OFCC 2015 Ideas

[MexicanNinja]

I think there are two other variables which can't be accounted for when determining pairings.

 

1) Player skill- This is the hardest thing to judge.  If someone has a "killer" list but isn't a strong player because they don't play often or only play because of the modeling aspect of the game they may cause what could be perceived as a bad game because of the lack of knowledge of rules.  I'm not saying it's bad that someone plays the game because of the modeling aspect because there are some incredible people out there who play with incredible looking armies and I love that.  I just feel bad, personally, when I start to play and find out that my opponent is getting frustrated because I am using tactics which they are/were unaware of and it may be perceived by them that I am attempting a WAAC game.  It's the nature of the beast.

 

2) Local meta- Some gaming clubs are used to playing a certain type of army because of what their local meta is.  If certain gaming clubs like to play strong magic phases then certain lists submitted may be submitted because that's what they are used to.  The same could be said about gunlines and monsters.  Again, there's nothing wrong with this.  In the gaming club I first starting playing warhammer in the norm was 10+ magic dice and 8+ dispel dice.  This wasn't the norm for other gaming communities and we found that out when we took our first trip to Borderlands back around 2005.  All of our lists were packed with lots of spell casters and more dispel dice than was needed when playing against the non-Eugene crowd.  The other armies had nothing more than a single level 2 wizard and they just couldn't get spells off without casting with IF.  Again, that is just how the different communities played.  The same can be said for the ones who still play with lots of armies using at least one horde.

 

I think it is extremely difficult to make a list which "you think" will provide a "good game" to unknown people when you don't know the above variables.  That was something I just wanted to point out because I was thinking about those two things after I made my longer post above.

[ClassicFlava]

I think there are two other variables which can't be accounted for when determining pairings.

 

1) Player skill- This is the hardest thing to judge.  If someone has a "killer" list but isn't a strong player because they don't play often or only play because of the modeling aspect of the game they may cause what could be perceived as a bad game because of the lack of knowledge of rules.  I'm not saying it's bad that someone plays the game because of the modeling aspect because there are some incredible people out there who play with incredible looking armies and I love that.  I just feel bad, personally, when I start to play and find out that my opponent is getting frustrated because I am using tactics which they are/were unaware of and it may be perceived by them that I am attempting a WAAC game.  It's the nature of the beast.

 

2) Local meta- Some gaming clubs are used to playing a certain type of army because of what their local meta is.  If certain gaming clubs like to play strong magic phases then certain lists submitted may be submitted because that's what they are used to.  The same could be said about gunlines and monsters.  Again, there's nothing wrong with this.  In the gaming club I first starting playing warhammer in the norm was 10+ magic dice and 8+ dispel dice.  This wasn't the norm for other gaming communities and we found that out when we took our first trip to Borderlands back around 2005.  All of our lists were packed with lots of spell casters and more dispel dice than was needed when playing against the non-Eugene crowd.  The other armies had nothing more than a single level 2 wizard and they just couldn't get spells off without casting with IF.  Again, that is just how the different communities played.  The same can be said for the ones who still play with lots of armies using at least one horde.

 

I think it is extremely difficult to make a list which "you think" will provide a "good game" to unknown people when you don't know the above variables.  That was something I just wanted to point out because I was thinking about those two things after I made my longer post above.

i think you have hit the nail on the head.  

[Failed Charge]

I think there are two other variables which can't be accounted for when determining pairings.

 

1) Player skill- This is the hardest thing to judge.  If someone has a "killer" list but isn't a strong player because they don't play often or only play because of the modeling aspect of the game they may cause what could be perceived as a bad game because of the lack of knowledge of rules.  I'm not saying it's bad that someone plays the game because of the modeling aspect because there are some incredible people out there who play with incredible looking armies and I love that.  I just feel bad, personally, when I start to play and find out that my opponent is getting frustrated because I am using tactics which they are/were unaware of and it may be perceived by them that I am attempting a WAAC game.  It's the nature of the beast.

 

2) Local meta- Some gaming clubs are used to playing a certain type of army because of what their local meta is.  If certain gaming clubs like to play strong magic phases then certain lists submitted may be submitted because that's what they are used to.  The same could be said about gunlines and monsters.  Again, there's nothing wrong with this.  In the gaming club I first starting playing warhammer in the norm was 10+ magic dice and 8+ dispel dice.  This wasn't the norm for other gaming communities and we found that out when we took our first trip to Borderlands back around 2005.  All of our lists were packed with lots of spell casters and more dispel dice than was needed when playing against the non-Eugene crowd.  The other armies had nothing more than a single level 2 wizard and they just couldn't get spells off without casting with IF.  Again, that is just how the different communities played.  The same can be said for the ones who still play with lots of armies using at least one horde.

 

I think it is extremely difficult to make a list which "you think" will provide a "good game" to unknown people when you don't know the above variables.  That was something I just wanted to point out because I was thinking about those two things after I made my longer post above.

Which leads us to how sports is determined.... The circle is complete, you are now in the matrix, don't get lost you'll end up like me.

[ratrek]

That's what people pay me for Scott. Over thinking.

[thatdave]

I am saddened to see the bash hammer go unused. Maybe I will have to put up or shut up next year!

 

I'll have a go with you, Shane!

 

IT. IS. ON!!

[scottshoemaker]

or your not?

Of course not. Thinking makes my head hurt.

[Guest Mr. Bigglesworth]

Ofcc is invite no Joe Shmoe teams. Captains need senatorial backing then it's on the cap.

[Myster2]

I agree with Krieger...for example I think my score was torpedoed by two things: I think I was given low sports scores because my opponents didn't like losing, I joked with people, told stories, and I am very lenient on what opponents do (i.e forgetting to move or shoot etc).  I played Chaos Dwarves, so I ran only 3 war machines all different (not double magma cannons), no lore of hashut, and no bull centaur character.  My book is limited in what I can take.... dwarves and more dwarves (yes I even took some hobgoblins).  Second is paint, I know that everyone likes bright, smooth blended armies that snap the eye, but that is not what CD are.  I would be interested to see my complete paint score and whether the judges are experienced enough to recognize that the armor on my dwarves has no less than 3 different tones and 4 weathering pigments (7 steps).  Yes they look dirty, it's intentional.  Appears to be alot of subjective-ness in final standings....

 

All that being said....in the end I had a blast, met some great people and got to roll lots of dice! That's a win! and the OFCC crew were friendly, and professional.

 

The painting piece of your post is difficult. I will freely admit since I am slightly color blind any dark army that doesn't have shiny bits will not catch my attention. I feel particularly bad for skaven armies as no matter how well they greys are done it just looks like one big grey blob to me. 

[Drak]

I would like to see an "avenue of armies" type showcasing of the armies to be able to appreciate and select my favorite armies.

 

taking it a step farther I'd like to see some sort of master/novice categories voting dynamic. maybe a couple selections rewarding specific elements like conversion or character.

[Burk]

I agree with Krieger...for example I think my score was torpedoed by two things: I think I was given low sports scores because my opponents didn't like losing, I joked with people, told stories, and I am very lenient on what opponents do (i.e forgetting to move or shoot etc).  I played Chaos Dwarves, so I ran only 3 war machines all different (not double magma cannons), no lore of hashut, and no bull centaur character.  My book is limited in what I can take.... dwarves and more dwarves (yes I even took some hobgoblins).  Second is paint, I know that everyone likes bright, smooth blended armies that snap the eye, but that is not what CD are.  I would be interested to see my complete paint score and whether the judges are experienced enough to recognize that the armor on my dwarves has no less than 3 different tones and 4 weathering pigments (7 steps).  Yes they look dirty, it's intentional.  Appears to be alot of subjective-ness in final standings....

 

All that being said....in the end I had a blast, met some great people and got to roll lots of dice! That's a win! and the OFCC crew were friendly, and professional.

 

 

please PM me your name and team.

[thatdave]

@quickfuze: what lore was your level 4 on?

[Don't Panic]

if he's the guy i talked to a bit i think he did metal.  i like swedish.  plus that idea of linking like-minded opponents. 

[ClassicFlava]

quckfuze did indeed take the lore of metal.  He was on my team

[Veskit]

I am saddened to see the bash hammer go unused. Maybe I will have to put up or shut up next year!

Since I've been a part of each and every smashhammer game, it goes without saying (but I'm saying it anyways) that I'm always up for a smashhammer game.

[thatdave]

Since I've been a part of each and every smashhammer game, it goes without saying (but I'm saying it anyways) that I'm always up for a smashhammer game.

I humbly relinquish Shane's challenge to you, good sir.

[Murphy'sLawyer]

I agree with Krieger...for example I think my score was torpedoed by two things: I think I was given low sports scores because my opponents didn't like losing, I joked with people, told stories, and I am very lenient on what opponents do (i.e forgetting to move or shoot etc).  I played Chaos Dwarves, so I ran only 3 war machines all different (not double magma cannons), no lore of hashut, and no bull centaur character.  My book is limited in what I can take.... dwarves and more dwarves (yes I even took some hobgoblins).  Second is paint, I know that everyone likes bright, smooth blended armies that snap the eye, but that is not what CD are.  I would be interested to see my complete paint score and whether the judges are experienced enough to recognize that the armor on my dwarves has no less than 3 different tones and 4 weathering pigments (7 steps).  Yes they look dirty, it's intentional.  Appears to be alot of subjective-ness in final standings....

 

All that being said....in the end I had a blast, met some great people and got to roll lots of dice! That's a win! and the OFCC crew were friendly, and professional.

Honestly I lost three of my 5 games and rated no one lower than a 3. Winning or losing should not effect the sportsmanship score. It's about personality, otherwise the best generals would be getting punked on that score everytime.

 

Having meet you and talked to you for sometime over the weekend I would be surprised if you got a worse score than 3 on sportsmanship.

[mojoslayer]

I think having a max of 18 is a HUGE mistake.  I just made a list that is far from soft, it is just not considered optimal for the race, and therefore clocks in at an 18.4.  If I tweak it to make it come in at an 18 it actually gets softer and destroys some of the synergy of the army.  I think the max cap needs to be a 20, or better yet, not have one at all.  BTW I would take on any list with this list, it won't wreak face, but it will compete against most thing.  I used a "softer" version of this list at  2800 points at OFCC and went 4-1 and could have won that one loss if I did not make two big mistakes.  I'm also not trying to beat the system by taking softer hard choices, I'm just trying to put a list that is one fun, and two works together but according to the Swish system dwarfs with no warmachines will always fall short.

[mojoslayer]

Those that want Chaos Dwarfs out, they are heavily comped in the swedish system, and honestly their power is overrated, I know, I play against them all the time.  

 

I love playing at the OFCC and always have had great time and I don't mind forking out money for such a great event, but I will draw a line in the sand, I understand no SOM or other monsters, but if Chaos Dwarfs are out (even though I don't play them) I'm out.  Not trying to be confrontational, just being honest.

[McNathanson]

I think it's too early to be worried about lines in the sand, I suspect that this will all get worked out very intentionally and carefully once we have a HoG selected, and until then, it's just speculation :)

BTW the max comp min com values are just a spitball at this point.  Without a better sampling of lists to establish our actual range, we won't actually set any values (I hope!)

[McNathanson]

... which (I should add) is why I'm asking people to post lists and comp them, so we can get that data set going without asking one person to rate a ton of lists.

[WarlordGhrom]

Per the other thread my OFCC list came in between a 10-11 for a Skaven Army.

 

I had the following:

 

Skaven Army: 2794.5 pts
Lords: 685 pts
Warlord on Brood Horror - 400 pts
   Brood Horror has Skyre Claws and Rusted Armor upgrades.  Warlord has Armor of Destiny and Ogre Blade.
Grey Seer (General) - 285 pts
   Talisman of Preservation
Heroes: 451 pts
Plague Priest - 294 pts
  L2 upgrade, IronCurse Icon, Flail, Plague Furnace
Chieftain - 112 pts
  BSB, Halberd, Armor of Fortune, Luckstone
Warlock Engineer - 45 pts
  Doomrocket
Core: 839.5 Pts
Clan Rats x39, FC, Shields, Warp Thrower Team - 265.5 pts
Clan Rats x39, FC, Shields - 195.5 pts
Clan Rats x39, FC, Shields, Spears - 215 pts
Giant Rat Pack, 21 rats, 4 packmasters - 95 pts
Slaves 25, Musician, Pawleader, Shields - 68.5
Special - 419 pts
Plague Monks x34, FC, Plague Banner - 293 pts
Gutter Runners x7, Slings, Poisoned Attacks - 126 pts
Rare - 400 pts
HellPit Abomination, spikes - 250 pts
Doomwheel - 150 pts

 

The BroodHorror didn't show up on comp (Forgeworld model) but if it had it probably would of given me points instead of subtracting based off how bad it is for the points.  Same cost as a HPA and a third of the killy.

 

It is a pretty tame Skaven army overall, but still contains some of the power units (HPA, Doomwheel, GutterRunners w/poison&sling, PlagueFurnace).  Not taking a bell or tooled up Warlord (or using the Broodhorror pts better) kept it down I think.