Jump to content

OFCC 2015 Ideas


Recommended Posts

It is true. Nothing is official yet. HOG proposals must be made. But the Swedish shift maybe a good trend.

 

Well personally I hope what was mentioned today goes through as stated. I liked the idea of a solid way to determine if my list is good or not. Not a huge Special Character fan but then again I never played against them yet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well personally I hope what was mentioned today goes through as stated. I liked the idea of a solid way to determine if my list is good or not. Not a huge Special Character fan but then again I never played against them yet.

ML, two things here:

 

1) Special characters are hit really hard with the swedish comp (the majority of them anyway).

 

2) It's not the list that makes the army good or bad.  It's how the person who's "pushing the models" plays the game and the list.  If you tell someone they are only allowed to use "X" units for "Y" amount of time, that person will figure out how to make the list work.  The comp system just lets you know how hard or soft the list is.  Practice with the list is what makes it good or bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see anything in the swedish comp that will curtail the hard lists we see at OFCC.  In fact I think lists will get a bit harder overall.  looking at what you can do with a 10 score army, its as tough or tougher than anything that would be taken and allowed in the last couple of OFCC's.  plus the addition of the special characters will really increase the difficulty of the armies.  I still think its appropriate though.  It comes down to being an invite tournament, a level 10 list avoids the really nasty stuff and any abusers can just not be invited back if needs be.  same with the specials, I like the idea of opening up the ability to alter core choices and get different army special rules.  not so much the raw power ones, but you cant have it all your way.  Simplicity is worth it imo.

 

its a non arbitrary, fairly open comp system, so hopefully it will work.  I have said many times that complicated rules don't make anything better or more fair.  I suspect that the powers that be on this tourney ran afoul of that complication this year.  the people make the tournament not the rules.  won't be able to really tell anything about the worth of it till the scoring system is decided.  as long as the scoring system properly offsets the raw battle points with the comp score in some manner I think it will be a win.  I do think the comp scores need to be used to offset battle points in some way though, or its all for naught.

 

I think its also important for the players and captains for the next years go remember that this is a huge change and that its opening the door for some insane diversity in players lists, power, and theme.  the themers will go even farther in that direction since they have specials they can take to augment what they are building around, and general players have much more leeway to take whatever they want.  moderate it a little bit and lets see how it goes, maximize the next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im willing to try anything that could improve the mess that was this year's lists.

I had to rate someone a 1 for the first time ever and honestly I felt like crap for doing so, but spirit of the OFCC was NOT in effect evenly for a lot of teams/armies.

 

This is a very special event run by good people. Let's keep the spirit alive and well, and reinforce CORE OFCC VALUES first off.

 

That's where we need to spend time before we worry about lists and comp etc.

 

I'd rather have 40 players that get OFCC values then 80 who don't.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't seen anyone mention any of the Swedish Comp's ways of dealing with army value discrepancies. Without having used the system before, the Active Comp idea makes a lot of sense to me:

 

Active Comp: At the end of each battle, the result of the game is effected by the difference in comp score between the players. The easiest way
of doing this is to give bonus victory points to the player with the higher comp score. Comp difference multiplied by a value (between 100 and 150
works well) gives the additional victory point.
Pros: Most fair system where the luck of the draw is taken into consideration, and players that faces stronger armies are compensated more than
players that faces weaker armies. Note that there might be a good idea to have a maximum and minimum allowed comp score to avoid high comp
armies gaining too much of an advantage over low comp armies, thus creating a meta game where high comp armies that plays for draws are to
powerful

 

Allows players how like to take a little bit of a "harder" list to do so without running rampant on players who like taking more fun, fluffy lists. Also using comp scores to help captains find match-ups that are going to be closer in strength seems like it can help people have better games.

 

Again, I'm not expert on the Swedish Comp system, but having read through it, it seems like it has a lot of internal balance, allowing players to make the kind of lists they want to.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, and this will go in my survey. I believe that teams should get an average comp score rating, based on the ratings of each person on the team and get paired with other teams with the same rating +/- 1. If we were all told that every list needs to be between 12-15, then we all would have known what to build for. I like playing challenging lists and a competitive game can still be fun.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im willing to try anything that could improve the mess that was this year's lists.

I had to rate someone a 1 for the first time ever and honestly I felt like crap for doing so, but spirit of the OFCC was NOT in effect evenly for a lot of teams/armies.

 

Was this 1 rating due to the player or due to the army list?  Maybe I'm mistaken but I wouldn't think that rating them a 1 based upon their list is the right thing to do; it was passed by the committee (I would assume), and while it may have been hard, I don't think it's fair to give them a sports hit based solely on their list.  And maybe I'm misinterpreting your post, so apologies in advance if I am (I can't tell if your two sentences are related or not :) ).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember guys, the goal is fun games, right?  The loose definition of a fun game (at least back in the day when OFCC started up) was:

 

#1 played by nice people being nice to each other

#2 not overly focused on who comes out with the W, but instead playing hard to make the game tactically interesting and exciting for both players

#3 played with two armies that are interesting, challenging, and result in a close-fought battle (as opposed to R/P/S, decided mostly before deployment, or decided by one or two OP units or special rules)

 

With that in mind, Swedish comp (within some range) will give guidance to people who WANT to bring the right level of list to the game.  But it won't stop people who forget #1 and are doing their best to go "5-0" or some other overly competitive goal.  The only way to stop those folks is to 1) have a review committee to gently remind them what their list building goals should be and 2) not invite them if they prefer to play with the main goal of winning for their own ego's sake.  It may sound exclusive but this mindset isn't for everybody!

 

When building a list, folks need to be thinking, "Will people have fun playing me?  Will they have fun losing to me?  Will they have fun beating me?"

 

When deciding whether to come, folks need to be thinking, "Can I overcome my inner ego (which we all have) and focus on creating close and exciting games for myself and my opponent?"

It's hard, lord knows my competitive side rankles at the Candadaianians crushing our teams!  But don't lose sight of what really matters: having a good time and making sure your opponent has every opportunity to have a good time as well.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should also add, that of course it goes without saying that evenly matched lists are about 25% of the equation when it comes to achieving a close, well-fought game.  Most of the rest is of course player skill and dice.  That's why swiss matching is super important, because it brings the winning teams together faster, which means more close games.

 

And, lest it be forgotten in the shower of suggestions that comes after each OFCC: the folks who put it on this year deserve nothing but our thanks and gratitude, as they are the ones who actually ponied up the immense amount of time and energy it takes to make this event possible for all us players and arm-chair event organizers ;)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember guys, the goal is fun games, right? The loose definition of a fun game (at least back in the day when OFCC started up) was:

 

#1 played by nice people being nice to each other

#2 not overly focused on who comes out with the W, but instead playing hard to make the game tactically interesting and exciting for both players

#3 played with two armies that are interesting, challenging, and result in a close-fought battle (as opposed to R/P/S, decided mostly before deployment, or decided by one or two OP units or special rules)

 

With that in mind, Swedish comp (within some range) will give guidance to people who WANT to bring the right level of list to the game. But it won't stop people who forget #1 and are doing their best to go "5-0" or some other overly competitive goal. The only way to stop those folks is to 1) have a review committee to gently remind them what their list building goals should be and 2) not invite them if they prefer to play with the main goal of winning for their own ego's sake. It may sound exclusive but this mindset isn't for everybody!

 

When building a list, folks need to be thinking, "Will people have fun playing me? Will they have fun losing to me? Will they have fun beating me?"

 

When deciding whether to come, folks need to be thinking, "Can I overcome my inner ego (which we all have) and focus on creating close and exciting games for myself and my opponent?"

It's hard, lord knows my competitive side rankles at the Candadaianians crushing our teams! But don't lose sight of what really matters: having a good time and making sure your opponent has every opportunity to have a good time as well.

I think you nailed it dead on. I went to have fun, win or lose, and when I lost I lost bad. (Murphy's Law was in full effect this weekend and I am not just talking about my games either.) But my opponent's were great guys and had fun even while losing.

 

I even got a favorite opponent pin from one of the funniest players that I tabled. We played for fun, I won while playing the game and not for the win and me and my opponent had our best game doing it. (He got my pin because he earned it. And his Cattlepult was just fantastic. "Have at you! :smile:)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I obviously didn't see all of the matches.

 

I will say out of all the matches I only saw one unfair match up. Even that one exception was a result of what I consider to be the worst book in 8th edition. I honestly don't know how someone could make a competive list with that army in any match up without adding something from an alternate supplement. Which they did not.

 

That being said. I strongly believe the OP complaints are a result of players not being familiar with Forge World products. The immediate fear of not knowing how to deal with strong units caused people to scream OP. If they played a few games and learned how to deal with these units they would realize they are not any worse then some of the unit options that are available in any current army book.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Krieger, honestly it wasn't people just not knowing forge world stuff.  I had several games when I handed my list to my opponents and they just glanced at it and tossed it aside.  Then when I reminded them what the characters had they were like "what, he has that, omg".  I asked my opponents many questions about certain units/items in their armies before we started.  The option to ask your opponent what stuff was was an option before any model was placed on the table.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Krieger, honestly it wasn't people just not knowing forge world stuff.  I had several games when I handed my list to my opponents and they just glanced at it and tossed it aside.  Then when I reminded them what the characters had they were like "what, he has that, omg".  I asked my opponents many questions about certain units/items in their armies before we started.  The option to ask your opponent what stuff was was an option before any model was placed on the table.

 

For those of us who don't play enough to know most/all of the "stock" armies already, adding the complexity of new, generally poorly written, extensively-special rules is a huge headache.  I personally don't really want to come to an event to play games where I am basically just learning a ton of new rules.  I would rather do that on game nights. 

 

At the event itself, I prefer to spend my bandwidth and energy on being a fun opponent and playing smoothly and well.  With all the new scenario rules and new units, I at least felt there was too much to think about outside of playing well and having fun along with my opponent.

 

I'd personally prefer to save Forgeworld (and other rules from outside the core books) for times when I can check ahead of time with my opponent if he minds me playing those rules, or at least, giving him time to learn them (e.g. a few days ahead of a planned game at game night).  Dropping lots of new rules on someone during a 5-game run is just tiring, IMO.

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NtK - While I completely understand your feelings and value what you are saying, with no disrespect intended I would pose this to you.  Did you not review the event rules in advance?  What was being permitted in the event was clearly defined.  If you chose not to go and review the units in those books that you were unfamiliar with ahead of time; well that's on you.  I myself completely forgot about predatory fighter in my first game against Lizards and was like "well crap, should have remembered that".  I remember back when Army books were $20 a pop, I used to buy every army book.  First for the fluff and also for the rules so I knew what opponent armies could do.  Now with current pricing I no longer do that, but the internet and awesome community forums make up for that now....so I still have a good idea of what I expect to see in a competitive WoC or VK list or whatever......

 

except monster mash lizards.....aint going to lie....kinda scared me seeing all that....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally don't want to lose the forge world and out of normal book stuff.  I took on 2 chaos dwarf players who were nigh immortal to my list or any of the lists I had on my team, but they were fine games.  I could have done well, and would do better now that I have played them twice, but even then I would have to bring my A-game, get some lucky rolls, and likely have them make a mistake just to have a reliable chance to upset the battle.  that said they were beautiful armies and the generals were fine players, so its a win.

 

the one problem I do have is that both times I battled them there were rules on their side that they were playing in error.  we have lots of new players at ofcc and we all make mistakes almost every round where we miss interpret something, but with the non standard builds its incredibly important that the player knows his rules well.  no matter what normal army is being played chances are one of the 8 players will know whats up, but with non standard stuff the player themselves may be the only source of info.  I went to my book a ton this year since I was playing an army I didn't know well, but for the most part people don't.  they are certain of what their stuff does so you let it ride and find out later it was mistaken.

 

this is OFCC, its the tournament geared towards hobbyists who may build a nippon army, one where I'm suprised when I don't see dogs of war, one where custom models and alternate model lines are preferred.  I want to see all the options there.  I would be fine with submitting my dogs of war to a special review system or something.  maybe the swedish comp will free up some time for the organizers to do some manual interpretation of some of those lists someday.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll throw in my two cents.

 

I think Swedish is definitely the way to go, and I mean full-on Swedish, where the difference between list scores multiplied by 100 is added to the VPs of the player with the lower scoring list. Otherwise, if we just require lists to be in the 10-18 range, the more competitively minded players will turn up with something that hits 10 on the nose (altho hopefully captains would discourage this), which still may not pair well with the fluffier lists. Using the points difference method, most players will show up with something around the 14 mark, which will lead to some delightful matchups. 

 

I also think that if Swedish is used, then everything covered under the Swedish umbrella should be allowed, but nothing else. So no Storm of Magic, Monstrous Arcanum or Dogs of War, because Swedish cannot account for them. But certainly Special Characters should be in, because Swedish penalizes for them wherever necessary (and honestly, its not necessary with most 8th Ed S.C's). And there are some lovely themed lists that are just not the same without their special character!

 

Similarly, Chaos Dwarfs should be allowed as long as Swedish keeps updating their comp for them. They will only keep updating the comp as long as the tournament scene as a whole accepts Chaos Dwarfs, so its a good metric of how suitable the broader tournament community feels the army is. Again, Swedish does a good job of penalizing and balancing the CD army where necessary. Yes there a few slightly wonky or ambiguous rules, but no more so than some of the other fantasy books. Like with the ambiguity-laden WE book, the community just needs some simple consensus on how certain things will be ruled and there will be no problem. I played with Chaos Dwarfs at this event, but will not be using them at the next OFCC, so this isn't coming from a self-serving place. I just think they're a cool army, that are handled as effectively as any other by Swedish. And all of my opponents seemed to have a lot of fun playing against my evil little stunties this time round, or if they didn't, they did a good job of hiding it  :smile:.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...