UK tournament series?

[Pipey]

Dear UK Blood Bowlers

I wanted to float the idea of a UK-wide tournament series, similar in concept to the very successful South West series and the newly created Northern British series.

The aims would be:

-Crown the best Blood Bowler in the UK each year
-Involve the full range of hobby activities in the prize (hence use of the term ‘Blood Bowler’, rather than just ‘coach’ or ‘player’). So various scores and prizes would be included in points scoring such as Best Painted, Stunty Cup and to a lesser extent Most TDs and Casualties. Also perhaps bringing back ‘Most Travelled’ but as a UK only prize. Gaming in its own right would still represent a big chunk of the score.
-Get UK Blood Bowl (Scotland, Wales, northern and southern England) doing more stuff as a whole, thinking together. Something else for our community to rally around besides NAFC each year.
-Encouraging players to perhaps attend tournaments outside of their region and travel a little more (e.g. see most travelled UK coach suggestion above)

There’s been a lot of discussion lately about ways to make the UK community even better (Frank’s tournament thread, also discussions on the Team England forum), relating to NAFWC attendance and other matters. I felt this would be an excellent project to bring us together, get the regions in discussion and to unite us. I have discussed this with some of the UK Regional Tournament Coordinators and there is plenty of enthusiasm for the general idea.

It’s something I think could run NAFC to NAFC (May to May), with the winner crowned in front of the biggest possible audience at our major tournament. Other specifics (a name, rules etc.) I have a few ideas on, but I wanted to bounce the idea around on here and see what people think first.

Any thoughts re the general concept, what types of success you would reward, what kind of structure would be best?

Thanks in advance.

Brendan

[robsoma]

Sounds like a good plan and would be good to bring the UK community together. Would this include all uk tournaments or would it be a case of only some being picked? If its all would tournaments have different weightings? For example would a 1 day tournament with half a dozen players give the same winning incentive as say waterbowl with 20+ players over 2 days?

[Pipey]

That's one of the things I'd want to discuss. The SWTC and NBTS both do this and I personally think it's a good idea.

The old UK Championship (original UK Tournament Series introduced by Lycos several years ago) had 9 named events where points were scored exclusively. I'm not sure whether that's the way to go, favouring scoring where in theory success at any UK tournament is recognised to some extent.

[Joemanji]

I think counting all events, but weighting based on size and duration might be the best bet. The more inclusive the better IMO. As discussed with Brendan, the lack of tournaments in the midlands at the moment means any selection of say 9 events would be geographically skewed to just north and south with little ground to meet in the middle. I'm not sure singling out events as more deserving of recognition sends a great message either.

[lunchmoney]

SWTC gives tourney points by awarding more for bigger events and half points for 1 dayers. Is that what you mean by "weighting"?

[Joemanji]

Exactly that yes.

[sann0638]

Good idea to have a "UK Champ" crowned at NAFC, certainly.

Interesting ideas about scoring for stunty cup and painted as well as wins. Good luck finding a balance in how they score!

[Barney the Lurker]

Have you seen the Malifaux Rankings

They may give you some ideas. Depending on how many people are there and how long the event you get more or less points. Best four scores count to your overall score.

Hope it may be useful.

[Glowworm]

SWTC gives tourney points by awarding more for bigger events and half points for 1 dayers. Is that what you mean by "weighting"?

Not sure if a 1 day event with 50+ coaches is worth "less" than a 2 dayer with 16 coaches however that's my slightly bias view

I like the idea.

[Pipey]

In my head I have the rules looking something like this...

-Every tournament would be included as long as it would meet the requirements to award a NAF trophy (that's at least 12 players, at least 4 games).

-Scoring is cumulative, including every tournament you attend. So no minimum number to qualify, no picking certain tournaments as scoring tournaments. All count.

-No restrictions on races or incentives to take different races, players at liberty to choose to play the same race repeatedly or several different ones

-Tourneys must recognise all of the scoring categories i.e. Painting, Stunty, Most Cas, Most TD... If not necessarily provide prizes / trophies.

-Scoring for gaming would be based on placing, like current and previous tournament series. Factoring in tournament size seems the most objective way to award success at the bigger / more established events. Possibly. best to award different categories of tournament e.g. Medium (12-24), Large (25-39), Classic (40-59), Flagship (60+). With more points for placings and other prizes dependent on the category.

Glow - so I guess if (the incredibly impressive!) Crumb was a NAF trophy awarding event then it would be way up there as a big event.

[Darkson]

I thought the NAF was awarding a trophy for Crumb now?

ARBBL would have been out, as we don't do best painted. I don't think many of the SWTC tournaments do (I don't pay much attention, having the painting skill of a drunk yak!)?

And (with no disrespect to Glow, as he knows I love Crumb) surely winning a 20-30 man 2 day event is harder than winning a 3-game tournament? With 3 games you can have multiple people on 3-0-0 (at Crumb at least).

[lunchmoney]

ARBBL would have been out, as we don't do best painted. I don't think many of the SWTC tournaments do (I don't pay much attention, having the painting skill of a drunk yak!)?

Exiles would be out as I dont worry about best painted, either. And I cant recall seeing a Best Painted award at the last few tournies I've been to.

[Joemanji]

I guess if a tournament wanted to opt out they could. But if they didn't award Best Painted we could always just score everything else.

Winning a 50 coach one-dayer is actually much easier than winning a 16 coach two-dayer. In the first case you can have 13 coaches on 2/0/0 going into the final round, so it is very likely to be won by the coach with the best draw in terms of rosters / opponents. In the latter case only 1 person can be on max wins (4/0/0) going into the 5th round, let alone the 6th. There is no avoiding the hard games.

[Vanguard]

-Scoring is cumulative, including every tournament you attend. So no minimum number to qualify, no picking certain tournaments as scoring tournaments. All count.

Is this not going to skew standings in favour of coaches who attend the most tournaments, rather than the best coaches? For example, a dozen mid-table finishes cumulatively scoring higher than a solitary NAFC winner?
Of course, if you're looking to reward community involvement, then that's not necessarily a bad thing.

[Glowworm]

crumbs out anyway if that's the criteria.....No best painted.

however I believe this is a consultation period rather than a definite structure....so why include best painted?

it has no bearing on playing ability

And yes, crumb does qualify to award a NAF shield