40K VoteWar - Developments/Suggestions and Upcoming Events thread

[Caluin]

Please excuse the absurdly long thread title.

With the amount of attention VoteWar seems to be attracting, I think it's appropriate we have a thread for people to discuss upcoming changes and suggest new ideas, rather than just in the Info Threads where an idea can potentially be buried under the general talk of the particular VoteWar going on.

In this thread anyone is free to suggest new changes or additions they'd like to see in any future VoteWars, whether they be a mini VW or a standard one. Also, if you'd like to request to do a mini VW, do so here so we can keep track of who's in line to run one. So far I have the following upcoming events in line -

1) VoteWar Mini, 'Cheesefest' to be run by LordLink.

2) Official VoteWar (Mark VII).


(Updated as of March 24th, 2007)


----------------------


As far as suggestions and developments go, I have a few suggestions that are currently up for discussion.

1) Shango suggested a Cities of Death mini. So far the results are mixed on this, so more discussion would be appreciated.

2) Deciding which list will have first turn opportunity has been brought up. Archetype has volunteered to attempt this with his mini as a trial run, and we'll decide how well people recieved it and whether it should be instituted in regular VoteWars.

3) Sunnyside has made a suggestion about.... well, it's hard to explain. But I find the idea intruiging, so I'll put the original PM he sent me into the next post in this thead.

[Caluin]

Original PM sent to me by Sunnyside -

Originally Posted by sunnyside

Since I didn't want to muck up votewar with a thread and since it's your baby I figured I'd run this by you first.

I've recently noticed votewar. It seems pretty cool however I've noticed that there is often massive levels of diagreement in the threads (and I disagree with a lot of peoples logic). Therefore for the sake of fun and destroying delusions I was wondering if you'd be up for occasionally switching particularily hotly debate votewar games over to a PBEM "betwar".

Note this wouldn't effect the votewar results as that would slow things up. This would be entirly on the side.

Basically a new thread(maybe in a sub-subforum), would be started with the votewar lists and mission and a map and each army being assigned a deployment zone(since that can make a lot of difference).

Then instead of just voteing people would be "braging points" based on how lopsided they think the match up is. Maybe something like.

1 my army will win 6 out of 10 matches
5 I expect the army I picked to win most of the time but a couple mistakes or some bad dice could turn the tables.
10. The list should be able to win even with some non-major mistakes and some bad dice.
15 It'll take some mistakes and bad dice just to keep this from being a massacre for the army I think will win
20 One side is mounted in land raiders, the other has no weapons with strength over 7, the mission is take and hold.

Then assuming there is someone betting at least a 9 on both sides the people who bet the most (as they have the most face to lose), will then play a play by e-mail game of 40k with the lists and map (it works some of us do it).

Then since it's trivially easy the PBEM game would be turned into a battle report. They players could also make a running battle report if they'd like "usefull advice" from the other people who thought their side should win. The results should be enlightening to at least half the people.

What do you think?

Followed by my reply back to him -

Originally Posted by Caluin

Sounds extremely complicated, but extremely cool.

Perhaps instead of taking random battles that are hotly debated, we could do it for the final round. I'm also not sure I'd want the top two "betters" playing the match - instead, having two impartial people playing the battles to ensure fair play.

In that case though, there'd need to be incentive for betting.

So, thoughts on that anyone?

[ForgedInTheFurnaceOfWar]

I wouldnt mind reading a battle report between hotly contested lists, but how do we know the commanders are of equal skill?

Also, who's really gonna wanna play that many games in a row.

Maybe it should be like, out of 5, tops.

Ie, i bet my list will win 3 of 5 times, ext.

That way, there isnt an insane number of games being played (if i understood the suggestion correctly, i did get a bit lost, so..)

Then the lists would play 5 times, the first to score 3 wins, wins, its possible i suppose to have draws, but i imagine that by the 5th game at least one list would have scored a good solid victory.

Then you get bragging rights.
(those pesky dark eldar cant claim fluff votes on the table top)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps just under the info thread, there could be a thread entiled something like:
Halls of Glory-

Inside would be all the winning votewar lists, since there will be 5 lists shorty, it seems like there would enough lists to warrent its own thread.

Each time a new winner of votewar is announced, the list, and possibly the list makers name(unless they dont want there name shown), will be entered into the hall of glory.

This would then also be a helpful way for new commers to 40k to learn the finer points of the game, and to see what works, and what doesnt. (it would probably be helpful for veterans to, since there will be a veriety of lists, espeically in the future, hopefully of all the codex races one day, thus showing a player, what units he might expect to up against, or which he or she should fear in the enemies army, and how it can all come together)


Cheers

[Silver Wings]

Just once, for a laugh a VW Cheese would be funny. Army compositions scores are reversed and made almost as important as votes for winning.

It would be quite funny, arguments over which list is more cheesey with the list makers arguing that it was. It would also be cathartic to those who don't like too much cheese in VW it might even cause people to chill out about the whole powergaming issue to.

So you would get votes like:
Imperial Guard(-yeah right) for Cheese, their 3 Russ' in 750pts is cool.
__________________________________________________ __________________________

I do like the "IG win 6/10 of the time" system, it makes it a bit fairer in close matches. It might be open to a degree of abuse but would be an interesting development.

[sunnyside]

Ugh. Sorry to everyone for the grammer errors in the PM I sent Caluin.

Anyway I wasn't thinking that people would play a lot of identical games in a row (though they could if they wanted to). I was thinking it would be used for games where people for each army thought that the one they picked would win for sure. Meaning that some people have the wrong idea about something.

Caluin has a point about who plays. The highest betters might be idiots. However I'm guessing by now people know some regulars around here who are reputed to be solid generals. So long as there is one for each side that thinks they can win with the list they would play they could do it. The fact that their moves will get turned into a battle report should ensure they try to play at their best!

[LordLink]

Ok I didn't understand SunnySides idea at all but I have a couple of my suggestions of my own.

1. I noticed Caluin already put this up but, 1st turn. This is invaluable for some armies (DE, Land Speeders and Vyper Saim-Hann all need 1st turn to keep their vehicles from being penned.)

2. what kind of board it is. if its a city there would be a lot of 4+ cover (invaluable for Alaitoc and most shooty armies). This particularly upset me when the kroot entered and everyone assumed that every single board was forest. Not true, kroot are not going to get their favoured terrain every game.

3. Just a minor thing but instead of bolding votes you could put your vote in the title... its what its there for.

[ForgedInTheFurnaceOfWar]

3. Just a minor thing but instead of bolding votes you could put your vote in the title... its what its there for.

Never, i dont use titles..

[TheWamp]

Originally Posted by LordLink

1. I noticed Caluin already put this up but, 1st turn. This is invaluable for some armies (DE, Land Speeders and Vyper Saim-Hann all need 1st turn to keep their vehicles from being penned.)

What he said. I most definitely agree.

Originally Posted by LordLink

2. what kind of board it is. if its a city there would be a lot of 4+ cover (invaluable for Alaitoc and most shooty armies). This particularly upset me when the kroot entered and everyone assumed that every single board was forest. Not true, kroot are not going to get their favoured terrain every game.

Well, in the votewar mini where they showed up, it was always forest. That was part of the VW rules... unless you're thinking of a different kroot list. And I do think that Cities are a bit extreme to be put into a votewar. That's more or less: everything gets great cover. You can hide 8 Eldar tanks, plus a bunch of vypers. Cities have a TON of cover. It's a bit excessive.

Originally Posted by LordLink

3. Just a minor thing but instead of bolding votes you could put your vote in the title... its what its there for.

Except you can't edit titles if you change your mind... and you can't retroactively add a fluff vote.

Oh, and I think it would be cool to have an inverse votewar some time. You vote on which list you think would lose, by players playing to win. Armies have a MINIMUM point value, and the worst list is inverse votewar champion! Only problem is that some sides have difficulty creating truly awful lists.

[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?)

I get the impression that most of this has already been worked out, I was just wondering how it was going to word.

Also I like the idea of votewar cheese: winner each round goes for the cheesiest. Tiebreaker goes to who actually wins. . . (or the other way around. . .)

[LordLink]

thats a good point about titles, I didn't realise you couldn't edit them.

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?


I'm looking forward to the team votewar and have already begun planning with darkreever. I would really like to have preplanned teams and stay with them. Its more interesting having the members of LO communicating with each other to beat opponents.

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.

PS: I have received almost 150 rep points from votewar alone now. :w00t: