Todd's post obviously makes the most important point here: no matter what you do, you aren't going to please everyone, and people are going to continue to play the way they prefer regardless. In this regard, changing things to try and make people happy is a bit of a farce; for every person you make happy by nerfing invisibility, you probably make another one mad they can't use it the same way. The takeaway here is that change for change's sake just makes more work for you guys.
Ian's remarks earlier, though facetious, touch on a key theme throughout the length and breadth of 40k: people hate things that mess up their army and love things that they have already adapted to. The Necron guy is always going to feel assault is too good; the Ork guy will always feel like they don't have enough charge range; the Tau gunline guy will hate Tactical Objectives because he has to actually move to win the game; the Daemon guy will feel like FMCs and mass psychic powers are perfectly fine, etc. etc. It's often so obvious that I can guess what army a person plays by what they want changed.
However I will be hiring an assistant to keep track of all the book keeping during my games from here on out because that stuff is crazy!
Having three cards in my hand that told me my objectives didn't seem all that different from having a tournament packet doing the same, frankly. I found this to be one of the simplest tournament mission sets I've seen in a while, actually: this is one of the big successes of this event to me -- the mission packet was nice and clean, and the cards made it very simple to keep track of what was going on turn to turn. People WITHOUT the cards probably had a harder experience for sure, but with the cards it was very easy for my team. We just kept the active ones out, and then flipped the capped ones into our box. I liked it largely because we didn't have to keep much track of them; once capped we just put them aside. I like the cards because you can do a lot of creative stuff with them as an event organizer in terms of missions. So they have some utility/novelty, at least.
Plus, the scoreboard looks to me pretty much comparable to previous events, at least the names I recognize are in the usual places (including my own near the bottom...WOO!). So they can't have changed things too much, no?
It wasn't random, I lost the other day even after inflicting mass genocide on the other army. Either way you cut it the cards are not balanced. But I'd be interested in starting a poll and seeing what is the consensus.
I don't know. For one thing, it's equally random for all players involved. To me, this is on the player if someone ignored the objective (and presumably pushed for a tabling). I get that the game is supposed to emulate war, but it is still a game, and capping objectives of some kind is how you win the game.
I'm not saying you shouldn't get credit if you wipe the opponent, mind you. It's just not an effectivre argument against tactical objectives to say that you almost wiped someone and still lost. No version of the game has ever rewarded us for
almost wiping out the enemy but getting no points along the way, after all.
