Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
41 - 60 of 80 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,717 Posts
It should be easy to get down to 150. Start by weeding out anybody who doesn't drink :twisted:

If ROYEMUNSON is there he could be persuaded to stand down for the price of two pints of cider. :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
450 Posts
Although I can't fault your theory, there are a few things we have to consider. the first is the capacity of the hall. We only have space for 160 players at the GT so settng it up so 168 could attend would be impossible. In order to provide a consistent service for all qualifiers we can only offer places to 160 people. I hope that makes sense.

The flexibility comes with the Wildcard places. Once all the qualifiers have been established, if there are any places left we can look at the remaining players who didn't initially qualify and potentially offer some of them a place. This can't be decided until after heat three though.

Hope that makes sense

Brian
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,602 Posts
Yeah i suppose that makes sense. Is there any shake up in the way wildcards will be working in the future? Highest points that didn't qualify from the three heats? I would think it would be best to aim for the majority of places to be decided in advance though, as the longer after the event the more likely for people not to be able to attend the finals, and also i think it makes the whole process more transparent. I'm not sure why but there seems to be a large following who thinks that you guys are sitting there rubbing your hands and laughing like a bond villian as you put through people for all sorts of dishonest reasons rather than reward the deserving.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
138 Posts
One thing that Greg Sparkes mentioned to me at final after our game was the possibility of offering places to Yanks who win or top 3 a major US event, the Baltimore GT for example.

While its not a massive change, if Americans are prepared to make the trip it would be nice if UK events could help facilitate it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Having read through this I wanted to add something to the original topic - although the thought of Brian as an evil super-villain has me stitches :lol:

Brian and his team obviously have a difficult task balancing delivering a first class tournament event, and promoting the GW product. If the Events team use a different scoring system from the one in the book, it sets up, for GW, a dangerous situation that long term, you have 2 games. 40K and 40KGT. New players would spend alot of time understanding how to play the one, and then would have to spend time learning how to play the other. This is already in operation, as I am learning how to write and tournament army, as it is damned different from the army I like to play with. In a tournament that couldn't fight it's way out of a wet paper bag!

Maybe an approach would be to sort out an ideal scoring structure for a GT - using painting, sportsmanship. quizzes whatever - and then work to have it in the next ( :roll: ) 40K rulebook, either as an alternative tournament system, or as the official GT system.

While that might take away the flexibility for Brian and his team to chose how they want to score a GT, it would keep them in line with whats in the rulebook, and anybody coming into 40K will know what's expected when attending a GT.


Just a thought.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
333 Posts
and anybody coming into 40K will know what's expected when attending a GT.

Thats what the rulespack is for. Everyone gets about 6 months to know what the system is, and its even less complicated than before. You simple get a football style scoring system with small bonuses for big wins. All you really need to know is the margin of victory and then try and win by more than that. The missions are all in the rulebook. I don't see how anyone needs much time to get used to trying to win TBH.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
anathema said:
Thats what the rulespack is for. Everyone gets about 6 months to know what the system is, and its even less complicated than before. You simple get a football style scoring system with small bonuses for big wins. All you really need to know is the margin of victory and then try and win by more than that. The missions are all in the rulebook. I don't see how anyone needs much time to get used to trying to win TBH.
There is a difference between tournament play and campaign play and everyday pick up your toys and play.

I have been playing for over 20 years with a reasonable rate of success. I have had my eyes opened by some seasoned Tournament Vets who have shown me a new way of looking at lists and composing armies, and what the victory conditions in a tournament actually mean. The rulespack is a tool to let you know how the mechanism is run. There is a difference between that and how to play at a tournament.

It's only a thought but it ties in things like a rules FAQ. The basics are in the rulebook so everyone gets to understand a tournament. Seasonal variations are addressed in a FAQ.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
966 Posts
So what you are asking for is a book telling you how to play in a tourney, but not one that tells you how the tourney is played?

Sorry you aint making any sense dude.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
I think the new system should be given a fair chance to see if it works - certainly it would seem to in theory (with only 1 reservation IMO!) ;)

I would caution against trying to encourage really bloody battles and dissaude armies that hide then jump out at the last minute etc etc

Whilst we'd probably all agree it doesn't make for a great game if someone's come along to hide for 5 turns :evil: you also have to be careful that you don't inadvertantly penalise armies that work like that anyway (I'm thinking Tau amongst others) or those that don't excel at bashing the crap out of the enemy whilst sustaining little damage in return (have some pitty on us Guard players!)

Having run a couple of tournaments myself now I'm personally a fan of the 0-1-3 system with VP differences sorting out placings for those on the same tournament pts.

Whilst this doesn't 'reward' those whom gain massive victories as much as a bonus in tournament pts, it still makes a difference and doesn't unfairly inhibit the vast majority of armies out there (though sadly not on the tournament circuit) that often win by small margins simply because of their nature.

Obviously the much needed toning down of Iron Warriors will make a big difference to Heats 2 and 3 and I'm keeping my fingers crossed that we see a bit more diversity in armies doing well at the GT but I still think its a little biased in favour of elite armies that are inherently tougher than others and have great Victory point denial.

I know for one this will be the last year I stupidly take my IG - next year I'll take my Tau and have an actual chance of qualifying! lol ;)

The whole point of the GT is to find the best player - quite often (more often than not if you ask me) the best players are those doing amazing things with under-used armies considered to be less effective - especially in comparison to those whom take one trick pony armies or the cut and paste army of doom....

We should aspire to a GT that is big enough to cover all of this - how we go about it I'm not totally sure - but I think the 0-13 system was the best that's been tried yet.

That's my two-cents anyhow ;)

Malchek
 
41 - 60 of 80 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top