Page 6 of 9

Re: And the FAQs are up

PostPosted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 4:09 pm
by Larro
Ronen Warrior wrote:Well Mr. GTKing, how would you structure an event? What ruleset do you recomend?


??

I think the NE Indys have it right. You're free to disagree, but I wasn't trying to say we change the Indys at all. I'd simply just do what we do now, sans Comp. It's the opinion of most people that you don't need Comp for 8th, so I figure it would be even more streamlined and easier to run. Pick a point level, do 5 or 6 games, and you have to keep BOTH Painting and Sports to both prevent huge dickheads while simultaneously continuing to encourage quality events with painted and assembled armies, and presto, you've got an 8th Edition tourney, just like 7th. Scenarios are up to TO as always.

If it's the general consensus that competitive Warhammer is totally done with, that's fine too. I just didn't know how it was shaking out. If guys like Jarrett and Andy are agreeing with Birdoff, then I'm certain there is merit to the idea that "competitive" Warhammer no longer exists.

- Larry

Re: And the FAQs are up

PostPosted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 4:17 pm
by WickerNipple
"Competitive" is a tricky word. You're playing "against" someone else, so obviously it's a competition in some fashion or another.

What I do think is that it's something you can't take remotely seriously anymore, or really approach winning as an objective or value. A lot of us did - and I think 8th will be deeply unsatisfying if we continue to do so. That's all.

Some people will think that makes the game and thus the events more inclusive. Some people will think it makes them pointless. As long as there's a party, I'm sure to attend anyway since that's all I've come for since I quit the last time around. I really don't know what the ideal 8th ed event will be, it's going to take some fucking around with until something proper settles into place.

Re: And the FAQs are up

PostPosted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 4:30 pm
by Ancow
Ronen Warrior wrote:
Larro wrote:I don't think it's a two way street; I'm not sure you can convince people who do care about winning to come to an event where winning = zero importance.


Well Mr. GTKing, how would you structure an event? What ruleset do you recomend?

Image

Re: And the FAQs are up

PostPosted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 4:33 pm
by mattbird
I agree with the above. I would go just to have fun regardless, BUT--

I would not be excited about an 8th ed event where the TO tries to change the rules in any way to mitigate the craziness of it all, which is what I think some people might want to do. I also really don't see how the game is compable any more, so any event with comp would be a turnoff to me.

So, if it is 8th edition full on, no rules changes, no comp, I would still go.

Otherwise, no.

Re: And the FAQs are up

PostPosted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 4:53 pm
by WickerNipple
mattbird wrote:I would not be excited about an 8th ed event where the TO tries to change the rules in any way to mitigate the craziness of it all, which is what I think some people might want to do.


Right, that is the result of what I was saying above - any attempts at making the thing more objective will wind up just looking arbitrary when compared with the entire framework. All in for the lulz or fuckit.

Re: And the FAQs are up

PostPosted: Sat Jul 10, 2010 7:34 am
by Pariah
Could you guys enumerate the reasons why you can't take 8th ed. seriously. People have mentioned scattered reasons here and there, but I'd love to see a full accounting of it all in one place. I think it's very telling about an edition of Warhammer if players from one of the premiere groups of players in the U.S. are rejecting it competitively.

Re: And the FAQs are up

PostPosted: Sat Jul 10, 2010 8:18 am
by xmbk
I wonder if a GT could pull off a "best out of 3" format? 2k at most, maybe 1500. But you play 3 games in a row against the same opponent, so flukey wins get minimized. 3 close, hard fought games would have a problem with the time limit. But most of the time that probably won't happen. Maybe give players the choice to play round 1 Friday night, or start early on Saturday. Then round 3 can run late if necessary. Plenty of time on Sunday for 2 rounds.

Maybe. ;)

Re: And the FAQs are up

PostPosted: Sat Jul 10, 2010 8:54 am
by elrodogg
Games going quicker means more rounds. That certainly takes a lot of the randomness out of the game.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk

Re: And the FAQs are up

PostPosted: Sat Jul 10, 2010 8:56 am
by VectorAWX3
Do you really want to play the same guy 3 times? Particularly when you figure out, after game one, that the guy is a douche and that his army is built in such a way as to grind your army into dust?

The idea of playhing more games to iron out statistical anomalies works just as well if you play 3 different guys. So your idea that you simply play more games does have merit in that sense. But as you said, the game sizes need to get smaller for the games to get shorter. Where do you draw the line? 10 X 1200 point games? 14 * 1000 point games?

Re: And the FAQs are up

PostPosted: Sat Jul 10, 2010 9:07 am
by elrodogg
2400 pt games won't take two hours once people have the rules down. A seven game tournament isn't out of the question time wise