After a chat with Stylus, we're proposing the following alterations for next time:
1) A massacre, as a 'special' win, is only 2.5 pts rather than 3.
2) A grudge-match, as a 'special' bonus, is only 0.5 pt rather than 1.
This would have no effect on the table positions of WfBt7 but *slightly* narrows the gap at the top which might be desirable in the future.
Additionally,
3) Sticking with 1000pts for WfBt8
4) Generals may, optionally, bring *multiple* 1k lists and randomly select one at the start of each battle.
This keeps the battles short and sweet (unless you've drawn me, of course) but allows generals to try out several new lists without putting all eggs in one basket.
We have probably done to death, but can you also write up what makes a win and massacre (seeing as not only not by the book - but also as there was confusion pre the 1am discussion)?
ReplyDeleteIn the same place, can you include the definitive rules for what makes your grudge?
Also - I assume that the multiple lists are: "multiple lists from one realm"? This represents the fickle gods kicking something through from the chaos realm, or one wing of a larger army for example. ie multiple Skaven 1000pt lists etc
There was plenty of confusion *after* 1am discussion too.
DeleteStill, I think two hours of exhaustive rules debate is something of a WoffBoot tradition.
Good point :)
DeleteJust to add that I agree with the above suggestions (the 'chat' wasn't conducted with a gun at my head).
ReplyDeleteAside from the points-tweakings - to be proposed next time, not retroactively applied (and we should probably clarify what we decided for the rules for a Draw), the only unusual change would be the multiple lists
This would be the same army, but several variations - even if it's just a case of different magic items on the same models. Chosen at random, so you can't tailor lists to opponents.
I think this would allow a bit of experimental play (horde of snotlings, anyone?) without condemning you to use it for the whole tournament.
[above comment only deleted so I could edit the spelling]
ReplyDeleteI like the sound of multiple random lists, that would be fun. One could even have the same list with different unit stacks (e.g. twenty warriors vs two blocks of ten) to compare and contrast. No pressure to have multiples, though, right?
Personally, for my ten and not terribly relevant cents, would anyone consider not scoring a massacre as anything more than a normal win? Perhaps the mere shame of having been massacred could be enough for the losers, and would keep the scoring much closer. You could use the number of massacres as a tie-breaker if needed. Just a thought.
As someone who scored no massacres this WoffBoot, I am all in favour of this idea.
DeleteKeeping points as win/lose/draw would close the field, and make positions more reliant on the victory points totals (which I think we're all in favour of?)
I'm inclined to agree with Kraken about the massacres too.
DeleteThat's right: no pressure to take multiples, and flexibility as to *how* you take those multiples:
ReplyDelete- could take two lists and randomly decide which one is fielded per battle
- could take five lists and randomly choose one, but then eliminate that from further selection (so you get to play all five at some point)
- could take five lists and take one at random (so could take the same one every battle, if the dice decide)
Excellent. I'm going to need a bigger carry case.
DeleteI've been working on a new WoffBoot scoring system. "Woooaaahh!" I hear you interrupt. But before you do, it's not because I've not come top since WoffBoot I !
ReplyDeleteThe principles are as follows:
There is no win/draw/lose/massacre (this will hopefully stop people playing for a particular result, not that that has been a particular problem so far).
Instead, each general scores [his VPs minus his opponent's VPs] divided by the greater of the two. This gives a score between -1 (if you scored nothing) and 1 (if your opponent scored nothing), and therefore 0 if it was a dead heat. If there are 5 games each, that gives a total score from +5 to -5 for each player.
However, going one step further we can compare the 'Boots regardless of the number of players/games:
Divide the player's score by the number of games they played (this gives an "average score per game") and then multiply by 5 and add 5 (this gives each general a score from 0-10 (noone likes to end on a negative number!)
I know this sounds complicated but:
a) the spreadsheet was already complex; this is actually simpler!
b) by plugging the results of all the historic Boots into this system, the leaderboards ALL remain unchanged; save that the margins were closer (something we've all expressed an interest in, meaning the tournament may have been wide open for longer) and noone won/lost a table position based on goal difference.
c) players can compare their performance at past 'Boots as the final points tally in not dependent on the number of players/games.
[awaits the hail of doom arrow]
I'd still like to play for win/lose/draw (don't mind either way if we keep massacres or not).
DeleteIt seems this system, as with the previous one, is a way of deciding tie-breakers with a VP different (or equivalent). If it works better to that effect, great. If it brings about a result where the person who 'wins' the most games doesn't finish top, then it's been overcomplicated.
As I said, applying it to all historic Boots, the table positions are the same.
Delete