For those that want to discuss it here instead of the Marauder thread.

Pros:
-All the tough guys fight it out among themselves, usually resulting in knocking most of them out of the overall.
-All the softies will avoid the tough guys all day 1 and usually day 2.
-The softies get bonus points for playing vs a higher band.
-Comp within the scenarios and scenario points are aimed at units of troops with command
-So far a band 1 army has not won best overall or best general.
-Players actually do ask for input to their lists to avoid being in band 1. This does make the overall band 2 and 3 softer. If enough of them do it, it makes band 1 softer as well.
-Players that love the challenge of playing vs hard/balanced lists can choose their list accordingly and face what they bring.
***the key is to find a way that the tough guys dont just make it completely unfun IF they have a 1 vs 3 match up on day 2.

Cons:
-at the moment, still very tempting to bring the hardest list you can. GRRR
**Im working on fixing this with judges and list veto**
-some players will believe they are unfairly banded. usually this is delusional thoughts about their own army! 7 judges cant be wrong!?
-New tough army books are making it harder to judge lists
-Last year VC/DoC were a clear cut above the rest
-Banding can lead to a blander variety of army types within the band. IE you wont find Deamons or VC in band 3, and it would be tough to see OK, BoC, O&G in band 1. HE and DW are very prevelant in band 2.
***Im hoping with 4+ books coming out after the last Buckeye Battles that there will be more variety in the top 2 bands. Band 3 will still be similar with the few guys that bring the very fluffy HE, DW, TK, EM etc.


Im sure theres more. That was some brought up on other threads.

my main con with banding is that when you don;t have enough of lists to fill a band people are moving up a band to fill the gap. this is what happened to me when i went, i know because you told me. also i was told it was virtually impossible for a band 1 to win. it's just my opinion but if i go to a GT i like knowing i have a chance going in to win.

i didn't attend last year, but the year i went it seemed that the band 1 people i played forgot to deploy their personalities. it was like playing 3 robots. heck i had one guy ignore me most of the game while he talked to his buddy about how he should paint his army and about how bad i was going to loose. i;m not saying that will always happen, but people who bring hard and ott lists seem to have that type of personalities

year 1 was a challenge as we had smaller numbers and needed fill the bands with at least 8-10 armies to keep the match ups making sence IE winners vs winners.

year 2 was much easier with 50ish people we had a much easier time getting the right armies in the right bands. the issue was a band 1 VC/DoC list was really a notch or 2 above the LM/WE/SK guys.

Its not impossible for band 1 to win it, but we certainly give incentive to bring a softer list to get more bonus points. To me, that the whole idea of a comp system, to encourage players to bring softer armies.

Butters is that Mike S?

Do you have any suggestions to make banding work better?

*One* of the issues I had with banding was that it appeared the armies were ranked relative to lists within that same army list (i.e. a soft demon list) as opposed to just a hard list.

I also recognize that it is very difficult to determine who gets into each band, but who ever is in band 2 that almost made it into band 1 has the greatest advantage in the tournament. They have a hard list and will gain additional points for playing band 1 armies... yet they are hard enough that they are competitive against band 1 armies so they still have a chance of doing well.

yup, that's me Jeff

even with 50+ people i can still see how people can be put into band 1 with a band 2 list. i don;t see how you can get the exact number of list you need per band without shifting some around to fill the gaps. even if you have people tone down band 1 lists and they submit a band 2. if band 1 is not filled they could still be in band 1

so for curiosities sake what was the relative band match ups this most recent time?

is it determend by our first match....so VC versus Demons is band 2 or 3?

sorry for my confusion I'm just not sure what all this banding stuff means.

an example would be appreciated.

I believe the Marauder does a round 1 power level match up. At Buckeye Battles round 1 is usually paired from top 2, next 2, and so on unless there is a team issue. We try to avoid teams playing within the team on day 1, but on round 3 we had to do a few to keep the 2 best in the band playing vs each other instead of vs a losing army. We do strive to avoid teams on day 2 as well as long as we can adjust within 1-3 Battle points.

As to your example, we had round 1: VC vs DoC 2x, WE vs DoC, and so on. I did try to avoid like army vs like army on round 1. I dont have all the info in front of me at the moment.

Butters I agree that is the tough part. Thats why after the judges score all the lists, a couple of us sit down with all the scores and the pile of lists and then compare them. Is this really a band 1 with what we see in Band 1 and 2. Thats the tough part and why the feedback is usually positive from band 2 + 3 players and some of the band 1 guys are iffy.

We have thought about giving the lower bands more bonus points since the ones we have now are not guarenteed. If you are a band 2 list and play vs band 2 and 3 on day 2, you get 0 in the current system. We had several band 3 guys play only 1 person out of band 3 so he only got 3pts. A system that guarenteed points would be great for the lower bands. It would be the equivilant of a judged comp score that would reward soft or deduct points from hard lists that some tourneys do. Players with tough lists would probably expect to lose some points in a player scored system too.

Ultimately we can change the bands if we get the desired effect that no one turns in a tier 1 list, then we can go with 2 bands. I think thats really what most people want that dont want to go to GW events. We could force that by rejecting lists and have a 2 band system. Im guessing that band 3 will not be huge. With new books coming out, some of those armies will be tough to make into a band 3 list. Might be fun and challenging to try it for those that want to.


Grumgore, I think your point has some validity. I will have written guidelines for judges this year that outline its a judgement based on the list itself, not what it could be. I know most of the judges followed that, but Im not certain if all of them did.

could you request to be in a higher catagory? If I get the time off (ie. permission from my wife) to head to Ohio for another tourney, i'll likely bring my O&G but I would probably still want to play against the 'OTT' armies.

Every tourney that judges comp recognises that it is subjective. I know Nathans BB Dwarf gunline was seen by some players as a Band 1 monstrosity, yet sunday I heard a group of veteran players saying it wasnt that bad with no organ guns and other items. Everyone has personal biases and experiences that they draw on that says X is broken, Y is not too bad. Thats why I get 7 judges from different parts of the country/world to score them to try to get a broad background and even bring up stuff that others may have missed.

In addition, if anyone thinks they are qualified to be a judge and cannot come next July, PM me and I will consider you as a judge. Its fairly time consuming to do it right.

One pro for banding is, after last BB, Coco and I both decided we would do our best to fall in band 2 or lower the next year, since day one was really rough. So, at least for us, it encourage a lowering of the arms race...

Yes. Both years we have had requests by people that wanted to take up the challenge and see how good they could do. Also had a guy that was out of the country and couldnt get me his list in until the morning of. so he asked to be in band 1 to compensate since I didnt have time to rate it with the judges.

From the point of view of someone who honestly goes to these things for the fun of playing and not to win stuff, I prefer playing games with and against some of what are frequently considered less competitive type armies -- those focused on rank and file infantry & cavalry, minimal items/powers, etc. While my favorite games are usually against armies like O&G, skaven, empire, non-gunline dwarves, etc. my favorite opposing list at Marauders was probably the HE army I faced in round 1.

Anyway, my point being, while I realize it is a "competition" I did enjoy the banding because I played similar armies, but still faced a bit of variety at BB this year (O&G, 2x dwarfs, TK and DE.)

Banding may have its faults, but I find them acceptable. Especially since each system has its faults, and the banding lets people be the their own judge of how they want to play. I find comp. limits & rules too overbearing. Banding lets the OTT people bring their stuff, but also lets the less OTT people bring what they want. And as someone else pointed out already, only having to face OTT stuff on day 2 is better than having to face it in all 5 games.

Thanks Thomas, t hats generally the response I get. I agree its not perfect, just different. I hope we can improve it every year. Or if it proves to collapse, then we can run a "normal" Indy GT with other comp factors.

I am totally Pro banding. I think it is a great tool to reward people for good comp, because the people in the lower brakets recieve bonuses for playing people in the higher brakets. That in and of itself is a reason to bring a fluffy army.

I only know that I would like some kind of biding system, where I can "elect" to play someone in a higher band. I played a great game against a band one list for my 5th game, but if I had done the same thing against a band 3 list I would have won best general because I would have gotten the bonus three points. So next time if I "choose" to play a higher banded list I feel that is a risk worth taking.

Just my two cents,
Gary

Interesting idea Gary. Im wondering how to implement that quickly between rounds and what if everyone elects to do that. Might not be possible, but I will think about it.

One suggestion was to just give 5pts to band 2 and 10 to band 3 at the start of the event and not do only if you face a higher band method. That has its cons as well.