Turn 2 Table."