It seems very few would get a 2 band difference then if 4-16 are the projected average scored comps.

good point. maybe make the bands 4 comp?

I am getting confused in this discussion. Can we summarize where we are?

thats on jeff. I dont know what hes accepted so far

I think with 50 people it will be tough to keep it straight and I know the banding has a pretty solid following as is.

I think Im more interested to see what we can do with the existing banding system to give appropriate bonuses whether points, strategy cards, strategic bonuses prior to the game, or a combination.

Its gonna be more complicated for us to figure out than for people to implement.

They get bonuses if their army comp difference is big enough. Thats all they have to know.

this is the banding system but modified to solve the problem of low band 1 vs high band 2 getting hit with penalties. its worth looking at even if it is "new"

Maybe we can sit down some night soon with a few other people and hash out how it might work out with pen and paper to see what it would take to ensure band 3 is protected, band 2 is treated fair, and that there are no winners playing vs losers.

nathan, daniel and I are playing warhammer next sunday if you want to join us we can have a discussion

I know Nathan isnt a fan of the sliding scale based on discussions tonight. Im sure he will weigh back in tomorow here.

Id like Alex and Tom to try to be there too. Between you, Alex, me and Nathan, we will likely not agree on anything , but it will be good for me to get all those different perspectives. I will have to see what my schedule is Sunday. Its been a busy month and I need to recharge one of these days.

its not this sunday but next sunday

Day one you should band armies so that measurable comped armies will face off. that will eliminate half of the band ones from being in the "winners bracket" then day two you should let armies go at it. no banding, no bonus points. sometimes generals need to beat the best to be the best. secondly if i remember correctly gw has a point system in place so that better units cost more. everything that is legal should not be torched by the system and other players. people buy models, assemble and paint them. who cares what they take. if i have a band 3 empire army and i am facing a band one daemon army i still have a good chance of winning depending on my strategy. drugar is right. it is more often how an army is played than what army is played when determining winners.

I think there are enough topics on the internet about the virtues of comp. I think for this tournament its assumed that "something" is needed and this is the attempt to implement that. Ive spent most of my warhammer days without comp of any sort. Unfortunately GW has #$!@ up game balance like its never been before. VC/Daemons are way outside the curve.

Your welcome to your opinion that units are priced correctly and armybooks are equal because of that. Ill politely disagree.

If all we did was pit band 1 armies fight each other day one then Im coming with VC. Band 1 vs band 1 is going to feel the same as band 3 vs band 3. So I might as well take band 1 so I dont feel the problems of playing band 3 vs band 1.

I certainly don't think all armies of the same point value are even necessarily close to equal. At the same time though, there are some players who will beat others almost regardless of army comp. So, I don't think we can base it purely on either one.

Personally, I say we should stick with banding, it's proved I think to at least make for a good day 1. Then for day 2 I think there are two ok options. Either we try to level the playing field by offering bonuses to low band armies or we give them more battle/tournament points for pulling off draws/wins against tougher lists. I'm a fan of the latter since I prefer not to mess with how the game is played any more than is needed.

I would prefer option #2. Go back to the bonus scoring you had for the first Buckeye and I'll be happy. It had extra points for playing against armies two bands apart.