[Complete] Best two units, the tournament

[Doc Paterson]

Then in the end when it was all clarified, you had the galls to pretend like it wasn't you to blame. You didn't apologize either.That is dishonorable in my book.

Dishonor isn't judged by one act of fate.

http://www.l5rshop.com/images/cards/proofofdishonor.jpg

[Great_Mage_Atari]

Ok well anyways, are the maps decided upon? Are we going by rounds?

[Dunno]

Regarding the leader issue: it would be great if there were some leaders one can choose theirs from. Or if you insist on everyone having the same leader, I'd say Elvish Captain is a better choice because he's neutral, not lawful. Forcing chaotic teams to play with lawful leader takes away some flavor, imho

[Gnork]

Well that would be very different. (...)
Maybe I should just use cavs.

Yes, please do
In a 2 units faction, chosing a scout rather than a fighter is already quite audacious, so I don't want to discourage this kind of strategy by restricting village picking.
Yes, you will get more gold to recruit more cavs... but I don't care as they will die on my pikes anyway

Though were you wanting this to be a 1.9x tourney or a 1,8x? Imo 1.9x would be better.

It seems that PYR is only available on 1.8x, isn't it ? If so, we have no other choice than 1.8x.

csarmi & Great_Mage_Atari > Please don't start a flamewar on my thread
csarmi, I took your request into consideration : I won't reject players because I don't want to but I will put them in other groups so you won't have to play against them...
unless both of you qualify for the final group, which would make your objection irrelevant
I hope this is ok for I wish everybody to be happy here.
For other requests of this kind, please don't hesitate to MP me

As for the leader rule : as stated before, the rule is "Lieutenant for all" and that rule won't be changed, sorry.
Feel free to change your 2 units choice if necessary

[Dixie]

As for the leader rule : as stated before, the rule is "Lieutenant for all" and that rule won't be changed, sorry.
Feel free to change your 2 units choice if necessary

To me, this sounds arbitrary and selfish. Furthermore, enforcing it blindly without heeding arguments against it is kinda obnoxious.

Logically, I think the leader should have been the lv2 vrsion of either of the unit picked in a combo. Or, worst case scenario, the elvish captain suggested above can make do. But you are not gonna listen anyway, so...

Well, either case, just commenting on this point, I had not planned on joining this tournament anyway, so I might as well drop it. Have fun, people

[Gambit]

Perhaps (since everyone will need a special add-on anyway) a special leader could be made that can't move or fight
Then the battle truly is between the chosen units.

[Gnork]

Ok well anyways, are the maps decided upon?

For the maps, I really don't know. Any idea someone?

Are we going by rounds?

Yes, players will be splitted in several groups, each one containing between 4 and 7 players who will play each other once.
After that a final group will be formed, so the most successful players will play each other once.

[Gnork]

As for the leader rule : as stated before, the rule is "Lieutenant for all" and that rule won't be changed, sorry.
Feel free to change your 2 units choice if necessary

To me, this sounds arbitrary and selfish. Furthermore, enforcing it blindly without heeding arguments against it is kinda obnoxious.

I accept the "arbitrary" criticism, not the "selfish" one, because I really don't care
Sorry for seeming closed-minded, I just don't want to lose this thread into an endless discussion which has already exposed many pros and cons without any consensus raising, that's why I prefered to just make a choice and move on.
If anyone has a good and new reason to put this point into debate again, please do by PM instead

[soul_steven]

Do you understand how a LT leader can really restrict some plans for players like my friend Doc here who choose two chaotic units (adept and grunt)? and in reverse really powerhouse certain people who choose spear and cav or something? It really gives an unfair advantage to lawful players.... I dont know perhaps its just my feelings so i will drop it however I think a more open choice of leaders makes it more interesting

[Great_Mage_Atari]

Perhaps (since everyone will need a special add-on anyway) a special leader could be made that can't move or fight
Then the battle truly is between the chosen units.

Giggity. It would be nice if the leader was still somewhat combat-functional, but whatever happens is what goes. It wouldn't in the least bit be hard to customize a cool unit with no movepoints. Adds to the excitement. Maybe we can make a Nerd character with 1-1 impact fist attack. Just as an idea.

[Demogorgon]

Do you understand how a LT leader can really restrict some plans for players like my friend Doc here who choose two chaotic units (adept and grunt)? and in reverse really powerhouse certain people who choose spear and cav or something? It really gives an unfair advantage to lawful players.... I dont know perhaps its just my feelings so i will drop it however I think a more open choice of leaders makes it more interesting

Imho an open choice of leaders totally nullifies the idea here. Like you do counter recruiting in normal matches,
here the leader could possibly just counter chosen. If you see you play against a Drake Fighter and a Cav, of
course the first choice would be the Sharpshooter. Options like this should be avoided imho, since we're solely
interested in the strength of the two unit types.
Yes, it's a fact that the Lieutenant is a lawful unit and could possibly be used more by someone controlling equally aligned units.
But that's just the reason why I proposed the leader itself isn't allowed to initiate an attack.
I chose the Lieutenant for my proposal, since I personally like the idea of improving your units when defending.
With the 6MP the Lieutenant is a better choice for that purpose than the Elvish Leader.
Additionally having the Elvish Leader as a neutral, but active unit, we implicitly help players fighting
against Drakes e.g., since the Elvish Leader still has a high chance to hit them including a neat ranged attack.

Summing up my opinion:

• good: Leadership support, 6MP, passive mode (no attack initiated by leader itself)
• bad: Free counter-choice of leaders after knowing your enemies two unit-types

p.s.: The only flaw left in my opinion imho is the fact that now a lawful heavy army has a slightly higher retal attacking the Lieutenant than a chaotic heavy army, which might help chaotics. So there would be 6MP (Lieutenant) vs neutral retal (Elvish Leader) left to discuss.

... just my 5 cents ...

[EDIT] : Well after talking to soul_steven it sounds like I might be quite alone with that opinion and it might be fairest to just have a non-leadership passive leader. The idea of having a leader choice still is the worst option imho.

[soul_steven]

After talking I would agree choosing leader is not the way to go. My concern now however is units like adepts having a OP lieutenant behind them at night dealing 14-2 damage.... Not to mention at day countering with 10-2 which makes it hard to ever even attack a person who picks two chaotic units and has leadership even at day... There is a reason that ud dont have a leadership unit. aside from the LT though im not sure what is the logical choice for a leader...

[Great_Mage_Atari]

After talking I would agree choosing leader is not the way to go. My concern now however is units like adepts having a OP lieutenant behind them at night dealing 14-2 damage.... Not to mention at day countering with 10-2 which makes it hard to ever even attack a person who picks two chaotic units and has leadership even at day... There is a reason that ud dont have a leadership unit. aside from the LT though im not sure what is the logical choice for a leader...

We could always just make a new unit for a leader, one that fits our needs and wants. It's not that difficult at all.

[Gnork]

After talking I would agree choosing leader is not the way to go. My concern now however is units like adepts having a OP lieutenant behind them at night dealing 14-2 damage.... Not to mention at day countering with 10-2 which makes it hard to ever even attack a person who picks two chaotic units and has leadership even at day... There is a reason that ud dont have a leadership unit. aside from the LT though im not sure what is the logical choice for a leader...

We could always just make a new unit for a leader, one that fits our needs and wants. It's not that difficult at all.

As mentioned earlier, if you did a new unit for a leader, then we would surely take it.

[greenorb]

I agree that the leader should be either the Lieutenant or a custom made one like Great Mage Atari said, imho it would be preferable to have a leader with 6mp and be a lv 2 unit. The unit doesn;t have to have the leadership ability which would take away from the advantage adepts would have. However I will play with whatever leader is given, because I think that if one pair of units is truly superior to another than the leader choice should not have a large enough effect on the outcome of the match to be significant.