Tiny Posted January 8, 2011 Report Share Posted January 8, 2011 Any word of them at all? Im running a tourney in feb im happy to play test them if thats an option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nerdelemental Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 Do you guys have an official Henchman in your area? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiny Posted January 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 One around an hour and a half north. Im more than likely going to apply in the next few weeks. Do only henchmen have access to it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nerdelemental Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 No, not that I'm aware of. A henchman, though, would have better access to other Henchman at the least and would have more information about what others are doing for their events. That's why I ask. You guys are a bit in a vacuum right now. Which is not the end of the world. Each of us was once. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiny Posted January 10, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 OK, well what have people found works and doesnt work in tournies so far? Straight out of the book or is that too open for abuse with "mr suitcase". What about the UK GT where it was 35ss 20ss fixed each list with 15ss you can tailor to the strategy/scheme/opponent? What other options have been tested? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 OK, well what have people found works and doesnt work in tournies so far? Straight out of the book or is that too open for abuse with "mr suitcase". What about the UK GT where it was 35ss 20ss fixed each list with 15ss you can tailor to the strategy/scheme/opponent? What other options have been tested? Personally, I like to run tournaments with a sideboard. So, let's say that you want 35 point games, ask people to bring 50 soul stones worth of models with which to construct their crew each game. So, effectively they have a 35 point list and 15 soul stone side board to swap out (for a total of 50 altogether) Also I like to select three strategies for people to randomly flip, instead of using the full simple chart of six. (well, that's assuming it's a standard three round tournament, basically, there should be one strategy for each round) If you use the full chart with three rounds, there may be (probably will be) two people who never play the same strategies, which isn't good from a balance stand point. If there are an equal number of strategies to rounds, all players play the same strategies at some point through out the event. So, for example, it's a three round tournament and you, the judge, have picked slaughter, destroy the evidence, and claim jump as the strategies. Round 1: player A flips claim jump, and player B flips slaughter. You write this down, and round 2, player A randomly gets either slaughter or destroy the evidence, and player B will randomly get destroy the evidence or claim jump. (the two they haven't played yet) This maintains the cool mechanic of both players potentially having separate strategies while also assuring all players have to be prepared for the same strategies over the course of the whole event, and nobody gets the same strategy twice. Finally, I like to record which schemes people choose, and only allow a scheme to be used once by any one player throughout the entire event. This way everyone doesn't take hold out and body guard every game, and really creates some diversity in play and cool meta. "Do I take hold out now, or save it for a harder match up?" etc. For scoring, that's up in the air. I like to go with straight win/loss/tie record with painting as a tie breaker, so that part of the hobby is at least encouraged. Alternatively, for a more competitive group, recording victory point totals for the entire event may be a better tie breaker. And, of course, some people like to record total victory points as the key thing that decides who wins, and ignore win records altogether. I don't like this method myself, because I have a problem with a game when you lose 7 victors points to 8 being more "valuable" to your tournament standing than a close game where you win 2 victory points to 1. But that's me. (For the record, I believe official tournaments are done this way) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythicFOX Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 To pick up one what was said above the UKGT ran 15ss fixed and 15ss chosen freely. The follow up tourney to that is just running a fixed master. In practice so long as your running fixed master I'm not sure you need to fix the lists. Most players won’t actually vary their lists that much given the choice. It takes a bit of work to learn to use a lot of models effectively, this tends to work as an informal cap in its self. I like Lalochezia’s idea about the three strategies. I might consider that at an upcoming event I’m running. So long as everyone’s on the same sceheme list though I’m not sure it matters. The only thing I feel needs real work is restricting schemes; can’t take the same one twice works well. There might just be a case for banning Hold Out and Break Through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hippieshopper Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 What our Henchie does is basically give us the point amount and an hour before the fighting starts we write up our lists with masters, henchmen, minions, etc. Our Soulstone pool is also listed at the bottom of the cards. We have a rule that states you cannot play a model which is not released to the public, however you may proxy so long as you have the actual Wyrd card for the model. After that he calls out random matches and we play on boards that have been set up ahead of time with the terrain and shared objectives. We don't use the special features (Graveyard, Dark Omens, etc) because that can give someone an extra advantage and he likes to keep it as fair as possible. How fair is it if you are playing Pandora with Alone in the Dark? It isn't set up as a single elimination but rather a round robin sort of setup. Where everyone gets to play everybody at least once. At the end we tally up the total amount of VP everyone has won and award people based on that. In the event of some uneven match-ups, or an odd number of players, there is a "bye" system setup where someone will get to sit out one match but he/she still earns the average amount of all of the games played in that round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nilus Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Here is what has been working for my area 1) Players declare there faction at the start of the tourney but draft there entire crew each round. Each round after you get your pairing(and know your opponents faction and Strategy) I allow 10 to 15 minutes for players to draft. Some players choose to play the same list all tourney, others switch it up entirely each round. Most generally stick to a set Master and style and then pick and choose a few models differnet to suit the Strategy. 2) I generally use predetermined Strategies. Not all the Strategies in the book are equal in my eyes and I like to put everyone at every table on equal footing. Flipping each round adds a bit to much randomness to the tourney. 3) We use straight VP scoring for who wins around here. It seems to work well. I am on the opposite side of the fence and Lalo. I don't feel someone should score 7 VP and lose and be equal to someone who scored 0 VP and lost. But this really comes down to local groups and TO preference. As long as you state cleary how you are going to determine wins ahead of time then everyone should be happy(or just choose not to play). We do limit the max number of VPs per round to 8 and also limit Schemes to only those that you can score 2 VP with(we also do not allow Jack Daws ability to work). Again this is to keep everyone even. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clousseau Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 The tournament I played in last year in London made us take 2 lists, which we could then choose from for each game. This speeds up the crew selection which is important if time is limited. All of the discussion is really useful as I'm planning for a tournie in June, so need to think of some good ideas. I was thinking of having a fixed shared strategy for the first round and random individual strategies (within a limited list) for the remaining rounds. I agree with the comment on certain table/scenery effects, but some may be fair to both players so might consider them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pugwhan Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 The first tourny that our local store ran worked like this: -Each player was able to bring 2 30ss crew lists. -Tables were pre-setup. -Strategies were randomly drawn and we used shared strategies. -Random events were randomly generated at the start of each round for each table. - Schemes were randomly drawn, you must randomly pick the first. The second was either randomly drawn or could be passed in favor of 2ss. - Last round was "The Carver Strikes at Midnight" scenario. Overall the Tourny worked out pretty good with these rules. Problems that we had and will be working on: - Random event of "Bog". While it didn't hurt The Dreamer player (me), it really sucked for the Nicodem player. - Random Schemes can lead to some interesting issues. I had "Steal Relic" and was playing against Perdita. The scheme requires a WP duel to acheive, Perdita is immune to WP duels. The person running the event ruled that Perdita wouldn't be immune to this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clousseau Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Can't see random Schemes being a good idea, but being able to choose each one only once per tournie would work quite well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nilus Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Can't see random Schemes being a good idea, but being able to choose each one only once per tournie would work quite well. Yeah we do this in my area and it works well. Before we did we got a lot of players picking Hold out and Bodyguard every time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oozeboss Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 I am completely off Malifaux tournaments right now (to the point where I'm not playing the game at all), which is a complete reversal for me as I have long loved the social atmosphere of big events & have run 20+ tournaments in three gaming systems. I think that the sticking point is floating lists. I attended a one day event late last year, and one bloke turned up & before play started opened his case to reveal almost every Wyrd miniature ever released. All spray painted black. It was a massive turn off for me before even the first round. He then chopped & changed his crew each round & proceeded to win the event (albeit, wholly due to inept scoring - the bloke who won in reality used a single fully painted crew). When Cancon - Australia's largest convention - started to obviously slide down that same path, I withdrew from it (wearing the wastage of $40) & haven't touched a paint brush or strategy card since. So count me as a major believer in fixed lists & set strategies/ schemes. I really like the notion of giving players a limited range & their being allowed to choose each round, with the proviso that no strategy or scheme can be used twice during the event. This could be achieved through issuing cards at the start of the event that must be returned with the scoresheet after each round after being played. (Just my 2 soulstones' worth ...) :marshmell:marshmell:marshmell:marshmell:marshmell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythicFOX Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 (edited) 3) We use straight VP scoring for who wins around here. It seems to work well. I am on the opposite side of the fence and Lalo. I don't feel someone should score 7 VP and lose and be equal to someone who scored 0 VP and lost. But this really comes down to local groups and TO preference. As long as you state cleary how you are going to determine wins ahead of time then everyone should be happy(or just choose not to play). We do limit the max number of VPs per round to 8 and also limit Schemes to only those that you can score 2 VP with(we also do not allow Jack Daws ability to work). Again this is to keep everyone even. The main reason I dislike scoring on VPs over Win/Loss/Draw record is this; it actively encourages collusion. If I get a match up where my opponent and I think the probable game result is going to be a hard fought 4-2 win to one of us, why wouldn't we agree to avoid one another and complete our objectives without fighting? That way we could each get 6 to 8vps by playing evasive. It doesn't even have to be by implicit agreement. If only the number of VPs matter, there is no reason to prevent your opponent from scoring VPs. Why should I attempt to stop my opponent getting holdout? There's literally nothing in it for me. In fact it would almost be actively setting out to harm his tourney chances out of spite. There's no reason total VPs can't be used as a tie break, in fact in most cases they'd probably need to be. However the outcome of the games HAS to matter, or else you open the door to this sort of abuse. Edited January 10, 2011 by mythicFOX SPAG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythicFOX Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Yeah we do this in my area and it works well. Before we did we got a lot of players picking Hold out and Bodyguard every time. Another thought. I'm in favor of the above however, is the problem players picking the same scheme each time or is it just Hold Out / Body Guard? Would it not make more sense to just ban those two schemes? Not saying that's what we should do, it's just a thought worth discussing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clousseau Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 My point was that each scheme could only be used once per tournament. So choose your Hold Out well and this could be easy VP for each player. Cross Gaming in London had a fantastic tournament sheet that tracked encounters, schemes and which of the 2 lists allowable had been used each round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omenbringer Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 I have found that Malifaux doesn't lend itself very well to true tournament play without a lot of imposed limitations or restrictions by the TO's (most of which have more to due with the local scene then anything else). It does do very well with narative campaigns and leagues though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 Another thought. I'm in favor of the above however, is the problem players picking the same scheme each time or is it just Hold Out / Body Guard? Would it not make more sense to just ban those two schemes? Not saying that's what we should do, it's just a thought worth discussing. Eh, it's one of those things where if hold out isn't the best...something else will be. And people will find it. And I like the meta of trying to save the "better" schemes for harder match ups. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tadaka Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 I think it could be intresting to try a version where the other guy picks your goals for you and you pick the goals they have to go after. Would probably need a few limits but sounds like it could be intresting when your rival picks for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oozeboss Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 Cross Gaming in London had a fantastic tournament sheet that tracked encounters, schemes and which of the 2 lists allowable had been used each round. I'd love to see that sheet. Is there a link? :marshmell:marshmell:marshmell:marshmell:marshmell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythicFOX Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 I think it could be intresting to try a version where the other guy picks your goals for you and you pick the goals they have to go after. Would probably need a few limits but sounds like it could be intresting when your rival picks for you. Problem is some masters / crews can't compete some schemes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tadaka Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 What schemes cant crews do that they can take? I imagine some would be very hard to pull off but I dont think there are any that are any that cant be done. It would make point totals a lot lower but I think it would be intresting. Like I said tho im sure it would need to be worked out some to get it working well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clousseau Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 I'd love to see that sheet. Is there a link? :marshmell:marshmell:marshmell:marshmell:marshmell I don't have it, but I'll see if I can get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythicFOX Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 What schemes cant crews do that they can take? I imagine some would be very hard to pull off but I dont think there are any that are any that cant be done. It would make point totals a lot lower but I think it would be intresting. Like I said tho im sure it would need to be worked out some to get it working well. I'm fairly sure you can't steal relic against Perdita. Also assassinate vs Kirai / Pandora will be very tough. The one where you have to kill all the models of a given type might mean you'd effectively have to kill your opponent’s entire crew against some opponents. The other issue is taking ones which might foil strategies, eg you're playing slaughter, you can have an eye for an eye and frame for murder as schemes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.