Tactical Command :: View topic

(Mephiston @ Oct. 06 2007,23:59)

I think the Epic GT scenario is just about the most balanced tournament system out there. No need to change it at all. Will you be discussing using any of the Rules review stuff or will this remain a published rules only event?

(Ginger @ Oct. 07 2007,00:00)

I think the only issue that needs sorting out is the time per game, which IMO should be a minimum of 2.5 hours (3 hours for preference).

To increase this table time, which is much longer than the equivalent 40K games etc, anything that can be done to reduce the admin on the day would be welcome. (so set up a proposed draw to be confirmed on arrival, allow people to start early, collect extraneous forms at lunch etc)

(Ginger @ Oct. 07 2007,00:00)

Experimental lists are tempting, but cause more problems than they solve - heck we are looking to revamp Marines and Orks, the original mainstays etc. Tyrands by comparrison are in their infancy.

I would recommend strongly considering the use of Markonz "handbook" for the rules.

(Mephiston @ Oct. 07 2007,00:14)

This one is next April to should be enough notice if a decision is made in the next couple of months.

(Mephiston @ Oct. 07 2007,00:43)

While a good idea you would have to remove the rule that team mates can't play each other.

Author:	dptdexys [ Fri Oct 05, 2007 11:11 pm ]
Post subject:	Open War
The 1st Co. Vets are having a committe meeting to discuss the rules pack for open war and ideas for campaigns etc.(meeting is on 24th Oct.). As non of them play epic they have invited me,Bill and Steve54 along to discuss anything we feel needs changing or altering in anyway. So if any of the tournament players think there is anything that needs altering/improving post them here and we will bring them up at the meeting. Is everyone happy with the scoring system,scenery,3000 point army list limit ?etc. also do we want any of the near finished experimental lists allowed at the next tournament.

Author:	Mephiston [ Sat Oct 06, 2007 3:26 pm ]
Post subject:	Open War
Think the rules are ok as is. Are the Tau worth considering for the next open war?

Author:	dptdexys [ Sat Oct 06, 2007 8:47 pm ]
Post subject:	Open War
We couldn't think of anything that was wrong with the event,I think they just want ideas to keep it from getting stale. I know the old committee were very wary about unnofficial lists after a few were brought to an early tournament they had run. ? If we all agree to include maybe one or two at a time and only have ones that are near finished then it should be ok. We were also asked if we were happy to use just the GT scenario or would we want to include any others and about different tables similar to what they tried for 40k (jungle/night fight etc.) I don't think these are nescessary for epic but if anyone has any ideas for anything we can discuss it here .

Author:	Mephiston [ Sat Oct 06, 2007 11:59 pm ]
Post subject:	Open War
I think the Epic GT scenario is just about the most balanced tournament system out there. No need to change it at all. Will you be discussing using any of the Rules review stuff or will this remain a published rules only event?

Author:	Ginger [ Sun Oct 07, 2007 12:00 am ]
Post subject:	Open War
I think the only issue that needs sorting out is the time per game, which IMO should be a minimum of 2.5 hours (3 hours for preference). To increase this table time, which is much longer than the equivalent 40K games etc, anything that can be done to reduce the admin on the day would be welcome. (so set up a proposed draw to be confirmed on arrival, allow people to start early, collect extraneous forms at lunch etc) Experimental lists are tempting, but cause more problems than they solve - heck we are looking to revamp Marines and Orks, the original mainstays etc. Tyrands by comparrison are in their infancy. I would recommend strongly considering the use of Markonz "handbook" for the rules.

Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Open War http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=88&t=12112	Page 1 of 3

Author:	dptdexys [ Sun Oct 07, 2007 12:26 am ]
Post subject:	Open War
(Mephiston @ Oct. 06 2007,23:59) QUOTE I think the Epic GT scenario is just about the most balanced tournament system out there. No need to change it at all. Will you be discussing using any of the Rules review stuff or will this remain a published rules only event? Thats the sort of thing they want to know,do we want any of the experimental rules brought in. The committee don't play epic so want us to bring up ideas for any change we see nescessary. Is there any of the experimental rules that shouldbe brought in.Personally I don't mind either way ,we usually use the experimental rules in most of our group games but I know some are not liked.

Author:	Mephiston [ Sun Oct 07, 2007 12:37 am ]
Post subject:	Open War
I think that the proposed rule changes should be used in a tournament setting at some point soon. I think we start with the rules changes first then list changes later? A wider consensus from the tourney regulars would probably help too, as I know some of them are less keen on the changes.

Author:	dptdexys [ Sun Oct 07, 2007 12:38 am ]
Post subject:	Open War
(Ginger @ Oct. 07 2007,00:00) QUOTE I think the only issue that needs sorting out is the time per game, which IMO should be a minimum of 2.5 hours (3 hours for preference). To increase this table time, which is much longer than the equivalent 40K games etc, anything that can be done to reduce the admin on the day would be welcome. (so set up a proposed draw to be confirmed on arrival, allow people to start early, collect extraneous forms at lunch etc) This is something me and Bill talked about on our drive home. Is the swiss style tourney nescessary ,could we save some time if maybe the first two rounds (or all) were pre-drawn and the gaming tables pre set for were they played .This would mean not having to wait for all games to finish to know were each player would go next .

Author:	Mephiston [ Sun Oct 07, 2007 12:43 am ]
Post subject:	Open War
While a good idea you would have to remove the rule that team mates can't play each other. Would it be possible for the Epic results be handled by a separate team, then added to the main list during the next game? Matt seems to manage his tourney's pretty well without computer support as our numbers are generally lower that other game systems.

Author:	dptdexys [ Sun Oct 07, 2007 12:53 am ]
Post subject:	Open War
(Ginger @ Oct. 07 2007,00:00) QUOTE Experimental lists are tempting, but cause more problems than they solve - heck we are looking to revamp Marines and Orks, the original mainstays etc. Tyrands by comparrison are in their infancy. I would recommend strongly considering the use of Markonz "handbook" for the rules. Thats what we need to discuss too,do we want to use the changes put forward in the "book" lists like the Eldar 1.8 review or the points changes for marines. Using Markonz' rule book would be OK with me but I know from past events when asking opponents if there are any of the experimental rules they would like to use the usual reply is "I haven't had chance to Play them/read them" or they don't go on the forums much and haven't a clue how they work.I suppose its similar with experimental lists if players haven't had chance to play against them is it fair to be expected to face one in a tourney.

Author:	Markconz [ Sun Oct 07, 2007 1:09 am ]
Post subject:	Open War
Not sure exactly when your tournament is, but going by what I've experienced in other game systems and tournaments, I'd strongly recommend giving people sufficient time to get familiar with the Handbook idea before it's used in a tournament. People really dislike having unfamiliar rules thrust on them in a tournament setting. That's not to say that judging what is 'sufficient time' is not a bit subjective, or that tournaments don't have a part to play in switching people over to a set of rules. However, I've only just posted first news about the Handbook to Specialist Games an hour ago, and the whole thing only came into existence about two months ago. That's not very long, even if most changes have been kicking around for years. Furthermore a finalised version will not be out until late November. A rule I've seen used at tournaments is that 'both players can use a certain ruleset if both agree to it, but the default is the old published rules'. Personally I think this has a few problems, like undue pressure for players to assent etc.

Author:	Mephiston [ Sun Oct 07, 2007 1:14 am ]
Post subject:	Open War
This one is next April to should be enough notice if a decision is made in the next couple of months.

Author:	Markconz [ Sun Oct 07, 2007 1:30 am ]
Post subject:	Open War
(Mephiston @ Oct. 07 2007,00:14) QUOTE This one is next April to should be enough notice if a decision is made in the next couple of months. Ah ok, yes going by past experience I'd consider that possible then. Not that I am trying to sway you guys one way or the other!

Author:	dptdexys [ Sun Oct 07, 2007 1:32 am ]
Post subject:	Open War
(Mephiston @ Oct. 07 2007,00:43) QUOTE While a good idea you would have to remove the rule that team mates can't play each other. I cannot understand why this is in for epic as the scores that go towards the team event are small, although it does mean I don't have to play against players I already play 2 or 3 times a week and get to play against new opponents. Would it be possible for the Epic results be handled by a separate team, then added to the main list during the next game? Matt seems to manage his tourney's pretty well without computer support as our numbers are generally lower that other game systems. We usually have an idea who's going where before the next round of matches are put up anyway so I should think we are capable of at least working out who plays who in the next round for ourselves while the results are processed.I would think with having to input 60-70 players in each of the 40k and WFB tourneys in a very short period saving messing around for just over a dozen epic gamers results until after the next round starts would ease some of there struggles. Even if we were not allowed to start earlier we could at least save the 10-15 mins it takes to get our armies and bags etc. moved onto were we will be playing next instead of waiting to find out after we come back from the breaks and then all trying to move tables at once. I think that the proposed rule changes should be used in a tournament setting at some point soon. I think we start with the rules changes first then list changes later? A wider consensus from the tourney regulars would probably help too, as I know some of them are less keen on the changes. I too believe we should start with the experimental rules first especially in a tournament setting. If used with the "book set " army lists it should give a better feedback of if they work or not and a clearer view of the balance between the set armies before altering them for later tournaments. So would we want to have markonz' rule book in full or just pick out s few rules that everyone agrees to use.

Page 1 of 3	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Mephiston [ Sun Oct 07, 2007 1:40 am ]
Post subject:	Open War
I'd go the with book in its totality. To cheery pick rules will just make the process harder for players to understand the rules. Plus using the book everyone only has to download one doc.