Search
Thursday, January 08, 2009..:: Forums::..Register  Login
Subject: WBC X Prelim Thread

You are not authorized to post a reply.
AuthorMessages

Vrecknidj
Warlord
Warlord
10493 Posts

View Have/Want List View Trades View References View Email View Profile

United States

02/09/2007 6:19 AM  
Okay everybody, since I've already run a WBC before, and got that out of my system, I thought I'd take suggestions from the community for the next one.  I'll be the final judge of which one to use, but I'd like to see what you guys are interested in.

I was thinking of these:

a) Good/Evil--Everyone builds two bands, one Good, one Evil.  In the first match, every Good band pairs off against an Evil band.  After that first match, there may be more Good than Evil (or vice versa) remaining, but, as far as possible, I'll pair them Good v. Evil.  This means that you can build your Good band to be optimally powerful against Evil, and vice versa.  Of course, there will be some matches where that strategy fails, eventually, as after a few rounds there won't be parity between the alignments.  Another advantage to this is that everyone has two bands, improving everyone's odds of making it through a round.

b) Captain/Sergeant--Every band is required to have exactly two commanders.  The higher cost commander (i.e. Captain) MUST also have a higher commander rating.  The lower-rated/lower-cost commander (i.e. Sergeant) gains Relay Orders and Willing to Follow.  Each player gains +20 Victory Points for killing the enemy Captain and +10 Victory Points for killing the enemy Sergeant.

c) 500-point/no-Huge--Everyone builds a 500-point band, but Huges are banned, so all the maps are legal.

I have actually run the Good/Evil format at a home tourney (had 12 guys in my back room) and it was a blast--though I added some additional tweaks to it.  The others are ones I've thought about.  Of the three, each one requires that you focus on building a band in a way that is normally not allowed or encouraged so it fulfills the general plan of the WBCs.

What other ideas do you have?  Do you like any of these?

Dave

Knowledge Arcana editor issues 5-9, Phoenix Lore Magazine editor, assistant editor for Rite Publishing;
My Trade Thread and My Reference Thread; Winner of WBC IV, IX and XIII; Rule #0: bshugg is always right!

tundrin
Sergeant
Sergeant
424 Posts


View Have/Want List View Trades View References View Email View Profile

Randolph, NJ

02/09/2007 6:38 AM  
My two cents...
I would vote for B.

A. Good / Evil is OK, gearing up for facing off agaisnt nemesis is ok when known, but then the GvG or EvE will not be as intersting as other themes.

C. In the 8 person epic I recently went to, only two bands had huges (AoB and Eldritch giant), now that there are plenty of good normal sized epics, its not that unusual.

So I think B is the most uncommon theme of the three, that adds the best twist to common everyday warband building.

But you will have to make a pre-ruling on the Standard bearer!


Champs 2007 Top 16, Team Amish Class of 2007
Seeking Northern NJ DDM'ers - "There can be only one" (I hope not)
Champion of the Doppleganger

Vrecknidj
Warlord
Warlord
10493 Posts

View Have/Want List View Trades View References View Email View Profile

United States

02/09/2007 6:55 AM  
Posted By tundrin on 02/09/2007 6:38 AM

But you will have to make a pre-ruling on the Standard bearer!
Good point.  I just made a change that fixes it.  Since every band MUST have exactly two commanders, and since they must have different commander ratings, the Standardbearer becomes an illegal choice.

Dave


Knowledge Arcana editor issues 5-9, Phoenix Lore Magazine editor, assistant editor for Rite Publishing;
My Trade Thread and My Reference Thread; Winner of WBC IV, IX and XIII; Rule #0: bshugg is always right!

tundrin
Sergeant
Sergeant
424 Posts


View Have/Want List View Trades View References View Email View Profile

Randolph, NJ

02/09/2007 7:11 AM  
Can I also add - maybe some additional restriction or twist?

Perhaps - no "warband building". this will reduce the power of some very common commanders (you know who you are!) and thereby possibly increase the use of some others.

Maybe both commanders must be of a different race or type - we must encourage diversity you know! "EOWC" tournament....

Champs 2007 Top 16, Team Amish Class of 2007
Seeking Northern NJ DDM'ers - "There can be only one" (I hope not)
Champion of the Doppleganger
Duke of Spoils
greyhaze
Warlord
Warlord
7715 Posts


View Have/Want List View Trades View References View Email View Profile


02/09/2007 7:13 AM  
I'm down with B too.


Greyhaze's DDM Spoilers
Champion of a Medium Dog & then a Darkenbeast , Raistlin Majere, Nightmare WDQ25/60, Warduke WD60/60,
Anti-Champion of Guns, "Knight of Bugbears", and Joke Champion of Venger.
Called Shots: Frost Giant in Dangerous Delves.

nycfarmkid
Underboss
Underboss
1210 Posts


View Have/Want List View Trades View References View Email View Profile

Wadsworth, OH

02/09/2007 7:42 AM  
I kind of like B, but with a couple of questions. Would the lower cost commander still keep their original commander effect? Thus having two? Should the lower cost commander also benefit from the commander effect of the Captain? It kind of makes sense with the theme.



Looking to buy some figures? Chances are I may have them!! Check here!!
My Reference Thread | My Warbands | My Ebay Auctions | My Qualifier Warband
Champion of Spellswords

Vrecknidj
Warlord
Warlord
10493 Posts

View Have/Want List View Trades View References View Email View Profile

United States

02/09/2007 7:59 AM  
Posted By nycfarmkid on 02/09/2007 7:42 AM
I kind of like B, but with a couple of questions. Would the lower cost commander still keep their original commander effect? Thus having two? Should the lower cost commander also benefit from the commander effect of the Captain? It kind of makes sense with the theme.
1) "Would the lower cost commander still keep their original commander effect?"  Yes.
2) "Should the lower cost commander also benefit from the commander effect of the Captain?"  This is a really good point, it alters the equation somewhat.

Let me make a revision (see above).

Dave


Knowledge Arcana editor issues 5-9, Phoenix Lore Magazine editor, assistant editor for Rite Publishing;
My Trade Thread and My Reference Thread; Winner of WBC IV, IX and XIII; Rule #0: bshugg is always right!

Raland
Sergeant
Sergeant
924 Posts


View Have/Want List View Trades View References View Email View Profile


02/09/2007 8:03 AM  
I like C and A for WBC though would like to play B someday in RL

I thought of an Elaborate WBC which I don't know how well it would be taken.  Basically a draft done in 3 stages.  All particpants submit two boosters worth of random figs with certain stipulations; rarity, set, duplicates, commanders etc.  Phase two everyone would rank/rate the figures based on order of preference (kind of like fantasy sport pools)  Once the draft ranks were sorted each player would be assigned a pool of figs in which to build their warband.  Matchups and voting could then commence.

Champion of the Kender
ckissee - "providing TPK's since 2007"
Albert Einstein never once said that if the bees disappeared, "man would have only four years of life left" but the theory is a scary prospect.

Damien the Bloodfeaster
Sergeant
Sergeant
885 Posts


View Have/Want List View Trades View References View Email View Profile

Portland, OR

02/09/2007 3:16 PM  
I guess I like B the best of those three options. The only problem with the three is that I suspect we'll see a lot of stock warbands (GAS, Korducopia, Shadowdancers, LE Quad, etc.); it doesn't seem like any of them really exercise our warband building skills.

How about adding additional restrictions, e.g., 300 points, one figure of 50 points or less, all others must be 30 points or less, no max # of figures in a warband? Then you have an interesting dynamic of, do you max out activations, but have lots of easily killed critters, or do you accept that you probably won't have activation control but take creatures that are good at wiping out hordes of little guys?

Another possibility (which I was considering for the time when I had won an earlier WBC, but didn't have the time to administrate) is: all minis must be the same type, and if humanoid the same race. Thus you can do all orcs, all humans, all elves, all dwarves, all aberrations, all constructs, all undead, etc. However, you can build your warband from any faction (no faction restrictions), and minions/summonings don't have to be the same race as your thematic choice. Otherwise, it'd be 200-point assault, 8 fig limit, max 70%.

Vrecknidj
Warlord
Warlord
10493 Posts

View Have/Want List View Trades View References View Email View Profile

United States

02/09/2007 3:31 PM  
Posted By Damien the Bloodfeaster on 02/09/2007 3:16 PM
I guess I like B the best of those three options. The only problem with the three is that I suspect we'll see a lot of stock warbands (GAS, Korducopia, Shadowdancers, LE Quad, etc.); it doesn't seem like any of them really exercise our warband building skills.




How about adding additional restrictions, e.g., 300 points, one figure of 50 points or less, all others must be 30 points or less, no max # of figures in a warband? Then you have an interesting dynamic of, do you max out activations, but have lots of easily killed critters, or do you accept that you probably won't have activation control but take creatures that are good at wiping out hordes of little guys?




Another possibility (which I was considering for the time when I had won an earlier WBC, but didn't have the time to administrate) is: all minis must be the same type, and if humanoid the same race. Thus you can do all orcs, all humans, all elves, all dwarves, all aberrations, all constructs, all undead, etc. However, you can build your warband from any faction (no faction restrictions), and minions/summonings don't have to be the same race as your thematic choice. Otherwise, it'd be 200-point assault, 8 fig limit, max 70%.



Knowledge Arcana editor issues 5-9, Phoenix Lore Magazine editor, assistant editor for Rite Publishing;
My Trade Thread and My Reference Thread; Winner of WBC IV, IX and XIII; Rule #0: bshugg is always right!

Vrecknidj
Warlord
Warlord
10493 Posts

View Have/Want List View Trades View References View Email View Profile

United States

02/09/2007 3:33 PM  
Posted By Damien the Bloodfeaster on 02/09/2007 3:16 PM
I guess I like B the best of those three options. The only problem with the three is that I suspect we'll see a lot of stock warbands (GAS, Korducopia, Shadowdancers, LE Quad, etc.); it doesn't seem like any of them really exercise our warband building skills.
Yeah, I've thought about this.  That's a big drawback, I'd almost have to add in more restrictions.
How about adding additional restrictions, e.g., 300 points, one figure of 50 points or less, all others must be 30 points or less, no max # of figures in a warband? Then you have an interesting dynamic of, do you max out activations, but have lots of easily killed critters, or do you accept that you probably won't have activation control but take creatures that are good at wiping out hordes of little guys?
I'll definitely consider this option.
Another possibility (which I was considering for the time when I had won an earlier WBC, but didn't have the time to administrate) is: all minis must be the same type, and if humanoid the same race. Thus you can do all orcs, all humans, all elves, all dwarves, all aberrations, all constructs, all undead, etc. However, you can build your warband from any faction (no faction restrictions), and minions/summonings don't have to be the same race as your thematic choice. Otherwise, it'd be 200-point assault, 8 fig limit, max 70%.
Hmmm... I'll have to check some lists of minis to see what options aren't available if we combine these.

Dave

Knowledge Arcana editor issues 5-9, Phoenix Lore Magazine editor, assistant editor for Rite Publishing;
My Trade Thread and My Reference Thread; Winner of WBC IV, IX and XIII; Rule #0: bshugg is always right!

vanrulzz
Commander
Commander
2778 Posts


View Have/Want List View Trades View References View Email View Profile

¯\(°_o)/¯

02/09/2007 4:01 PM  
b

Faragdar the Wise
Commander
Commander
3547 Posts


View Have/Want List View Trades View References View Email View Profile

Albuquerque, NM, USA

02/09/2007 4:46 PM  
B is cool. The +20/+10 points for killing commanders would make for an interesting (and fuzzy) dynamic when trying to evaluate warbands on paper. "Well, warband A is better than B, but A's commanders are likely to die faster, so B might just pull out a win on points."

Pre-emptive question. Would you be allowed to break certain warband building rules with the "sergeant" effect? For example, could the Champion of Eilistraee bring in a Drow Sergeant as her 2nd in command?

"Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish." - Albert Einstein
Champion of Myopic Half-Orcs
Winner, WBC X
E Thug of the
Round Table

Wolfgang
Warlord
Warlord
6606 Posts


View Have/Want List View Trades View References View Email View Profile

Milton, Ontario Canada

02/09/2007 6:32 PM  
I like B but have you thought about a LAWFUL VS CHAOTIC? i think that would be very interesting

Proud member since March 26 2005
Champion of the SIVAK DRACONIAN
Completed trades: (94)
Bad traders(2) DJchuckles, sardal
Called shots:Sivak Draconian in DD
Trade References
Email Me

Vrecknidj
Warlord
Warlord
10493 Posts

View Have/Want List View Trades View References View Email View Profile

United States

02/09/2007 8:26 PM  
Posted By Faragdar the Wise on 02/09/2007 4:46 PM
B is cool. The +20/+10 points for killing commanders would make for an interesting (and fuzzy) dynamic when trying to evaluate warbands on paper. "Well, warband A is better than B, but A's commanders are likely to die faster, so B might just pull out a win on points."
Exactly why I offered up that possibility.  Makes for some weird possibilities.  It also puts a lot of burden on the people casting votes--people need to think clearly about a band's likelihood of success give its commanders' vulnerabilities.
Pre-emptive question. Would you be allowed to break certain warband building rules with the "sergeant" effect? For example, could the Champion of Eilistraee bring in a Drow Sergeant as her 2nd in command?
Thanks for asking.  This will require some thought.  I mean, if they're getting Willing to Follow, then the example you gave would be legal.  Egads, that makes for a lot of interesting combos.  We'll have to see what the impact would be on allowing cross-faction bands here.  On the other hand, this can of worms really makes for warband flexibility.

Dave

Knowledge Arcana editor issues 5-9, Phoenix Lore Magazine editor, assistant editor for Rite Publishing;
My Trade Thread and My Reference Thread; Winner of WBC IV, IX and XIII; Rule #0: bshugg is always right!

Faragdar the Wise
Commander
Commander
3547 Posts


View Have/Want List View Trades View References View Email View Profile

Albuquerque, NM, USA

02/10/2007 12:03 AM  
Vreck, I'm working on a matrix of possible commander/sergeant combos. I'll add in the possibility for cross-faction commanders due to Willing to Follow. Biggest impact, I'm guessing, will be possible sergeants for Storm. Of course, Elminster can already bring any of those folks in, too.

Edit: the weirdness doesn't look too bad if you let commanders warband build normally illegal sergeants. Orc Sergeant + Snig, Red Wiz + Bugbear Champ/Death Slaad/Drow Wizard/Orc Druid, Champ of Eilistraee + Drow Sergeant/Drow Wizard, Storm + Cleric of Cuth/Village Priest/Young Master

I can e-mail you this Excel matrix, if you like. It might help in isolating potential problems in order to tweak the rules of the challenge.

"Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish." - Albert Einstein
Champion of Myopic Half-Orcs
Winner, WBC X

Vrecknidj
Warlord
Warlord
10493 Posts

View Have/Want List View Trades View References View Email View Profile

United States

02/10/2007 4:47 AM  
Faragdar,

Wow, thanks for all the extra efforts. Let's tentatively declare some variant of B our next WBC then. Modifications may, of course, be forthcoming, but it looks like enough people like it that it's worth looking at seriously.

I'm DMing a noon-to-midnight session today, I've got a few hours of work to put in on Sunday, and Monday is an 8am-to-10pm work day for me. Except for today, I'll occasionally be able to log on and check what's been happening, and I'll take a look at that spreadsheet if you get it done by then. So, sometime during next week we'll look at rule-breaking combos and look to throw out some stale combos (GAS with Standardbearer, Korducopia, etc.).

Dave

Knowledge Arcana editor issues 5-9, Phoenix Lore Magazine editor, assistant editor for Rite Publishing;
My Trade Thread and My Reference Thread; Winner of WBC IV, IX and XIII; Rule #0: bshugg is always right!

Vrecknidj
Warlord
Warlord
10493 Posts

View Have/Want List View Trades View References View Email View Profile

United States

02/11/2007 9:33 AM  
I'm trying to think of some extra tweaks.

1) You may not use a commander's Warband Building except from the higher-cost commander in your band.
2) No duplicate figures.
3) No duplicate minions.
4) No duplicate summoned creatures, from the casting of one summon spell (i.e. if a creature has multiple spells, it may end up with duplicates by bringing in the same creature with a different casting).
5) If a piece Requires Commander, it must be attached to the higher-cost commander.

Here's my reasoning: I'm trying to prevent the Couatl from being overused, I'm trying to prevent high-duplicate power bands (multiple Duergar Champ, multiple Gith Monk, etc.), and I'm trying to prevent over-use of Snig by dropping Snig's minions to one of each of the Small 3-point Goblins (especially considering how powerful Urthok/Snig becomes with Snig getting Relay Orders).

Comments?

Dave

Knowledge Arcana editor issues 5-9, Phoenix Lore Magazine editor, assistant editor for Rite Publishing;
My Trade Thread and My Reference Thread; Winner of WBC IV, IX and XIII; Rule #0: bshugg is always right!

Faragdar the Wise
Commander
Commander
3547 Posts


View Have/Want List View Trades View References View Email View Profile

Albuquerque, NM, USA

02/11/2007 8:06 PM  
Dave, there's a problem with the Snig thing. Though there are actually 4 3-point goblinoids (Goblin Skirmisher, Goblin Warrior, Hobgoblin Warrior, and Mongrelfolk), Snig can only use small goblinoids as minions. That means only the first two are eligible.

"Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish." - Albert Einstein
Champion of Myopic Half-Orcs
Winner, WBC X

Nobody Important
Sergeant
Sergeant
718 Posts

View Have/Want List View Trades View References View Email View Profile


02/11/2007 9:11 PM  
This isn't so much a vote as an idea. For section A instead of creating two warbands (which is fun an all) just build one warband but have it always look at the opponent as having a given faction. Call in "Blind Rage" and you always treat your opponent's warband as being a given faction even if it is not; to you that Mounted Paladin looks some some CE spawn from the Abyss and you treat it that way.


Vrecknidj
Warlord
Warlord
10493 Posts

View Have/Want List View Trades View References View Email View Profile

United States

02/12/2007 4:46 AM  
Posted By Faragdar the Wise on 02/11/2007 8:06 PM
Dave, there's a problem with the Snig thing. Though there are actually 4 3-point goblinoids (Goblin Skirmisher, Goblin Warrior, Hobgoblin Warrior, and Mongrelfolk), Snig can only use small goblinoids as minions. That means only the first two are eligible.
I edited my post, thanks.

Dave


Knowledge Arcana editor issues 5-9, Phoenix Lore Magazine editor, assistant editor for Rite Publishing;
My Trade Thread and My Reference Thread; Winner of WBC IV, IX and XIII; Rule #0: bshugg is always right!

Vrecknidj
Warlord
Warlord
10493 Posts

View Have/Want List View Trades View References View Email View Profile

United States

02/12/2007 4:47 AM  
Posted By Nobody Important on 02/11/2007 9:11 PM
This isn't so much a vote as an idea. For section A instead of creating two warbands (which is fun an all) just build one warband but have it always look at the opponent as having a given faction. Call in "Blind Rage" and you always treat your opponent's warband as being a given faction even if it is not; to you that Mounted Paladin looks some some CE spawn from the Abyss and you treat it that way.
This is a weird idea.  I'll have to give it some thought.  It really could change the way some bands play.

Cool concept.

Dave


Knowledge Arcana editor issues 5-9, Phoenix Lore Magazine editor, assistant editor for Rite Publishing;
My Trade Thread and My Reference Thread; Winner of WBC IV, IX and XIII; Rule #0: bshugg is always right!
You are not authorized to post a reply.



ActiveForums 3.7
Play Dreamblade Now!
You must be signed in to participate in the games.
Copyright 2003-2008 by maxminis.com   Terms Of Use  Privacy Statement