[Othiem]

Apolgies for posting in this thread, but it's the best place I could find.

In the table where you specify pd, dd, scrolls, you may also want to add a section for stolen dice by items like the Dwarven Rune of Balance for example.

So a dwarf army with RoB, 1 runepriest, and no dispelling runes would read something like

DD: 4/0/-1

Where the last column represents the effect on opponents pd, and the extra dd is added into the first column.

Moved discussion posts in to a new thread now that the rules are finalised -squeek

 

[squeek]

Good point Othiem, I have moved your post here as well so that Nathan will see it

 

[Steel Nathan]

Good thing too, or I wouldn've never saw this (as I really don't visit the Fantasy that much. Although I really should...)

Excellent point Othiem! I'dd add it to the chart immediantly. Gotta love the members of Heresy!

 

[Othiem]

Few thoughts:

First, in the magic phase, giving the caster two choices straight up is a bit of a buff, since they can pick one of two known choices to drop. Normally in play it's a bit of a gamble dropping the first spell, as you might roll a 6 the next time for your lvl 2 caster and end up hozed. However, I don't really see a quick time efficient manner to get around this, so your way is probably the best compromise.

When deciding who wins, will comp scores be taken into account. Comps seem a bit more popular in the WFB world than 40k, and fantasy has a wider spread of army power levels that comps can help even out.

It might be a good idea to simply mandate usage of the heresy-online army template, as it will make life easier on everybody.

Is there any official stance on special characters? Many people frown on them (you know SOMEBODY is gonna run Archaon >_<).

 

[squeek]

Few thoughts:

First, in the magic phase, giving the caster two choices straight up is a bit of a buff, since they can pick one of two known choices to drop. Normally in play it's a bit of a gambol dropping the first spell, as you might roll a 6 the next time for your lvl 2 caster and end up hozed. However, I don't really see a quick time efficient manner to get around this, so your way is probably the best compromise.

I see what you mean, but it would double the hassle doing it properly which would be likely to slow big tournaments down a fair bit. I suppose we could work out a preferences scoring system. Something like 4, 5, 2, 1, 6, 3. So the player preference is from left to right, and say they got a 2 and 6, the 6 would be swapped for a 1 as it is higher in their preferences. Thoughts?

When deciding who wins, will comp scores be taken into account. Comps seem a bit more popular in the WFB world than 40k, and fantasy has a wider spread of army power levels that comps can help even out.

Could you suggest a system for implementing it, or explain what you mean a little further?

It might be a good idea to simply mandate usage of the heresy-online army template, as it will make life easier on everybody.

I agree!

Is there any official stance on special characters? Many people frown on them (you know SOMEBODY is gonna run Archaon >_<).

Personally I think this is perhaps a question to be asked along with points before each tournament. So the players/winner/nominated monkey decides

My thoughts in yellow

 

[Vaz]

Who me? Naw... I'm taking Kholek. Then again...

The preference system is a good one - I like that. Could be a bit tricky, though.

Once a Match-up is decided, perhaps a List Checker/Mod would make it simpler by just mentioning the spells for each character.

 

[Othiem]

Suggestion for how a comp scoring system could work:

Every submitted list is given a comp sore from 1-5, 1 being so fluffy there are bunnies in the army, 5 being multiple copies of Archeon. I'd recommend assigning these based on the opinions of your list of people who are helping out with list counting, say 5 or so forum regulars. If they are also competing, they do not cast a vote on their own list of course.

So now a fight. You give a handicap to the army with the lower number of 5% * (high number - low number). That is how many more percent of the votes that the higher, more powergaming list has to get to win. So say an O&G list with a comp score of 2 fights a VC list with a comp score of 4. This means that for the VC player to win, they must get 50% + 5%*(4-2) = 60% of the vote. The exact percentage difference is something that could be tweaked, but 5 seems about right.

 

[Dafistofmork]

What happens if you are so brilliant that you make a list that appears "fluffy", but in the right hands is a deamonic power house?
(i assume that when you say fluffy you dont mean a good story line, just that it is not designed to crush all comers.)
I dont think that will work, since the whole point is to test out new tactics. But then, Archon is not a tactic, just a mega power house.

 

[squeek]

Personally I like the system, 5% seems like a reasonable modifier as well since a fluffy list shouldn't gain as many votes as a power list anyway.

 

[Dafistofmork]

Actualy, having thought about it, the idea is growing on me. of course, 5 inderpendent juridicators need to be found, but there probaly is no shortage of victims/volunters for that.

 

[Othiem]

What happens if you are so brilliant that you make a list that appears "fluffy", but in the right hands is a deamonic power house?
(i assume that when you say fluffy you dont mean a good story line, just that it is not designed to crush all comers.)
I dont think that will work, since the whole point is to test out new tactics. But then, Archon is not a tactic, just a mega power house.

I think fluffy in this sense is not having a story so much as it is using a diverse list, using a weaker army book, and avoiding known power combos. If somebody manages to put together a power list that nobody saw coming, more power to them.

 

[Critta]

The thing is, if someone manages to put together a power list that nobody saw coming, they're unlikely to get the votes for it.

Although it's gonna be a fair bit of work, I'd say this could be useful, and having a set of impartial players to assign the rating (presumably each gets a vote and we take the average or something?)

One condition as far as I'm concerned, stuff calling it a "comp rating", it's gotta be called "cheese factor" or I'm dead set against the idea

 

[squeek]

Well the impartial voters would most likely be the list checkers who have agreed to help out since they are all knowledgeable players and should be impartial enough. Cheese factor, though amusing, may result in bad feeling, "Your list has been scored 5 for cheese - More cheesy than a dairy worker with athlete's foot!"

 

[Critta]

That's entirely the point. I mean come on, it is a cheese factor rating, so why try to dress it up with nice words? If we're gonna insist upon scoring people for cheesiness, we may as well be open about it.

Personally I think the whole idea will just open a whole can of worms if for example the list checker thinks the list is more cheesy than the person who wrote it, or someone's opponent thinks their list is more cheesy than the list checker did - hence me suggesting an average of votes given by a number of list checkers.

 

[squeek]

An average of multiple scores is definitely the way to go if we add it to the rules.

 

[Dafistofmork]

By the way- why should people be penalised just because they want to win? i mean, this is a tournament, its even got war(as opposed to tacica sissy hair pulling) in the name. just wondering.

 

[Vaz]

I agree. Why penalise someone with a list? I don't see why someone should be penalised with a 'Power Game' or a 'Cheese' list (of which there is none, there is only Spam).

Surely it's up to the Voters to decide whether they vote for the more Original list of their own design, or a list that is going to win?

And it's down to the Tactics as well.

Someone has a Dawn of the Dead Spam llist for VC, then they raise 15+ Zombies a turn. It doesn't take much. But what happens when someone comes up with a counter list for that - i.e Dwarf Spellbreaker List? They're going to get shut down, and are stuck with 600pts of Characters and 900/1400 to take on a 1500/2000pt List.

Vote on the tactics not the list. I will also be quite upset if I see someone voting purely on the list, and naturally, the upshot of that, the Penalisation of lists because someone's got a winning combo, and I hope to god that this isn't Implemented.

It's not "Rate my List wars", it's Tactica Wars. Yes, Army selection has a lot to do with it, but in the 40K Wars, I didn't have enough Anti-Horde. I was lucky enough to go against Mech armies and Space Marines on both occasions. Then I went against a Daemon List, and my tactics were sound. Marines, particularly anti-mech Marines are crap against Daemons. So how come I came away with a 4 votes from 9? Because of Tactics. And please, please, never ever cry Cheese. It's something some idiot teenager cried because he's too crap to create a counter or play around a 'Cheese' list.

 

[squeek]

It isn't to penalise people who wish to win, Othiem suggested it to give players who want to field lists from books other than DoC, VC and possibly DE, HE and WoC a chance, and an incentive to join in. It is also only a suggestion so far, so feel free to make reasoned objections to it.

As it happens if you choose to take a very powerful list and get a 4 or 5, you are still likely to get 20-25% more votes than someone who takes a very fluffy list that is more for fun than power.

 

[Vaz]

It might come across as Harsh, but maybe they should become better Tacticians.

I'm purely asking that this is not included. Why should my tactics require more votes, because I've chosen a Warriors of Chaos List, or a High Elven list?

E.g.

VC Power Gamers Tactics - Vampire Lord, 3 Vampires, 2 Varghulfs, and a shite load of Zombies. I move forward as fast as I can against the enemy. I raise some skellies, and then I kill as many as I can.

Wood Elf 'Fluffy' Tactics - Highborn with Great Eagle, Bow of Loren, Arcane Bodkins/Starfire Arrows, 5 Units of Glade Guard, 2 Eternal Guard units, and a few Waywatcher units.

I use the Waywatchers as a mobile killing unit, taking out the Vampires with close range fire power and Lethal Shot. The Archers dedicate their shooting to the Varghulf's, while the Eternal Guard take and hold the centre gap between the trees.

See the difference? In the forces, I'm set an objective. I'm not set a time limit for a run - it's not complete a Mile in under 5 minutes, it's aim for the 4:45. You failed? Try again. You passed? Good, go for 4:35. Objectives over Aims. Sounds like psychological rubbish, but it works. And seriously, who are you going to bother voting for as well? You have in your own mind, it's a power gamer list. So that's a -1. They have Aims instead of Objectives. -1. They have a better list +1. So they're on a -1 overall. Assess the Elven list. More sound tactics +1. Greater Movement +1. Shooting can take out Vampires, which are the core of the VC list +1, Weaker List than the VC's, and the Varghulfs can take down those units who are good for taking out the Vampires -1. So overall, a +1. That means that the Wood Elves deserve votes in your eyes.

By all means, in your breakdown, say it's a Power Gaming list. But do not vote for or against them because they have such, and putting that rule in place will encourage people to look for it. They make a new powerful combo (is the Autohitting, Str 7 Attack Vampire, that reduces the enemies weaponskill to -1 'cheese', because it can take out your Inner Circle Cavalry? No - of course not. It has a Weakness. Namely, Cannonball to face. Play around the enemy list. Counter what they have, while enforcing your own strengths and minimizing your weaknesses. If you can't, then really, really, why are you in TACTICA WARS. Make a Rate my List if you want to win by list choices solely, and I'll comment. But I don't want to have someone voting in favour of me/against me because I had a fluff list/Power game list. I'd feel cheated.

Imagine losing 15-0 in the UEFA Cup, or losing the Super bowl, but knowing that you still won the medal? Will Manchester City have one of the best players in the World when they buy Kaka? Yes. But will they win every game? No. same thing.

 

[Dafistofmork]

I agree Vaz. also, if some one takes Archon in a real game, what are you going to do?-whine like a little girl(no offense to little girls) or realise that by taking archon, your opponent has put 1/4 of there army in a single, easily avoidable model, and just destroy the dozen or so warriors and the 20 or so mauraders hes got? i know what i would do, and it involves no impresions.

I just found this:

What is the point of Tactica Wars?
The main thing (of course) is to have fun and try something different. It's another option really for being a member of Heresy-Online. But a good, valid point is to try out different lists and see if you can create tactics and back up why and how it can hold it's ground against other units. It's also a pretty cool way to see what other people play and use for tactics, thus learning something new. After all, that's what Heresy is all about.