1850pt Tournament: I want your feedback

[Chase]

Please post any / all feedback here.  Positive, negative, questions, concerns, scenario related stuff, how we ran it, rulings, the color of my sweatshirt, anything.

If you've got opinions, I'd like to hear them.


Results will go up on Monday.

[Chase]

I am bummed that we had ties at the top.  I felt like I made this event particularly difficult to tie... It's the only time I've tried to take extra steps to make sure it doesn't happen.  It's like the second time it ever has and it happened TWICE at the top. 

I guess I'm going to have to make things more difficult on you guys next time.

[keithb]

honestly chase, the issue is that at the size we are at, it really should be a 4-5 game event to remove the likelyhood of ties.

What you have right now, is that there can be several 2-0 players who don't play each other, and as a result can achieve the same objectives.  So it is always a possibility.   Just keep it difficult, but accept that it can happen.   Having clearly defined tie breaks helps a lot.

[PhoenixFire]

Like Keith said a 4th or 5th game would greatly reduce the possibility of ties. However its not really feasible until battlegrounds gets into the GT business and you have 2 days to spread things out over.

Another great tournament as usual, i wouldn't worry about the tie thing as much since as you said its only about the 2nd time it's happened.

Perhaps look at how Nova ran there missions now that we are in 6e (granted it was right after 6e came out and before the kinks were worked out). I guess we will have to wait a while longer to see how adepticon is going to do their missions in a 6e world

Looking forward to the next one and the invitational

[Bill]

I have to agree, there are a couple more things you can do (like sliding scale VP) that MAY help but it really comes down to the number of people and three rounds. Looking at it as a W/L thing (because complete draws are almost impossible between opponents) going into round 3 there are still 10 2-0 people with 40 people attending. The chances of 4 people out of 10 having really high scores (almost max first two rounds) and playing each other are pretty high. The issues isn't really the missions because per round I don't think many people scored the same Its the grand scheme. Like the others said if there was a 4th round there would be no chance of having an unclear winner. 

[BrianP]

From the perspective of someone who just wants to get out and play 3 games against new armies and opponents...

I really liked the missions in this event, compared to prior events (not to say those were bad, but there was no mission here where I felt I did not have a chance to accomplish all three objectives).

My only criticisms are that the point values for the tactical objectives changed each round... which seemed odd. One opponent did not even realize it and was going to lose out on points if I did not bring it up before signing his sheet. Along this same vein, I am not sure first blood should ever be the highest scored tactical objective... having a 50-50 shot to go first is not a tactical objective in my opinion.

The only other comment is on the deployment for the 3rd scenario (essentially Vanguard Strike) - I'm sure there were multiple contributing factors, but on some the lower tables (mine, the one to my left, and the one behind me for certain) we had no clue how to deploy at first. My table ended up figuring it out, but not before trying to deploy in a 21x14 triangle (TINY) rather than flipping the measurements. The table to my left just slapped a tape measure down across the diagonal and ended up ignoring the diagram altogether to setup their deployment zones. This confusion ate up the entire 15 minutes, and at least two of the three tables were still deploying when time had officially started (unsure of the third behind me, was too busy trying to throw my models on the table and get started). Now, that's at least 6 people of ~36 who were confused by it, and even if we were the only ones, that's 1/6th the crowd.

I understand the diagram was there to make things go faster/easier, since the table corners is a whacky deployment - but I would suggest either updating it a bit to be more clear, or using that deployment type first in the tourney so that players have the extra time to figure it out (since the first round always ends up having more time, due to players being at the table and ready to go long before the event actually starts).

[Benjamin]

Regarding draws, it's going to happen now and then for the reasons stated. Too many players, not enough rounds. There are two immediate solutions I see. Smaller games and faster rounds; or we embrace draws and have 1 round, 8 hour game of 5000 points. Other than that, BG would have to hold bigger events.

Regarding deployment/mission issues in the future, if there's ever any confusion, please utilize Sam the Battleground judge. He's there to make life easier.

[Bill]

This all being said: I had an amazing time and had three really fun games with no issues which is what it is about.

[andalucien]

The only complaint I have is that you have too many good players showing up for these tournaments.  I got paired against one in the first round and I lost.  If you could just tone that down a bit, it would be perfect.

[scrambles]

Hey Chase, it's Jeremiah.
I thought the tournament was great.

Although, I am highly in favor of composition points in terms of units.
For example, one point per unique unit.
For my army, I had:
2 company command quads
1 psyker battle squad
2 platooon squads
2 vendettas
1 Leman Russ
1 Basilisk
1 Manticore

This army would get a composition score of 4, for the battle squad, russ, basilisk, and manticore

A better composed army would look like
hq:1 command squad
1 Primaris psyker
elite:
1 pskyer battle squad
1 Stormtrooper squad
1 marbo
troop
1 platoon squad
4 vet squads
fast attack
1 valkyrie
1 vendetta
1 roughriders squad
heavy
1 russ
1 basilisk
1 manticore

This would result in a total of 12 points
So, if the armies were to play each other, even if the redundancy list won 1st, tied 2nd, tied 3rd, and received 31 points plus tactical bonus of 6 and composition 4 (41 points), the loser would get 10 points plus 4 tactical (for instance) and 12 composition, for 26 points total.

This would also help to ensure that players who win with max points, would further differ depending on their composition.

This also helps to somewhat balance out the kill-points objectives. A lot of armies are able to circumvent kill points games by simply having a small number of high costed units.

Just a thought.

[PhoenixFire]

Hey Chase, it's Jeremiah.
I thought the tournament was great.

Although, I am highly in favor of composition points in terms of units.
For example, one point per unique unit.
For my army, I had:
2 company command quads
1 psyker battle squad
2 platooon squads
2 vendettas
1 Leman Russ
1 Basilisk
1 Manticore

This army would get a composition score of 4, for the battle squad, russ, basilisk, and manticore

A better composed army would look like
hq:1 command squad
1 Primaris psyker
elite:
1 pskyer battle squad
1 Stormtrooper squad
1 marbo
troop
1 platoon squad
4 vet squads
fast attack
1 valkyrie
1 vendetta
1 roughriders squad
heavy
1 russ
1 basilisk
1 manticore

This would result in a total of 12 points
So, if the armies were to play each other, even if the redundancy list won 1st, tied 2nd, tied 3rd, and received 31 points plus tactical bonus of 6 and composition 4 (41 points), the loser would get 10 points plus 4 tactical (for instance) and 12 composition, for 26 points total.

This would also help to ensure that players who win with max points, would further differ depending on their composition.

This also helps to somewhat balance out the kill-points objectives. A lot of armies are able to circumvent kill points games by simply having a small number of high costed units.

Just a thought.

Granted i don't know a lot about composition points but it basically sounds like it would severely handicap certain lists and codex's.

Some codexs like Grey Knights for example ONLY have high cost units (except perhaps for a warband list) and are going to be at an advantage for kill point objectives anyways.

While Imperial Guard and Orcs units are so cheap they are handicapped at kill points but would get crazy amounts of composition points.

i'm really not in favor of being forced to diversify certain army lists just to get composition points, and as long as you have other objectives along with kill points the problem is going to take care of itself. Oh you only have 6 kill points because you brought all Paladins? Thats a shame because there are 6 objectives to hold

[Benjamin]

Regarding army list composition, I can only be blunt. We've had the conversation here before. BG acknowledges composition as part of the Player's Choice sheet, and that's as far as it'll ever go.

[scrambles]

Regarding army list composition, I can only be blunt. We've had the conversation here before. BG acknowledges composition as part of the Player's Choice sheet, and that's as far as it'll ever go.

Really? I had no idea that was on the player's choice sheet. I saw "cool theme", but who's supposed to know what that means? Paintstyle? Specific units? A backstory?

[Loranus]

The choices pretty much were. Really Fluffy. Cool Backstory. Decent army in the Lore. Kinda pushing it. And straight up cheese.

[scrambles]

Yeah, I'm just pretty sure people don't understand that question, or the rubric of the question itself is negligible.