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.

Just a mad idea I had to make Tournaments a true test of gaming, rather than list writing ability.

Essentially, all players turn up with their armies, and submit their army list to the Referees. The Referees then allocate a list at random to the players.

Ergo, the people participating in the Tournament end up with a force they are not used to using. The theory is that then the overall winner is likely to be decided by sheer generalship, even when using unfamiliar troops.

Now, I know this would not be everybodies cup of tea as some are funnier than others when it comes to strangers manhandling their expensive miniatures, but I reckon as long as all the participants are aware this is going to happen before signing up, it should prove a lot of fun.

What do you reckon?

1st, letting a stranger play with my minis kinda makes me, well, uneasy.

2nd, there's also the fact that I get assigned an army I have no idea how to play that also has a substantial learning curve(Tomb Kings anyone)

That being said, I like the idea in principle. I think a successful execution would take alot of work....

True, but I see it as a variant on the 'Ardboyz. A Tournament for Hardcore Nutters, just a different breed of Hardcore Nutters.

Anyways, is just an idea that had been rattling around in my head for a while! The main driving force behind it was the game I had last Thursday night against Dan's Chaos Warriors. He had the new book, I'd never read it, and he had never come up against a single unit of Savage Orcs, let alone a whole army of them. In essence, we were both playing blind, and both of us found it a pleasurable game, as sheer bravery of the charge came to the fore, rather than any number crunching.

This seemed like a way to replicate it on a Tournament scale.

Ridiculous, the tourney would still be decided by the best list, just likely not played by the one who brought it.

Let's say you and I are the best two players at a tourney. Ordinarily we play in the finals, and one of us wins. In this tourney whichever of us doesn't catch a scrub list wins, no contest.

A long time ago in a galaxy far far away... um ok 15 years ago... There were 2 Realm of chaos books.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realm_of_Chaos_(Warhammer)

These fabled books contained rules for a campaign that was second to none. Basically the idea was you started with a set number of points and bought a small chaos war band. You would then gain points for battles and buy more stuff to grow your war band. There where also rules for rewards from the gods in the form of mutations or unit/character improvements. Some of the really fun parts about the whole system was modeling the mutations on your units and characters or rolling bad on the mutation table and watching one of your characters turn into a spawn.

If you can get a hold of the books or find a copy to download I would highly recommend it.



P.S. On a side note this is where I first got the Chaos Dave nickname.

Didn't GW redo those warband rules a few years back? I swear I've seen them somewhere recently.

Also, I'm not sure "Best List" would get it as you might have to (most likely will) play against your own army and temper it accordingly.....

40kenthusiast wrote:Ridiculous, the tourney would still be decided by the best list, just likely not played by the one who brought it.

Let's say you and I are the best two players at a tourney. Ordinarily we play in the finals, and one of us wins. In this tourney whichever of us doesn't catch a scrub list wins, no contest.

Except where would be the point in writing an Uber list? You can't get your own list back. The most you could hope for (and there are ways to prevent even this) is being given a list for the same army.

Ergo, it again boils down to who is the best player, not list writer.

And how to prevent getting a similar list to the one you submitted? Simple! Say you play Stunties, purely as an example. With a little administrative effort, the pot your list is drawn from would contain no Stunty lists. Everyone is back more or less on the level.

Maybe a tournament for small point values where you play a game, then switch armies with your opponent and the two games are scored as a set?

I think there was a tournament in Australia where you swapped armies for one game
in the tourney with the person playing across from you. It probably occurred at a critical moment
(mid-tourney) and so you were faced with a few things to consider:

1. You needed a good list in order to win games.
2. Your list shouldn't be TOO good as it might knock you out of the standings.
3. Your opponents would be thinking the same things.

I heard about it on podhammer, but I can't remember what the tournament was
actually called.

What's to stop you from creating a deliberately gak list, knowing that you wouldn't play with it but someone else would, thus raising your own chances of winning?

Of course, if everyone did this the whole tournament would be full of really crap armies - which would be amusing but hardly a good standard for determining the best general...

In the example I stated, you need the list to win at least two or three games instead
of a list to lose all four.

sorry Malfred - I was meaning the OP's idea, not the one you got from Podhammer.

Damn internetz not making things obvious...

Chimera_Calvin wrote:Of course, if everyone did this the whole tournament would be full of really crap armies - which would be amusing but hardly a good standard for determining the best general...

Cal, I would argue that that's EXACTLY what good generalship is all about, dealing with your crap troops. now, warning, brief "real world" reference but how often do generals get to choose their troops?