|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Sept 23, 2013 9:21:19 GMT -5
Well we made it through the first Team Championship!
thought I'd start this thread like a GW errata/FAQ:
"Although we strive to ensure that our tournaments are perfect, sometimes mistakes do creep in. In addition, we occasionally
print new versions of our tournaments, which require amendments to be made in older versions of our tournaments. When such issues
arise, we feel that it is important to deal with them as promptly as we can, and we therefore produce regular updates for all of
our tournaments."
ahem....
so here goes...
1 - what did you like about this tourney for those who attended?
2 - what would you change about this tourney for next time?
3 - would you attend such a tourney in the future?
4 - if you didn't attend this time, is there anything we could change or put in place to make this a more attractive option for you?
5 - was using standard scenarios a good thing for this tourney or would you like custom scenarios in the future?
6 - did you want to keep it a tag team or would you rather play as a team but fight the battles individually?
Any and all feedback is greatly appreciated. This was our first try at this type of a tournament and I wanted to try something completely different from the club championship, while still having a fun event! I'm wanting to do this again, because I think the idea is a fun one, but want to make sure that if there's anything at all I can do to make it better that I'm doing so!
|
|
|
|
Post by Khalai on Sept 23, 2013 11:03:19 GMT -5
1 - Playing in this tournament was a blast. I really enjoyed playing with a different partner every game, it kept it fresh and very different from the usual, I play my CSM and run into 3 GK/SM players and play effectively the same game each time.
2 - Pre-register and pre-pay with an absolute cutoff of the night before. No last minute clusterfucking of established teams. I have to say we were really lucky with Tom and that other Justin being so accommodating.
3 - Absolutely, someone has to defend that trophy!
4 - Something something darkside
5 - I liked using standard scenarios, this was already a fairly complex tournament, so keeping the missions simple was pretty helpful in keeping things moving.
6 - I prefer tag team, but I can see how individual battles would work as well. It would make uneven numbers easier.
|
|
|
|
Post by voodoo on Sept 23, 2013 14:00:10 GMT -5
1. I liked the different format; however please see my comments below on the changes I’d make.
2. I’d keep it one person per team per table, 3-4 man teams and have each team member bring 1500 points. It’d be different than the Club Championship as you’d still have to rely on your team mates but would give each player a greater point range. I’d also like to see a heavier weighting on painting scores to encourage people to run painted lists and/or reward those people who have fully painted armies. At the very least Make it 3 color like the club champ as anyone can get 3 colors on a 1500 point army in a matter of 2 hours tops.
3. I would; provided the tag team element was removed.
4. n/a
5. Again, to change it up from the club championship, I think book scenarios work well.
6. Fight individually for certain, I think it would speed things up a lot.
|
|
|
|
Post by godsproxy on Sept 23, 2013 20:54:56 GMT -5
1 - what did you like about this tourney for those who attended?
The tournament was hella fun. The most enjoyable part was the meta gaming and having to put some thought into each match up. It was a welcome change of pace.
2 - what would you change about this tourney for next time?
The nature of having two people playing unique armies result in some matches barely making it to the end of round three because of the time it takes to coordinate movements and shooting. An alternative would be setting a maximum time limit per turn per side to avoid 30 minute turns...
Pre register and pay.
As mentioned a heavier weighting on paint score or mandatory paint jobs(primer not counted as a color). I have seen a lot of gray models that have been gray for a very long time.
3 - would you attend such a tourney in the future?
Ahh hell yea
4 - if you didn't attend this time, is there anything we could change or put in place to make this a more attractive option for you?
NA
5 - was using standard scenarios a good thing for this tourney or would you like custom scenarios in the future?
Book is just fine for an already hectic tournament.
6 - did you want to keep it a tag team or would you rather play as a team but fight the battles individually?
Tag team. It was a great dynamic, at least if you had a team to coordinated before game day.
|
|
|
|
Post by thesanityassassin on Sept 24, 2013 22:20:29 GMT -5
1 - what did you like about this tourney for those who attended?
I enjoyed the variety of matchups presented over the course of a few days, and really liked the way the tag format let me play hyper aggressively in a way that I probably couldn't get away with in a regular tourney (read: attempting to get tabled every game). Taking the book scenarios and simplifying them was also a really good idea given the complexity of the rest of the format. I also really liked how simple and effective the scoring system was. Weighting First Blood as lower value than Slay the Warlord or Linebreaker was big for me, as in most cases it's a given for the player with first turn, particularly in a Tag team where firepower is often magnified across two armies.
2 - what would you change about this tourney for next time?
I would, if possible, standardize who is paired up for each game. IE each player on a team is designated 1,2,3,4 etc, and pair up on schedule over the day. The metagame of matchups was fun for a while, but speaking as a captain having to decide on matchups, it got frustrating trying to balance what I thought would be the most competitive matchups with what players on the team wanted to do or avoid. At certain points it felt like part of my team was getting thrown to the proverbial wolves in order to give us a favorable matchup on the other table, and I think that occasionally led to overly unbalanced games. It was also rough as your matchups were set by the last round, so the planning element was really out of your hands, and could be frustrating if it left you with a pair of poor table matchups. Not having my team set before the event of course was detrimental to the metagaming of course, as we could only really balance two of the armies together, but that was unfortunately how it played out. I feel like standardizing the pairings per round would also speed things up considerably. One of the issues I felt popped up a number of times for a number of teams was that you would run out of time in your game, largely because the round time started before you even had your matchups selected let alone started deploying...this often left you down a half hour of play time, which is significant, as tag matches tend to go slower in terms of coordinating actions and dice rolls on the table.
I always struggle with the concept of painting requirements...I certainly prefer to see painted armies on the table, but don't like the thought of discouraging newer players from coming out if they haven't had time to paint their army, particularly if they don't want to rush.
3 - would you attend such a tourney in the future?
Certainly. I don't get to play that often, so I try to get out to any tournament I can.
4 - if you didn't attend this time, is there anything we could change or put in place to make this a more attractive option for you?
Balloon animals and party hats.
5 - was using standard scenarios a good thing for this tourney or would you like custom scenarios in the future?\
As stated above, I think the scenarios were perfect for this format. Having to go through a custom scenario on top of having to set teams and coordinate with a partner would be borderline unworkable.
6 - did you want to keep it a tag team or would you rather play as a team but fight the battles individually?
I personally like the tag format, I've always enjoyed it. I see the appeal of singles play from a simplicity standpoint, but I feel like we all get to play one on one games often enough, it's nice to have a change of pace. A bit more streamlining in the team/match selection process would go a long way though. I could also see simply making this a standard "pick your partner and go" tag-team, to avoid some of the issues we had with team size and random partners.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Oct 1, 2013 8:16:21 GMT -5
Guess since I played in it I can answer my own questions from a player's perspective:
1 - what did you like about this tourney for those who attended?
I liked having random pairings and unpredictable match ups
2 - what would you change about this tourney for next time?
pre-signups only as trying to re-figure things the morning of was a little hectic and unfortunately screwed some things up
3 - would you attend such a tourney in the future?
well I'd better show up, I'm running the damn thing
4 - if you didn't attend this time, is there anything we could change or put in place to make this a more attractive option for you?
Doesn't really apply to me
5 - was using standard scenarios a good thing for this tourney or would you like custom scenarios in the future?
I liked how the standard scenarios worked out, custom would have gotten too time intensive I think
6 - did you want to keep it a tag team or would you rather play as a team but fight the battles individually?
I really liked having a tag team tourney, we almost never do them here and they were alot of fun and challenging, especially when you had to change up your combos throughout the weekend.
|
|
