Battle Barn

[mcmurraymaniac]

So if this goes ahead then this is what I would be planning:

It would be 10 tournaments a year:

-2 fantasy tournaments (3 games at 2500)
-2 fantasy double tournaments (3 games at 1250 each)
-1 major fantasy tournament (4 games at 3000)
-2 40k tournaments (3 games at 2000)
-2 40k double tournaments (3 games at 1000 each)
-1 major 40k tournament (4 games at 2500)

And it would flow like this:

-Fantasy tournament
-40k tournament
-Fantasy double tournament
-40k double tournament
-Fantasy Major tournament
-40k tournament
-Fantasy tournament
-40k double tournament
-Fantasy double tournament
-40k major tournament

The months I plan to skip are March and December


For the doubles tournament you would follow the allied rules for fantasy, but in 40k you basically play as two separate armies and things like kustum force fields and psychic powers
only effect your own army.

You will enter with your half force and will be randomly paired up with another half force at the start of the tournament.


As far as payment goes, it will cost $15 if you sign up in advance and $20 at the door, and in the regular tournaments $100 will first be taken out (for the rental cost) and then the rest will be going towards the winners with half going to the best sportsman and half going to the overall winner (sportsmanship isn't part of this calculation).

The major tournaments will cost $20 if you sign up in advance and $25 at the door, and there will be my patented trophies. One for best sportsman, one for winner overall, and one for best painted.


All games follow the same scoring system:

-each game will have 5 objectives (like kill the enemy general/HQ) that translate into a simple yes or no at the end of the game (so no time wasted counting up VPs in most cases)
-each game will also have up to 3 points for 'enjoyment' (0 for a horrible game, 1 for you didn't have fun, 2 for a fun game, and 3 for an extremely fun game)
-At the end of the tournament fully painted* armies gain an extra 5 points (in doubles that means both sides have to be painted). (*painted means 3 colors)
-Also at the last game you put in your vote for best sportsman (you can't vote for yourself)


Thoughts?

[mcmurraymaniac]

I reduced the size of the 40k ones since I was told that it was a bit too big.

[plr]

The only thing I would recommend reconsidering is the single player in a doubles event. I would allow singles to register then they get randomly matched up at the event with other singles.

I know from a "winning" perspective I'd rather play one vs two than two vs two. Especially if I can bring two separate armies as my "Team".

[Greasy AlaBeasy]

I think that's why the single players get a reduction in their score.

[plr]

Jan 19, 2011 14:58:19 GMT -7 @Greasy AlaBeasy said:

I think that's why the single players get a reduction in their score.

A slight loss in "comp", compared to stomping everyone because I can use two complementing armies without the confusion of two players playing together... worth it hands down.

If it's a doubles event, it should be a doubles event. If it's possible to abuse it will be abused. Just trying to reduce potential problems, as it's always best if everyone has fun.

[Greasy AlaBeasy]

Jan 19, 2011 18:15:55 GMT -7 plr said:

Jan 19, 2011 14:58:19 GMT -7 @Greasy AlaBeasy said:

I think that's why the single players get a reduction in their score.

A slight loss in "comp", compared to stomping everyone because I can use two complementing armies without the confusion of two players playing together... worth it hands down.

If it's a doubles event, it should be a doubles event. If it's possible to abuse it will be abused. Just trying to reduce potential problems, as it's always best if everyone has fun.

Yeah, fair enough. I just would have figured the two partners would have planned out their two forces anyway, such that controlling both of them yourself would only lead to a marginal bonus.

I do like your idea to just do random pairing, though.

[mcmurraymaniac]

My reasoning behind the one player double army is to ensure that even people that don't know anyone could join (or someone who just doesn't get along with others).

In the doubles tournament there is only the possibility of 29 points, so a 5 point deduction isn't as slight as I first thought it would be when I wrote that, and really I think it would be enough to keep people from crushing others, but we could see how it goes.


Another idea I had was for all players to walk in blind. You just enter with your half army and then get randomly paired at the start of the tournament.

Would you think this is better plr?


(I edited the original post to show that it really isn't that slight.)

[plr]

I like the "random" draws for teams (have done this in other events).

There are both pros and cons to this.

The pros are you won't have teams cheese out lists, and you'll have people that haven't played together before play together. That is of course a con as well. I know there is one or two players that if I had to spend the entire event playing with, some type of "emergency" would come up where I would have to leave... ;-)

Most people can find a buddy to come out and play with them, and if someone can't them I would randomly join up singles. Seems to be the least problematic solution. Of course you may have to have a couple of spares on hand to make sure players are matched up.

For the record I've played several multiple vs one games. The single player is ALWAYS at an advantage.

[Greasy AlaBeasy]

Actually, the random pairing thing could be cool too.

Yeah, the idea to be able to control two players was for people who didn't know people, not for people to try and eek out an advantage.

Could I suggest that, in all honesty, people try and find partners and, failing that, they can bring two of the half sized armies (HSAs). If there are multiple people who have brought two HSAs, one of their HSAs is randomly paired with another lone person's HSAs.

[Greasy AlaBeasy]

Edit: As long as you have a spare, then nobody would need to bring a second half.

[mcmurraymaniac]

Well in all of these I would be the alternate (that isn't allowed to win).


Ok, well I'll change it so it is random pairing and we'll try that out first.

[plr]

Try the random pairs, for a "fun" event no one should have a problem with it. And *if* there is a bad pairing, have something in place to swap people up.

Also, a suggestion is before the first game, randomly draw the names out of a hat, that way no one complains it wasn't "random".

Should be fun, really looking forward to these events!

[mcmurraymaniac]

First event would be in early April.

[chris]

looks like fun. 10 in one year may get to be alot of work for you though

[gsmc]

This all sounds good. Looking forward to locking some dates into the calendar!

[mcmurraymaniac]

Good news folks, talked to Reme last night and everything is a go.

Still have to give need a key cut and a section added to the site but otherwise I'll start marking up the calender with the events over the next couple of weeks.

So syat tuned

[gsmc]

That's great, I suppose this makes you either

Battle Barn Brian
or
The Battle Barn Brain

and the rest of us could be Battle Barn Bairns

[terraforcer]

I will definatly play in the doubles tourny if team mates are choosen at random. This promotes more fun lists and fewer waac and power gamer lists.