2009 Gladiator Planning/Comment Thread #2

The place to discuss all that was! Visit the AdeptiCon website (www.adepticon.org) for past coverage, event results and photos!

If the Gladiator becomes a 2500 point tournament, I will...

...have no problems fielding a 2500 point army - bring it on!
22
52%
...violate rule #1 online, but would purchase/assemble/paint the extra models I need.
2
5%
...not play in the gladiator, when I would if the points remained at 2000 points.
9
21%
...not play in the gladiator. Of course, I would never play in the Gladiator anyways.
5
12%
...wait to see what Fred Fortman does and follow his lead. WWFD.
2
5%
...wait to see what Marc Parker does and follow his lead.
1
2%
...complain, because there's still no way for me to field a warlord titan with a bazillion D-weapons and still take two troops and an HQ..
1
2%
 
Total votes : 42

Postby Redbeard » Wed May 07, 2008 11:47 am

Generalissimo_Fred wrote:Why don't we just have a seperate objective in every Gladiator game. If the game goes through the bottom of turn 6, then both players get +2 battle points. If the game does not reach that point, no one gets the extra battle points.


Just asking, but how does this differ from, say, docking everyone who doesn't finish turn 6 two points?

Given that the winner of the gladiator this year won by one point, isn't this the same as saying "don't bring a horde army if you want to win" - because if even one game ends up taking too long, you're out of it.

Furthermore, let's say you're whomping someone. They know they're out of contention for the big prize. What stops them from drawing the end of the game out, just to knock you out of contention as well?

We all want to play complete games. I want to get to turn 6. Hell, I think most horde players get to actually make it to the opponent only in the final turns.

What is more desirable though, discouraging certain army builds, or having the occassional round only finish 5 turns? The gladiator is all about showcasing extreme armies. Any bonus/penalty based on finishing rounds needs to consider the impact on what armies will actually show up. I don't think it's worth restricting the field of potential armies because some games might only get five turns in.
"All very successful commanders are prima donnas and must be so treated."

George S. Patton
User avatar
Redbeard
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:55 am
Location: Homewood, IL

Postby Generalissimo_Fred » Wed May 07, 2008 12:50 pm

Redbeard wrote: The gladiator is all about showcasing extreme armies.



Could this statement be the point upon which the disagreement rests? I think this is absolutely false to say about the Gladiator. I think it is all about showcasing the best General and FW can be used. Once again rarely has any significant FW piece won the Gladiator. Hanks win with the King Thirster can be traced to a seperate ruling I made about it being a scoring unit. If I had not said it was a scoring unit, as has been ruled in every gladiator since, then he would not have won with the FW piece. That would have made Bill Kim the first Gladiator winner with FW and he didn't bring a large FW component. (Maybe he won the first time with a cyclops or two)

Along those lines the Gladiator scenarios have strived to promote balanced list design. The 3 tiers of objectves and bonus points are cultivated to give extreme list a problem in at least one scenario. This in no way promotes extreme lists, but in fact does the opposite. I would suggect that there has never been an extreme list winner of the Gladiator. I myself have been to 8 non-Adepticon Gladiators in the Chicagoland area and in none of them has an extreme list ever won either. I think I won 7 with either troop heavy IW or vanilla 3rd edition marines and the other was won with a space wolf army.
Generalissimo_Fred
 
Posts: 1248
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:31 am
Location: Elgin, IL

Postby muwhe » Wed May 07, 2008 12:54 pm

Hanks win with the King Thirster can be traced to a seperate ruling I made about it being a scoring unit. If I had not said it was a scoring unit, as has been ruled in every gladiator since, then he would not have won with the FW piece.


You have be vindicated Fred .. the Greater Demons are scoring now and counted as such for the 2008 Gladiator. As they should have all along.
muwhe
AdeptiCon Oracle
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:15 pm

Postby muwhe » Wed May 07, 2008 12:59 pm

Man ..

Now I am tempted to breakout the boo-coo FW .. and prove it again!


Fred, is right .... extreme lists rarely if ever win .. but they sure are fun to play .. :shock:
muwhe
AdeptiCon Oracle
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:15 pm

Postby Redbeard » Wed May 07, 2008 1:17 pm

Generalissimo_Fred wrote:
Redbeard wrote: The gladiator is all about showcasing extreme armies.


Could this statement be the point upon which the disagreement rests? I think this is absolutely false to say about the Gladiator.


Maybe showcasing was the wrong choice of words. The gladiator is different than other tournaments not just because it allows FW, but because it is a comp-free, sportsmanship-free, soft-score-free tournament. People are encouraged to bring their tri-falcon lists. Eldrad being in every eldar army is expected, not frowned upon. People aren't making lists for the gladiator with their opponent's "feelings" in mind.

While running an extreme list may not be a winning strategy, it is part of what makes the gladiator different than your every day tournament.

Now, if one mission has some sort of a 'screw the horde' mission parameter (along the lines of putting the big titan in reserve for three turns) that's absolutely fair game. But to say, "if you cannot finish a game you lose (or fail to gain) points", that's going to discourage that type of list.
"All very successful commanders are prima donnas and must be so treated."

George S. Patton
User avatar
Redbeard
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:55 am
Location: Homewood, IL

Postby Shotgun » Wed May 07, 2008 2:35 pm

Redbeard wrote: But to say, "if you cannot finish a game you lose (or fail to gain) points", that's going to discourage that type of list.


Why is this a problem? A game, any game, has a set of rules that define the conditions that must be met in order to win.

Chess, checkers, poker, football, dominos, tiddlywinks...if you can't meet the conditions, you don't win. You might tie, if the rules allow, but you certainly don't win.

You are advocating an army type that finds it very difficult to "win" given the current rules format. Rather than recognizing that fact, and changing the army type, you are advocating changing the rules to increase the chances of that type to win.

That's like a golfer saying that the cups should be an extra inch in diameter because he misses his putts by that much. Sure, it won't effect everyone else that can hit the smaller cup, but it increases his ability to make a putt.

Or a baseball team that says they want to move the infield in 50 yards cause they can't hit homeruns. While you;re at it, increase the strike zone by 6 inches cause our pitchers have a bit of control problem.

HOw about taking off 20 yards of the football field, cause the kicker doesn't have enough leg?

I have a winning strategy if I only didn't have these silly limitations placed in front of me.

Sure, some of these are ludicrious to contemplate. Adepticon tourney rules are more fluid than the NFL's or the PGA, but the concept is the same. Let's say games are increased to 3 hours to allow for extra time requirements for horde players. What about the guy who says "You know, I would have won if we played a normal time fram game of 2 hours or 2 hours and 15 minutes. I used 1 hour to move and shoot mystuff and my opponent used 2." or what about the guy who brings a 35 model gray knight army. Now he has to sit around twiddling his thumbs while the ork player moves 200+ models.

Yeah, a horde is a viable legal army option, but maybe its not a realistic choice given the conditions it must operate under. Adepticon staff have to create conditions that allow for the most enjoyment of the majority of players. If one army style consistently ends up creating situations that both opponents don't enjoy, maybe a realistic option is to create conditions that discourage that style from being played.
Shotgun
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:44 am
Location: Denver, CO

Postby Redbeard » Wed May 07, 2008 3:29 pm

Shotgun wrote:Why is this a problem? A game, any game, has a set of rules that define the conditions that must be met in order to win.

You are advocating an army type that finds it very difficult to "win" given the current rules format. Rather than recognizing that fact, and changing the army type, you are advocating changing the rules to increase the chances of that type to win.


Uh, no. I'm advocating an army type that doesn't have problems winning under the current format, but that might given the changes being proposed.

The rules conditions in the 2008 tournament didn't punish anyone who didn't finish a game. Nor did they in 2007, 2006, or 2005. Prior to that, I do not know.

The debate here is about adding a rule that changes if it is possible to win with some army types.

As you point out, if the rules change to make it impossible to win with a certain army type, people will recognize that fact, and will change what they're bringing.

I think that the merit of adding a rule that kills an entire style of play is an ill-conceived rule. But, I do recognize that time is a realistic factor that needs to be considered. I think there are better ways to address it than docking points for games that don't finish a full six rounds.

Heck, there are some players that are just slow with whatever army they use. Is it fair to the player who happens to draw one of these guys and gets docked points because they didn't finish their game?

Yeah, a horde is a viable legal army option, but maybe its not a realistic choice given the conditions it must operate under.


Sure it is. It was perfectly viable under the conditions that were in place for the 2008 tournament.

In general, when someone proposes a rule that changes the status-quo, the burden of proof is on them to show that the merits of the change outweigh the costs. All I have done is point out that a cost of the proposed rule change is that people won't bring horde armies, and that consequently skews the metagame.

So, why is ensuring that games finish six turns more important than a diverse metagame?
"All very successful commanders are prima donnas and must be so treated."

George S. Patton
User avatar
Redbeard
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:55 am
Location: Homewood, IL

Postby muwhe » Wed May 07, 2008 3:47 pm

Let's also keep in mind this is all good discussion about "how to make" the event or events better.

At some point someone is going to have to make some choices. We are a long way off from having to do that at the moment. Certainly not until after 5th edition hits.

Just keep in mind .. we might have a points change for the Gladiator and we might have a slightly earlier start time. If you are starting to plan for next year.
muwhe
AdeptiCon Oracle
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:15 pm

Postby Papa_Nurgle » Wed May 07, 2008 4:21 pm

I just want ya'll to know - if we make a change to the points value of the Gladiator, and it goes up - I'm going to have to do more painting and I am NOT happy about that thought.

As an aside, I realized last night that I had 71 models painted for 3 units and an HQ- and then I realized that it was only 449 points.

2051 points to go...

Hey, if we fill out the entire force org chart, can we get a new one to work with too?
Team TnA Founding Member.
WHABSAB!
Every Time you use the word "fluff," a kitten dies.

Purple ticket owner.
Papa_Nurgle
 
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 7:38 am

Postby muwhe » Wed May 07, 2008 4:29 pm

Well I envision ..

1 FOC and 1 Warmachine Detachment.


That would do away with the 2 HVY slot confusion.

Besides painting is good for the Papa...
muwhe
AdeptiCon Oracle
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:15 pm

Postby Inquisitor_Malice » Wed May 07, 2008 5:31 pm

Redbeard wrote:In general, when someone proposes a rule that changes the status-quo, the burden of proof is on them to show that the merits of the change outweigh the costs. All I have done is point out that a cost of the proposed rule change is that people won't bring horde armies, and that consequently skews the metagame.


If slow people do not bring horde forces, then that is a good thing. People will finish more games, which is how it should be. The thing you need to keep in mind is that experienced players will still play horde forces and players will still need to account for this. So the metagame will only adjust slightly.

Redbeard wrote:So, why is ensuring that games finish six turns more important than a diverse metagame?


Because the game is made to be six turns. Some armies perform better in later parts of the game. Therefore going the full six turns is what we should target and is more fair to everyone. The metagame may change a little, but experienced players will be able to still use the armies. From my point of view, I want to have fun with my opponents. That being said, it does not mean that I am paying to be a training partner for a slow player or someone who doesn't understand how to use their force in the allotted time. If a 2,000 to 2,250 point game is not finished in 2 1/4 hours to 2 1/2 hours, then one or both players messed up. And if you can't handle your army within an even amount of time given to each player, then you should not be playing it in a tournament setting. That is what your buddies are for on game night.
- Greg
User avatar
Inquisitor_Malice
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:58 pm

Postby tear of the angel » Wed May 07, 2008 7:11 pm

I agree with Inquisitor_Malice, we should be worried about people finishing all six turns.
The first game I played this year we only got three turns in cause the guy i played was just really slow at doing everything, it was like he didn't even know his own army.
SEMPER FORTIS- ALWAYS COURAGEOUS
User avatar
tear of the angel
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:36 am
Location: quincy, IL

Postby Nidzilla517 » Wed May 07, 2008 9:49 pm

Why don't we just have a seperate objective in every Gladiator game. If the game goes through the bottom of turn 6, then both players get +2 battle points. If the game does not reach that point, no one gets the extra battle points. Make the same rule for the other events, but throw the points into sportsmanship or something.[/quote]

What if you finish off your opponent by turn 4 or 5?? Extra battle points??
This Bugs For You !!!!!!!!!!!!!
User avatar
Nidzilla517
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 8:34 pm
Location: Alien Nation, USA

Postby Inquisitor_Malice » Wed May 07, 2008 10:40 pm

Nidzilla517 wrote:What if you finish off your opponent by turn 4 or 5?? Extra battle points??


Finishing off your opponent just means they don't have anything to move. There is nothing in the book that says a game ends once all of your opponents models are gone. So getting six turns in shouldn't be a problem from that standpoint.
- Greg
User avatar
Inquisitor_Malice
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:58 pm

Postby flatlanderboss » Wed May 07, 2008 11:05 pm

Mick,

Were painting 80 orks a day. Throw yours into the hopper.

We'll cover you.
"How many of the armies here were painted by you guys?"

"Enough."
flatlanderboss
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 10:15 am
Location: Towanda, IL

PreviousNext

Return to AdeptiCon 2008

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron