[MarzM]

Ok, well i've read a lot on this Forum as well as others about the change back to 20-10-0 for this years UKGT. I think a lot of the comments have been just bitchy, and unstructured. Now i hate to sound sensible, but perhaps if people could put forward ideas that were constructive then that would be better.

Ok so if it was up to us, what would we change? You never know, we might even be able to write a draft/report with idea's in it to present to Brian Aderson for next year. Now im not saying that he'll listen, but surely that would be better than just sitting in the background bitching.

Ok so i think one of the main subjects will be the points system. Now i agree that 20-10-0 isn't the greatest, but i also think that the 3-1-0 has a few problems. IMO it promotes pop up armies that hid for 6 turns and then jump out and kill just enough to win. But it does give other less "competitive" armies a chance to do well. Spiky Dave got one of the biggest cheers that i have heard at a GT coz he did so well with ork's! Great, thats what i want. I don't want to put a chao's player and automatically take it for granted that it's an IW player!

My addition to the debate is up gunning the points values. Bugger 1500, lets play 2000pts. If this was to happen it would IMHO (for the most part) force people to fill out their troops sections and not just the elites, fast and heavy.

Ok so over to you guy's, idea's please!


MarzM :mrgreen:

 

[jigplums]

I dont think a change to 2000pts would really make all that much difference. If anything it would probably pronouch those kind of lists that can "min/Max" even more.

how about the 3/1/0 system but just have TOTAL vps rather than vp diff determining the final placings. That way the guy on 5 wins that has hid and tried to do the min damage and win games will be Low on the 15pt so Everyone should be trying to get every vp possible. this should make games more bloody as both players really try to wipe each other out, whilst still securing the win.

 

[MarzM]

Well that actually wouldn't be a bad idea! (not trying to sound too surprised). So just the VP scored instead of the difference! Well that might work. It might however play even more into IW hands!

The reason i suggested uping the points limit was because most of what would be considered beardy list's, have aready used up most of the more powerfull slots!

I would also like to see an expansion of what lists are allowed! Allow Speed Freeks, allow LAtD, allow 13th company. I don't care if there "expansion" lists! GW made them, and there no bloody worse than the normal shite that ends up at tournaments!

Ok, so more idea's! Less people viewing and more people posting!


MarzM :mrgreen:

 

[jigplums]

True SOME lists have maxed slots but have the maxed beard For example if we take edwins IW list as a typical IW list :wink: . The extra 500pts would probably go on an extra oblit in each squad. Another pred. Possession on each pred. One more Csm squad with Lascannon, infiltrate Tankhunter? or similar. and a couple of min bike squads for objective snatch.

Mechanised Eldar. Cool, and extra 2 Wave Serpents with Minimal occupants. Can now afford all brightlances rather than a mix.

BA : Bang on 2/3 extra speeders, and 2/3 more scout/Tactical squads. Take a libby or assault squad. And Masssive DC And More assault Cannons.

People wont suddenly think, well ive bearded my first 1500pts. How about i add a 10 man tactical squad with Hvy bolter, meltagun and a sergeant with stormbolter and powerweapon in a rhino, supported by some attackbikes.

 

[anathema]

Indeed, I don't think upping points to 2000 will balance stuff. It just adds more one-trick lists to the list of evil. On Dakka they keep going on about zilla nids, drop pod termies etc. To take the IW further, it then definitely allows you the full 9 oblits, the 4 heavies, the second infiltrating speed HQ and some infiltrating las/dual/plasma whatever squads to really go to town. Not to mention how evil Necrons get at higher points.

 

[MarzM]

Ok so maybe 2000pts isn't the answer, but remember the title of the thread. I'm looking for ideas from the UKGT players not just them to post to tell me my ideas are rubbish (lol). I want this to be taken seriously. This might make the event better for all, so again less viewing more idea's posting, cheers!


MarzM :mrgreen:

 

[Viscount Vash]

Maybe change the organization chart to make it 3 troops or something?

 

[Glen Roeder's love child]

I am not sure 2,000pts would work. Codices are balanced around 1,500pt so it should work. Also time will be an issue at 2,000pt.

I personally don't feel the current scoring systems benefits the "pop up and shoot on the last turn" armies. Just look at 1st and 2nd at this years final IWs and BAs, both of which, if rumours are true, will be substantially reigned in by the time of next years final.

I do like the total VPs scored approach. It rewards players who go hammer and tongs at each other which usually makes for a better game and also means that no matter how bad you are getting pasted there is always something to play for.

My personal recommendation is to stick with the 3-1-0 system and bring in a simple force structure restriction as they did for the doubles, which encourages balanced armies, although I cannot see them doing it.

 

[anathema]

Actually, first and second were IW and drop pod marines, highest BA player was HO's very own Longbeard in 20th.

 

[Jeridian]

Have to chirp in again for the 3-1-0 system.

There are certain armies out there (Drop Troop Guard, Orks, non-Godzilla Nids) which are simply not designed for Massacres- they must by definition sacrifice large chunks of their army to get the win.
The 20-0 system dicked on them, and glorified armies that could easily get massacres with little return damage (i.e. IW's).

That aside I think the changes that would improve the GT are not GT specific- i.e. updating army lists like BA and Chaos.

As for pts 1500pts is the 'design' test level.

As for what is happening- the Events team are aiming for a 'standard template' tournament. So that they will all follow that format- i.e. 20-0 system, 1500pts. These things won't change for GT.

They stress that there are plenty of other tournaments out there with different systems and different pts values. GT is not the be all and end all of tournament gaming.

 

[MarzM]

But they have different points levels for each tournament, surly if the games are different then the systems can be too. Or is this a case of getting one big brush for the whole thing? Perhaps they are over simplifing the whole thing?

MarzM :mrgreen:

 

[dakari-mane]

But they have different points levels for each tournament, surly if the games are different then the systems can be too. Or is this a case of getting one big brush for the whole thing? Perhaps they are over simplifing the whole thing?

MarzM :mrgreen:

NO! Everything must be the same for every tournament!

(apart from the things that are different)

 

[MarzM]

But what im saying Dan, is why can't they have a different system for 40k as they do for fantasy? The 3-1-0 is rubbish in warhammer, but the general concencious is that people would prefer the 3-1-0 for 40k!

MarzM :mrgreen:


Apart from the things that are different! lol

 

[blessed knight]

I've not been to a GT yet. (£ and time constraints)

Why even have a scoring system? Couldn't it just be done on pure Victory points?

Armies that rely on taking damage en route wouldn't be penalized.
You could still pair off the leaders as its a simple spreadsheet sort.
Painting and quiz could be done on a points system too.

Why complicate matters with an extra scoring system?

 

[tau air caste]

I think the 20-10-0 is better imo but everyone will have different views on this, Also as brian anderson said the rule book was desinged with the 20-10-0 system in mind. But any system will do for me it just means getting used to it.

 

[jigplums]

the rulebook doesn't actually have a points system, just a degree's of victory. the problem is the weighting of the various degrees. Are 6 minor victories better than 5 major ones?

personally i think the total vps is better than either system as it promotes people going for the big vps, wiping out there opponent, AND means the guys that win all there games will be top of the pack.

 

[Jeridian]

Not necessarily, you could win 6 minor victorys and have less VP's than a guy who won 2 massacres.

It will always come down to this, who should win the tournament:

A) The guy with the most games won (3-1-0).
B) The guy with the highest VP's (20-0).

I vote for A.

As for encouraging Massacres as beneficial to the game, assuming for a moment the GT is "The primary purpose of our Tournament is to get together so that we can play our favourite game and meet other players who share our interests." quote from GT rulespack.

All Massacres encourage in my experience is gravitation towards armies like IW's, Seer Village, etc, and the uncompromising rules fighting to grasp every point. A Massacre usual occurs when one side is utterly bitch-slapped and that is rarely fun.
Whilst some armies aren't even designed with Massacres in mind- Orks, non-Godzilla Nids, infantry IG all must sacrifice large chunks of their army just to win.

So I'd much rather encourage consistent game winning, regardless of size. This gives armies like IG and Orks a chance, and rewards someone for consistent gameplay.

IW's, et al can still qualify without much effort, but there isn't the absurd situation where such an army has Massacred 2-3 of it's first opponents and doesn't really care about the rest as they've already qualified.

 

[Jezlad]

Not necessarily, you could win 6 minor victorys and have less VP's than a guy who won 2 massacres.

It will always come down to this, who should win the tournament:

A) The guy with the most games won (3-1-0).
B) The guy with the highest VP's (20-0).

I vote for A.

As for encouraging Massacres as beneficial to the game, assuming for a moment the GT is "The primary purpose of our Tournament is to get together so that we can play our favourite game and meet other players who share our interests." quote from GT rulespack.

All Massacres encourage in my experience is gravitation towards armies like IW's, Seer Village, etc, and the uncompromising rules fighting to grasp every point. A Massacre usual occurs when one side is utterly bitch-slapped and that is rarely fun.
Whilst some armies aren't even designed with Massacres in mind- Orks, non-Godzilla Nids, infantry IG all must sacrifice large chunks of their army just to win.

So I'd much rather encourage consistent game winning, regardless of size. This gives armies like IG and Orks a chance, and rewards someone for consistent gameplay.

IW's, et al can still qualify without much effort, but there isn't the absurd situation where such an army has Massacred 2-3 of it's first opponents and doesn't really care about the rest as they've already qualified.

Einstein couldn't of worded a better arguement.

I totally agree with you.

Although, thinking about it Jigplums does have a point - switching to a total VP's earned regardless of own losses would benefit Orks/Guard etc and also be a blessing to IW's and co. It seems the mutually beneficial answer to both styles of list.

 

[jigplums]

basically i meant 3/1/0 system with total vps deciding final positions.
Basically a pretty similar system as is in place now, but with total vps rather than vp differential.

 

[stompzilla]

Not necessarily, you could win 6 minor victorys and have less VP's than a guy who won 2 massacres.

It will always come down to this, who should win the tournament:

A) The guy with the most games won (3-1-0).
B) The guy with the highest VP's (20-0).

I vote for A.

As for encouraging Massacres as beneficial to the game, assuming for a moment the GT is "The primary purpose of our Tournament is to get together so that we can play our favourite game and meet other players who share our interests." quote from GT rulespack.

All Massacres encourage in my experience is gravitation towards armies like IW's, Seer Village, etc, and the uncompromising rules fighting to grasp every point. A Massacre usual occurs when one side is utterly bitch-slapped and that is rarely fun.
Whilst some armies aren't even designed with Massacres in mind- Orks, non-Godzilla Nids, infantry IG all must sacrifice large chunks of their army just to win.

So I'd much rather encourage consistent game winning, regardless of size. This gives armies like IG and Orks a chance, and rewards someone for consistent gameplay.

IW's, et al can still qualify without much effort, but there isn't the absurd situation where such an army has Massacred 2-3 of it's first opponents and doesn't really care about the rest as they've already qualified.

Couldn't have put it better myself!

Agree with Jigplums too. The ideal system to my mind would be a 3-1-0 system with total VPs rather than the differential.