Being a good player has a bit to do with that.

I'm not really a fan of bonus points just for playing a certain person / army. Yeah, maybe you're band 3 vs. band 1. What if you're band 1 vs. band 1 and you're just playing against something that's a horrible match up for your army? That's just as likely, if not moreso, to happen.

If you're a good player and you're using a Band 3 army, you probably have some kind of plan to play against VC or Daemons if you're expecting to win or do well in the tournament. If you're not a good player, then you probably won't be playing them so there's nothing to worry about.

I would rather see a penalty to use a Band 1 army than a bonus for using a Band 3 army. I think a bonus for Band 3 just encourages people to try and make an army they think will be deceptively strong, and we've seen that happen already...

I could do it with pretty much any list. I just happen to have played O&G for 14+ years and know how to make them work. I could easily escallate this army to make it better but I don't. Instead I make what I have work and practice it a lot.

Now if you give me a point & click army, I won't lose very many games at all but that wouldn't be fun.

The feedback I get is band 3 guys want to be in band 3 to avoid the hardcore stuff for at least 3 games. This would only do that for 1 round, then we are just like other tourneys.

Id be more open to running the numbers on Davids suggestion where the comp score + battle points = match up with difference in initial comp points determining the strategic bonus. The issue I would have is if you give bonus points in addition to the strategic advantages, then someone could get 4 rounds of bonus points. That might make more people squeal.

A suggestion for a strategic bonus could be that the higher band player has a 6" deployment zone instead of 12". That way they have a bit further to go...

In the end the higher band player choses what strategic bonus to use.

Thats a good idea, I really like the idea of the player getting to choose their advantage. As we've seen some think full deployment is great, others think its no big deal. 6" vs a possible points denial would not be helpful, but vs a speedy army would be. Maybe give them an 18" for themselves if they see a gunline or bunkers it gets them closer too.

You would also need some sort of advantage against demons & VC's in band 1. I am not sure what to do about. Maybe something like the Evil Eye like I am proposing for the Marauder.

i'm all for different bonuses for playing out of your band but i feel if you start getting other bonuses for fighting a certain army you are complicating the system. if you start picking on VC and Demons then lets start hitting dark elves with 2 hydras and a dragon, warriors with dragon and 2 strike first giants, there are many more you can name even with the older books.

i think if you start being specific with bonuses against certain books you are going to spend too much time trying to figure out what to do before each game and the system will be too complicated

Is this in conjunction with some of the other things weve discussed?



do we need bands? we can just leave the judges scores that would have been used to put people in bands. Without trying to split the tournament into 3 even groupings.

The problem with bands is the top of band 2 and bottom of band 1 might be pretty close in power but band 1 guy gets hit with all the disadvantages. Using army comp score to determine band advantages is more fair. And easier on tournament organization.



army score to the rescue again The seeding will put people with soft armies up against soft armies early in the tournament. As someone continues to score well(propped up by the semi- band bonuses) he will move up in the tournament power level. So that by game 5 he should be facing off against the tournament leaders.

Players with softer armies and more mediocre results will spend the tournament playing armies/players of similar temperment.

If we make the comp score a big enough component of the comp score + battlepoints seeding equation we can make it so band 3 doesnt face band 1 until day 2. Example

Make army comp out of 20 possible points. loss= 0pts, draw= 5pts, win = 10pts + scenario bonuses.

Daemon/VC player has an army comp of 18. Daemon/VC player loses game 1 and gets 0pts

0pts + 18pts= 18pts

OK player has an army comp of 2.5 and scores a massacre + scenario pts for total 13 battle points

2.5(army) + 13 battle points = 15.5pts

So after the first round, OK player still has no chance to face off against VC player even with complete opposite battle point results. Only after game 2 results, if the OK player outperforms the VC player could they face each other in game 3.

And even then the OK player is facing most likely a weaker player and he has his banding bonuses. Ive already stated what bonuses I think there should be so I wont again.

I dont think 6" deployment does anything significant. 18" is only vaguely helpful if your facing a mage/gunline. And as far as I can tell most power armies arent. Most are punch you in the face strong. Not avoid you strong. So running to them faster isnt going to do much.

Usually in a 2 band power level difference you want to keep the higher band at arms length. 6" deployment zone is somewhat in that vain but youd definitely want more. Other options are 3 units have movement penalties. Enemy deploys first, choice of turn, deploy 2 to 1 units, choose sides.

And no matter how you do deployment some armies just cant handle the opposition. So bonus pts or bumps in game results are good.

There shouldnt be any worry about missing out on bonus pts for several reasons

1) no one is getting bonus pts game 1 since seeding pits armies close together

2) no one is getting bonus pts game 2 because seeding will keep players within 1 band which doesnt give bonus pts. Just game advantages.

3) by game 3 some people might start earning bonus pts but theyll also be facing harder armies. Possibly scoring less tournament/scenario points

4) by round 4 and 5 the tournament leaders should be playing each other. These are games where victory will be stacked in the higher band players favour even with advantages to lower band. The easier victory is your reward for bringing the harder army. The bonus pts are the weaker army players reward. Take your pick when turning in armylists and signing up.

in round 4 and 5 middle table players will be earning bonus pts too but that wont matter much because their middle table and dont threaten the top standings.

Of course thats from my perspective. Which is that only the top standings say much about who did well. Anything can happen that puts one player 10th and another player 30th. Theres a lot more to be said about 1-5th

But no matter what. Each player has the option of bringing a low comp army(low comp being preferable here). So if their missing bonus pts theres only one place to point the finger. Theres only one army that might never reach low comp short of insane bad army decisions and thats daemons. And army of unheralded plaguebearers is still a tough nut to crack that probably still ends up high single digits or low doubles.

I was also thinking perhaps cap list resending down to 3. You can send in 3 times and then choose whichever you prefer. That way we dont bog down judges with a stream of lists as each person tries to get their list down on comp

If I am reading this correctly, you are suggesting doing something similar to what the Marauder already does. We seed with judged comp + game play results. Now presently we score comp on a scale of 0 to 5, though I am looking at what would happen if I scored comp on a scale of 0 to 10. Still, it doesn't really help in the final rounds because unless you have 64+ players the band 1 army winner should be able to beat the band 3 army if general's are of equal skill (ignoring the possible effects of lady luck).

Without comp or some sort of edge, the band 1 army has a definate advanatage over the band 3 army.

David, Im still not sure thats all that great of a deal for a soft band 3 army. You are not all that far behind a band 1 guy that lost if you win and depending on the other players results, still could face them as early as round 2 or certinly by round 3. Just because a guy got massacred round 1 doesnt make him a bad player. Last year Nathan took a fairly tough (by judges standards) VC list that got wiped out by the DoC khorne list. He would probably then be facing a top band 3 or low band 2 winner that he would probabbly massacre. Granted there is no reason to assume that guy isnt a great player, but the power difference in lists given players of equal ability is significant.

I do think there are some good ideas in your post though, especially about those that rank at the top and bottom of bands. Perhaps the incentive could be given to get your list in early, have the judges look at it and give time to change it to get into a lower or higher band if the player wishes.

maybe a 30 point ratio on a 15pt win scale.

I actually remembered last night why we did bonus points. It was to reward players for brining soft lists. Typically a tourney punishes those for bringing hard lists. We were looking at a carrot/reward system such as avoid nasty armies and get bonus points. Having recalled this, Im not as opposed to the points as I had been earlier this month.

yes I combined the 2 ideas. This would be seeding through the entire tournament. The effects of the seeding, comp score diminish as people accumulate battle points. maybe even remove seeding completely for the last round.



and thats where Jeffs banding idea intersects your seeding. The difference in army comps determines what advantage you get. On a scale of 20(for army comp). Im assuming that the judges will fail to utilize the scores from 0-4 and from 16-20. So the judges will actually be giving scores from 4-16.

Thats a 12 score band the armies will fall into. Then divide that by 2. So advantages will be given for each 6 points of army comp difference.

If the two armies fighting are 6 or more comp score apart we give the first advantages like first deploys, choice of turn etc. If armies are 12 or more comp score apart we give the first advantages and a bump in victory result or bonus pts.



Lets adjust comp score and battle points so it doesnt happen. Earlier I gave an example of a 2.5 army vs 18 army. They CANT face each other until game 3 and still not guaranteed. But since most people wont have armies that extreme difference in army comp we need more.

Battle points 0/2/4 + scenario points= 6ish pts for a win.
Army comps ranging from 4-16= 12point difference between high/low armies

So the most powerful armies(16 comp) can lose 3 games with 0pts(which usually doesnt happen, they usually pick up a scenario point here or there).

While the least powerful armies(4 comp) can get max 6 battle points with scenario pts for 3 games before those players have any chance of facing the 16.

As army comp differences get smaller the players may face each other game 3 or even 2.



enter banding advantages



I dont follow



Since were not filling bands people can bring as soft an army as they want. If we end up with 48 OK armies who have 4 comp score the tournament still works.

Since the bonus pts are available to everyone they have no reason to complain about missing the pts. Its on them if they want tough or bonus.

Thats some incentive to players to bring soft armies. The tough armies facing harder armies is extra incentive to bring a softer army.

But it still doesnt stop hard armies from trampling soft armies rounds 4 just because they lost a game along the way doesnt make them easy(like nathan example).

So besides bonus pts as incentive to bring softer armies. We should also give tactical bonuses.

That is what the Marauder does. I keep comp in the seeing throughout. As I previously mentioned in the past I used 0 to 5. I am considering 0 to 10 to give the seeding comp score more weight, and of course this deminishes as battle points are accululated.

in that case interesting idea I thought someone mentioned it was seeding for round 1 then chips fall where they may. And then the band bonuses.

I still have to convince Jeff to make comp 0-20 so it emulates the 1st day banding system he had before.

How does it work with 48 ogres and 2 deamons. round 1 DoC vs Doc and 24 OK play each other. One DoC loses. OK are all over the board on wins, loss and draws. With the difference, you would have round 2 be DoC vs DoC again for 4-5 rounds til an OK player wins enough.

Im starting to see your point in how the match ups work outside of the 48 OK analogy though. So the Judges assigned score stays the same in relation to the match up strategic advantages to choose from. The combined tourney score of BP + Comp score sets the match ups. Right?

My point was instead of a 20pt army comp score, it would be a 25-30pt score to keep more seperation and ensure the softer lists stay away from the hard ones for at least 3 rounds. Certainly would be playing vs band 2 on saturday.

well it works better than forcing some of the OK into the old bands.

Since a player cant play against the same person twice the highest OK player would play them. So yes in that case they wouldnt get the 3 game immunity we started with.

They would end up getting only 1 game immunity. Thats an extreme example though. But they still get the strategic bonuses of 2 band difference.



yes



if the theory/numbers support that kind of comp score to keep seperation thats ok. Its possible to overdo it and the low scores NEVER fight the high scores

So perhaps drop the seeding game 5, or even 4? Tournament would be players fighting armies in the same ballpark powerlevel as they work their way up the standings.