Bay Area Brawl - NHSD'10

[RoninValentina]

If I take a certain army for science (SCIENCE!) then I will also potentially have some D2 to loan out.

I did consider a Warforged army however. My biggest inclination to turn it down is that I'd only get to play it once.

[Winin]

I'm going to try to get some d2 themed action going. Time to start play testing!

[TartanDoc]

DUDE! My wife's cousin is getting married that day (wifey is Matron of honor). You know where I'd rather be...

One of these days I'll actually get to get some gaming in.

[Carnival Man]

I wonder if we'll see much support from WotC this year? Considering they did nothing for 'Scape at GenCon...
-----
RV: D2 will be out long enough that I'm sure we'll see some in more than one army.

[Grim]

Originally Posted by RoninValentina

I did consider a Warforged army however. My biggest inclination to turn it down is that I'd only get to play it once.

But think of the upside: several people would get to play the Warforged! I think they're really cool, and if I don't bring Wyrmlings I'll probably bring Warforged.

Or maybe both? Hmm...

Originally Posted by Carnival Man

I wonder if we'll see much support from WotC this year? Considering they did nothing for 'Scape at GenCon...

Didn't WotC provide a whole bunch of prize support for GenCon? That's pretty nice of them I think.

[S1R_ART0R1US]

WotC GenCon prize support picture courtesy of Retlaw:

Spoiler Alert!

And cm, many of the SoCal peeps haven't even logged in for awhile plus I'm about 3+ hours away from where most players are (LA area) so I would have no idea where to host it. Otherwise I'd be all in for it.

[Carnival Man]

Originally Posted by S1R_ART0R1US

WotC GenCon prize support picture courtesy of Retlaw:

Spoiler Alert!

And cm, many of the SoCal peeps haven't even logged in for awhile plus I'm about 3+ hours away from where most players are (LA area) so I would have no idea where to host it. Otherwise I'd be all in for it.

Wow...and all along I thought that picture was just the tourament map materials in storage for the year. I suppose I missed "prize" written on each box!

[Killometer]

Originally Posted by Grim

So if Kim goes 3-2 and her army goes 5-0, she's 8-2. And if Bob is 5-0 but his army is 2-3, he's 7-3. Then Kim places ahead of Bob. I think that gives the right incentive, namely, bring a good army!

Originally Posted by RoninValentina

That's the current proposal as it stands, Grim. I'm waiting for any additional feedback before it gets set in stone.

It seems like I may be the lone dissenter, but hey, squeaky wheel gets the grease, right? I'm still not a fan of player record and army record being equally weighted towards the final score. What if it was scored with a slight bias towards player record, maybe 10 points per player win and 8 points per army win? That way it's still important to bring a good army, but it's more important to win the games.

Another suggestion from something I noticed about the last tourney's report-in the unfortunate situation that players have to have bye's, maybe they should be scored as draws instead of wins?

Last question (for now ): are games that end on time going to be draws, or scored with full- or partial-card scoring?

[RoninValentina]

I dunno. I think that defaulting ties to player record should be sufficient. I agree that winning should take precedent, and will, but I also absolutely want every incentive for people to bring strong armies.

Byes are tough. I wasn't particullarly happy about counting them as wins, but for the circumstances, it also seemed really unfair to Dnutt to drop him out of the running for having to take a first bye when I found out we had an odd number of people show. Ideally this situation will not happen again, but it was a spot decision made by me at the time. Ultimately, Menchi was a clear winner so it didn't cause any trouble.

I don't like having to call time, and the last couple events we have not had to do so, but if it does come up, I side on full card scoring.

[Killometer]

Originally Posted by RoninValentina

I dunno. I think that defaulting ties to player record should be sufficient. I agree that winning should take precedent, and will, but I also absolutely want every incentive for people to bring strong armies.

I don't expect to finish any better than 3-2, so hopefully my army will go 5-0, I'll win the tourney and I'll feel like an idiot for complaining.

Byes are tough. I wasn't particullarly happy about counting them as wins, but for the circumstances, it also seemed really unfair to Dnutt to drop him out of the running for having to take a first bye when I found out we had an odd number of people show. Ideally this situation will not happen again, but it was a spot decision made by me at the time. Ultimately, Menchi was a clear winner so it didn't cause any trouble.

I don't like having to call time, and the last couple events we have not had to do so, but if it does come up, I side on full card scoring.

I hope that neither of those situations occur, too, but I just wanted to make sure all the bases were covered before something weird came up.

[tshill12]

If your wins and your armies wins are weighted equally then any game where someone is unfortunate enough to have to face their own army is a complete wash. If they win their army loses, and if they lose their army wins. It makes the game a complete waste standings wise, though it would likely be the most fun game to play.

[RoninValentina]

Not entirely though- since your placement during the tourney is dependent only upon your wins, and not your army's wins. You might get points either way at the end of the day, but if you're off the competitive track seeding wise, that will make it harder to win all together at the end of the day. But it still hurts in the sense that if you go 4-1, but randomly fought your own army twice, you had to hurt your total record and maybe someone else who went 4-1 and didn't face their own army at all will potentially have an advantage.

*Thinks about that one.*