Jump to content

Kodos

Members
  • Content Count

    56
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Kodos

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. If they ever finish their rules They plan to have the core rules done an autumn, and than doing 3 army books per year
  2. I use Lava Stones that are smaller than the glued on cardboard (I have some on a clear flight stand that I place on the cardboard but they are a problem with some ships) there are not a lot games out there that use TLOS, and most games I know with 2D terrain have rules for area terrain that affect line of sight independent on how the terrain looks like (eg, a wood always blocks LOS for Infantry and Large Infantry sized models no matter how many trees are physically there on the table)
  3. If the rules don't support 2D terrain it makes no difference if there is a modelled swamp or no swamp at all. And no, I would never play on a table were the tactic is hidding behind los blocker until you see the chance to wipe out your opponent in a single turn. It just looks good but is not fun to play is not my kind of game I have enough 3D terrain for X-WING, but the game is fine with the 2D terrain out of the core box
  4. This depends on the local players and not if there are rules for tournaments Never had it seen that it was a problem to play different in casual games for X-Wing. It would be more a problem to get those 40k players to play without the local tournaments restriction or use the rulebook scenarios instead, as they consider it unplayable. But the casual gamers in general don't care. the advantage of area terrain is that there is always enough on the table, while using only real 3D terrain gives us thise ugly and empty tables like on the picture
  5. Something like that But the rules for different tournaments are different in a "refreshing but familiar" sense but different in "different unit restrictions and scenarios". A top tier ETC list will have no chance in ITC, and an ITC list can be illegal for ETC (no ForgeWorld allowed) while some tournaments have their own rules. It maybe interesting for some people that the same list cannot be played at 2 different tournaments but if I have a list I like I don't want to constantly change it 40k has open, narrative and matched play, open as bring anything you want, narrative as play a specific scenario and matched play with a pre set point level. there is nothing official for competitive (with the ITC being close as they have direct contact to GW and make the playtesting for them) of course they could support them in another way, but except for big cons in the USA they don't care about them (the is something like a World Championship for 40k done without any kind of support from GW) So even if I have my problems with the FFG rules in some details, there is actually support for competitive events which is a big advantage
  6. GW supports large events/cons, they also never stopped running events on their own (like campaign days in Warhammer World). But only Shadespire (and soon Kill Team) has official Organised Play/Tournament support everything else has no official regulations/rules and is official not meant to be played in tournaments
  7. 40k tournaments have changed a lot in the last years and it is not as relaxed as it was back in 5th, even in not so serious events. It also has an official size now and it is hard to get people into playing anything else than the official 2k points in 2.5 hours with the problem that most games end turn 3 because they ran out of time. There are also different restrictions around and depending on were you live you are not able to play the same list on 2 different tournaments. Victory conditions are another topic as there are those that still use the same for years now ignoring all chances in scenarios while others use the random mission points ending with the possibility that some people can earn 20 tournament points easily (like winning 20:10) while others get 10 in the same round (winning 10:5) As there are not many official 40k events, model wise tournaments are a lot less restrictive than those from other companies, but his depends in the TO and some execute WYSIWYG more strict than others. Just because your heavy converted army is legal in one tournament does not mean it won't be forbidden in another one.
  8. 4 games minimum (should be no problem with 120 minutes per game) should be a thing also for small torunaments
  9. There are some guys around who go to a tournament to win it or make it at least top 4 and they atop playing as soon as there is no mathematical chance to make it. They are not so common as as in 15 years I have only met 2 of them (I have encountered the 1 of them more often in different games)
  10. So no Swiss System but everyone has play against any other player once and you can count total points. The Swiss System should pair equal good players but that happens only after the 4th game if the first one is randomly paired Than the guy winning high always needs less total victories than the guy winning close Therefore going for an extreme list that wins high against some matchups is preferred (but lis to 0 against others) over a list that can handle everything. It is now a while I was a TO but the problem with not rewarding victories is not a new on and the solution for rewarding winning high was to add victory points and not to replace them by in game mission points or kill points or whatever PS: but it depends on the possible winning conditions, eg if it is possible to win by scenario or killing, it would be won by one: 3p, by both: 4p, lose by one: 1p, lose both 0p. If there is just one condition, adding difference in mission points is another option, like win: 3p, win with >4 differenc: 4p etc but going directly for misdion points = tournament points had never really worked
  11. and don't use total mission points for ranking
  12. Killed units is not the best option, but I would take something similar Win: 30 points, Draw: 20 point, Los: 10 point Point Difference for killed units: 800: +/-10, 700-600: +/-8, 600-500: +/-7, 500-400: +/- 6, 400-300: +/-5, 300-200: +/-4, 200-100: +/-2 <100: +/-0 with mission points as tie breaker or mission point difference in killed points as tie breaker So winning with killing everything but losing nothing is 40:0, winning but euqal lost units is 30:10 but winning with lots of killed units is 25:15 This is legit for an Event or relaxed Campaign Day but not for a tournament were the overall winner should not be the one that got a lucky first round pairing but the best player
  13. put the number on the sleve or using different coloured sleves should do it
  14. No you should not Unless all missions and tables are exactly the same. As soon as different scenarios are played just having luck to get the not so skilled opponent in the mission were you can get most points is not the way to do it And there is no sport out there (as the biggest database for tournament results) were achieved points is rated than games won (imagine a soccer or hockey league were number of goals is rated first) Rate scoring higher is an option without random scenarios, minimum of 5 games and without random pairing for first round, to reduce the wining of players who rate themselves better as they really are (the usual "why i am not rewarded for winning 10:1 against the noob in game one while I lost the other games just 4:7, I should be rated higher than the guy winning 3 games 6:5" stuff)
  15. You could search the web for Hal9000 Star wars fan edit and and re-watch Episode III, I would say that it is worth a try
×
×
  • Create New...