Friday, December 3, 2010

Tournament, Feb 12th. Missions

By TheGraveMind


Stop, Mission time! So we are given two months to fine-tune our lists for these missions, should be good. Again I'll be lazy and just copy paste, greatest function ever.




Mission 1:  Planet Fall
Story: 
You and your opponent’s forces have just made planet fall and are looking to secure a landing zone for reinforcements to arrive.  As you evaluate the situation at hand you realize that in order to hold the landing zone open you must secure the battlefield and establish your dominance by neutralizing the enemy forces while ensuring enough of your own troops survive to continue on with your mission.
Primary Objective:
1)    Control the LZ – This objective is designed to represent you and your opponent’s fight to control the contested landing zone.
a.    Scoring
                                                  i.    The player with the most units within 12” of the center of the table at the end of the game wins the objective.
Secondary Objective:
1)    Protect the Troops – While you know that you need to hold the landing zone you are also aware that you will need your troops to complete you mission.
a.    Scoring
                                                  i.    This objective uses victory points.  Victory points will be awarded as per the rulebook.  Units which split up during the game will each be worth half of the original points rounded up.  For example if a squad worth 125 points splits into two squads each one will be worth 63 points. HQ and Troop units are worth 3x their normal victory points.  The player with the most victory points wins the objective.
Deployment:
1)    Dawn of War
Special Rules:
1)    Seize the Initiative (only if you lost the roll to go first)
2)    Reserves
3)    Deepstrike
4)    Infiltrate
5)    Scout
6)    Outflank





Mission 2:  Advancing Forces
Story: 
Soon after managing to get your forces to the planet’s surface you are faced with a new challenge, mobilizing your forces to assault the enemy.  The road ahead is long and dangerous and you know that at any time you may encounter strong resistance the only question is when it happens will you be able to deal with the threat.
Primary Objective:
1)    Attack the Flanks – You realize that they key to victory is attacking your enemy on as many sides as possible.  The best way to do this is pound the enemy’s flanks with artillery and then assault them with your fast movers and elite forces while your troops keep the pressure on the core of the army.
a.    Scoring
                                                  i.    This objective uses victory points.  Victory points will be awarded as per the rulebook.  Units which split up during the game will each be worth half of the original points rounded up.  For example if a squad worth 125 points splits into two squads each one will be worth 63 points. Elites, Fast Attack and Heavy Support units are worth 3x their normal victory points.  The player with the most victory points wins the objective.
Secondary Objective:
1)    Hold Your Ground– It’s imperative that your forces not give up an inch of ground to the enemy and even more essential that they put the pressure on their foe by pushing and gaining as much ground as they can.
a.    Scoring
                                                  i.    Control a table quarter by having more units contesting a table quarter than your opponent.  Units contesting multiple quarters must declare after they move which quarter they are contesting.  The player who controls the most quarters wins this objective.
Deployment:
1)    Pitched Battle
Special Rules:
1)    Seize the Initiative (only if you lost the roll to go first)
2)    Reserves
3)    Deepstrike
4)    Infiltrate
5)    Scout
6)    Outflank


Mission 3:  Stranglehold
Story: 
The final battle is quickly approaching but before you lay siege to your enemy’s stronghold you decide to cut off their supply lines and break their will to fight.  You know that by crushing the morale of your foe and destroying his will to fight that he will gladly accept a quick death by your hand then the slow agonizing pain of dying from starvation.
Primary Objective:
1)    Step up Patrols – Somehow the enemy is able to leave their stronghold and come after the dropped supplies.  You order your men to increase their patrols and secure the area around the enemy fortress.
a.    Scoring
                                                  i.    Control a table quarter by having more units contesting a table quarter than your opponent.  Units contesting multiple quarters must declare after they move which quarter they are contesting.  The player who controls the most quarters wins this objective.
Secondary Objective:
1)    Recover the Supplies – Being surrounded hasn’t stopped supplies from reaching your enemy as you had hoped.  Supplies are being dropped in by enemy flyer’s every day however your supporting anti-aircraft fire causes many of these drops to miss their intended targets and it then becomes a race to see who can recover the supplies first you or them.  Players will place 5 objectives as per the rules for Seize Ground.  After both players have deployed each objective scatters 2d6” in a random direction if a hit is rolled the objective stays where placed.  Players roll for the objectives that they placed.
a.    Scoring
                                                  i.    Each objective can be held or contested by being within 3” of the objective.  Only scoring units may hold the objective but any unit may contest the objective. The player who holds the most objectives wins the objective.
Deployment:
1)    Spearhead
Special Rules:
1)    Seize the Initiative (only if you lost the roll to go first)
2)    Reserves
3)    Deepstrike
4)    Infiltrate
5)    Scout
6)    Outflank


Mission 4:  Burning City
Story: 
The siege is underway and nothing is safe from the firestorm that you are bringing with you.  The end is near and you know that there is no greater moment than that in which you are standing over your enemy as he lay dying knowing he was a worthy foe and that the mangled mess that is his body is your doing.  As you look around you see a city on fire a city of ash and death and you say to yourself the day is not over for the darkness brings a new light and a new fight.
Primary Objective:
1)    Total War – There are no rules of war except that you must win.  Civilian casualties are expected but for blood thirsty warriors the killing of enemy civilians is like rubbing salt in an open wound.  They have already lost and it is now time to break them.  To represent these civilians this mission uses 5 objectives.  These objectives are placed as per seize ground.
a.    Scoring
                                                  i.    Each objective can be held or contested by being within 3” of the objective.  Only scoring units may hold the objective but any unit may contest the objective. The player who holds the most objectives wins the objective.
Secondary Objective:
1)    This City is Mine – You know in order to feel truly victorious you must capture and control the enemy’s capitol.
a.    Scoring
                                                  i.    The player with the most units within 6” of the center of the table at the end of the game wins this objective.
Deployment:
1)    Draw a line from your left corner of the table to your opponents left corner of the table.  The first player chooses which side to deploy on.  Neither player may deploy with 12” on the center line.
Special Rules:
1)    Seize the Initiative (only if you lost the roll to go first)
2)    Reserves
3)    Deepstrike
4)    Infiltrate
5)    Scout
6)    Outflank

I know a couple people play tested some of these in their early forms, seems they have been streamlined since then. Should be some good games. And maybe Imperial fists will win it, a picture's worth a thousand words eh?

28 comments:

  1. Hmm. With every mission having a "number of units" objective, MSU might be the way to go. Even better since no half VPs, so multiple damaged vehicles and squads down to 1 guy still count but don't give any VPs.

    With a couple of "cram into the middle" objectives, would be fun to bring one or more Deathstrikes. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Actually, it is half Vps, I might have copied version 1.9 instead of 2.0 If it doesn't say half Vp, it should. I'm about to go to work, but I'll check it and fix it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. okay? so does that mean that we need four different lists, or we play with one list the entire way through? and am i right in that its 1750 pts?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm not a big fan of the multipliers for certain unit types. With my luck, I'll go up against an army that has very few troops in the troop based one, and and army that has none of the specialist in the specialist based one.

    Basically your opponent's army composition can screw you over.

    I also hate the diagonal deployment setup.

    I'm also curious to who's running this one?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nat Haggard is. He has been out of the tournament scene for a while. Steve from the south side game preserve is helping as well.

    I do not like this!!!!

    i. Control a table quarter by having more units contesting a table quarter than your opponent. Units contesting multiple quarters must declare after they move which quarter they are contesting. The player who controls the most quarters wins this objective

    This is kind of silly as it is unclear when you must declare what quarter they are contesting. Do you declare every turn? Do you declare on rounds 4-7? And if you go first, then having to declare what units are contesting what quarters gives a huge advantage to the second player. Especially if the 2nd player has mobility. On the last turn the 2nd player could easily just shoot specific targets or move units to certain quarters to win. So I have skimmers and see that you are holding 2 table quarters...hmmmm.. I just need to fly these guys there and these guys there move these guys there and....I win!! Really???

    ReplyDelete
  6. My thoughts are you know in advance not the day of what you are in for. As far as the multipliers for VP's if a player goes heavy on troops then he is immediately putting himself in a bad spot for mission 1. If they go heavy on specialist units they are really crippling their chances in round 2. The idea is a well rounded army will be just fine. As far as bad match ups go. They can happen regardless of the mission being played.

    In regards to the table quarters. If after one of your units moves it is contesting more than 1 table quarter you must declare which quarter it is contesting. I guess common sense plays here. It’s turn 1 and 2 hours to go probably not a big deal. It's turn 4 with 15 minutes to go probably an important factor. I am sure you and your opponent can determine when its important. If they gripe about it then do it every time it comes up. Yes that means that you are giving the 2nd player an advantage but no more than he gets in an objective mission. If you’re worried about skimmers I suggest that you shoot them. If you’re worried about the advantage then go 2nd. This rule helps those annoying moves where guys try and split as many quarters as possible and then go back and forth at the end of the game on which quarter their guys are contesting to win a quarter.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Every VP mission says "VPs will be awarded as per the rulebook," which includes half points. There's no reason for them to have to specifically say it beyond that.

    So, a Transport with a unit inside will count as two "units" for these Table Quarter/Center missions? A Transport with a unit and an attached IC will count as three?

    That's borderline criminal. Break out the 40 KP lists.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @strung puppet

    Since when has, "I guess common sense plays here." ever been a part of a 40k competitive tournament? With 32 players and thousands of dollars in prize support.... you would need things like these spelled out. As Dodger3 says, why change the 40k rulebook. Multipliers for VP are bad. Multipliers for KP are even worse! Ala...ardboys prelims.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @ Spaguatyrine

    Didn't mean to seem offensive there. I was only pointing out that by the wording in the mission it is after they move.

    "Units contesting multiple quarters must declare after they move which quarter they are contesting. "

    I thought the rule was clear as to when you are supposed to do it. The common sense remark was when should it matter. I wouldn't argue about it with an opponent during the first turn or so becasue it probably won't matter. As the game gets closer to the end I would start to care about making him specify. That's me though the rule says after they move so by RAW if after a unit moves they are contesting more than 1 quarter you are supposed to declare which one they are contesting even on turn 1. Following RAW you take care of things like a vehicle contesting 2 quarters and then getting immobilized. If the player declared after it moved even on turn 1 which quarter it was contesting there will be no problems later when trying to figure out which quarter it's contesting. In a case like that where I didn't follow RAW and make him declare which quarter his tank was contesting I might ask him to declare after it gets immobilized. If he says no I guess to save myself an argument I would just have to blow it up and thats what I would get for being nice. I guess it just depends on the player and when he is going to worry about saying something to his opponent.

    As far as changing the rules for mission objectives... I don't see anything wrong with it. Does it change the format of play on people? Yes. Is that bad? No. I think it makes people evaluate what they might see at the event and weigh and balance their armies. What am I willing to give up for this mission to do better in that mission? That's a good question for a player to be able to answer. It's like knowing that there is a good chance that you will play Daemons and bringing Psi Cannons to battle. In most games they are ok altought really expensive for what they are but in a game against Daemons they are gold. That is a decision each player will have to figure out for themselves. Me I think it's well worth it and a good decision to take psi cannons. It's the same thing with missions and that is why I am getting them out 2 months in advance so that people have time to adjust their armies if they want and to start thinking about how they will approach each mission. That's a lot better than showing up and finding out that there are off the wall missions and your army will auto lose on at least one of them which has happened to me on more than one occaision over the years. Never minded the missions just the fact I din't know ahead of time.

    ReplyDelete
  10. So, harsh criticism time, and Blogger seems to be demanding that I split this into two posts:

    Four of the eight missions rely solely on number "units" to capture wide-area portions of the table, and with zero KP missions to counterbalance it. Fully HALF of the tournament will be decided by this.

    You know why my Daemon army has 10 KPs? Because it has to. Our stuff isn't cheap. There's nothing the elite, expensive armies can do to just pack more "units" into our armies, especially when the other Codices are getting 2-for-1 in every slot with Transport vehicles. That's without even THINKING about Combat Squads--Marine players get to double their efficiency in those missions for free with no downsides.

    I'll be fighting against IG players who have more "units"--the only important scoring measurement--in a single Platoon than I do in my entire army. Or just more vehicles than I have units in my entire army. Or just a 3:1 disadvantage in general.

    It's like playing inverted Kill Points where you START OUT with a 3:1 advantage rather than having to earn it by actually killing things. On the board, on turn 1, my opponent will have me beat 3 to 1.

    It's a hell of a hole to have to dig yourself out of--especially when it's HALF of the day's missions.

    If you want people to have to make hard decisions, you write counterbalanced secondaries. If Mission 1 or Primary 1 rewards you for having a metric bucketload of units, then Mission 2 or Secondary 1 should be KPs that punish you for having a metric bucketload of units. There's no counterbalance present here at all--every single mission rewards you for being able to put more distinct units on the table, which unfathomably favors IG/SM.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Also, while I'm not a fan of those TRIPLE multiplier VP missions, I think the most glaring problem is the situation of the two, and they should be flipped--the HQ/Troop mission should be a primary, and the Elite/HS/FA mission should be a Secondary. You have two standard Troop-hold "objective" missions, and as long as objective missions are relevant, having viable Troop choices is an incredible advantage. That should be counterbalanced by making them more valuable in an acommpanying Primary.

    As it stands, there's zero counterbalance for having a billion units on the table, and (since the FA/Elite/HS VP mission is a Primary) a clear advantage to having high-functioning Troop slots--an advantage which already exists due to Objective missions and is just being even further reinforced.

    There's no "hard decisions" or drastic balance questions as a result of these missions. You bring as many units as possible, especially if those units are Troops. The armies that can fulfill these critera are ALREADY the best in the game competitively--every Melta Vet squad in their Chimera is worth 2 scoring units in half the missions, and worth base VP in another Primary. Every Grey Hunter squad and their Rhino is worth THREE scoring units following Combat Squads, and again give no bonus VP in the VP Primary. Each of these also get to score in the Objective missions.

    These are some of the most cost efficient units in the entire game. They don't need to be further reinforced by benefitting from every single mission objective, or else you may as well just check everyone's armies for Imperial Aquilas at the door.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @Strung Muppet

    While I can ensure that I build a balanced army that can deal with those multipliers, I cannot force my opponent to take a balance list. It's hard enough to take down a rock list sometimes, and then you add in the fact that the stuff you need to kill in order to keep your opponent from tabling you are the opposite type that is being scored. Say for instance I face Dodgers Demons in the troop multiplier mission. I have to deal with Fateweaver and his two squads of Bloodcrushers before I can even think of taking pot shots at his plague bearers. And in the reverse mission, if I manage to kill Fateweaver and those crushers, the 3x multiplier doesn't matter so much as I've pretty much won the game anyway.

    I'm not a big fan of scenarios that have anything to do with the Force Org chart. The basic reason is that some codex's are very constrained by the Force Org chart. Imperial codex's generally don't care because they are so flexible, but a lot of the older xenos codex's aren't so lucky. Its hard for a Tau or Eldar player to alter their lists for the sake of a mission. There are so many bad units in their codex, and the good ones have to still be played in the right combinations to be competitive.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Unfortunately I actually agree with Dodger3!

    The missions do favor Space Marine/Guard type armies. I know they are a large portion of the 40K universe, but we should have missions that are more equal. Now people ask why do missions like these come out from certain Tournament Organizers?

    "Because the old guard doesn't get it when coming to running no comp tournaments!"

    Yes I said it! Some TO's still think they have to control everything, and can't stop messing with what choices people want to bring.

    STOP MESSING WITH THE FORCE ORGANIZATION CHART ALREADY!!!!

    This being said I know I have an advantage to the missions being a Space Wolves player, but I would rather have balanced missions for all armies. I know you will always have exceptions, but multiplying victory points or kill points is RIDICULOUS! Again the TO is trying to manipulate what we should bring and force us to organize our armies in a certain way. I will bring what I want to play regardless of the missions because I play Space Wolves. Everyone cannot do that.

    @Dodger3-Unfortunately Grey Hunters cannot combat squad. If they could that would be even better!! :)

    ReplyDelete
  14. I can relate to the problems presented with some of the missions. The reason for the multipliers for VP's actually has nothing to do with control or trying to force comp. When the original missions were written each mission would be worth a max number of points 50 to be exact. In the VP missions you were awarded points based how many VP's you earned to a max of 30 out of 50 what I needed was a good way to spit those up so that in each mission they would grant about 30 points max. After talking with several guys everyone thought doing objectives would be better so the only thing that changed was each mission went to primary and secondary objectives. I didn't want the same primary as in VP's twice so one of them became a secondary. I would have no problem altering them to do away with the multipliers with the current state of the missions. You guys all make very good points.

    I am putting this together to be a community event unfortunately I am not BK and we can't all have it our way. I can however make changes when confronted with compelling arguements. That's another part of getting these out so far in advance. The biggest thing for me is making sure that people have at least a month before the event to practice the missions in full. I hate Ard' Boyz giving you missions and then the day before changing them. Some time to adjust is always nice.

    As far as all the objectives and board control. These missions do provide an advantage to SMU armies and it is not by design. Farmpunk mentioned using VP's to determine quarter control. I would be fine with this change if you guys think that it might help make it more fairly balanced. As I said before the original missions were designed to award points not be objectives so a lot of these problems worked themselves out. Let me know if those changes would be a little more well rounded.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Was going to suggest VP's per quarter/in the 6" center circle before I started deleting stuff to try to get Blogger to accept the post.

    It should be a much more fair way of doing things, since it will relate more to the actual weight of the army present in a quarter rather than just driving 4 35-point Rhinos sprint across the border on turn 6 and that somehow outweighing 2 200-point units.

    It also makes for a far more tactical game, since you could lose on VPs overall but still win the game by spreading out in an intelligent manner. It even blends well with the VP rules, since half units will only give half weight.

    Still not sure about it being 4/8 missions, but doing it per VP is a far better idea than doing it per unit.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I guess I just realized Strung Puppet is the TO. :) Hello Strung Puppet.....

    I understand what you are saying as far as trying to make things the BK way for everyone, and no matter how much you try, someone will be unhappy. That being said, anytime you multiply a force org slot, you are in fact altering what someone might bring, which is ....."Negative Comp Scoring". In my opinion if you want to encourage troop choices, then give a small bonus for them instead of hurting armies if they don't take something which could be considered, "Positive Comp Scoring". 3xVP's bor 3xKP's for anything is in MY OPINION, messing with Force Organization and raises eyebrows. In your first mission you have essentially made it very difficult for anyone who uses thier HQ's or troop choices to hold the center objective. Now maybe this was on purpose, but I have never seen any mission that hurts you for taking troop choices. Normally it is the opposite. I know this is a secondary objective to controlling the middle, but a lot of times these games end of with draws when there is only 1 spot hold an objective. I am completely fine with everything you have except:

    *3xVP's for HQ and troops
    *3xVP's for Elite, Fast Attack, and Heavy
    *Declaring table quarters after your movement
    phase.

    All that being said I will probably play regardless as the fiery blood in my veins rises to attempt to claim victory again!

    ReplyDelete
  17. idk, why cant we just have a win or lose tourney. im a fan of minimalism....and do i play with one list the entire way through?

    ReplyDelete
  18. uberdark, it is a W/L, but its a trial run and a transition period for some. and yes, same list for the whole tourney, just need copies to turn in and for opponents.

    spaguatyrine, I'm just going to be honest, you sounded like a whiny little B for a bit there. that and a conspiracy nut. It's not like these are that horrible of missions, they are well thought out, I know for a fact you've played in tournaments with worse of rulings/comp. lets tone it back a bit.

    The fact whether he has been out of the tournament scene or not, has no baring. He as continued to play, and play competitively, and he has more experience than all the people here combined.

    Also, for some one with a confusing name, take a look, it is Muppet, not puppet. haha

    Dodger, you do bring up some decent points, I'm sure they'll be taken into account. "Every VP mission says "VPs will be awarded as per the rulebook," which includes half points. There's no reason for them to have to specifically say it beyond that." -- lets be honest, some people don't fully read the rule book, so it really is necessary to restate important things.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @Gravemind

    My mistake on the spelling, but I only speak facts as I see them. I am giving my opinion period! We all have the right to express our opinions. The fact that we can poke holes in such a large event before hand will only make it stronger when it does happens. As Muppet has stated he is attempting to continue to build this as a community event, and I commend him for actually putting the missions out this far in advance and asking for feedback.

    I am not giving my perspective for my benefit but for the community. I have a great opportunity with the army I run to potentially do well in this tournament especially how they are written. I would do better to not say anything, but again I am almost like the Tau and am looking for the greater good.

    We as a gaming community continue to push the envelope to move towards a Nova Style/W-L/No-Comp. tournament system. These tournaments wouldn't have happened last year. The change has been made by people who are willing to say what they feel. If you don't like something, speak up, provide another alternative, and make a change.

    As far as the conspiracy theories, we can discuss those offline!

    Good Day!

    ReplyDelete
  20. The spelling was just a jab at your name haha. And if I came across as harsh, I only partly meant it ;D Opinions are good and welcomed. It's just hard when I'm trying to help present an event I feel is a great step forward and brings bits from many sources, yet almost all feedback seems negative.

    Hopefully through feedback and input, everything can get smoothed out efficiently, and we'll have a huge turn out for this event!

    As to the conspiracies, lets say no more, never know who's listening.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @Gravemind thanks for trying to stick up for me us little guys need it.

    @Dodger I think you make some very interesting points. I really like using VP'S instead of units it makes more sense and it's good to hear that someone else thinks so.

    As far as there being 4/8 missions. It's really just 4 with objectives. The secondaries are ways to ensure that ties don't happen and to help give another tie breaker for rankings. I think 2 objectives allows there to be rankings but still does not encourage WAAC and "clubbing baby seals" as they are either win or lose and the primary is the only one that matters for the win secondary objectives are for tie breakers in rankings and used to determine game winners if nobody wins the primary objective. That was all in the rules post.

    I kind of like doing all this discussion here it let's everyone see if they have never had to deal with running an event just how much crap TO's can put up with to run an event for others that they would no doubt rather be playing in. :D

    So you will all probably see some slight changes to the rulings and to the missions before the event. I will say that if you follow what is going on you will be kept in the loop as to what to expect when expecting. I also promise finalized rules and missions by early Jan if not by the end of the month. In general it will all be slight changes like VP's instead of units which I guess for some guys means a change to your list and if so might as well plan on it.

    I am also glad about all the feedback and "harsh criticisms" that I find here so keep it coming hey maybe you can be the next Dodger and have your suggestions used. This event is supposed to be a 40K community event and I am glad to have so many involved. While W/L is not new well not entirely anyway what I am trying to do is find a good balance between keeping it modest on the field like everyone says W/L does and also find a fair way to rank players. As much as I like the idea of tied W/L records getting the same prizes I think it really fits better to small events. I am giving out prizes to top 5 and they are not that bad at all for this size event. But if you think you will walk away empty handed there will be all kinds of additional prizes and awards given away. I don't want people walking out empty handed because they lost just as I want to see players awarded for how well they did for the day. I have 3 tie breakers based on your ability to lead your army and if after these players are still tied then I guess they are deserving of sharing the same rank. That was all covered in the rules posting though.

    Thanks again guys.

    ReplyDelete
  22. After reading (most of) what's here, I have a few things to insert...

    Personally, I have no problem with making certain units worth more in certain missions - because in others, other units have the same benefit/handicap.

    As the TO said - a generally well built list will be the one to have the advantage, and I think encouraging this is good.

    If you build a list with few troops, you'll be golden in one mission, but hurting in another - for you, it will balance out.

    As to the 'bad match up' argument... that's a fact of life, especially in tournaments.

    The idea of being able to combat squad or split platoons being too effective... I keep going back in forth in my mind.

    In the end, I don't think it's any more powerful here, really, than in any other troops-only scoring scenario.

    As to transports and whatever else scoring... interesting and different, which I like to see. The same 9 missions (3, really) do tend to get old after... you know... more than 20 games.

    In the end, if you don't like it, don't go. They'll probably change it up for next time if no one shows.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Though he's already agreed to change it, I'd like to respond to this:

    "The idea of being able to combat squad or split platoons being too effective... I keep going back in forth in my mind.

    In the end, I don't think it's any more powerful here, really, than in any other troops-only scoring scenario.

    As to transports and whatever else scoring... interesting and different, which I like to see. The same 9 missions (3, really) do tend to get old after... you know... more than 20 games."

    Not even remotely the same thing as a normal, Troops-scoring scenario. It would be INFINITELY more powerful in the scenarios suggested here. Why?

    No contesting.

    If you have twelve Troop units and I only have three in a normal objective game, you have an advantage. But there are still only 2-5 objectives on the board for you to hold, and the presence of ANY one of my units makes an infinite amount of your Troop units meaningless, as the objective will just end contested. You don't see people sit four Combat Squads onto one Objective, because there's no benefit in doing so.

    Change this to just a COMPARISON of "units" rather than a Hold/Contest of Troops and the situation goes completely insane. Instead of a Land Raider contesting an objective, it's now cancelling out one half of the first Combat Squad. The other half of the Combat Squad is making that quarter a win.

    When some armies field 3-4 times the amount of units of other armies, there's no conceivable way to make that a fair game. It has virtually nothing in common with a standard Hold/Contest mission.

    ReplyDelete
  24. is this event full and if its not what do i need to do to guarantee a spot?

    ReplyDelete
  25. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I dont like these missions at all. My blood angels jumper army gives up 4760 VP in mission one and 2040 in mission two. Sure makes a difference there. I guess I could just bring my loganwing and table kids every game.

    6 turns every game, all units scoring in some objectives, guess I should bring my mech eldar and play likes its 2006 all over again.

    The missions though scream bad match ups and comp. I play someone in mission one with my jumpers, they are running eldar with minimal troops, they can win. Round 2 I play the same player and they get slaughtered based off the same objective.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I live in the UK, and couldn't attend if I wanted to. However, I have an opinion, and it isn't positive.

    I think you're trying to do far too much, when missions should be simple enough to memorise the night before if necessary.

    I think triple points on anything is terrible. I also think Victory Points are symptomatic of bad mission design in 5e, and should only be a tie-breaker.

    Very briefly, why:

    4e Codexes are often based upon fewer, more expensive units, for instance a Jetlock Council, that will often run around 500 points.

    5e Codexes are more often based on either MSUs or resilent expensive units, like TH/SS, TWC, IG Blobs - all of which are MUCH less than 4e 'deathstars' for greater killing ability.

    This gives the 4e Codexes a disadvantage to the point where it is conceivable that a badly build 4e army is beaten on T1 by a 5e army that gets far enough ahead on just REGULAR KPs. See, for instance, if a double Seer Council got blasted a few times, and a PBS made them flee off-table, before Fortune was cast.

    Sure, they deployed badly or whatever if that occurred - but it penalises the Codexes that need the help most.

    The game already does that, TOs shouldn't join in.

    IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I would really like to know what i need to do to get into this tournament. I have a group of guys that are ready to come from ohio and throw some dice. I have called the store and posted here. (dude at the store is cool he just has no information for me on this.)

    What do i need to do? I can pre pay or what ever you need.

    ReplyDelete

Recent Favorites

All-Time Favorites