Battleground 40k Invitational Scenarios - BETA

[Sir_Prometheus]

Right, and everyone does as they say, all the time.

I'll repeat -- the 6th ed scenarios are surprisingly balanced.  The more you mess with them, you are probably making them worse, not better. 

[Benjamin]

Right, and everyone does as they say, all the time.

I'll repeat -- the 6th ed scenarios are surprisingly balanced.  The more you mess with them, you are probably making them worse, not better.

So you've said that I shouldn't follow the spirit of the game as printed, but that I should follow the missions as printed.

[Sir_Prometheus]

I am saying, that I think the spirit of the game, and the scenarios, are in alignment, even though you do not think they are.  And therefore, when you tinker with them, you are doing more harm than good.

I say that First Blood is a good thing, and it is balanced, and good for competitive play.  You do not think so, and are seeking to remove or minimize it, and think that is damaging, rather than good. 

I am glad that you changed the Relic mission to be 3 relics, but with one more significantly more important....I think that is MUCH better than having 2 relics, somewhat better than having 3 equal relics.  I don't know that it is as good as having just 1 relic...but variety is the spice of life, so I'm with you on that. 

[keithb]

The whole notion of first turn V. second turn is nonsense.

Some armes/lists WANT to go first, some want to go second.  All first blood does is give more of a benefit to armies that want to go for first anyways.

It also clearly give more of a benefit to armies with more ranged power, as they are more likely to score the first kill.

How/why is this good or balanced?

[Benjamin]

There's an easy solution to this. Rather than this fruitless postulation, someone just show me a "6th Edition tournament" that works.

[Grimwulfe]

Nova
DaBoyz
CSM Invitational

Just to name 3, I am sure there are many more successful 6th edition Tournaments...

[Sir_Prometheus]

Nova
DaBoyz
CSM Invitational

Just to name 3, I am sure there are many more successful 6th edition Tournaments...

Seconded.

Feast of Blades was a little over represented on kill points, but otherwise was very 6th edition. 

The whole notion of first turn V. second turn is nonsense.

Start with a bad postulate, you'll get nonsense corollaries.

Some armes/lists WANT to go first, some want to go second.  All first blood does is give more of a benefit to armies that want to go for first anyways.

I think this has more to do with the mission and matchup than you give credit.  It could be the mixed nature of my list, but whether *I* want to go first or second varies.

It also clearly give more of a benefit to armies with more ranged power, as they are more likely to score the first kill.

That's certainly true, at least.  Y'know, unless facing an infinite tide of bugs, the major elements of which are virtually unkillable. 

How/why is this good or balanced?

BECAUSE 5/6 of mission types are objective based, and going second makes it much easier to score and contest and manipulate objectives. 

[keithb]

Right because how it impacts your army and your games is what determines whether it is balanced or a good idea. 

[Benjamin]

NOVA used table quarters and modified Kill Points, while also completely ignoring the new definition of Victory Points. So that's not a 6th Edition tournament.

Feast of Blades Invitational ran 2000 points, but without Double FOC. So that's not a 6th Edition tournament.

It took me 10 minutes to figure out CSM stood for Cold Steel Mercenaries. So let's not say a tournament's success is based on whether I've heard about it, but rather the content of its missions. ... which I can't find. This example is already impressing me greatly.

[The Everliving]

You didn't hear about the invitational because its invite only. Now into its 4th year and obviously this year we ran with 6th edition.

Anyway, the missions were all straight from the book. Scoring was also straight from the book (objectives 3pts each, first blood, linebreaker and warlord all 1pt) with the winner of each game picking up 2 points (1 for a tie and 0 for a loss). Every round there was also a secret and random mission objective for each player that they got 3 points for if it was completed. 3 guys from your store took part - ask them what they thought.

The missions as you have them seem okay, though I can't say I'm wild about the one that requires at least 4 troops choices to even have a chance of max points - some armies have inherently better troops than others - I think it should be a denial or scoring unit but thats just me.

I do think you should use mission types like Big Guns and Scouring on at least two of the missions. I also think you should use the secondary objectives from the book (linebreaker etc) to be worth an additional 3 points each.

I think the missions in 6th edition are generally very good and most attempts to tinker with them result in less balanced missions. That being said I do appreiate the chance to look at the Beta ahead of time to get an idea of what type of tournament I'll be playing in.

[Benjamin]

How do Big Guns help balance a mission for an army with inherently weak(er) Heavy Support options?

Every round there was also a secret and random mission objective for each player that they got 3 points for if it was completed.

So those missions were tweaked, too, and the word random really implies one player could get an easier secret mission objective over his opponent. Don't get me wrong, that sounds like it could be a fun idea. But the discussion is whether the 6th Edition missions are good enough on their own.

Also, the lateral table quarters mission is revised and I'll be posting up that up in a few seconds. But to the point that some books have worse Troops, that's what I'm told Allies are for.

[The Everliving]

I'm not going to argue with you. You're designing the tournament and a number of people have given feedback already.

I always have a good time at Battlegrounds tournaments and I'm sure this won't disappoint either.

If its possible I would like to start a little earlier. Some of us are travelling a long way to play and the late start means a late finish.

[Benjamin]

I'm not going to argue with you. You're designing the tournament and a number of people have given feedback already.

I don't see this as an argument, but rather a discussion and a rather valuable one to me and the BG community.

I keep hearing, "Just run the book missions!" If that's what people really want in the future, it needs to be discussed, and there's no time like the present. BG is currently only planning for 3 Round events, a number which requires a tournament design that I feel must heavily modify 6th in order to produce clear winners.

I'll inquire about earlier start times. Personally, I'd rather have them start and end earlier. But then again, I'm not running the store.

[Grimwulfe]

Ben I do hate to say this but you are comming off as arguing just to argue.  Multiple Grand Tourny attendees have given you feedback some who have won multiple GT's like Alex and you are shooting down their feedback without really considering it.

Now please this is only the way I am seeing it and is based only on my observations I do not mean to slam you in anyway.  We all know how much effort you are putting into running a great event and the feeback that has been offered is only meant to help. 

I also second the notion of starting earlier to help those travelling from afar and to give us more drinking time afterwards...

[Banosby]

What's Ben supposed to do? He's receiving (partially) contradictory input from your multiple GT winners, and they (and everyone who has offered input) are a relatively small proportion of the invitees. I am confident that he's taking everything onboard, but he's hinted multiple times that the missions are more or less set at this juncture, as they should be. Making significant changes to the missions (and adding in linebreaker or whatever would certainly be significant) three weeks before the tournament would likely upset a bunch of the attendees (remember, we've had input from maybe 1/6 of the field despite a majority of them clearly being aware of it; presumably the rest are happy enough with the missions as-is).

The lesson, I think, is that if this a conversation that's going to be had, it should be had several months prior to a tournament.  But spilt milk and all that.