Which team would you take?

[plasmoid]

I hope so

Though admittedly, the cheap and safe option for a Big Guy is probably to take Guard for 30K.
(Or Claw/Mighty Blow if you have singles access to one and have got the other).
Cheers
Martin

[plasmoid]

Hi Rolo, I hope you're still here.

This is an excellent ruleset for Dwarves. 1100k buys the standard 12 player, 3 RR, Apoth roster. 240k bonus gold buys 8 of them Guard. Or maybe "only" 6-7 Guards and 1-2 MB. I don't see any incentive to make a "diverse skill selection".
You can also make the cookie cutter, tournament standard Lizardman roster with 6 Block Saurus.

Yep. I didn't want to nerf anyone. Well, excpet taking 1 skill off woodies and undead. Instead, I hope to push the other teams to the same level.
And add some options: Perhaps that Dwarf team would like to stack on a player? I know one (good) coach considered taking Block + Kick-Off Return on his Runner.
In the same vein - yes, 6 block Saurus' is an option (at least no Block Krox). But you could also consider stacks. Or 3 for 2 on the medium skills, like: 4 Block Saurus', 2 Break Tackle Saurus' and a Jugger-Krox…?

Chaos will probably be scary, just because 330k buys 11 (!) premium skills and allows stacking. 11 skills is a lot. Every Warrior could get Block, you can get a Block, Extra Arms, Sure Hands ball carrier (which is serious overkill), and still have enough for 2 ClawMB killer Beastmen. Or just 11 players with Block (boring). Minotaur gets no skills (if taken).

Just to be clear: Only one gold skill in s stack. So no ClawMB Beastmen. (But the Mino could go that way )

I think in this ruleset, for bog-boring power gaming I'd play Dwarves, for some fun games (but probably not the optimal roster) I'd go with Humans.

Duly noted
The Humans get lots of lovely skills, but will have to consider if a blockless ogre is worth it.

Cheers
Martin

[plasmoid]

Ooops. Just spotted the massive typo:
The +20K penalty for gold skills on Loners is only if they take a doubles!

[plasmoid]

Hi Oventa,
I've finished your comparison. To do so, I've reduced my bonus by a third, to take into account that most people will just take the good (30K) skills, meaning that, say, 150K is 5 skills, so comparable to 100K in the other 2 systems.
I've just taken day 1+2 for Dornbirn, as day 3 adds the same for everyone

Code: Select all

       Classic    WC    CPR
Wood Elf 120K   100K   100K
Undead   120K   100K   100K
Amazon   120K   100K   120K
Brets    120K   100K   120K
Dark Elf 120K   100K   120K
Lizards  120K   100K   120K
CD       120K   100K   140K
Norse    120K   100K   140K
Skaven   120K   100K   140K
Dwarf    120K   100K   160K
Elf      120K   150K   160K
Necro    120K   150K   160K
Pact     160K   150K   180K
Khemri   120K   150K   180K
Orc      120K   100K   180K
Khorne   160K   200K   200K
High Elf 120K   150K   200K
Human    120K   150K   200K
Nurgle   120K   200K   200K
Chaos    120K   200K   220K
Slann    120K   200K   220K
Undrwrld 160K   200K   220K
Gobbo    190K   220K   240K
Halfling 190K   220K   240K
Ogre     190K   220K   240K
Vampire  160K   200K   240K

Coincidentally, the people I talk to (Who have a very tier-positive mind set) seem to think that the best tier 3 teams have recieved a bit too much in Dornbirn. It should be noted though, that this is especially evident on day 1, when the Classic power teams have just 3 skills, while the best tier 3 teams get 7 (one being a doubles).

Cheers
Martin

[Smeborg]

Ooops. Just spotted the massive typo:
The +20K penalty for gold skills on Loners is only if they take a doubles!

Well spotted, Martin, and thanks for the clarification. That is a rather different kettle of fish.

Some of my remarks above were made on the understanding that Loner Big Guys would have to pay 50,000 for a "normal" Gold skill.

With the clarification, I note that the Chaos Minotard is "boosted" (say Claw + Jugs for 60,000). Ditto for their other "normally mutant" brother (Underworld Troll). I would consider adding Underworld to my "delicious" list. They are not tournament winners, but have good entertainment value.

[rolo]

Still here!

I didn't want to nerf anyone. Well, excpet taking 1 skill off woodies and undead.

it's going to happen whether you want it or not. Every tournament ruleset is (relatively speaking) good for some teams and bad for others.

As Smeborg pointed out, a lot of tournament organizers choose to divide races into tiers and give lower-tier races bonuses. Not many TO's explicitly say what they're trying to accomplish by doing so. Those I've spoken to simply seem to be trying to improve their tournaments by encouraging more diversity in race selection. Nobody wants to spend a weekend playing six games vs Undead. This is easy to measure - you immediately know how many different races are present, and how many of the most popular races were chosen.
But it looks like you're trying to create a ruleset where the each race (except for stunties) have an approximately equal win rate. And that's going to be difficult to measure based on the results of one tournament. If Smeborg flies to Denmark and wins your tournament with Slann, does it mean that you gave too many bonuses? Or that he's particularly skilled with Slann? It's very difficult to separate that without a sample size of hundreds of games per race - far more than you'll get with one tournament, even if you keep the same rules for years.

Ooops. Just spotted the massive typo:
The +20K penalty for gold skills on Loners is only if they take a doubles!

That's a big change. The current wording of your rule text doesn't reflect that:
"Loners pay 70K if taken on doubles"
First of all, you have that text under "Gold Skills". Pro is a "Bronze" skill in your ruleset and should cost 60k.
I am a fan of tournament rules being as clear and unambiguous as possible. I'd add to your general skill price rule:
"Cost: The base cost of skills is 30K for a normal, 50K for a doubles. Players with the Loner skill pay 20k extra for doubles skills."

[Smeborg]

Hi again Martin -

You can add Underworld to my personal "delicious" list. The problem with Underworld in tournaments is that they need to give skills to the Troll and Skaven players, typically leaving few or no skills for the Gobbos. However, the Gobbos on this team are rather weak and squishy, unless they are able to take a lot of 2-Heads. Your format allows lots of Gobbos to take skills, for example:

Troll: 2 skills (e.g. Claw, S-Arm)
Skaven: 1 skill each (e.g. 2 x Guard, 2 x Block, 2 x Wrestle)
Gobbos: 5 of them with 2-Heads

I have difficulty describing in words how superior such a team is to the equivalent team without 2-Heads (which would be closer to a typical Underworld tourney team). This is also the best one-turn-score team in the game (for which 2-Heads is a big boost).

Hope that helps.

[Smeborg]

Martin - I have noticed (both in my country and elsewhere) that the tiered handicapping system seems to get ever more extreme. Yours is the most extreme I have yet seen, but the Dornbirn World Cup format is not far off. This is sufficient proof to me that the whole concept is not working as expected.

I see an easy way to encourage a spread of races in the World Cup. With (say) 4 "Tiers":

- A "Tier 1" team costs 4 points
- A "Tier 2" team costs 3 points
- A "Tier 3" team costs 2 points
- A "Tier 4" team costs 1 point

Each team of 6 coaches would be given 15 points to spend. No need for handicapping.

Now I expect it is not beyond mother wit to come up with a quota system or something crude but effective to achieve a spread of races in an individual tourney. One tournament I played in (fun but competitive team of 3) gave an extra 50,000 card per game to any unique race (i.e. the only representative of that race in the tourney). IIRC the most common teams were similarly penalised (no cards for you!). Other things (skills, extra TV) could I guess also be dished out according to the statistical frequency of races that enter a tourney. This also introduces a "meta" element to choice of race.

Of course only a practical trial would prove any of these concepts.

Hope that helps.

[plasmoid]

Hi Rolo - I'm glad you're still here

it's going to happen whether you want it or not. Every tournament ruleset is (relatively speaking) good for some teams and bad for others.

True - and then again not quite.
Yes, it is true that no matter how equal, one team will always be "best" and one will always be "worst".
But I think it makes a vast difference whether the difference between the two is small or big.

For example, if you correct for composition, then the current NAF data (since 2011) has Wood Elfs at 59% and Nurgle at 44%.
If in my rules the effective power were to change to Wood Elfs 52% and Nurgle 48%, than they would still be best and worst, but it would feel very differently to the coaches.

But it looks like you're trying to create a ruleset where the each race (except for stunties) have an approximately equal win rate. And that's going to be difficult to measure based on the results of one tournament.

In fact, it's going to be practically impossible to measure (due to lack of data).
I'm merely posting it as my ideal. So commenters aren't freaked out if, say, Underworld are suddenly roughly as good as, say, Norse.

If Smeborg flies to Denmark and wins your tournament with Slann, does it mean that you gave too many bonuses? Or that he's particularly skilled with Slann? It's very difficult to separate that without a sample size of hundreds of games per race - far more than you'll get with one tournament, even if you keep the same rules for years.

I'd be thrilled if he came to Copenhagen and won with Slann
But seriously, somebody has to win!
What would worry me is if, say, 4 of 24 attending teams were Slann, and 3 of those ended up in the top 6. That would indicate a problem to me. Well, that. and player feedback, combined with similar results.

Cheers
Martin

[plasmoid]

Hi Rolo,

"Cost: The base cost of skills is 30K for a normal, 50K for a doubles. Players with the Loner skill pay 20k extra for doubles skills."

But that is not what I want.
The rules is that they pay +20K for Doubles Gold skills. I.e. 70K.

Pro is not Gold, so a Loner would pay the same as everyone else for Pro on doubles.
Maybe Pro (for 50K) on Loners (Big Guys) will be all the rage. We'll see. I think you'll still miss Block, both when you're blocking (and Pro helps) and when getting blocked (where Pro doesn't help)
Cheers
Martin

[plasmoid]

Hi Smeborg,
I fully agree that Underworld with lots of 2-heads gobbos will make for a fun and viable team.
I have plenty of experience with them, as (IIRC) do you

[plasmoid]

Hi Again Smeborg,

Martin - I have noticed (both in my country and elsewhere) that the tiered handicapping system seems to get ever more extreme. Yours is the most extreme I have yet seen, but the Dornbirn World Cup format is not far off. This is sufficient proof to me that the whole concept is not working as expected.

I disagree . And I have a lot of confidence in these rules, even if the addition of new and not quite neccessary (but fun) skill rules, may well require a test tournament to weed out some flaws.

Fun story - The Danish Open also uses a heavily tiered rules system called ATV (All Teams Viable)., and has for several years. I was part of the rules Group at one point, but I didn't start it, and I'm not on anymore. I think that the ATV rules have yielded some spectacularly interesting and varied tournaments. Last year, there was some discussion whether to introduce a more direct nerf to Wood elfs, but in the end an indirect nerf was introduced (skill stacking, allowing both Mighty Blow + Tackle and Block + Sure Hands). Is it happened. The tournament was won by.... Wood Elfs. Which might just indicate that more is needed than you'd think, which may be why tier rules are getting more extreme.

Anyway, I'm going to Dornbirn and greatly looking forward to it. But I don't think their tier rules are spot on. And I think it is so obvious, that we will see it in team selection. Which is the danger with tier rules. And is a bit of a shame.
IMO, the tiers are too big, encompassing vastly different teams.
This will make bottom-of.tier teams, like Orcs, very weak.
Their tier 3 (of 4) bonus is substantial. About the same as my tier 5-6. And I think it will make them compete on even terms with the absolute top teams.
The problem here is that the bonus will be (way) too much against any tier 1 team which is not the very best . That is why I have that many tiers.

So, quite frankly, I think they got it wrong. But at least we'll see other teams at the top than what we're used to.

I see an easy way to encourage a spread of races in the World Cup. With (say) 4 "Tiers":
- A "Tier 1" team costs 4 points
- A "Tier 2" team costs 3 points
- A "Tier 3" team costs 2 points
- A "Tier 4" team costs 1 point
Each team of 6 coaches would be given 15 points to spend. No need for handicapping.

Yep. That would be interesting. Even though it doesn't quite Work for a singles tournament. As most tournaments are.
I went to a team tournament in Stockholn which did something similar, and it was a good time Heck, it was great time

Now I expect it is not beyond mother wit to come up with a quota system or something crude but effective to achieve a spread of races in an individual tourney. One tournament I played in (fun but competitive team of 3) gave an extra 50,000 card per game to any unique race (i.e. the only representative of that race in the tourney). IIRC the most common teams were similarly penalised (no cards for you!). Other things (skills, extra TV) could I guess also be dished out according to the statistical frequency of races that enter a tourney. This also introduces a "meta" element to choice of race.

Can I just say that I used to be a tournament organizer, and did something like 15 in 6 years. We tried many Things before arriving at tiering. One was to give a bonus to Unique teams. That was a bit of a disaster as basically the meta-gaming was done from home (i.e. "blind") and the tournament was won by the sole Undead team with a bonus apothecary. That just didn't feel right.

But I guess this is where we disagree anyway.
I see no need for an alternative to tiering. It just has to be done well.

Cheers
Martin

[Smeborg]

Hi Martin -

I agree that the Dornbirn rules look unbalanced, especially in favour of some of their Tier 3 teams. One reason I will not be going to the tournament. I like to win fair and square with one of my favourite high-performing teams (e.g. Chaos) without the tournament rules being biased in my favour.

So we will have to agree to disagree on tiering. I find it something of a turn-off, as one of the things I like to do in tourneys is to take a team widely perceived as challenging, and show that it can do well (i.e. that it is undervalued). Ditto in leagues.

Under your proposed ruleset, I would add Vampires to the "delicious" list, which becomes:

Delicious: Chaos, Slann, Vampires, Halflings, Underworld

Nearly delicious: pretty much any other team in tiers 4-7. A handicap of up to +4 to +7 skills is massive.

Hope that helps.

[Smeborg]

Martin - I think we are maybe misunderstanding each other on why I think some teams are routinely undervalued in tournament results and tiering systems. I will use Slann as the first example, since they are the simplest illustration.

I "pioneered" a system in leagues of playing Slann without Blitzers, and without the Krox (because I judged that those players were both over-priced and played no essential role). This allowed the team to take 5 Re-rolls (outstanding value, as there is no re-roll skill for Leap). I guessed that a Linefrog + TRR was much better value than a Blitzer (same price). This system worked very well, I won 2 leagues with this concept IIRC.

Accordingly, I transferred the concept to tournaments. I found that Slann have a rather good value roster at TV110 (4 Catchers, 8 Linefrogs, 5 Re-rolls, Apoth). I have had considerable success with such a roster. It works better if doubles are allowed (Guard on a Catcher, better on 2). Typically 4 Linefrogs will take Wrestle (no Block needed on this team), ideally 1 will take Strip Ball, another Kick. Catchers without Guard take Dodge if they can (they are the ball-handlers). Relentless attack on the ball is the order of the day, while scoring in 2 turns on offense (typically).

Now I believe my success with Slann its not due to my being a great coach (which I certainly am not), but rather to having found a superior system which others have not yet adopted (everyone I discuss the matter with seems irrevocably wedded either to Blitzers, Krox, or both).

So I believe the statistical under-performance of Slann in tourneys is due to a historic lack of appreciation of how they are best played.

I also regard Chaos as a high-performing tournament team, perhaps my favourite. Here also I seem to have found a system which works very well, but which does not seem to be widely followed, if at all. The roster at TV110 is excellent value: Minotard, 3 Warriors, 8 Beastmen, 2 RRs, Apoth. Wrestle is taken in abundance by the Beastmen (typically 2-4 Beastmen will take it). Wrestle is never wasted in tourneys. The Warriors take Block, the 'Tard takes Juggernaut (or Block). If only 1 skill is allowed per player, a Beastman takes Sure Hands, but if multiple skills are allowed, then a Warrior becomes the Runner (e.g. ST4 player with Block/Dodge/Sure Hands). The 'Tard plays aggressively (the team seems dull without him). Played in this way, Chaos are a "fluid" (i.e. adaptable) team, good at counter-attack and scrambles, combined with muscular positional play. While they are a relatively high ST team who can at times lay down lots of blocks, they are not a "bash" team in the sense of relentlessly trying to remove opponents from the pitch (other teams are much better at that). The more skill-rich the format, the better Chaos tend to do. They can even play very well with 1 TRR if this is compensated by abundant skills.

Once again, I believe my success with Chaos is mainly due to finding this excellent system. Many coaches seem to play Chaos in a more "bashy" style (as they might play the team in leagues - I suggest this doesn't work well in tourneys). Also, I suggest it takes experience (trial and error) to work out how best to play Chaos in tourneys (compared to other teams). These factors, I believe, lead to the historic under-performance of Chaos in tourney stats.

I note in passing that Wrestle still seems undervalued. Nurgle (Pestigors) and Khorne (Linos) also rather like Wrestle. BB coaches are a conservative lot.

Hope that helps!

[mubo]

I like this- looks interesting. I must admit, I'm getting a bit fed up with the current meta of Necro/human being the best T2 (and commonly seen), and norse/skaven being the worst T1, and rarely seen.

Dwarfs seem good at T3. 6 guard, 2mb looks strong.
Orcs look handy too. eg 4 block BO (120k), then 140k for guard/guard/sh/tackle + mb blitzers. Or instead of 1 block BOB, you get a SF BOB and troll.

I think maybe the issue you have is- that some teams are fun to play around with gold/silver/bronze skills. But others eg DE, would just take 6 normal gold skills. I think I would downcost the silver/bronze skills a bit. I can't think of many opportunities to use them (especially bronze).

One suggestion I would have is to use points not "gold". I think relatively few teams benefit hugely from the additional gold, so it would make the system clearer at the expense of a little flexibility.

Or, maybe combine my two suggestions, and use points from 2-6 for skills, with the first skill discount.