Can tournamants run based on some thing besides win loss points.

[tadaka]

I like the idea of goal based play. For example play a game in the tournamant with different masters each round. I think it would be great to see a tournamant format that has sub goals that will let players take a tournamant based on more then just winning games. Local area is looking to run some thing like this for a league. Any one think some thing like this could work on a tournamant level.

[The Madman]

I like the idea of goal based play. For example play a game in the tournamant with different masters each round. I think it would be great to see a tournamant format that has sub goals that will let players take a tournamant based on more then just winning games. Local area is looking to run some thing like this for a league. Any one think some thing like this could work on a tournamant level.

yes

my understanding is the Tournament format being worked on by the OP(Organized Play) group is designed to work based of VP(Victory points)

just because a player has a maority of wins, donesn't automaticly mean they have superior number of VP

Keep in mind, this game is not all about "Kill 'em all"

like DDM, Star Wars Mini or Heroclix

[tadaka]

Well that is nice to hear. I would like to see reasons for people to run different crews for games. It would be nice to have encouragement for people like me to not play levi every game. The goal should not just be to win.

[Rathnard]

I really like the idea of a tournament where you use a different master each game. Hell, why not a different faction each game?

[Doctor Amos]

::picks up the Cluebat of the Oppressed:: People may only have a limited number of crews. Making competative tournies that requires large amounts of models owned is exclusinatory, especially for a relatively small (skirmish and following) game. It will certainly lead to hurt feelings.

[libiss]

What about people who only have one crew only? Because usually in a tournament, the contestants must supply their only crews and equipment (other then terrain).

[tadaka]

That would be good as well Rath. I like the idea of lots of small things you can do in the tournamant to get extra points. Basicly the idea is If you run a strong master like pandora all game you might not take first even if you crush every one you play because other people ran lots of intresting options. Sort of like the idea of this instead of some thing like a comp score or sportsman as people can never agree on things like that. Just a master list of point options to encourage people in a fun way. I imagine you would have to put some sort of side score cap but solid things you did or did not do not any thing that some one could dispute like how fluffy a list is.

Little things like.

At the end of all the rounds you had x amount of unused starting soul stones. 2vp

You never used the same minion for more then one game. 2vp

Play a game with at least 7 of the following durring the tournamant. Spirit, beast, goblin, construct, nightmare, living model, undead, Object, woe, neliphum, Souless, special forces. 3vp

[tadaka]

What about people who only have one crew only? Because usually in a tournament, the contestants must supply their only crews and equipment (other then terrain).

Well I think winning should be a part of it so you total up VP but add additional points based on what side goals you pull off. I dont think getting more then one crew is unreasonable. This would probably not be a good option for a low level playing enviorment but for i think it would be good for an established play group.

[The Madman]

adding multiple factions as an option (IMO) is not good-

for the reasons above-

in addition, as an organizer you want to turn over the time the players are using quickly and efficiently

imagine going from table to table with a Rasputina squad (Usually 5-7 models) to a Leveticus or Colodi squad (7-13) between each table!

keep in mind, not every venue has the space of GenCon or some other Large scale con, they are played in local stores with other things going on

the rules as written, lay out that you hire your squads after the main "Goals" of the game are introduced...

the debate could go on& on... mostly becoming an 'Us' vs 'Them' issue- I prefer to stick to what IS

From what I've seen and been able to play test, the OP Tournament format being set up is VERY fair and equitable for either type of player and keep to the origional format as outlined in the rule books

[tadaka]

adding multiple factions as an option (IMO) is not good-

for the reasons above-

Not good because some one may only have one crew? I dont think thats a reason a tournamant cant be run this way. It is some thing to think about but I think this would be less of an issue for more established player player base. If multiple options for ways to gain extra points this should not be an issue any way. The idea is for lots of ways to earn points not just play more then one master. If you have one crew then go for the side goal of you end up each game with x unused soul stones for example.

in addition, as an organizer you want to turn over the time the players are using quickly and efficiently

imagine going from table to table with a Rasputina squad (Usually 5-7 models) to a Leveticus or Colodi squad (7-13) between each table!

keep in mind, not every venue has the space of GenCon or some other Large scale con, they are played in local stores with other things going on

I have no idea what you mean by this. I have played games with over 100 models per side before at local stores and people managed to play tournamants im not sure how this is a factor at all.

the rules as written, lay out that you hire your squads after the main "Goals" of the game are introduced...

the debate could go on& on... mostly becoming an 'Us' vs 'Them' issue- I prefer to stick to what IS

I am not sure I follow you here. This is just an idea for a different tournament style. Not saying every one or any one has to play it options are good.

From what I've seen and been able to play test, the OP Tournament format being set up is VERY fair and equitable for either type of player and keep to the origional format as outlined in the rule books

Im i am sure that the OP tournament is going to be great. I dont see how that means people cant discuss this as an option.

The point was not to force people to run multiple crews its to have people go for other goals. Many of them would encourage people to branch out and play more things. A goal of win a game with out killing any models would be an example. You could go for it with any crew and it is not a standard goal.

Think of this as tournamant schemes.

Edited February 22, 2011 by tadaka

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

Could have painting points... a point for at least a 3 color model, point for basing.

Using the difference in VP in a game will put incentive in shutting down your opponents schemes and strategies just as much as completing your own. If you got 8 VP and your oppenent got 6 VP you would get 2 VP for that game.

[nilus]

I think Malifaux is flexible enough for many types of tournaments.

VP based, WLT based, Goal Based....even time based. Heck I got a one off competition at Adepticon that's giving a prize for the best tasting cake.

Its really up to your local group and what they want to play. If your tournament is more regional(IE players from a larger area then just your FLGS), then you might find its easier to run more traditional tournaments. But for smaller groups you can try lots of different options.

[XCoconutMonkey6X]

I think basing extra VPs off having multiple crews and such basically will evolve into who ever has the most money i.e. can buy the most variety of models, wins. I think if you want to have the players go for more side goals and what not, force them to be able to choose a particular scheme only once. So like, if a McMourning crew chooses Bodyguard in round 1, they can't take that scheme again for the rest of the tournament (provided it's not too many rounds) so that will force players to be picky about which ones they choose and when and will also force them to branch out and try other schemes that they might not normally choose. This way, players who have multiple crews and those who only have 1 will all be on the same level playing field and no one will feel like they've already lost before the tourney has even begun.

**Edit**

If you want people to play different masters, maybe try a campaign where only 1 master can be chosen per faction. This makes for a limited number of players but would ensure a very broad playing field of crews

[Kaane Feinwong]

hmmmm time based; a speed game. I like that idea. You have 5 seconds to move all your pieces! Exciting!

[Doctor Amos]

Malifaux is all about waky and unconventional win conditions. You just have to watch for the pitfalls as you run with it.

[tadaka]

I think basing extra VPs off having multiple crews and such basically will evolve into who ever has the most money i.e. can buy the most variety of models, wins.

As I said before. The point was not to force people to run multiple crews its to have people go for other goals. Many of them would encourage people to branch out and play more things. A goal of win a game with out killing any models would be an example. You could go for it with any crew and it is not a standard goal.

Mutiple crews is an option not a requirement. For example

So for an example round we play .

I win and get 4 points

I this is the first time I have played this crew in a tournamant 1 point

I played a fully painted crew 1 point.

I could have gotten 2 more points but we set a 6 point cap.

You had a fully painted crew you got 1 point

You played a spirit, a construct, a living model, a undead for a total of 4 different types of models in 1 game your get 1 point

You killed 3 models with a totem 1 point

Your game was the first one done this round 1 point.

So you made 4 points.

Even tho I won the round you still got points. Winning let you hit the cap.

If you went in to the game with a unpainted crew that did nothing but go for the win and did nothing else even if you win you would not win the overall tournamant as you did nothing but go in and crush people.

Edited February 23, 2011 by tadaka

[libiss]

Well I think winning should be a part of it so you total up VP but add additional points based on what side goals you pull off. I dont think getting more then one crew is unreasonable. This would probably not be a good option for a low level playing enviorment but for i think it would be good for an established play group.

I agree with a group or even a league for sure. Not really in a tournament.

[XCoconutMonkey6X]

I dunno. I like the idea you have for it but I think ultimately, it will make it too complicated. Not only do you need to think about achieving the game's Strategy, but you also have to think about how your going to achieve your scheme(s), how your going to deny your opponent any VPs, what your going to hire into your crew so you can achieve the previously mentioned. I think that once you push more things like this into the game, it will muddle it up. I mean, some crews can't even achieve the example of 1 construct, 1 undead, 1 etc...

[tadaka]

Every example ever given some one says but this person cant do X. It was about options not you must do this. I will admit that the idea that it could get to complex could be an issue however.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

Each player can only attempt to get the VP from a scheme or strategy once. This would push players to play out of their comfort zone. So if you have a 3 game tournament each player would have to play 3 different strategies and up to 6 different schemes.

Still randomize the strategies, but just have re-flips for repeat strategies.

[Talishko]

Using the difference in VP in a game will put incentive in shutting down your opponents schemes and strategies just as much as completing your own. If you got 8 VP and your oppenent got 6 VP you would get 2 VP for that game.

I think that is a great idea, this way 'only-just' wins are not worth as much as 'landslides'. Very nice fine-tuning to a tournament system. Could do the Win Points like this:

loss: 0WP

draw: 1 WP

win: 2 WP

more then 4VP difference in the totals: +1 WP

full success (6VP + total): +1WP

So if you lose 7-8 the winner gets 3 WP, the loser 1WP but a 3-8 would have resulted in 4WP and 0WP, etc...

I dunno. I like the idea you have for it but I think ultimately, it will make it too complicated. Not only do you need to think about achieving the game's Strategy, but you also have to think about how your going to achieve your scheme(s), how your going to deny your opponent any VPs...

This is the point of the strategy/scheme system.

...what your going to hire into your crew so you can achieve the previously mentioned. I think that once you push more things like this into the game, it will muddle it up. I mean, some crews can't even achieve the example of 1 construct, 1 undead, 1 etc...

I agree with this, though, would be too complicated for some and too easy for others.

Each player can only attempt to get the VP from a scheme or strategy once. This would push players to play out of their comfort zone. So if you have a 3 game tournament each player would have to play 3 different strategies and up to 6 different schemes.

Still randomize the strategies, but just have re-flips for repeat strategies.

This is how we ran our tournament and it worked well. Not reapeating strategies and schemes is a great way of forcing people into playing differently. No more 'auto 2VP's for bodyguard, hold out, etc...