Pairings and new objectives.

Latest news and chat from the European Fantasy Team Championship.

Moderators: ETC moderators, Keepers of the Peace

Dim
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:49 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Pairings and new objectives.

Postby Dim » Fri Jan 05, 2018 7:54 pm

In V2 we got 2 new objectives, which call into questions how we deal with objectives.

I suggest to add pairing cards for objectives.

At the same time an army is selected (say A) (as at step 1.1 of the pairing process as described in the rulepack) it is selected together with 2 secondary objectives cards (say O1 et O2).
At step 1.3, the opposing team select one army (B1) to play against army A on scenario O1, and another (B2) to play against army A on scenario O2.
At step 1.4 the team who has army A can choose to play objective O1 against army B1, or objective O2 against army B2.

The objective card which does not get picked could either be discarded or get back in hand. (Discarded means no objective can be ignored)

I don't think it takes much more time to play the pairing and I feel that it is much more strategic than rolling dices.
What do you think?
Team Switzerland 2008-2010, 2013-2015: Empire Player
Team Switzerland 2016: Captain

User avatar
orion 76
Posts: 568
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 11:59 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4
Location: Melbourne

Re: Pairings and new objectives.

Postby orion 76 » Sat Jan 06, 2018 1:26 am

I was actually going to suggest that now that we have the same number of objectives as number of rounds... that each round 1 objective is played by everyone. So round 1 for example, every single game played in all tables uses Hold the Centre, and so on. This guarantees that every army plays every objective exactly once, meaning you cant really cater your list heavily to compete for on or two objectives and ignore the rest.
________________________

ETC 2014 WFB Australian "The Empire" player
ETC 2015 WFB Australian "Ogre Kingdoms" player
ETC 2016 T9A Australian "Ogre Khans" player
ETC 2017 T9A Australian "Ogre Khans" Playing Vice-Captain

Bazzu
Posts: 147
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 6:11 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: Pairings and new objectives.

Postby Bazzu » Sat Jan 06, 2018 8:29 am

orion 76 wrote:I was actually going to suggest that now that we have the same number of objectives as number of rounds... that each round 1 objective is played by everyone. So round 1 for example, every single game played in all tables uses Hold the Centre, and so on. This guarantees that every army plays every objective exactly once, meaning you cant really cater your list heavily to compete for on or two objectives and ignore the rest.



Very good idea. We avoid camping armies.
Etc 2012 warriors
Etc 2013 warriors
Etc 2014.......escape from comping frenzy
Etc 2015 warriors
Etc 2016.......angry at age of sigmar
Etc 2017 wood elfs...sry sylvan elfs

Dim
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:49 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: Pairings and new objectives.

Postby Dim » Sat Jan 06, 2018 10:20 am

I was actually going to suggest that now that we have the same number of objectives as number of rounds... that each round 1 objective is played by everyone. So round 1 for example, every single game played in all tables uses Hold the Centre, and so on. This guarantees that every army plays every objective exactly once, meaning you cant really cater your list heavily to compete for on or two objectives and ignore the rest.


What I feel sad with this type of "round based" objective system is that it will be the case that the "power level" of a country depends on the round number, which screws up the swiss system.

It was already a bit the case this year (our estimations of outcome of a match against another country would change by around 2pts, which is fine. (because some teams were globally better at Hold the Ground, others at Breakthrough and so on, and thus the order of the objectives mattered))

With what you propose, I think this estimation of outcome could vary by around 10pts or so (48pts difference is based on secondary objectives)

It is true that the current pairing system makes it possible to tailor an armylist to play the same objective every game. One even get to choose the weakest opponent of 2 on that said objective.

Observe that in the system I propose, this is not the case, if you want to choose the objective you can't choose your opponent anymore.
I think it is already a significant improvement in favor of more balanced armylists.
Team Switzerland 2008-2010, 2013-2015: Empire Player
Team Switzerland 2016: Captain

User avatar
orion 76
Posts: 568
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 11:59 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4
Location: Melbourne

Re: Pairings and new objectives.

Postby orion 76 » Sun Jan 07, 2018 12:32 am

I wasnt aware that certain countries were better at certain secondary objectives than others... that sounds silly tbh; it would be like saying that a certain country is better at playing a certain deployment type than others. Nope... if you go to the ETC you practice all armies and all secondary objectives and all deployment types (or youre supposed to anyway). And if you dont then that is your problem as a team.
________________________

ETC 2014 WFB Australian "The Empire" player
ETC 2015 WFB Australian "Ogre Kingdoms" player
ETC 2016 T9A Australian "Ogre Khans" player
ETC 2017 T9A Australian "Ogre Khans" Playing Vice-Captain

gundizalbo
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 11:01 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: Pairings and new objectives.

Postby gundizalbo » Sun Jan 07, 2018 1:49 am

orion 76 wrote:I was actually going to suggest that now that we have the same number of objectives as number of rounds... that each round 1 objective is played by everyone. So round 1 for example, every single game played in all tables uses Hold the Centre, and so on. This guarantees that every army plays every objective exactly once, meaning you cant really cater your list heavily to compete for on or two objectives and ignore the rest.


Completely agreed. I was going to create a thread just to propose this. But now I am talking by myself, not representing my country.

Dim
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:49 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: Pairings and new objectives.

Postby Dim » Sun Jan 07, 2018 3:12 pm

orion 76 wrote:I wasnt aware that certain countries were better at certain secondary objectives than others... that sounds silly tbh; it would be like saying that a certain country is better at playing a certain deployment type than others. Nope... if you go to the ETC you practice all armies and all secondary objectives and all deployment types (or youre supposed to anyway). And if you dont then that is your problem as a team.


Maybe I did not explain myself well. I meant that the metagame of X or Y country was better with one or another objective.
Not all armies are created equal for all objectives, it would be a lie to pretend the contrary. Thus, the choice of armies inevitably makes a team stronger on certain objective than on other.

For instance a shooty metagame will be much better off on the round where everyone is supposed to play capture the flags, than on breakthrough. It is really silly if your chances against another team depend on the round you play them.
Team Switzerland 2008-2010, 2013-2015: Empire Player
Team Switzerland 2016: Captain

User avatar
orion 76
Posts: 568
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 11:59 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4
Location: Melbourne

Re: Pairings and new objectives.

Postby orion 76 » Mon Jan 08, 2018 12:41 am

But if you practice all objectives equally AND you design your lists to be able to compete all objectives then this should not be a problem. And that is exactly what a team that wants to win the ETC should be doing anyway.

Also, just like there might be rounds where you face a team who's meta suits a certain objective because of their playstyle, the exact opposite can also happen.
________________________

ETC 2014 WFB Australian "The Empire" player
ETC 2015 WFB Australian "Ogre Kingdoms" player
ETC 2016 T9A Australian "Ogre Khans" player
ETC 2017 T9A Australian "Ogre Khans" Playing Vice-Captain

User avatar
tulmir
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2014 2:51 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4
Location: Turkey

Re: Pairings and new objectives.

Postby tulmir » Mon Jan 08, 2018 9:22 am

Guys, I really would like to know how certain are we to play V2 in the ETC? Are you guys sure to play with V2, or will there be any kind of voting for the system?
ETC '17 - 9th AGE Team Turkey; Kingdom of Equitaine
ETC '16 - 9th AGE Team Turkey; Highborn Elves
ETC '15 - WHFB Team Turkey Captain; Bretonnia

for the Lady, for the King!

User avatar
Chris Legg
Posts: 3960
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 8:05 am
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4
Location: The grim north.
Contact:

Re: Pairings and new objectives.

Postby Chris Legg » Mon Jan 08, 2018 2:16 pm

I can't imagine many people would vote for 1.3 over 2.0 given the effort that's gone into it.

We are due to hold our first Chairmen's meeting tomorrow and resolving Ninth Age (and its potential lack of top down leadership) will be high up on the list of things that we need to sort out. From there we can then sort out a proper rulespack and objectives, and put it out there for a vote.
ETC Chairman 2018
ETC 9th Age Team England 2016-2017
ETC WFB Team England Captain 2015
ETC WFB Team England 2010-15

Dim
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:49 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: Pairings and new objectives.

Postby Dim » Tue Jan 09, 2018 6:11 pm

orion 76 wrote:But if you practice all objectives equally AND you design your lists to be able to compete all objectives then this should not be a problem. And that is exactly what a team that wants to win the ETC should be doing anyway.

Also, just like there might be rounds where you face a team who's meta suits a certain objective because of their playstyle, the exact opposite can also happen.


As I said, some races can't play all objectives in a competitive manner, some other can easily. It is not a question of training and design, but of rules. Are you pretending for instance than wood elves can play all objectives as well as Beast Herds? I don't think it is the case.

I do think that your proposal would remove a big part of the variation in playstyle and played races.

Also, just like there might be rounds where you face a team who's meta suits a certain objective because of their playstyle, the exact opposite can also happen.


And this mess with the Swiss system.
Team Switzerland 2008-2010, 2013-2015: Empire Player
Team Switzerland 2016: Captain

mike newman
Posts: 1418
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 12:26 pm
Pick number 4 to enter: 1
Location: manchester
Contact:

Re: Pairings and new objectives.

Postby mike newman » Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:40 am

orion 76 wrote:I was actually going to suggest that now that we have the same number of objectives as number of rounds... that each round 1 objective is played by everyone. So round 1 for example, every single game played in all tables uses Hold the Centre, and so on. This guarantees that every army plays every objective exactly once, meaning you cant really cater your list heavily to compete for on or two objectives and ignore the rest.



Definitely like this as an idea!
@mikeygolem
Team England 2015 - Dwarfs
Team England 2016 - Dark Elves
Team England 2017 - Captain - Vampire Counts
Team England 2018 - Captain

papaganoosh
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2015 3:18 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: Pairings and new objectives.

Postby papaganoosh » Wed Jan 10, 2018 11:05 am

orion 76 wrote:I was actually going to suggest that now that we have the same number of objectives as number of rounds... that each round 1 objective is played by everyone. So round 1 for example, every single game played in all tables uses Hold the Centre, and so on. This guarantees that every army plays every objective exactly once, meaning you cant really cater your list heavily to compete for on or two objectives and ignore the rest.


Normally agreeing with Ivan is the first sign of insanity, but here I am in full agreement. The Ninth Age team is doing a great job of balancing all of the armies against each other, but this gets skewed when you have lists that are built for specific purposes (VC for Hold Centre and BH for Breakthrough as examples).

Having one scenario for each round will mean that the lists being taken have to be far more well rounded and closer to "regular" tournament lists. This should also help with dispelling the idea that ETC is all about skewed lists and the data gathered from the ETC is useless for regular players.

You could also do it so that the more "generic" scenarios (Secure Target for example) could be used in the final round or rounds to add even more balance to the business end of the tournament.

Chris Legg wrote:I can't imagine many people would vote for 1.3 over 2.0 given the effort that's gone into it.

We are due to hold our first Chairmen's meeting tomorrow and resolving Ninth Age (and its potential lack of top down leadership) will be high up on the list of things that we need to sort out. From there we can then sort out a proper rulespack and objectives, and put it out there for a vote.


The UK tournament scene has already shifted fully over to 2.0 and I cannot see any reason why we wouldn't play this new edition that people have worked so hard to produce.
Surrey Spartans Gaming Club
Team Wales - ETC 2017
Team Scotland (Captain) - ETC 2018

User avatar
orion 76
Posts: 568
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 11:59 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4
Location: Melbourne

Re: Pairings and new objectives.

Postby orion 76 » Wed Jan 10, 2018 11:12 am

It would be absurd to play the 2018 ETC in August with a set of rules released in December of 2016. v2.0 is scheduled to be released (as a non-Beta version) months before the ETC... not to mention that its bloody awesome!! :mrgreen:
________________________

ETC 2014 WFB Australian "The Empire" player
ETC 2015 WFB Australian "Ogre Kingdoms" player
ETC 2016 T9A Australian "Ogre Khans" player
ETC 2017 T9A Australian "Ogre Khans" Playing Vice-Captain

eggsPR
Posts: 305
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 3:45 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4
Location: American Werewolf in Dublin

Re: Pairings and new objectives.

Postby eggsPR » Wed Jan 10, 2018 5:43 pm

mike newman wrote:
orion 76 wrote:I was actually going to suggest that now that we have the same number of objectives as number of rounds... that each round 1 objective is played by everyone. So round 1 for example, every single game played in all tables uses Hold the Centre, and so on. This guarantees that every army plays every objective exactly once, meaning you cant really cater your list heavily to compete for on or two objectives and ignore the rest.



Definitely like this as an idea!


+1

This would also speed up the process with less confusion on what's what on what table.
2012 Team Ireland
2013 Team Ireland
2014 Team Wales
2015 Team USA
2016 Team USA (C)
2017 Team USA (C)

2016 ETC Chairman
@eggsPR

Power
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Apr 20, 2013 8:09 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: Pairings and new objectives.

Postby Power » Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:33 pm

orion 76 wrote:I was actually going to suggest that now that we have the same number of objectives as number of rounds... that each round 1 objective is played by everyone. So round 1 for example, every single game played in all tables uses Hold the Centre, and so on. This guarantees that every army plays every objective exactly once, meaning you cant really cater your list heavily to compete for on or two objectives and ignore the rest.



This.

Team Ireland will be supporting 1 Objective per round and 2.0 for 2018

polux
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2017 10:21 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: Pairings and new objectives.

Postby polux » Mon Jan 15, 2018 12:23 pm

I don't want to play devil's advocate but don't you feel it is better to have each round to be identical?

I find it a very big flaw to have different scenario for each rounds. This means that the outcome is different if you play against an opponent the first or second round. Obviously, since it is impossible to have absolutely no preference for any scenario, this means that some order can advantages some teams. I feel that this introduce some luck and reduce the control a team has.

On a side not I am pretty sure you will agree some army are much more well-rounded for scenario and having to play each scenario is really different from not playing the same one each round. The round system will drastically impact some (In my opinion).

There should be a mid way between every scenario or only the same one and this is covered by Dim's proposal. This is why I really like Dim proposal, you cannot choose your best scenario but you have some control and can avoid the worst. Anyone pretending that a list can have the exact same preference for all scenario is exaggerating and being able to have some control is a good thing :wink: .

DanT
Posts: 513
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:34 am
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: Pairings and new objectives.

Postby DanT » Mon Jan 15, 2018 3:18 pm

There is an easy way to make all of the rounds identical:
Play without scenarios.

Here is another one:
After pairings each pair of players randomly rolls a scenario.


Having scenarios as part of the pairing process in almost any form will create lists and games that it was the entire purpose of scenarios to prevent.
If we want to have interesting, interactive games where player skill really matters at least as much as the list, the scenarios will not be part of the pairing process.


Chance will never be removed from a 6 round system with 30+ teams.
Country pairings already matter due to the lists and country skill etc...
Can anyone justify that every table in the hall playing the same scenario has a bigger impact than the existing factors?

Dim
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:49 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: Pairings and new objectives.

Postby Dim » Mon Jan 15, 2018 10:31 pm

DanT wrote:There is an easy way to make all of the rounds identical:
Play without scenarios.

Here is another one:
After pairings each pair of players randomly rolls a scenario.


Having scenarios as part of the pairing process in almost any form will create lists and games that it was the entire purpose of scenarios to prevent.
If we want to have interesting, interactive games where player skill really matters at least as much as the list, the scenarios will not be part of the pairing process.


Chance will never be removed from a 6 round system with 30+ teams.
Country pairings already matter due to the lists and country skill etc...
Can anyone justify that every table in the hall playing the same scenario has a bigger impact than the existing factors?


Chance in country pairings being already part of ETC does not mean we should support options that increase it... The swiss system has flaws that we all know, it is not a reason to make them even bigger.

If we want to follow your argument to the bottom of it, why not removing the pairing altogether? You know, it make some list skewed for defense and some other for offense... (add any of the arguments in favor of one those simplistic approach seen in this thread, they also fit: Less confusion, faster, more simple, more well rounded lists, practice all matchup dude! Results more interesting for casual players...)

I have to totally disagree.

You seem to think that any "advantage" that one can get through pairing is unfair.
It is just about team planning and team strategy, which really lie in the heart of a team based competition, don't you think?

I don't want to sound harsh but if that is what you dislike, an ESC type of event is what you are looking for. Maybe limit the number of participant to 8 per country and there you go, you can add up individual scores at the end...
Team Switzerland 2008-2010, 2013-2015: Empire Player
Team Switzerland 2016: Captain

DanT
Posts: 513
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:34 am
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: Pairings and new objectives.

Postby DanT » Tue Jan 16, 2018 10:08 am

I don't think this is a fair representation of my argument, but I am ill at the moment so am perhaps not communicating as well as I would like, my apologies :(

My point was that I think the increase in flawed-ness of the swiss system from everyone in the hall playing the same scenario each round is negligible (or very small), not that it is non-existent. Your post does not dispute this, at least from what I could tell. Perhaps I misunderstood.
It is a practical argument: I agree in principle that this change does make the Swiss system more problematic, but the question is by how much?
Since there is in no perfect system it is a case of choosing where to make the compromises.

I have no issue with an advantage being gained from pairings (although I do think it would be interesting to do an event with random pairings; I think that would test a slightly different skillset).
However, I think it better if the advantage gained from the pairings is of more of an interactive nature. The ability to pilot armies towards specific scenarios reduces the adaptability required by a player and gives players the opportunity to play more negatively, in the sense of playing the scenario not the opponent/opposing army.

But I have no dog in this fight, this is just my opinion based on the 2016 and 2017 ETCs. And my own biases as to what makes t9a better than other wargames.

polux
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2017 10:21 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: Pairings and new objectives.

Postby polux » Tue Jan 16, 2018 11:48 am

I agree with DanT that being able to chose one scenario at 100% like previous year was too much. However, I dislike even more a random aspect.

The only opposition that I have against one scenario for each round is that it seem that it would skew the lists even more than being able to (somewhat) choose. Before you could choose but not for all armies whereas with this system there is one and same scenario identical for all armies at 100% sure.

Before you had list variety ALSO because of scenario variety not the opposite!! with this lack of control instead of limiting list tailoring you kill any list specification (but this seems like it is what some want to do. It looks more like a goal discrepancy between us.)

Are you for totally annihilating list tailoring or just balancing it?

Frederick
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 11:17 am
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: Pairings and new objectives.

Postby Frederick » Tue Jan 16, 2018 7:49 pm

the set scenario per round is an option. Personally i´d prefer rolling the scenario per game individually, but any decision on this is acceptable as long as we include all the 6 scenarios :)

More important question: what´s the plan for deployment? rolling individually as well? i´d prefer this. a fix deployment per round would mean we only use 6 out of 36 combinations ... would be a waste imo ;)

Dim
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:49 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: Pairings and new objectives.

Postby Dim » Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:32 pm

DanT wrote:I don't think this is a fair representation of my argument, but I am ill at the moment so am perhaps not communicating as well as I would like, my apologies :(

My point was that I think the increase in flawed-ness of the swiss system from everyone in the hall playing the same scenario each round is negligible (or very small), not that it is non-existent. Your post does not dispute this, at least from what I could tell. Perhaps I misunderstood.
It is a practical argument: I agree in principle that this change does make the Swiss system more problematic, but the question is by how much?
Since there is in no perfect system it is a case of choosing where to make the compromises.

I have no issue with an advantage being gained from pairings (although I do think it would be interesting to do an event with random pairings; I think that would test a slightly different skillset).
However, I think it better if the advantage gained from the pairings is of more of an interactive nature. The ability to pilot armies towards specific scenarios reduces the adaptability required by a player and gives players the opportunity to play more negatively, in the sense of playing the scenario not the opponent/opposing army.

But I have no dog in this fight, this is just my opinion based on the 2016 and 2017 ETCs. And my own biases as to what makes t9a better than other wargames.


If you think about it, objectives are called secondary but as long as the match up is kind of balanced (no one wipes the other one out) and you are not looking for a big win at all cost, then the 3 pts of the objective is thing that will swing the result the most. This is thus normal that one tries to play the objectives a lot. Especially since often it does not involve taking as much risks.

My way of seeing objectives this year is that certain races could play all objectives without pain.
Usually it involves having mobile scoring units, like ambushers, to play objectives like breakthrough and secure target, and maybe a big fighty block to have the opportunity to play the centre.
For instance bestherds could in most match ups play all objectives without trouble.

Some other races had more difficulties to build armylists that could play all objectives, like Sylvan Elves (at least in my understanding of the game).
And if they can, then there will be less variation in the builds across those races, because the constraint of being able to play all objectives efficiently is heavy.
Thus, the selection of races in a team will make the team naturally better at certain objectives and worst at other. Take armies with ambushing scoring units, you will be good at breakthrough. Take armies with resilient fighting units, you will be better in the centre. I don't think that there is a way to avoid it.

I think that having an objective fixed per round does mess up with the swiss system a lot. I think of it as a sport tournament where you would play tennis in the first round and then table tennis, squash and badminton, and you are allowed a single racket. Whatever compromise you made on designing your racket, it will be easier to play tennis, table tennis, squash or badminton.

The rankings in the swiss system are a bit unstable because of "who get's to play against who".
If you add that some teams are stronger/weaker depending on round number, you can find yourself winning against a "stronger opponent" because you played him at the round number that suited you the most.

Meaning in the next round you are upper than you should be, and a lucky stronger team will have an easier match that it should given its current ranking.
Then this stronger team itself will be ranked higher than it should be, and so forth and so on.

If the reason for keeping the objective out of the pairing process is to prevent the ability of an armylist to choose and always play a single objective, I'd rather tweak the pairing process in a way that prevent it.

The proposal I made makes it already harder for those "one objectives armies" since if they want to play a single objective they loose control on the opponent. In some cases, if they have a hard counter they will be forced out of their preferred objective.

It can be modified to be even harsher:

When proposing an army, a team propose 2 objectives with it. The other team selects one of those objective and propose 2 opponents to play against said army on the selected objective.
The other team then gets to choose which opponent is going to be paired against their army on said objective, as usual.


If we really want to keep the objective out of the pairing process (which I am heavily against) I'd rather see random scenario than fixed one per round.
This random proposal can be easily improved in the following way:
Each player has 1 (or 2) joker(s) to eliminate an objective from the pool of objectives before rolling it.


In this you only play objectives that both player agrees to play given the match up.

About the deployment types, I think it is difficult to make maps that are equally interesting for all deployment types. Thus, I'd prefer to see deployment type still attached to the map.
One way would be to have two deployment types twice, skewing the probability. Another is to come up with two new ones to have no preferred deployment types.

For instance marching column can easily be combined with refused flank (delayed units appear in middle of the short table side) or counterthrust.
Team Switzerland 2008-2010, 2013-2015: Empire Player
Team Switzerland 2016: Captain

Bazzu
Posts: 147
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 6:11 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: Pairings and new objectives.

Postby Bazzu » Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:34 am

Can someone make a resumee of options and call for a vote?

Too many opinions. Let s move January soon over
Etc 2012 warriors
Etc 2013 warriors
Etc 2014.......escape from comping frenzy
Etc 2015 warriors
Etc 2016.......angry at age of sigmar
Etc 2017 wood elfs...sry sylvan elfs

Dim
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:49 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: Pairings and new objectives.

Postby Dim » Sat Jan 20, 2018 11:26 pm

@ Bazzu : Here is a draft for a vote which contains all proposals so far.
I tried to split questions in a fair way (to avoid dilution of votes for similar proposals) so that the result of the vote tend to be a consensus.
Maybe some time should be left for other proposal to emerge, and then the chairmen can settle on a particular vote.

1. Do you want objectives to be determined by the pairing?
A. Yes
B. No

2. In case objectives are not determined by the pairing (option 1.B gets a majority), do you prefer
A. A random selection determines the objective
B. The objective is determined by the round number

3. In case options 1.B and 3.A get a majority, do you want to allow each player to remove an objective from the set of objectives before randomly selecting one (joker)?
A. Yes
B. No

4. In case objectives are included in the pairing system (option 1.A gets a majority), which modification do you prefer
Step 1
- “The opening” (first two matchups)
1.
Both Team Captains select one army and two objectives from their hand to put forward to play and place the
cards for this army and those objectives face down;
2.
Once both Teams have made their selection, turn over the cards to reveal which armies and objectives were chosen.
option A:
3.
For each objective put forward by the opposing team, both Team Captains now select an army from their hand to face the opposing army revealed in the Step 1.2. The armies put forward by each Team are kept secret, they are placed next to the relevant opponent objective card and revealed at the same time;

option B:
3.
Both Team Captains now select an objective put forward by the opposing team and two army from their hand to face the opposing army revealed in the Step 1.2. The selected objective and armies put forward by each Team are kept secret and revealed at the same time;

4.
Each Team Captain selects one of the two opposing armies revealed in Step 1.3 to play against the
friendly army that they have revealed in Step 1.2 (on the corresponding objective). The not chosen armies cards are taken back into their owner's hand, whereas the not chosen objective cards are discarded.

Step 2
- “The Second Opening” (matchups 3 and 4)
Develops exactly as Step 1.

Step 3
- “The Showdown” (matchups 5, 6, 7 and 8)
1.
Repeat Steps 1.1 and 1.2, (observe that there are only 2 objectives left in both Captain's hand)
2.
Repeat Step 1.3:
option A:
3.
For each objective put forward by the opposing team, both Team Captains now select an army from their hand to face the opposing army revealed in the Step 3.2. The armies put forward by each Team are kept secret, they are placed next to the relevant opponent objective card and revealed at the same time;

option B:
3.
Both Team Captains now select an objective put forward by the opposing team and two army from their hand to face the opposing army revealed in the Step 3.2. The selected objective and armies put forward by each Team are kept secret and revealed at the same time;

3.
Each Team Captain selects one of the two opposing armies revealed in Step 3.3 to play against the
friendly army that they have revealed in Step 3.2 (on the corresponding objective). The other army revealed by the
opponent and not chosen will face the one card left on the Team’s hand on the Team not chosen objective
Team Switzerland 2008-2010, 2013-2015: Empire Player
Team Switzerland 2016: Captain

User avatar
Chris Legg
Posts: 3960
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 8:05 am
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4
Location: The grim north.
Contact:

Re: Pairings and new objectives.

Postby Chris Legg » Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:37 pm

Bazzu wrote:Can someone make a resumee of options and call for a vote?

Too many opinions. Let s move January soon over


HI Bazzu,

At the moment we are preparing the text for a further vote shortly. This is expected to go live on Wednesday evening.

Chris
ETC Chairman 2018
ETC 9th Age Team England 2016-2017
ETC WFB Team England Captain 2015
ETC WFB Team England 2010-15

Bazzu
Posts: 147
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 6:11 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: Pairings and new objectives.

Postby Bazzu » Mon Jan 22, 2018 7:10 am

Thanks to both

Well done
Etc 2012 warriors
Etc 2013 warriors
Etc 2014.......escape from comping frenzy
Etc 2015 warriors
Etc 2016.......angry at age of sigmar
Etc 2017 wood elfs...sry sylvan elfs

SmithF
Posts: 359
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 9:36 am
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: Pairings and new objectives.

Postby SmithF » Thu Feb 01, 2018 11:04 am

For what it's worth, after testing the "random scenarios" + "random objectives" option last weekend in a team tournament in France:

It works.
It promotes building more all-around lists as compared to more skewed builds.
It makes every game potentially challenging, and makes pairings more strategic (and less tactical).

In the past ETC many games were won on the pairing alone (see OK in Breakthrough), and I find it's too much.

T9A offers 36 possible combinations for each match. More combinations means more unpredictable results. It will be fun.

Smith

SmithF
Posts: 359
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 9:36 am
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: Request for scenario / deployment vote options

Postby SmithF » Fri Feb 02, 2018 4:20 pm

Something to consider is the complexity of proposed options.

The pairing process already takes a lot of time, to the point where we've had to shift the schedule to 2 games per day.
Adding another level of complexity won't help. If you ask me, I'd rather get more games in (say, 8 instead of 6) if possible.

I like the idea of a "game inside a game" as much as the next person, but this is becoming ridiculous.

As an ETC player (and with no concertation with the rest of the Belgian team) I believe that randomly determined scenarios and deployment types is the most straightforward way to do this. It is also the best way to test the mettle of the would-be top players of the world. See if they can devise a list that can play any scenario and deployment, against any opponent.

It's so easy and quick, too. You do the pairings like last year, only in the end you randomize tables. Then, you roll a d6 two times per match: first is deployment type, second is secondary objective. No need for veto rules or objective cards. The game is complex as it is, lets not make it more so.

My 2 cents

Smith

Dim
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:49 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: Request for scenario / deployment vote options

Postby Dim » Fri Feb 02, 2018 7:48 pm

SmithF wrote:Something to consider is the complexity of proposed options.

The pairing process already takes a lot of time, to the point where we've had to shift the schedule to 2 games per day.
Adding another level of complexity won't help. If you ask me, I'd rather get more games in (say, 8 instead of 6) if possible.

I like the idea of a "game inside a game" as much as the next person, but this is becoming ridiculous.

As an ETC player (and with no concertation with the rest of the Belgian team) I believe that randomly determined scenarios and deployment types is the most straightforward way to do this. It is also the best way to test the mettle of the would-be top players of the world. See if they can devise a list that can play any scenario and deployment, against any opponent.

It's so easy and quick, too. You do the pairings like last year, only in the end you randomize tables. Then, you roll a d6 two times per match: first is deployment type, second is secondary objective. No need for veto rules or objective cards. The game is complex as it is, lets not make it more so.

My 2 cents

Smith


Please read before posting. This post is not suited for this thread. Proposals only.
Team Switzerland 2008-2010, 2013-2015: Empire Player
Team Switzerland 2016: Captain


Return to “Fantasy - European Team Championships”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest