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.

Twitter is for sissy's.

And I haven't been peeping at your emails. I only look in your windows at night remember?

 Catyrpelius wrote:
Twitter is for sissy's.

And I haven't been peeping at your emails. I only look in your windows at night remember?

Right, and my computer is on the second floor and my room is on the third. Got it. I'd love to see what you come up with in terms of a tournament pack

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Catyrpelius wrote:
Twitter is for sissy's.

And I haven't been peeping at your emails. I only look in your windows at night remember?

Right, and my computer is on the second floor and my room is on the third. Got it. I'd love to see what you come up with in terms of a tournament pack

Are you working on a tournement pack as well? If so you can do the work for me...

Regardless of who writes it I demand that the rule "Catyrpelius win's all games and tournements in which he plays" is added.

I've been scribing down some ideas

 Alfndrate wrote:
I've been scribing down some ideas

Well then hurry up, I've got plenty of other projects I could devote my time to.

Alternatly we could bounce ideas off each other or something...

Who would be rubber, and who would be glue? Because we need the ideas to stick to glue... not rubber

I've got 3 pages written, and they're mostly the stock standard rules you would expect to see model rules, player expectations, organizer expectations, time limits on rounds, how many rounds based on players, etc...

 Alfndrate wrote:
Who would be rubber, and who would be glue? Because we need the ideas to stick to glue... not rubber

I've got 3 pages written, and they're mostly the stock standard rules you would expect to see model rules, player expectations, organizer expectations, time limits on rounds, how many rounds based on players, etc...

What if the rubber is really that old sticky rubber you sometimes find?

Adding a section on resource values would be a good idea. Give the relation between Resources, Hero Levels, Time Limit and Board Side.

Currently time limits are based on resource values, like a round in a 25 resource tournament probably shouldn't take you more than 30 minutes at an average competitive level. Obviously event organizers are a better judge of their local meta than I am.

 Alfndrate wrote:
Currently time limits are based on resource values, like a round in a 25 resource tournament probably shouldn't take you more than 30 minutes at an average competitive level. Obviously event organizers are a better judge of their local meta than I am.

That brings up the additional question of what level your really going to run a tournement at. A 25 resource game playes very differently then a 100 resource game. I would argue that at the 100 resource level the game stops being skirmish and moves into the realm of squad based battles. Should a 25 resource tournement be run differently then a 100 resource tournement?

Incedentily with OTL's permission I'm thinking about a 25 - 50 resource Brushfire tournement for The Warstore Weekend. Something small enough that if need be I could provide most of the armies but large enough for the participants to get the Brushfire experiance.

Unless you're running pure Heart of the Fatherland Vandalands, 100 resources don't work much differently than a warband game. My Aquitar and chugoku at 100 resources are really just 2 full squads, which still relates very well to the skirmish level, and wouldn't really run any different than other skirmish level game, since you don't have to do every model's activation separately (unless you do decide to do that)...

Edit: Even at 100 resources, HotF still wouldn't be too different, you'd just have a lot more models on the board.

 Alfndrate wrote:
Unless you're running pure Heart of the Fatherland Vandalands, 100 resources don't work much differently than a warband game. My Aquitar and chugoku at 100 resources are really just 2 full squads, which still relates very well to the skirmish level, and wouldn't really run any different than other skirmish level game, since you don't have to do every model's activation separately (unless you do decide to do that)...

Edit: Even at 100 resources, HotF still wouldn't be too different, you'd just have a lot more models on the board.

I guess my point was that your switching to actual squads instead of primarily individual models. Once you start using actual squads the dynamics of changing squad size come into effect. It's also the point where banners, horns and exemplars come into the picture.

Agreed, but the game is designed with the squad in mind, I mean you had what 100 resources for the megabattle, or 200? Did it seem very different from your 25 resource game? Note the small unit that comes in the warband is meant to be run as a unit, but the rules do allow, and sometimes very effectively, for the squads to be split and rejoined very easily.

For me the difference was there and it was different enough for me to think of them as two different animals.

 Catyrpelius wrote:
For me the difference was there and it was different enough for me to think of them as two different animals.

Interesting, the difference isn't there with me. Something I'll take into consideration. I know you said it becomes more squad based at the higher points, could you elaborate what the biggest difference was?

With Aquitar at 25 points I have:

1 - Hero Level 1 Mole Tactician
1 - Badger at Claw
3 - Weasel Fussilers

At this level I'm much more invested in the individual model even though I would probably activate the 3 Weasel's as a squad. At 25 resources I basically have a stripped down version of Brushfire where the death of each individual model severally hurts my efforts to win. At 100 resources I have much more of a buffer, the death of a single model is no longer that horrible.

If I was going to run a tournement for new players I'd probably play at 25 or 50 resources but if I was going to run it for mostly experianced players I'd run it at 100 points and up. That way the experianced players would have full acess to all the special wargear and exemplars while the newer players have a much simplified game.

Would you suggest 2 documents, 1 that details general Brushfire tournaments, and 1 that details the new player specific Warband Tournament?

 Alfndrate wrote:
Would you suggest 2 documents, 1 that details general Brushfire tournaments, and 1 that details the new player specific Warband Tournament?

Yes and No...

What I meen is that the new player specific tournement probably won't be run enough to make it worth your time. After all most of the people who would run a new player specific tournement are probably already active on these forums. Bascially I'd like it but I can't be used as an example of the average gamer.

Now that I think about it I probably wouldn't write a tournement packet to take into account less the 100 resources and 5 hero levels.

That makes sense... I'll probably keep lower resource games in the document because it's useful information to have, and it feels more complete. Something I haven't added in yet is hero levels

Have you come up with a way to score yet? Are you going to use scnerios or just straight kill points?

 Catyrpelius wrote:
Have you come up with a way to score yet? Are you going to use scnerios or just straight kill points?

I'm thinking of Win/Loss and victory points. The victory points could go in 1 of 2 ways.

1) Points based purely on points earned in the scenario, OR
2) Points earned on the type of victory that is described in the Brushfire rulebook.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hrm... Running into an interesting scenario with regards to placing in the tournament.

Ideally, I'd like to keep victory severity the same as it is on page 37 in the Rulebook. The way I have it drafted up is that table standings are decided by taking the person with the most wins, and the highest victory points, and place him against the next person with the most wins and victory points that he has yet to face.

This removes the idea of surviving and getting the win by the barest margin you can. The victory levels have pyrrhic victories which would be such a win. It awards 0 points. So you would end up with the win, but you would not gain any victory points. So if at the end of a 3 round tournament, you manage to get 3 pyrrhic victories, then you would have the best win/loss record, but you wouldn't have the most victory points.

I think this can and does work, but I want your opinions.

So basically your running Swiss style pairing, correct?

Probably? I'm still working out how I want such things to go.

Okay, so what are people's thoughts on scenarios? I know this is a vague question, but I'm not sure how to handle them.

 Alfndrate wrote:
Okay, so what are people's thoughts on scenarios? I know this is a vague question, but I'm not sure how to handle them.

Tournment scoring should be based around scoring in the rulebook. If the rulebook calls for scenarios in a basic game then you should use them in a tournement. If scoring in a game is just based upon anihilating your opponants force then thats how your tournement should score.

 Catyrpelius wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Okay, so what are people's thoughts on scenarios? I know this is a vague question, but I'm not sure how to handle them.

Tournment scoring should be based around scoring in the rulebook. If the rulebook calls for scenarios in a basic game then you should use them in a tournement. If scoring in a game is just based upon anihilating your opponants force then thats how your tournement should score.

Good point, I didn't make myself clear lol, good catching me on that . I don't ever think that pure destruction should be the only way to win... I think it can easily be a possible scenario, or a tie breaker, but every round shouldn't be "kill your enemy faster than he can kill you". I think objectives are a great equalizer in many cases. We had two malifaux players last week going at it. One kid was playing the Dreamer and Lord Chompy Bits, and the other was playing Lady Justice and it was his first game. The new player ended up causing a draw because the LCB player wanted to kill everything, and he held him off long enough to prevent him from grabbing the objective.

Ya, caster kill in Warmahordes is a big turn off. At SR sundays around here 90% of games end in caster kill. Extremely not fun. I like missions that involve an actually objective, not just "durr hurr assassination run go."

I do like the Steamroller style missions. Controlling zones is a neat way to play, and after so much 40k "control objective" gets a bit tiring. So given that, the Brushfire book missions are probably fine. =P

 Zygrot24 wrote:
Ya, caster kill in Warmahordes is a big turn off. At SR sundays around here 90% of games end in caster kill. Extremely not fun. I like missions that involve an actually objective, not just "durr hurr assassination run go."

I do like the Steamroller style missions. Controlling zones is a neat way to play, and after so much 40k "control objective" gets a bit tiring. So given that, the Brushfire book missions are probably fine. =P

I will say this though, I enjoy caster kill because my army is designed around that... it generally needs to get caster kill for the win, however I don't like annihilation...


On that note, I think that some form of objective control is a good thing for scenarios because it forces you to consider moving in to places that you might not like but need to do so to win, especially when it's being used as a tie breaker.

What I like the most about the SR scenarios is that you have the choice: you can go for the scenario win, controlling the zones and objectives, but also have the option to go for the kill.

In the same vein, in the others tournament I attended, I liked those with more than one goal, with lets say a primary goal, but also a secondary and tertiary ones, like the Adepticon format, or the way
Malifaux handle it with the Schemes (I'm not sold on the secret part of it though).

 Tonio wrote:
What I like the most about the SR scenarios is that you have the choice: you can go for the scenario win, controlling the zones and objectives, but also have the option to go for the kill.

In the same vein, in the others tournament I attended, I liked those with more than one goal, with lets say a primary goal, but also a secondary and tertiary ones, like the Adepticon format, or the way
Malifaux handle it with the Schemes (I'm not sold on the secret part of it though).

I like the secret aspect of the schemes, because then it throws your opponent on the defensive and changes the game. Though I feel that works really well, and really only with Malifaux. I would think that most other games work better with a primary and secondary objective.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Catyrpelius wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Okay, so what are people's thoughts on scenarios? I know this is a vague question, but I'm not sure how to handle them.

Tournment scoring should be based around scoring in the rulebook. If the rulebook calls for scenarios in a basic game then you should use them in a tournement. If scoring in a game is just based upon anihilating your opponants force then thats how your tournement should score.

Good point, I didn't make myself clear lol, good catching me on that . I don't ever think that pure destruction should be the only way to win... I think it can easily be a possible scenario, or a tie breaker, but every round shouldn't be "kill your enemy faster than he can kill you". I think objectives are a great equalizer in many cases. We had two malifaux players last week going at it. One kid was playing the Dreamer and Lord Chompy Bits, and the other was playing Lady Justice and it was his first game. The new player ended up causing a draw because the LCB player wanted to kill everything, and he held him off long enough to prevent him from grabbing the objective.

First off Brushfire isn't Malifaux. In Malifaux Scenarios and Schemes are how you score points to win a game, it was then carried over into tournement play.

If something isn't used in the base rules I don't think it should be added into a tournement.

That being said as I've never completly read the Bruishfire rulebook I'm not sure how they determine victory. When i play I usually just play to anihilation.