If you dont know the premise of banding, its all explained on other threads in this section of the forum. For those that do, we are trying to make a system thats fair and balances for those armies that fall in the soft band (3) in the event that they get matched up vs a tier 1 army.

Suggestions are:

Bonus Tourney Points for the player that has to play above the band that hes in. These points could be awarded as a flat score of 3-5pts per game (only those games vs higher tier) or a bonus to the win/loss/draw score varying depending on the result (3pts for win, 2pts for a draw, 1pt for a loss) or some varient of that.

Pregame Strategic advantages. Vs 2 bands above you, player can choose 2 options of the 3. Table side. Go 1st or 2nd. Enemy deploy whole army 1st. VS 1 band higher than you, pick table side or to go 1st or 2nd.

Strategy Cards. End 1 magic phase immediately. No flying movement 1 turn. all ward saves -1 for 1 turn.

Those are some of the suggestions. Id like to hear from you what you think of those suggestions or if you have a better idea, we would like to hash that out as well.

Thanks!!!

I realize that players should gain advantages for playing 2 bands above them. But having them deploy their whole army first? I really thinks this screws the pre-game strategy and is way too overpowered.

Everything else seems fine, but that was the one that jumped at me.

That was my 1st reaction too, but the more I thought about it and bounced it off other players, many really dont think it would be all that huge. Many players will go into a game knowing how they plan to deploy anyway. Personally, Im more reactive in deployment, so I would at least *feel* better having the enemy deploy it all.

A lesser option would be 2 bands ahead deploy 3 to your 1 unit, 1 band ahead would deploy 2 units to your 1. But if you really think about it, band 3 vs 1 the band 3 guy would have 3 screening units out, and the band 1 guy likely his entire army. So it sounds nicer, but is really a very small difference.

Um. I kind of like it like it is. Just giving a pts bonus for playing a tougher army.

The reason being it keeps the game simple (if it wasn't already complex) and it means if I were to win, I win.

Meaning there is nothing better than an all peasent bret army taking out some cheesey Nurgle Daemon force or Daemon horde.

just my opinion.

G

For those that dont know what the existing rule is: Last year was anyone playing vs a higher band got 3pts. So the chances of getting them were greater if you were in band 3, but a band 2 guy could get 6pts (day 2) and theoretically a band 3 guy could get 0 (but play all his games vs band 3 and likely not be winning much day 1).

For those joining us. I will rephrase my position on the issue.

Banding makes it so day 1 power armies play amongst themselves. Fluff armies play amongst themselves. Then mixing it up day 2 just like every other tourney.

Band 1 power armies will not have to face "too weak and unfun" band 3 armies day 2 any more than they normally would. Were trying to give band 3(Ogre for ex. ) armies a fighting chance vs band 1(daemons for ex. )

Thats no easy task. The power difference between a band 2(a decent HE army) vs Band 1 is just enough that I feel picking sides, choosing turn and seeing enemy deployment will put them on the same level. Yes....seeing enemy deployment is powerful.... it needs to be to compensate.

But those benefits arent going to save a band 3 fighting band 1. I feel that in addition to those things listed in a 1 band difference should be in ADDITION to something extra. For a 2 Band difference(only possible 1 vs 3) a bump in game result would just about do. So a loss counts as tie and tie as a win.

Its better to keep the conversation going on this forum. But the comments I will be quoting come from here.....

http://tekbot.com/warhammer/viewtopic.p ... c&start=50



why is a tougher army automatically a better player? The worst players I have ever seen at a WHFB have been daemon, VC players. There are good players with those armies too. But if I want to find bad players thats the first place I expect to find them. Every other army power level seems to have an even distribution of player skill.

The first place I would look for good players would be at well built lower power armies (tombking, ogres, beasts etc. )

A band 3 player may kick ass day 1 vs lower power armies but its a tournament> I would expect him to fight in the top tournament score range towards the end. If he wants to win thats the way it has to be. Were trying to artificially boost their chances in those tough matchups. So we can get the top scorers to face each other across the table. Not use technicalities to pull of a tournament win while avoiding each other.

by your method the band 3 player kicking ass will continue to fight the lowest level of competition and possibly walk away with the tournament. To my competitive sensibility that doesnt seem right that the tournament leaders might never face each other across the table.



I would recomend a considerably altered version of how the system works. Taking some of mikes idea about seeding and combining it with the band system. Heres what Im thinking.

1) currently a panel of independant judges gives the armies a score ranging from 1-10. This ends up being some value like 6.3. Perhaps round it to the nearest 0/.5 so that 6.3 becomes 6.5 and 6.2 becomes 6.0

2) This score determines who fights who game 1

3) game 2 onward take battlepoints + this score to determine who fights who(similar to mikes seeding but without any possible backdoor politics, personal opinions etc). People can see their battlepoints and army ranking after each game and know exactly who theyll fight(with the caveat that they cant play someone a second time).

4) this is where the banding system rears its head. A difference of 3 army ranking(2.5 vs 5.5)= choose side, enemy deploys 2 units to 1, choose turn. A difference of 6 army ranking(2.5 vs 8.5) is all the advantages just mentioned AND a bump in game result. Tie becomes win for example.

One problem I may see is if the judges dont use the full scale of 1-10. If a weak OK army is still ranked 2.5 and a killer daemon army 8.5 that means a weak OG army scored 3 will never get its second bonus.

So either the judges have to be very conscious that a killer daemon army should be ranked 10(or 9.5 min) and a weak OK army 0 or .5. OR the difference between army rankings needs to be made smaller to get those bonuses.

So maybe a difference of 2 army ranking = 1st bonus and 4 army ranking= both bonuses.

5) the advantage of using the pure army score to determine bonuses is we avoid the low end of band 1 fighting the high end of band 2 but getting hit with all the 1 band disadvantages.

the other advantage is we no longer have to "fill" bands. We can have 2 OTT daemon players and 45 OK armies and the tournament still works.

6) and if thats not enough We have scenarios and hell....lets throw in Marauder style cards( I love those things) but then Im crazy like that.

All this tweaking may be a bit much for people who want to keep the game as pure as possible. But for me its pure fun. Ive been playing this game for a long time. Id love to incorporate all these new inputs into my army design. And if I can navigate the system well enough I get a win. Someone who puts more thought into their army vs the system gets the win.

This helps even out the field from the newb daemon players vs the pro OK players. You have 10 powerdice of tzeentch magic and a LoC? The scenario halves fly movement and I use the drain magic card My balanced army is coming for you. Go ahead, the scenario affects my one eagle and your card makes my 2 warmachines shoot on 4+, no biggies I still have 2000pts of army unaffected.

I liked the system better from the first Buckeye... it awarded more points for a 2 band difference.

For the Marauder, I take the average judged scores and marke them on a curve. That way the toughest army then gets a 0 and the fluffiest army gets a 5.

I never liked awarding bonus points to playing a higher band, as if you never play a higher band, you never get the bonus points. This can screw someone if they happen to not draw a Band 1 player overall.

I like the banding system a lot, I just believe that the bonus points you receive, should be a base amount. Either give bonus points based on how you rank, or based on your band.

If you did 3 bonus points for the difference, then why not:

Band 1 - 0 points
Band 2 - 3 points
Band 3 - 6 points

That equates to 1.5 bonus point per game for Band 2 on day 2, and 3 for band 3. If I recall, the point system was a 0-20 point system - so this shouldn't affect it too much, but keep the well comp'd armies competitive as an overall.

I was always a fan of composition being a part of the score. When fighting for best overall, the best overall isn't the person who has the nastiest, deadliest list he can possibly make. On the contrary, a general who can take what he has (a more realistic, themed, or fluffier list), paint it well, play it well and be a fun opponent is the best overall in my mind. Good generals historically don't have the best of everything at their fingertips, they take what crap they are given and turn it into a fighting force capable of winning and defeating their opponents.

That is a very interesting concept. I like it a lot. In effect it is "judged comp" affecting your final score. I have done this with success a couple years ago at the Marauder.

Nate, the reason there is bonus for facing a higher band and none for not facing them is the opinion that someone who has a harder path to the end, ought to have the bonus over someone who played vs weaker competition.

I believe the 1st BB we gave out 5pts to every band 3. I actually dont recall. But the battle points were out of 20+ 3-4 scenario points year 1 and last year was 15 + up to 3 scenario points with a 3pt bonus to a lower band. So the ratio was similar.


The system above, is bonus comp point in addition to the "strategic advantages" above?

No, don't use the strategic bonuses then, just the points.

Seeding at the beginning? I'm all for even with the points. But do like Marko does, seed the first game then let the chips fall.

Back when I started to play in RTT's, they used to have points based on your composition. I like this, as it gives the players the option to play the tough "rough them up" lists that have a disadvantage to balance them, or encourage more "realistic" (I use the term loosely) lists.

you never get the bonus pts for playing a higher band but in return you get to play softer armies and get more battle and scenario points. As a band 3 army you think you can beat daemons? Heres how that game might go down....

Band 3 army takes a loss...which is bumped to a draw (5pts)

OR

Band 1 plays band 1 and you you get a win (15pts) and 3 scenario pts

Jeff, did you look at and consider the system I recomended?

Actually, my O&G are better than 50% against demons now. My record is:
2 wins, 1 loss, 2 ties (only one win was in a pick-up game).

But I hardly consider me the norm.

thats impressive Mike. I dont know how you do it Are you sure your army would fall into band 3? I think I read you were band 3 two years now. If thats the case youve done your research about what goes under peoples power radar