Tournament Rules / Tournament Series - Opinions

[WarmasterOJB]

Hi

We are about 8 players now in our gaming club infected with malifaux. To keep this running I'm planing a Tournamentseries for 2011. This keeps the game going and maybe attracts some other players in Germany

10-12 Tournaments planed for 2011.

Points for the League 2011:

Place 1: 10 Points

Place 2: 7 Points

Place 3: 5 Points

Place 4: 3 Points

Place 5: 2 Points

Place 6: 1 Point

The 5 best Tournaments Count. Add up total points (Tiebreaker positions). Winner with extra price or alternativly the 8 best make a KO Tournament.

-----------------------------------------------------

First Tournament:

Just keep in mind, that the whole group is relativly new to malifaux (not tabletops). So I think for the beginning it's best to keep a fixed list.

# 30SS Scraps crew (Crew is fixed)

# 3 round tournament, Swiss System

# 36 x 36 Table with fixed terrain

Round #1: Shared Reconnoiter, 2 Schemes

Round #2: Shared Supply Wagon, 2 Schemes

Round #3: Shared Treasure Hunt, 2 Schemes

Schemes have to be diffrent in every match

Count VP's @ the end: | Win: 2 | Tie: 1 | Loss: 0

Tiebreaker: VP scored; VP difference

Any suggestions on limitations for the schemes?

Edited November 26, 2010 by WarmasterOJB

[The Madman]

I understand "Fixed Terrain"

but fixed squads and fixed objectives/encounters seems to go badly against the grain of the game-

part of the process (and advantage) of playing this game is the step of:

seeing the terrain

and recognizing the encounter THEN building the squad that helps handle that...

Handicaping a player (as I see it) would only HURT the experience and limit the range of "Meta" for your players chosing their masters/squad

[Rathnard]

For the league points, I'd make it the inverse of the number of players who attended. That way you won't get players coasting up the ladder because they won a few 3-4 player tournaments before the better players started getting involved.

So for a 9 player tournament;

1st - 9pts

2nd - 8pts

3rd - 7pts

4th - 6pts

...

8th - 2pts

9th - 1pt

For crews, I'd agree that fixed lists isn't a great idea. I've personally always liked the idea of a 40SS list plus Master, from which you pick 25SS for your crews. It allows for some customisation without it becoming a game about who bought their entire faction.

As games get larger you could bump up the pool limit as well, for instance 30/45SS, and 35/55SS (ie. try to maintain a ratio of around 1:1.5?)

Definitely prevent people using the same scheme more than once IMO. Seeing players select Bodyguard/Holdout every single game is one of my dislikes.

I'd prefer players to flip for their strategies on the standard chart as normal, but for a first event I don't suppose having the fixed shared strategies is necessarilly a bad thing.

Finally, I approve of your system for tournament points. It's how I'd do it myself.

[The Green Git]

I'm with the Madman on fixing lists. A great part of the allure of Malifaux is being able to pick your list after finding out what the mission is! Even at tournaments with fixed objectives you should still allow players to pick their lists based on the Faction they face.

[WarmasterOJB]

Ok, maybe we are all to much in our 40K tournament playing style.

I thought by fixing the strategy I make the games more comparable and you can build your crew fitting the strategys...

But i see, that I Should think about the pool where you can pick, but you don't need to.

[nilus]

For tournaments I think fixed Strategies is a good idea. It levels the playing field each round. Flipping for it is a bit to random for a structured competitive game.

I do think that fixed Crews kinda suck though. The idea that you can modify you crew each round based on Strategy and opponent faction is a really cool aspect of the game

[mythicFOX]

The issue with fixed strategies for me is they seem to inevitably mean playing shared strategies, which I'm not a fan of. Managing what you're trying to do vs what your opponent's trying to do is part of the game. I like flip from the core list each round, it's simple and causes least confusion.

On crews, one method other than the pool/fixed lists I've seen used to good effect was the UKGT. You had Master and 15ss fixed, then chose an additional 15ss freely from your collection as per a normal game.

Limiting schemes is important; Kirai's taking bodyguard again, oh joy. I've seen 'you can't take the same scheme more than twice' used to good effect at events.

[oozeboss]

I may be a walking talking paradox, as I love tournaments but loathe any sense of national ranking system.

I was involved for a long time running tournaments here in Oz (mainly WHFB, and also Blood Bowl & Warhammer Ancients), but the game of WHFB became irreparably tainted for me personally when the tournament scene was perverted in to becoming the vehicle for people who actually craved status derived from unbalanced games involving pretty painted pewter & the whims and vagaries of the dice gods.

It literally got to the point of escalation where one prominent individual (who was regularly anointed in the local version of White Dwarf) told me that he intended to "hurt me" through my wife & child.

Ranking systems, imo, inevitably invite the infection and pollution of individuals with no life, and insufficient courage to play chess (that being the only truly balanced & equitable wargame).

People need to have their goals fixed firmly in their minds when running a tournament. For me, tournaments are vehicles by which gaming systems are pepetuated and reinforced through highlighting their merits to established converts, and expanded through proselytising using the presentation of an attractive sustem, range of miniatures and an accommodating community to interested onlookers/ potential new players. They should reward all those oft cited elements of a good one-off game: painting/ presentation, sportsmanship &, I place this deliberately last, game results.

Good luck with your events, but your concept of a league and national rankings leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

(PS: after despairing of the last incarnation of the WHFB rules, a very large element of that poisonous national rankings obsessed rabble have now descended on Warmachine, and are creating some quite entertaining - at least, for those of us not sucked into that maelstrom - ructions in that gaming community as they attempt to alter that environment in order to meet their addiction for some sort of demented petty status.)

Edited November 26, 2010 by oozeboss

[WarmasterOJB]

@all

Thank you. I guess I have to work it over with the list building. Tend now to the fixed Master and a pool to take you crew from. 1 Master +up to 45 SS => 30 SS Crew for every game.

On the strategies I'm still thinking...

@ oozeboss

I don't want a national ranking. I just want an extra price for all that come to more than only one of our tournaments. That's the "League scoring". That's all.

[Peoples Champ]

Just played in a 3 game swiss chess tournament today. We rolled for strategies but had a limited number. There were 6 schemes (all standard) but you could only take one scheme once so that meant you used each one. It was 30ss take a faction and choose your crew for each game.

It played failry well as I think I ended with a different strategy every game and of course a different scheme.

Guild (used perdita twice and lady J once) won with arcanists 2nd (he only had showgirls) and outcasts 3rd.

Lots of new players and a good day.

[WarmasterOJB]

So after some discussion in our gaming group we will go with a fixed Master and a pool of 45SS. For every game you can pick a 30 SS list from the pool.

The strategy for the 3 games will be announced before the tournament. There will be a list of allowed schemes. No scheme twice.

[tadaka]

I kind of like the idea of a ss pool and then you take so many smaller models from that pool. Nice I idea might have to rip that off

[Doctor Amos]

Counterpoints:

To begin, I am myself a great fan of the variety of options available in Malifaux and the ever-changing world. New battlefields, new missions, and a custom crews to meet each chalange make the game quite enjoyable and a good change of pace from my usual wargaming experience.

That being said, it is not the end all and be all. Limitations force creativity. Just because crew leadership wants to control every aspect of an encounter doesn't mean that masters won't get ambushed, or left to fend for themselves, or simply that you'll have to choose a crew capable of completing multiple tasks before they're recalled (the scandel!).

So don't let people get you down. If you want to let your group know that a chosen crew is going to be on thier own for a bit; that they can't take Lilith for a running mission and then swap her out for a defense scenario; go for it. People will have to think of more rounded crews.

And, with all things of this nature, do be appreciative of physicality. I see from your above post that you are. Don't lose it. People have so many models. People with more models, if given more freedom, will do better simply by having more choices. This isn't fair to people who have less. The number of toys a person owns shouldn't decide how well they do, only how they use them.

[WarmasterOJB]

The option an variety are definitly great. I try to find a midway between all free and fixed elements.

And like you said, I defenitly don't want peopel with more models to have a too big advantage. Must of our gamers do have just one crew (starterbox) and 2-4 fitting models. So for the beginning and for people that come from outside I will go with one master only but the possibility to mix up the crew a little bit.

Furthermore I also think some more creativity is forced if you have to make up your master for all encounters knowing the objectives.

Our tournament will be in th emiddle of January. I will write some feedback here.

[quotemyname]

Here's an idea:

If you don't like using/setting shared strategies. Set a few appropriate standard strategies (like Reconnitoir v Treasure Hunt). Set three different rounds of that. Declare one of the strategies "Side 1 strategy" and the other "Side 2". When players show up, have them flip to determine who gets side one and side two.

Another idea to compliment the 30ss crew and 45ss pool thing. If a player with more models wants the option of running other masters from his/her faction in different rounds, allow them to include an additional master in their "pool". Each time they do so, they get 10 less ss to work with in their pool (that number is arbitrary, I just pulled 10 out of the air, because that's what a Master is worth in Slaughter).

Rest of your ideas look pretty solid though. Good luck!

Feedback?

[mythicFOX]

I'm not sure I see what's wrong with each player just flipping strategies from the core list each round and saying you can't play the same one twice?

IMHO I've never understood why TOs feel the need to change the game in this way.

[tadaka]

Well ATM some missions are way way easier then others. For example deliver the message or treasure hunt cant be made trivial by some crews. By limiting how many models that can be used and setting the mission goals it forces people to play rounded groups for the tournament. Allowing people to play full factions each game limits those players who don't buy every model available.

This is the reason they do it. Right or wrong like it or don't just explaining because you say you don't understand.

[mythicFOX]

Well ATM some missions are way way easier then others. For example deliver the message or treasure hunt cant be made trivial by some crews. By limiting how many models that can be used and setting the mission goals it forces people to play rounded groups for the tournament. Allowing people to play full factions each game limits those players who don't buy every model available.

This is the reason they do it. Right or wrong like it or don't just explaining because you say you don't understand.

At the risk of opening a huge can of worms, which strategies on the core list (below) do you feel are too easy to complete (and for which crews)? Core list:

• Treasure Hunt
  
  
• Destroy Evidence
  
  
• Reconnoiter
  
  
• Claim Jump
  
  
• Slaughter
  
  

The advantage of flipping adds a second layer of protection in that even if a crew is built to be far too good at one, there's no guarantee they'll get to play it. By defining strategies in advance it's far easier for players to take less well rounded crews honed to the strategies they know they're going to play.

I'm also not sure I believe players with all of the options gain as much of an advantage as people think. Outspending your opponents isn't the big advantage in this game it is in others, the time to learn how models work in game is much more a limiting factor.

Most people I've seen do well at events become expert with a core crew and swap the odd 'toolbox' model in and out for certain situations. Players aren't going to be able to learn to use a whole faction at once, or certainly not to a winning standard. And if they are that devoted to the game, do we really want to stop them?

Edited December 5, 2010 by mythicFOX
SPAG