Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

gjnoronh

Members
  • Content Count

    368
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

170 Celestant-Prime

1 Follower

About gjnoronh

  • Rank
    Dracothian Guard

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Da Boyz is full at 72 players but I'm taking wait list entries. (email us through the address on the website) Crossroads has 2 slots left.
  2. You were destined to work for GW one day!
  3. Hey man Gary from Da Boyz GT here. Nelson knows me from our regional organizing. One suggestion is use the international communities and events sub forums to advertise. You'll notice I've been pumping Triumph over the years here, and to our Da Boyz attendees (Nelson is cc'd on some of those emails) https://www.tga.community/forums/forum/18-events/ Certainly would appreciate cross promotion of Da Boyz. We've already hit our registration cap for 2019, but I'm ready to expand it a bit this year beyond our current 60 player cap. http://www.daboyzgt.com/ Gary
  4. 173 registrations 55 for AoS Singles cap planned of 60
  5. gjnoronh

    Major and GT

    Depends on who is defining it various ranking systems may use different approaches. There isn't an 'official' and universal definition. It depends on the rankings system involved. ITC rankings system for example has their own definition I'm sure but I can't quite see on their site how they define it https://www.frontlinegaming.org/community/frontline-gamings-independent-tournament-circuit/itc-2015-season-40k-tournament-format/ In the old days of the defunct tournament scheduling website indygt dot com and their rankings system a "grand tournament" was by definition at least 2 days, at least 5 games, at least 35 players. However that was just for their listing and was influenced by the Direwolf community (which was the equivalent of Warhammer dot org before there was a warhammer dot org, which was TGA.community before this site existed.) So I think you'd have to ask 'why' are you asking and in what context to help you answer.
  6. Crossroads GT has hit their attendance cap and is taking wait list players only. Da Boyz GT is at 149 total registrations 44 for AoS singles and has 16 slots left for AoS. Gary
  7. Now at 149 total registrations with 44 for AoS Singles alone. Cap of 60 AoS singles players.
  8. You could argue there is even a subset that want list building/experience to trump at the table tactical acumen. The more defined the game conditions are "a priori" the less you need to think on your feet at the table top. I think many of the suggestions from GW (i.e. battleplans and realms announced at the start of the round) over the last year really push the meter towards rewarding players who 'think on their feet' vs those who parse the rules set pre game and find the best army list to win under highly defined conditions. Personally I love that tweak by GW to the standard way scenarios have been handled for decades in Warhammer.
  9. Got it. I'm not sure there is a big group (at least in this thread) arguing in favor of composition rules to up the efficacy of low tier armies. AoS players are pretty much taking the game as it is in terms of army balance (possibly complaining about it.) However those complaints I suspect are largely about the the investment issue I raised in a 2K AoS army vs a 12 man BB squad. I think there is a subset that want AoS to be a highly defined standardized game where list building and skill trump randomness. There is a subset that are happy with AoS rules as written and a subset that want it with max randomness. One way to think of it in the BB analogy imagine showing up to a tournament and being told after checking in all players are -3 move for one of the games of the event or instead a 1/7 chance each game that, that single game is -3 move. That nerfs some teams more then others. Some teams would pretty much give up on scoring at that time. Some coaches would be fine with it, but some even in BB might be unhappy about it. That's kind of like showing up and finding out shooting is heavily nerfed due to Realm rules in AoS. The core rules use it but a lot of players don't use the core rules. BB coaches are pretty accustomed to a moderate degree of variation in rules sets. But take something really wierd (all players strength 4+ are now -30K gold in cost! No players with Block are allowed!) and I think coaches would complain. Just think about the angst some podcasters and coaches have about Piling on changes in BB2016 or roster additions in BB2016 like halfling catchers.
  10. I'm quite a Blood Bowl fan myself and I think it's an excellent skill based tournament game (IMO better then AoS) despite a high degree of randomness inherent in the rules. Risk management, understanding of probability and assessment of the tactical situation are core skills that are really built into the core system allowing tournament games to separate the good players from the average. But I'm not sure what you mean in your post. There are bad and good team builds in Blood Bowl (orcs with all linemen vs a standard 4 BOBs, 4 Blitzers) but the basic list design part of Blood Bowl is largely 'solved' there are really very clear 'heres what you take.' If you mean why aren't people in AoS happy if an army is 'broken' it's because of the high investment (time, monetary, emotional) involved in building a full army only to find out it's not good (or so good your friends won't play you regularly) after that investment. What differs from tournament to tournament in Blood Bowl is intentionally the skill packages, team value and random quirks of home brew weather tables, scoring bonuses etc. List building to those unique tournament specific requirements is actually what I think adds a lot of long term interest to tournament play for BB and separates smart coaches from less smart. For the AoS fans that would be equivalent to sometimes having tournaments at 1,750 pts, sometimes 2250 points, sometimes 2000 points sometimes you use realm rules, sometimes you don't, sometimes you can use Realm artifacts sometimes you can't.
  11. Sure but whether the players use the realms (and presumably per the base Matched Play rules determine the Realm at the table as part of the pregame process) or if we actually use all GW terrain is indeed something posters are taking opposites sides of 'it's optional' vs 'its required if it's a matched play tournament.' As noted before I think a lot of people make unconscious assumptions 'everything I really like isn't optional' while also saying to themselves 'but of course these things that aren't really what I like or that feasible are optional.' It's a highly flexible rules set designed at it's heart for friendly games amongst peers. It can be used for tournament play but there are quite a bit of (conscious or unconscious) assumptions and adjustments to be made to make it work well in that setting. An extra pregame terain set up phase for example is a big challenge given that a sizable percentage of AoS games at 'standard 2K size' aren't finished in 2-2.5 hours. I don't think the GHB 2019 GW suggested model is the best model for tournament play at all.
×
×
  • Create New...