40K VoteWar - Developments/Suggestions and Upcoming Events thread

[JORMAGI]

I agree that 1000 pts is probably the best number for each side, though I think anything up to 1500 would work fine.

The team setup is going to make possable for a lot of synergy, expecially if the teams are picked cooperativly ahead of time. Lists can be chosen and made to focus on their strengths, while covering their teamates weaknesses. It could be really good, but would take some time getting everything squared away with both your teamate and the orginizer. . .

(Thinly veiled attempt to get you to post the tenative rules, Archetype, even if you're not ready for submissions yet. Just so we can know if we need to look for a teamate or not.)

[ForgedInTheFurnaceOfWar]

As for the team battles, i think there should be servial items which are allowed to cross codexs.

For example, teleport homers, while this wouldnt be game shatteringly powerful, i think it would only add to the ability of two players to work together to make there lists better then what would normally be possible.

Possibily some things should be banned, i can see how tau marker lights could definatly be abused.

Finally will dark angles be forced to play only with other dark angles? or will there lists simply not be able to play, or will the rule be suspended.

[TheWamp]

Originally Posted by LordLink

An inverse votewar would be...odd to put it kindly. You would have stupid lists like saim hann takes 10 shining spears and nothing else.

All the armies would be horrendously unfluffy and just...weird. Like maxed out on nurglings. And would you play to lose (i.e. nothing shoots) or would you play to win?

The imaginary people who are playing would play to win. And yes, it would be horribly unfluffy. But that's sort of the point: If you're trying to make a list that would normally lose the mission votes, the tiebraker, would be the least fluffy list...:rolleyes:

And yeah, for VW teams, we should collaborate and each get 1000 points

[minus_t]

A quick suggestion about the first turn idea, maybe it would be better to state who won the roll-off (including things like space wolves venerable dreads etc), and thus who can choose to go first/second.
Obviously most people probably prefer to go first, but some (drop-podding armies spring to mind) benefit more from going second.

That's probably how you were going to do it anyway, but I thought I'd mention it incase.


-t.

[Caluin]

Originally Posted by minus_t

A quick suggestion about the first turn idea, maybe it would be better to state who won the roll-off (including things like space wolves venerable dreads etc), and thus who can choose to go first/second.

That's my only reservation against the First Turn idea. You don't roll off to see who goes first - you roll off to see who gets the choice of going first or second. While not such a big deal for most armies (for instance, most armies like to go first, where as Drop Pod armies prefer to go second) it leaves that measure of uncertainty for some lists.

Originally Posted by TheWamp

The imaginary people who are playing would play to win. And yes, it would be horribly unfluffy. But that's sort of the point: If you're trying to make a list that would normally lose the mission votes, the tiebraker, would be the least fluffy list...

We used to do this type of idea when playing in M:tG tournaments. To keep people from making stupid silly mistakes in order to lose, you'd swap decks with your opponent.

We'd assume something similar to this for the 40K Mini. That way you can assume each player is out to win, even though their opponent gave them a horrible list to play with.

[Archetype-]

Wow, questions.... Hooray! I get to corrupt people! Erm.... I'm not a minion of the Ruinous Powers... :shifty:

Originally Posted by JORMAGI

Hey about the upcomming votewar teams. . . I think this is the right thread to ask these questions: Are the teams going to be the same every round, or will your teamate be part of the random draw for each battle?

I kinda prefer to have a random teamate each round just so you don't get stuck if your teamate has a bad/incompatable list.

on the other hand it would be fun to plan team lists together with another member. Team entries being submitted together. (people who couldn't find a teamate or don't want to worry about it could be matched up by the ref?)

You will get to pick your own teammate for VoteWar Teams. This way you get to make a combined list that will have a much better chance of working together.

Originally Posted by LordLink

Also I'd like to tell Archetype the team votewar lists should be 1000 points each (2000 total). 2000 is the maximum votewar should reach (anythinig higher is just to hard to vote accurately on). 1000 each means people can make effective combo lists.

I already have all the details I need to cover in the bag, so the rules are complete. I will suggest that you not get into making lists until I actually post the rules. You are still free to collaberate on what type of army to make, just don't go making lists unless you make about a hundred of them to account for any curveballs I throw. ^_^

Originally Posted by JORMAGI

(Thinly veiled attempt to get you to post the tenative rules, Archetype, even if you're not ready for submissions yet. Just so we can know if we need to look for a teamate or not.)

You want a teaser? Well... nah. Votewar V is still going, and I want to wait until the semi-final round is well underway before I spring Votewar Teams on you. I don't want you to get Votewared out on me. Just be aware that there will be restrictions on who can ally with whom.

I will give you one tiny thing, though... a list with eighteen Land Speeder Tornados will not be possible under the rules I've made. Enjoy!

Originally Posted by Caluin

That's my only reservation against the First Turn idea. You don't roll off to see who goes first - you roll off to see who gets the choice of going first or second. While not such a big deal for most armies (for instance, most armies like to go first, where as Drop Pod armies prefer to go second) it leaves that measure of uncertainty for some lists.

Perhaps this could be remedied by stating who wins first turn choice instead and letting the voters fill in the blank with the "uncertain" lists.

Peace out,
-Archetype

[JORMAGI]

Well that was the biggest thing I was wondering about. . . Now I know that I need to be keeping an eye out for a partner.

[ZombieKiller]

With the votewar team thing going on you should probably do what my local GW shop did. Partners, 2000 points combined, but you are only allowed to use 1 FOC (force organization chart). So total you can have up to 2 HQ, 3 Elites, 6 Troops, 3 FA, 3 Heavies, so you must co-ordinate with your partner as who is going to take what. (Each person must use 1 hq, 1 troop).

But you can use whatever rules you have cooked up archetype, I'm just putting these out there.



(Also, I'm interested in looking for a partner... is there anybody out there? *I play necrons, catachans!!!, and orks*)

[ForgedInTheFurnaceOfWar]

You want a teaser? Well... nah. Votewar V is still going, and I want to wait until the semi-final round is well underway before I spring Votewar Teams on you. I don't want you to get Votewared out on me. Just be aware that there will be restrictions on who can ally with whom.

I hope your not planning on restricting the force organization chart.

[JORMAGI]

Aye that would really do a number on a lot of the armies out there: Some need both of their HQ's to function properly: Namely Lost and the Damned. . . .