I was wondering how everyone was feeling about the newest rules changes. Specifically in regards to the Rule of Three being omitted from the rules, thus preventing Warlords participating in their own tournaments.

I for one can see why it was instigated. Afterall, the Warlord gets a prize in many of the tournaments, so why should he or she try to win more? That's always been a sore point for me. Now that I'm a Warlord, if I play in the tournament it's just so there are an even number of players and no one has to sit out on a bye. I do state at the beginning of the tournament that I cannot win, but I'm not going to just roll over and let my opponent win. I'm actually not even that serious of a threat since there're always several players better than me.

How does everyone else feel about the new rule?

On a second note, was there ever a change in the rule about army size as one of the tie breaking considerations? My understanding is that it was originally the smallest starting army won if this tie breaker had to be used. Then they noticed that people were purposefully undersizing their armies so that the larger army had to be more agressive and invariably take the first hit. So, they reversed it and made the larger starting army win in the event of a tie in victory points. The latest version of the rules states now that the smaller starting army is the victor.

Did it ever change? If so, won't this once again promote passive playing by a participant who purposefully undersizes his or her army?

Those are the only two changes that I can think of. If you can think of more, sound off, but first clue me in on my points.

Thanks.

1)Our venue never had three volunteers for the same game in the same place at the same time, so it personally has no effect on me.

2)As far as I know, precedence has always gone to the smallest army on that particular tiebreaker. Of course, there's the problem of survivor points that comes up first... so in a true no-capture/no-kill game, the larger army still wins.

Several of the venues where I have played have tended to have multiple qualified warlords around. At least some of the time, the particular volunteer running the tourney has felt like playing, if only because it's fun. (What a novel concept.:)) I can't speak for anyone else and wouldn't want to try, but I thought the 3 judge rule was a good one because it allowed more options and opportunity to play. The one that worries me more, however, is the one (assuming I understand it correctly, which is far from guaranteed since I am not a warlord or venue representative, so I don't have direct access) that is at least rumored to restrict the number of events that a warlord (or is it venue) may hold per month. Again, assuming (big assumption) that I understand it correctly, that one seems like WK shooting itself in the foot. If anyone has better information and can tell me that I need not worry, I'd be much happier.

DragonVenom

to clarify the limited events (and this is not a trade secret), WK is tightening up the software to limit volunteers to running 1 event at a time. No overlap within a 4 hour period. Meaning, each event is assumed to be 4 hours long, and I should only be running 1 event at a time.

It's not really a change so much as it is enforcement within their booking software.

As for the army size thing, smaller army wins is a tie-breaker. You have to get past the normal scoring procedure, which is wired so largest army wins if no combat occurs. It's one of those math puzzles to determine just how I can have fewer Build Points, play the game and end up in a tie (kills+survivors+captures) so we can use the tie-breaker. I will never have more survivors than you.

If I have 190 BP and you have 200 BP and I kill a 5pt critter, the score would be 195 to 195, and tie-breakers would kick in. On the other hand, the shorter my army is, the easier time you'll have to kick my butt.

My estimate is that it will never have any effect. Now once upon a time, you got VP equal to the shortage of BP, so my 190 pt army was awarded 10VP for being short. This meant that in a full turtle game, the short army didn't automatically lose. Since then, that is no longer the case and players are induced to build as close to max points as possible.

Janx

I normally attend the same venue every week where there is only one volunteer present. Last month I decided to check another venue out because I had the opportunity to do so. At this venue, there were three warlords (I still have no idea which one was actually supposed to make the rulings). Now, I thought that the tournament being held there was a dungeons tournament when it was actually a Rebellion match. So here I am, with mostly mage spawn, a few heros, a Draconum, my dice and ruler, and I'm supposed to make up an army. Well, I did, and beat the warlord that I was playing. Now, one warlord was judge, one was playing me, and the other decided that he wanted to play the MW tournament 2 tables over. No one else was there to play MK. 3/4 through the first match, the warlord basically gives up and starts building another army, justifing to the other warlord that if there were other people, I would have to play a different army. Whatever, I don't care, I'm there to play. So this person builds an army to counter the one I have. So of course I lose the second match, I figured, but the point difference was enough so that I was last. Well, instead of asking what I wanted, she picks up her prize and puts out her hand (note that after the first match she was too busy putting together another army to shake mine). I was furious. Not about the prize, I got one that I didn't have, and I wrestled in high school, so I know that getting beat with dice and a ruler is a hell of a lot better than staring at the ceiling and hearing the whistle blow, but at a complete lack of sportsmanship from someone who is SUPPOSED to be a judge.......

Not good. Very bad. Very, very bad. :(

Thanx Janx :)

I thought I had understood that warlords were now permitted to run only a more limited number of events per month not per day. This sounds a lot more reasonable to me. Much better.

DragonVenom

well, not much problem on our side ... here ...
we only get at most 4-5 tourneys per month ... sometimes even less

the 3 warlord system can be very problematic.

For instance, I sign up for an event, warlord's Joe and Bob show up and decide to help me.

Technically, WK is going to automatically award me the 300 redemption points (no easy way to split it via the software).

Now who gets the warlord gift prizes? Campaigns have 4 items. Marquees have 1. Simple tournaments have none.

Assuming honest warlords, even this can be a source of conflict. There's not much value in that.

If I have a REALLY large turn-out, I might like to have multiple warlords help. Once again, the system doesn't reflect this help and reward the helpers.

These aren't big issues, but you can see why WK might like to reduce the occurence of these types of situations. That's why at Cons, WK has some pretty generous warlord gifts.



Janx

Thanks for all the replies people. As near as I can figure the general consensus on my two original questions is:

1. The rule of three seems to have been generally accepted. A favorable point was that it allowed more variety by allowing experienced players to mix in with the other players. Too many non-favorable points though, such as allowing Warlords to not only get their own prize, but also dominate their event and the champion prizes as well.

2. It seems that I was misinformed about the starting army size issue. In spite of the numerous opinions that it rarely comes into play, I've seen is on several occasions, including once when I was playing against a staller (aka turtle). By the end of the game, neither of us had a kill, we started with the same size army and both of us had done at least some damage. It was also the first round, so neither of us had any previous round stats to consider. The warlord called a dice-off and I won by a roll of 7 to his 6.

Now for some more personal responses.

Janx - regardless of how many warlords show up and offer help, you don't owe them anything. They don't share in your points or in your prize unless you agree to it. There's always supposed to be a designated official warlord for the event.

rejectspy - I think you should report that occurrence to Wizkids. It sounds like she wanted the prize and was ready to do anything to get it. Reporting is the only way Wizkids has the opportunity to monitor and correct problems in an event.

Thanks again for the response and keep on MK'ing.