|
Post by Liam Thompson on Jul 29, 2008 3:44:35 GMT
Only armies that have official army books are allowed. GAH! Blatant discrimination against Dogs of War and Chaos Dwarfs! Also, I suppose, against Chaos Warriors - since they do not have an army book any more, I guess they are not legal either. However army lists should go to me now. As I will be playing - it would be an idea to do as Carl says and leave out the name of the magic item but includes its points value. Since you will be refereeing this, Warren, and thus will need to verify army lists, why don't you simply write out your own army list first, before anyone else submits theirs? Also, will army lists be open for public review after the submission date? There will be a prize for the best marker! Since I will be the judge on this - I will not enter this little side competition. I do hope, though, that despite you not counting your own entry, you'll still be making a nice looking marker ;D
|
|
|
Post by mike on Jul 29, 2008 8:04:21 GMT
Yep Carl - that all seems clear enough Time to start tweaking 2000pt lists, methinks Note to self - gonna need a special marker as well - ain't got one yet
|
|
|
Post by carl on Jul 29, 2008 8:33:55 GMT
chaos warriors have a 'get by' list from white dwarf recently which is official and therefore should be allowed.
|
|
|
Post by wstevens on Jul 29, 2008 13:14:38 GMT
Chaos warriors as Carl states is ok - for example the list you played against me is fine Liam.
Also I can see where you are coming from with writing my list first so that I can't doctor it to counter any lists I may see. You have a point and I would do my list before all others - thank you for that I would have missed it and that would have been unfair to all taking part. (Not that I would do such a thing but well spotted anyway Liam).
About opening them up for others to see it wouldn't be fair. So in light of both points raised and there is no way round it - I will not enter the competition but will put James (as he is on the reserve list) into my place in the interest of fairness.
As for my marker - It doesn't make any difference now. I feel this is a better approach and will stop any potential finger pointing. I am now an impatial referee to all matches in this - nothing more. I hope everybody is ok about this - and I'm not being funny or anything else just being practical.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Mawson on Jul 29, 2008 13:41:32 GMT
Can't you just get someone in the other half of the league section to check your army list for you. Thus keeping things impartial.
It seems a bit unfair that you're going to the effort to organise this league, but aren't actually going to be able to participate.
|
|
|
Post by wstevens on Jul 29, 2008 14:15:14 GMT
Its too much hassle and its a lot fairer this way. This way nobody can argue about improriaty with the lists. I hope that everybody will understand why this has to be. As it was with the Island campaign I did a couple of years back. I did not enter that campaign because of the possibility of viewing each army list and I totally forgot about that decision and now remember the reasons behind it. Apologies to all that I didn't spot it sooner. At least you lot won't get an easy win now! LOL!
|
|
|
Post by carl on Jul 29, 2008 20:04:08 GMT
why dont you do 2 leagues of 6 players then you can come back in. you could have everyone enter their list on the same night as doing a draw to see what league you are in. that seems fair and you get two from each league progressing to the semi-finals.
|
|
|
Post by wstevens on Jul 30, 2008 1:07:43 GMT
I didn't want 6 in each league because of others doing other things - roleplaying, 40K etc... It would take far too long. Any case the likelihood of everybody being there on the same night and also handing in/emailing their lists at this time is not very high. I think it is only right that I don't enter, that way everybody has a fair pop at this without any complications. It just makes it so much easier to handle. Oh and the best thing is that I can be impartial to doing your table set ups. I hope everyone will enjoy playing this trophy.
|
|
|
Post by Liam Thompson on Jul 31, 2008 6:38:56 GMT
chaos warriors have a 'get by' list from white dwarf recently which is official and therefore should be allowed. Chaos warriors as Carl states is ok - for example the list you played against me is fine Liam. And the Dogs of War list is a "get by" list from White Dwarf, and the Chaos Dwarfs have a Ravening Hordes list, both of which are just as "official" as the Chaos Warriors list. How is it that they don't enjoy the same status as Chaos Warriors? I'm not complaining for the sake of complaining. If you wanted to ban those army lists, then that's fair enough; you are the tournament organiser and your word is law. All I am pointing out is that your supposed reasoning for it does not hold up under scrutiny, considering you are already making an exception to your "army book only" rule for Chaos Warriors. Also I can see where you are coming from with writing my list first so that I can't doctor it to counter any lists I may see. You have a point and I would do my list before all others - thank you for that I would have missed it and that would have been unfair to all taking part. (Not that I would do such a thing but well spotted anyway Liam). About opening them up for others to see it wouldn't be fair. So in light of both points raised and there is no way round it - I will not enter the competition but will put James (as he is on the reserve list) into my place in the interest of fairness. As for my marker - It doesn't make any difference now. I feel this is a better approach and will stop any potential finger pointing. I am now an impatial referee to all matches in this - nothing more. I hope everybody is ok about this - and I'm not being funny or anything else just being practical. With respect Warren, this is not the response I'd expected. I see no reason for a tournament organiser, particularly in a small tournament such as this, not to be able to play as long as steps are put in place to ensure transparency of impartiality. As far as I am concerned, the easiest way to do this is to include the following rules: - The tournament organiser writes his army list before anyone else does, - After all the lists are handed in, but before the tournament starts, all lists are made publicly available to all players involved, - Appoint a second referee who, amongst other things, is directly responsible for checking the legality of the organiser's army list and for making refereeing decisions on the organiser's games. The first point allows for the fact that you will have to go through each list for legality, and the second point means that you have no unfair advantage for having looked through the lists. The third one simply allows for the fact that refereeing decisions can be made by an impartial party for your own games. With those in place, I see no reason why you couldn't play. I understand that there are people out there who would prefer to play with their army lists secret and thus would not play in a tournament like this. But, as mentioned, a tournament's rules are set by its organiser, and no-one is forced to play in a tournament they do not like the rules of. As an aside, were we planning on having the rules be the same each year, or for each tournament organiser to create their own ruleset? Nonetheless, I feel it unfair for you to have to organise all this and yet go without gaming. If this is the case then in future I would suggest that perhaps the previous year's winner become the following year's tournament organiser so that no-one will have to go without for more than one year in a row.
|
|
|
Post by wstevens on Jul 31, 2008 12:11:40 GMT
As you have described it is a lot of hassle just to include one person (namely me) and does tend to open up too many cans of worms. Who will look at my list? Will they be impartial? Refereeing my table - what if that person has an interest to the outcome of the game - considering the person may have booked themselves a semi-final place? The person chosen to read my list now has a clear advantage over me and may use the information to build their own. Although there will be several other different armies out there to compete against. Naturally someone that had no interest in my games would have to be chosen and the list goes on. So why complicate the issue when the simple thing for this year would be - I don't play. However, I do truly appreciate your concern in this matter Liam - and honestly I do not mind leaving myself out.
If anybody wishes to organise this next year by all means include yourself and all the necessary precautions for inclusion - I choose not to include myself for this year. May I ask why you feel it necessary for everybody to look at everybody else's list prior to the campaign - a public review I think you called it? I have never come across this before. I can understand that after the first few games it wouldn't make much of a difference as people will get used to who's got what - so I can see your point from that angle. Was there any other reason - just curious?
As for the rules set I am sticking with Carl's rules as they look good and do not need to be tinkered with. Its a straight forward 2000pt pitched battle with markers.
Pertaining to the Allowed Army Lists - I feel that a DoW can be allowed but without RoR. After all it is not a GW tournament. However, Chaos Dwarves are such an old list from the ravening hordes book that I feel that they would not be at a fair advantage in Ed 7. However there is a polling system on the forum - you may want to put one up to gauge if anybody else has any views on the CD matter. For now its no for the chaos dwarves, yes for WoC, and DoW without RoR. However both latter lists should be the "get by lists" which I have on PDF.
As for next year's rule sets - that will be up to whoever /whomever - (I never get it right) wants to take it on.
|
|
|
Post by wstevens on Jul 31, 2008 22:28:54 GMT
Stop Press! I stand corrected I have just found the PDF which makes Chaos Dwarves playable in 7th edition. So yes I will allow them in this trophy as I said before it is not a GW tournament. However, you MUST use this list. oz.games-workshop.com/games/warhammer/assets/Chaos_Dwarfs.pdfagain no special characters allowed.
|
|
|
Post by Liam Thompson on Aug 2, 2008 5:13:16 GMT
As you have described it is a lot of hassle just to include one person (namely me) and does tend to open up too many cans of worms. Who will look at my list? Will they be impartial? Refereeing my table - what if that person has an interest to the outcome of the game - considering the person may have booked themselves a semi-final place? The person chosen to read my list now has a clear advantage over me and may use the information to build their own. Although there will be several other different armies out there to compete against. Naturally someone that had no interest in my games would have to be chosen and the list goes on. So why complicate the issue when the simple thing for this year would be - I don't play. However, I do truly appreciate your concern in this matter Liam - and honestly I do not mind leaving myself out. If anybody wishes to organise this next year by all means include yourself and all the necessary precautions for inclusion - I choose not to include myself for this year. May I ask why you feel it necessary for everybody to look at everybody else's list prior to the campaign - a public review I think you called it? I have never come across this before. I can understand that after the first few games it wouldn't make much of a difference as people will get used to who's got what - so I can see your point from that angle. Was there any other reason - just curious? As for the rules set I am sticking with Carl's rules as they look good and do not need to be tinkered with. Its a straight forward 2000pt pitched battle with markers. Pertaining to the Allowed Army Lists - I feel that a DoW can be allowed but without RoR. After all it is not a GW tournament. However, Chaos Dwarves are such an old list from the ravening hordes book that I feel that they would not be at a fair advantage in Ed 7. However there is a polling system on the forum - you may want to put one up to gauge if anybody else has any views on the CD matter. For now its no for the chaos dwarves, yes for WoC, and DoW without RoR. However both latter lists should be the "get by lists" which I have on PDF. As for next year's rule sets - that will be up to whoever /whomever - (I never get it right) wants to take it on. Fair enough. Having thought about it, I understand the need for an impartial referee, especially when there are things like trophies up for grabs. Two specific points I wanted to mention, though: - At no point did I suggest that the second/assistant referee actually be another player in the tournament, and even if I had, the act of checking the legality of your army list would have to occur AFTER the deadline submission for army lists,
- Public reviews of army lists mean that you, as organiser, have no advantage by knowing what everyone's army list is before the game. It is my understanding that there are loads of tournaments across the world that use the "open army list" system, to reduce the effect of surprises and increase the element of player skill; hence my thinking that it might be a viable suggestion for this tournament.
Stop Press! I stand corrected I have just found the PDF which makes Chaos Dwarves playable in 7th edition. So yes I will allow them in this trophy as I said before it is not a GW tournament. However, you MUST use this list. oz.games-workshop.com/games/warhammer/assets/Chaos_Dwarfs.pdfagain no special characters allowed. Would it be wrong of me to point out that this is, in fact, merely a scan of the original Ravening Hordes army list and does not appear to have changed at all since it was initially printed? ;D Oh well, Chaos Dwarfs for the win!
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Mawson on Aug 2, 2008 11:42:25 GMT
I think this is possibly getting more involved than is necessary. I have no personal problem with Dogs of War armies, they're not particularly overpowered. But if we're going to have some kind of army restrictions the valid Army Book only rules seems the most sensible to me.
|
|
|
Post by wstevens on Aug 2, 2008 17:23:22 GMT
As stated in my above post that is my final decision on all counts and I hope everybody is ok with it.
Remember that all final army lists should be with me via email by the 24th of September. You all have plenty of time and warning on this date so hopefully there shouldn't be any excuses. If you feel your army is ok then you may want to post it before that date or hand it in to me. However, emailing is easier and more managable. If you wish to change your army list you may do so before the above date but you cannot change it after 00.00hrs on the 25th of September. As for the rules they are in the post above from Carl - you may want to copy and paste into a word file for future reference.
There may be one hitch that I did not see and this concerns new army books or lists. If let's say you write a Tomb Kings army list and GW bring a new book out between 24th sept and December then the old book list will still count. However, in light of the tournament GT heats season I would think this unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by David B on Aug 5, 2008 12:14:03 GMT
I will be using the Hordes of Chaos book to create my army list as this is the only viable book that I can use to create a tournament army.
|
|