Barnaberible

I don't think anyone is saying you would be banned under this system, the scheme one was amicably resolved and you handicapped yourself so I don't think it would require TO intervention. Let's take the bodyguard example The first time you did it it would be noted by the TO and shared with other TO's and pointed out to you. The second time you did it it would be pointed out to you again and you would be told that if you did it again you might face a points deduction. If this didn't jolt you into remembering to write it down and you did it again it would result in a formal warning. If this STILL didn't jolt you into remembering to write the thing down you would be penalised, and quite honestly you would probably deserve it! Like I said the original proposal requires a little tweaking as to what does and does not justify action being taken and the exact number of mistakes you could make before action being taken but I think the principle is sound If your late for work and keep being told 'try not to be late' where's the motivation, I'd your told 'next time your late your getting a verbal warning' you set the alarm earlier!

From reading through I think what James was suggesting has been misinterpreted I dont think anyone is suggesting that there is a problem with cheating on the scene at the minute or that anyone should be punished for making an honest mistake, but some things that were highlighted at the GT might become an issue if a system isnt introduced to help TO's deal with issues if and when they arise. I don't think anyone wants people to be banned or penalised for honest mistakes, I quite often make mistakes and I'm sure my opponents do but should these mistakes be reported to the TO? Well my opinion is yes and no really If I make a mistake, realise it, stick my hands up and say sorry and take back the action or flip that was made then no problem. eg at the GT against Mark Byrne I inadvertently flipped a card for an action I couldnt take, realised it and said sorry I cant do that, I'll just discard that card if thats OK? Mark said OK, no problem. In this case it was using pull the void with Tara as her last action, which you cant do. If I hadnt declared the mistake (or not realised I had made the mistake) and Mark had gone away, read Tara's cards and thought 'wait a minute he couldnt have done that' then I think Mark has every right to contact the TO after the fact and tell him. I would then expect the TO (or Mark) to get in contact with me and tell me what I had done. If then I continued to make this 'mistake' a few more times I would expect some kind of formal reprimand However if Mark didnt realise, or didnt contact the TO then I might not know I have made the mistake and do it again and again and more importantly no one else would have a record that I keep making this same 'mistake' So I guess what I'm saying is this concept has merits but in reality I think it needs a bit of a tweak and probably would work better as creating a forum (or similar) for TO's to discuss any recurring problems that are reported and then for them to decide if (and what) action needs to be taken. If these recurring problems arent reported or recorded in any way then who knows if this is the first mistake I've made or the 50th? I'm not saying that new players should be penalised for anything what-so-ever but what I am saying is that, at the minute, we dont seem to have a way of identifying or recording if certain people are making 'mistakes' every game. Now, unfortunately, the burden of this task would seem to be best handled and co-ordinated by Mike Marshall as he runs the rankings which is the central point for all tournaments to report to. Wether he would want to, or be willing to take on this responsibility is a completely separate question but if he did I think he should be supported by other respected TO's and players within the game, maybe on a regional basis as they would more than likely personally know any players involved in any controversy. For example if people had a problem with me continually bending my tape measure in every game I played in I would prefer it if Mike came to me and said 'Scott, we've had several reports that you are continually bending your tape measure, you need to watch this and if you continue to do it we might take action against you' And I would also think that if lets say there was a problem with a NE player then maybe they would respond well to a word from Greg for example And I should emphasise here that I have NEVER suspected cheating in ANY game of Malifaux I have played (apart from the game at the GT where I lost 8-0 to Martin, I'm sure he must have cheated, I just cant figure out how)* We also shouldnt confuse this with what I would call 'gamey play' The scene is very relaxed, even at tournaments, and most opponents I have played will allow slight mistakes, for example activating Bishop and saying I'm going to charge x and declare built in rams rather than activating Bishop, declaring built in Rams and then saying I'm going to charge x I have, however, been gamed in tounaments and if I get the order of wording wrong the opponent has called me on it and said no, you declared the charge first therefore you cant have the rams Is this nice? No, is this friendly? No, would I do this? No, does this create a bad impression of the community? Maybe But this is in the rules, and this is tournament play so if this happens then simply deal with it and move on, and if you cant deal with the minute amount of times this happens at tournaments then maybe tournaments arent for you. What I dont think we should do is create a problem where there isnt one (Bishop example isnt a problem) but equally what we shouldnt do is allow a problem to develop where there might be one (and again I am NOT saying there is one) where a simple example of better admin and increased communication between TO's could stop it developing. To dismiss the idea of sanctions out of hand in an ever growing scene is, in my opinion, naive. *This is a joke, I dont think Martin cheated he's just a good player, at least until he reached the last round

Paid, thanks Dave

If you mean the Hull Road travel lodge I think there are loads of us staying there so I'm sure taxi's can be split

I'll bring cards against humanity, always good for a laugh

OK, so just to confirm Maria and John have been added to Pool B and Andy Richardson has dropped from Pool E (not sure who else has dropped out) In which case I need to change my Pool E selection from the last list so I'll go for....Phil Muscroft

I have 3 teams for you and I'll pay cash on Friday if that's OK Resurgent Ressers · Ant ‘Top Resser’ Hoult · Matt ‘might be top Resser after this weekend’ Ledgerwood · Ben ‘best Resser painter’ Halford · James ‘only Resser in this group’ Goddard · Bennett ‘I had to look hard to find a Resser down here, maybe you lot should play more Ressers then you would be higher up the rankings’ Morley Go Getters · Greg ‘I’m only the chosen one for the Masters, honest’ Piscosz · Luke ‘I’ll definitely need the points when Mike nullifies that controversial score from the team GT’ Cocksage · Dave ‘if I do really well I could just make the masters’ Hill · Mark ‘unknown quantity’ Byrne · Nathan ‘I can’t play M2E, but I was quite handy at 1.5’ Chenery Surprise Packages · Ben ‘must be getting a nosebleed’ Crowe · Ben ‘hypothetically place me at 65th will ya?’ Harris · Lee ‘if you ask nicely I’ll tell you how to beat me’ Batterick · Liam ‘I’m sure I remember him complaining how bad he is at Malifaux on Twitter’ Hall · Andrew ‘sorry I had to pick someone ‘cos Spooner isn’t playing’ Richardson

Haha 65th! How did you know where I would finish? Great idea, I'm in, will probably pay Friday night if that's OK?

Also good to remember if there are more enemy models withing 3" of a scheme marker than there are friendly models then they won't count for protect territory, good use for fast cheap minions such as night terrors, watchers or raptors

At least 6" from your deployment zone means just that, the markers need to be at least 6" away from your deployment zone. This stops models simply holing up in you dz and dropping markers. There is no reason a model can't cover 2 markers but scheme markers can only be used for 1 scheme, so you couldn't use 2 markers for protect territory AND breakthrough. At the end of the game you need to declare which marker you are using for each scheme.

So, Leveticus is buried and a load of void wretches go to town on him, killing him again. does he die? The wording is; 'When this model is killed or sacrificed, it is not killed or sacrificed. Instead bury this model , remove all conditions and heal all damage on this model.l' So I guess the question is can you be buried if you are already buried?

So, along the same lines, if you declare Tara as resser and take a Freikorp Librarian as a merc can you use healing energy more than once per turn? The disclaimer is 'if this crews leader is not an outcast this action may only be taken once per turn' Someone told me no, but I'm guessing the correct answer is yes.

If you play in the masters and get knocked out on the Saturday do you have to pay for the Sunday? If so can you pay on the day?

Yes I can see your point, a way round it I suppose would be to give each tournament an ideal total ss point, eg it might be that an ideal tournament is 4 x 50ss games so the optimum total for max points would be a 200ss tournament (obviously could be adjusted if needed) and then slightly penalise tournaments that come in under this optimum level or even boost ranking points slightly if they are over this level (2 dayers, etc) Also, for data collection would it be useful to have a standard tournament score sheet for each player that they fill in that captures all the data you want/need and then have a standard spreadsheet that is used by TO's to report this data, not sure how onerous this would be for TO's

Yeah I've seen autopsies used to good effect as a starting minion in a mcmourning crew, they are also a good summon from spare parts as mcm dosent have much use for corpe counters and if you can get them reactivating with your flesh constructs then all the better (another use for belles is the card discard on lure, and also grave spirit is handy for the discard)

Ok this just occurred to me as an idea The optimum number of players is decided at 28, or 30, or whatever and events that come in with numbers below this are penalised slightly by offering reduced max ranking points. The game is as balanced as possible at 50ss so how about allowing all ss level tournaments to be ranked but applying the same logic to an event that runs at lower ss level (irrelevant of it being master/henchman led) so a slight penalty to the max ranking points (say1 point per ss) is applied to any tournament that runs under 50ss

Can someone explain the formula 1 system?

Interested dave, thanks (and also giving it a bump )

What, you mean run round the room 56 times and whoever gets round the quickest gets the ranking points?

The main problem I have with how the team event was ranked this year it that it was scored from 24 players rather than 8 teams. saying that I'm still not sure doubles should be ranked in terms of masters qualification, mainly because I am not sure of any balance issues that will come to light with dubious master pairings, there are probably some horrible ones out there, especially cross faction. Henchman led games I cant really comment on (haven't played any) I would also endorse the capture of more statistics and ideally if we could get master specific stats, most popular scheme stats and even PvP stats that would be great, but it sounds like alot of work to me. I don't think the rankings had many major issues this year and there seems to be alot of fun and banter going on and the masters qualification is still wide open with only a month or so to go so all in all I would say if its not (too) broke then dont fix it (too much) I would also like to see the light orchestra running parallel to the rankings if its not adopted as a system for this year just to see how it would affect the results

Maybe, but that's fairer than allowing one top player to stomp a noob and 2 other top players slogging it out for a narrow VP diff. you are right about the mid players though, although a low VP win for one would likely not see them meet a top player until the last round where if they beat them they would be above them on TP. I would just like to see it tested and see what the outcome actually is

The idea would be that in round 1 the highest ranked player would be paired with the lowest ranked player, second highest against second lowest, etc, etc This would avoid the 'top' players being paired against each other in the first round, and effectively ending one of the pairs chances of winning the tournament in the first round (particularly in a 3 round tournament) and also eliminate the random possibility of someone being able to gain a massive VP diff in the first round. It would also mean that new (lower ranked) players would be paired with someone that knows the game well and thus speed up their first round games and reduce rule questions and also allow these players a guaranteed opportunity to play one of the better players and gain some invaluable experience and maybe a few tricks of the trade. On the downside it would mean that there is the opportunity for new players to be absolutely stomped at their first game in a tournament and put them off, but I dont think the community is like that.

I'm not 100% convinced that 40ss is a balanced level for tournament play, not saying it should be prohibited but equally not sure it should become the norm.

I have always been an advocate of at least trying this. With all the tournaments we have I cant believe it hasn't been tried yet to see the results.

Here's some thoughts, in the form of a rambling blog post... http://barneysstable.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/how-to-win-more-at-malifaux.html