Thoughts on the Abington Doubles?

[Benjamin]

The rounds were long for this event. 2.5 hours + 15 minutes deployment.

Were players able to finish rounds in that time? Were many people hanging around waiting for others to finish? How long do you think is appropriate for an event like this?

[the_trooper]

The rounds were long for this event. 2.5 hours + 15 minutes deployment.

Were players able to finish rounds in that time? Were many people hanging around waiting for others to finish? How long do you think is appropriate for an event like this?

My personal experience of this was that only one game seemed like we didn't have enough time. The rest were ok.  I'm going to attribute this to the nature of a doubles game and my own issue with having a 100% grasp of the rules.

Also, the atmosphere was very jovial which lead to a more relaxed feel of things. Chatting and joking during deployment was a time burglar. This isn't a criticism, I think having some time with each set of opponents to joke around actually added greatly to my enjoyment of the event as a whole.

[GossWeapon]

She steal my money

[Sir_Prometheus]

(actually I guess Matt Bennett was running a FW HQ, but didn't use any of its special rules against us except maybe a marker light drone?

He has an assault 2 plasma rifle (instead of rapid fire).  Other than that, his rules are not terribly meaningful. I took the marker light drone because he has a drone controller and so has to take a drone and I wanted to try out that one.  It was better than I thought it was going to be--mostly cuz it always hit.   

I mostly took him because I like the model.  I even had the Taros book in my bag, but no one asked to see it. 

Also, thanks to our opponents for three fun games and being good sports- Bill, Keith, Matt, Will, Tiago & Matt.  Cheers, guys!

We had fun too.  Lost horribly, but had a lot of fun.


The tournament was quite fun, I'd totally do it again, so I'm just commenting on how things could be better. 

For mission input I'd say the emphasis on having one unit from each team to do ANYTHING (objectives, table quarters, linebreaker) was a little heavy.  I think it's fine to have it like once, for flavor, but if a team like ours had one detachment with 3 troops, and the other with 2.....well, then you effectively had 2 troops, not 5.  And of course, if one team member had an army that wanted to hang back (like Tau) and the other charge forward (like Khorne) then you have situation where both team members rarely want to be in the same place.  You could say that's encouraging people to run the same thing, like dual Ravenwing or tyranids, but is that really what you want?  The battle brother rules already incentivise that a great deal.

Just saying, it started making me feel a little claustrophobic towards the end of the day, once we realized.  Which we also didn't until round 2. 

I would also not allow custom placement of objectives on hammer and anvil. 

And the bonus points, one was worth 1, the other 2, and the other 3.  That's fine, but shouldn't they be switched up?  I don't see why slay the warlord should be worth more than first blood every single turn. 

[Chase]

And the bonus points, one was worth 1, the other 2, and the other 3.  That's fine, but shouldn't they be switched up?  I don't see why slay the warlord should be worth more than first blood every single turn.

People complained that they were switched up the last time I used them (and switched them up).  I still don't understand the issue with switching them was and personally, I think it's a LOT better TO switch them, but people complained... so I didn't.

Maybe it's the perceived difficulty in achiever them?

Damned if you do, damned if you dont. 

[Chase]

Actually, now that keith brought it up I agree about the last mission.  If I had been playing for anything other than fun in the last game I might have cared about that more.

The table I was on was particularly ill-suited to this mission.   There was a giant Fortress of Redemption (completely blocking line of sight for anything but a flyer) stretching most of the way across the board, width-wise, about 24" from one of the short edges.   There was about an 8" gap between either end of the fortress and the long board edges.   So, my opponents won the roll to pick table halves, picked the end with the Fortress on it, and put 3 objectives as close as legal to their short table edge.    In certain combinations of armies that could pretty much have won them the game right there.   In the case of our game, it certainly wasn't the biggest reason we lost... but it could have been in a different situation...

I can pretty much guarantee that the tables were not set up with Hammer and Anvil deployment in mind.  Even setting up the tables at the 500 point event was more of a challenge because I was trying to consider Hammer and Anvil.

It's a flaw in the fact that we set up the tables ahead of time.

[Grand Master Steve]

One of my Critera for a 40k event is am I walking away being able to say "Man when such and such happened that was bad ass!" and the answer to that is yes very much so. Lots of epicness happened and people that I played at least had fun, there were a few sour apples but ya know what? they were dealt with im sure by getting trashed in the "players choice".

I dont care about winning, loosing, i care about Players Choice, that tells me people had a good time playing me win or loose and liked how my stuff looked and my army was not a slice of cheese. It seems to me people loose track of that which back in the day was a huge part and BG still makes it one of the tournaments. Back in the day even if you won all your games but people thought your army was cheesy you were not walking away with the grand prize.

[PhoenixFire]

The rounds were long for this event. 2.5 hours + 15 minutes deployment.

Were players able to finish rounds in that time? Were many people hanging around waiting for others to finish? How long do you think is appropriate for an event like this?

IMO the 2.5 hrs were definitely needed as doubles tends to take longer and it was 2000 points. As to how to resolve it for the future, i think it was Achilles who mentioned starting early which is probably the best way to handle the situation. I certainly don't mind getting there at 9 or 930 if it means i'll be leaving at a reasonable hour. I would say it's better for our friends in CT and NH but that just means they will have to get up earlier to get here.

I would also not allow custom placement of objectives on hammer and anvil.   

We had custom placement of objectives on hammer and anvil at templecon as well but i didn't really see it as an issue then or yesterday.The difference is those objectives were randomly worth 2, 3 and 4 points each which perhaps is something Chase and the team could apply to an upcoming mission packet.

The aforementioned "Fortress of Redemption" barricading an entire table side certainly IS an issue but that can be resolved by just not using massive pieces of terrain in the future.

And the bonus points, one was worth 1, the other 2, and the other 3.  That's fine, but shouldn't they be switched up?  I don't see why slay the warlord should be worth more than first blood every single turn.

I would agree that Slay the Warlord and Linebreaker could certainly be changed up. However i would argue First Blood should remain the least (or tied for the least) amount of points awarded as it is generally guaranteed to go to whomever goes first depending on considerations such as numbers of vehicles or small units in your opponents army, placement and if the Emperor flicked the Night Fight switch on or off....

I still think it's hilarious that all our troops serving at home and overseas have night vision gear but 40,000 years in the future it's apparently rare technology, then again i guess game was created in the early 80's.

[keithb]

The rounds were long for this event. 2.5 hours + 15 minutes deployment.

Were players able to finish rounds in that time? Were many people hanging around waiting for others to finish? How long do you think is appropriate for an event like this?

IMO the 2.5 hrs were definitely needed as doubles tends to take longer and it was 2000 points. As to how to resolve it for the future, i think it was Achilles who mentioned starting early which is probably the best way to handle the situation. I certainly don't mind getting there at 9 or 930 if it means i'll be leaving at a reasonable hour. I would say it's better for our friends in CT and NH but that just means they will have to get up earlier to get here.

I would also not allow custom placement of objectives on hammer and anvil.   

We had custom placement of objectives on hammer and anvil at templecon as well but i didn't really see it as an issue then or yesterday.The difference is those objectives were randomly worth 2, 3 and 4 points each which perhaps is something Chase and the team could apply to an upcoming mission packet.

The aforementioned "Fortress of Redemption" barricading an entire table side certainly IS an issue but that can be resolved by just not using massive pieces of terrain in the future.

And the bonus points, one was worth 1, the other 2, and the other 3.  That's fine, but shouldn't they be switched up?  I don't see why slay the warlord should be worth more than first blood every single turn.

I would agree that Slay the Warlord and Linebreaker could certainly be changed up. However i would argue First Blood should remain the least (or tied for the least) amount of points awarded as it is generally guaranteed to go to whomever goes first depending on considerations such as numbers of vehicles or small units in your opponents army, placement and if the Emperor flicked the Night Fight switch on or off....

I still think it's hilarious that all our troops serving at home and overseas have night vision gear but 40,000 years in the future it's apparently rare technology, then again i guess game was created in the early 80's.

At templecon, the hammer and anvil mission had both players with an equal number of objectives, rather than one player having 3 and the other 2.

[Ian Mulligan]

Loved the event. Only a few things could be improved.

1) Time. As stated by others, it was a long day. There were always teams playing after time was called, leading me to believe the 10 minute NO MOAR TURNZ rule may have been overlooked a few times. I also saw some deployment taking more time than I would have expected. im sure a fair amount was due to the fact that it was doubles and one of the first 6th events a lot of people played.

2) Space between tables was a little rough at times. My last round, I felt more comfortable standing in the main aisle of the store and only approaching a long edge when I had to.

[Sir_Prometheus]

And the bonus points, one was worth 1, the other 2, and the other 3.  That's fine, but shouldn't they be switched up?  I don't see why slay the warlord should be worth more than first blood every single turn.

People complained that they were switched up the last time I used them (and switched them up).  I still don't understand the issue with switching them was and personally, I think it's a LOT better TO switch them, but people complained... so I didn't.

Maybe it's the perceived difficulty in achiever them?

Damned if you do, damned if you dont. 

I don't know why people don't want rotating bonus objectives.  Maybe you're talking about objections to only having SOME each  mission?  But if you're not rotating them, they need to be equal points.

i would argue First Blood should remain the least (or tied for the least) amount of points awarded

This reflects a common misunderstanding of the role First Blood plays.  It is common, but disappointing. 

[GossWeapon]

And the bonus points, one was worth 1, the other 2, and the other 3.  That's fine, but shouldn't they be switched up?  I don't see why slay the warlord should be worth more than first blood every single turn.

People complained that they were switched up the last time I used them (and switched them up).  I still don't understand the issue with switching them was and personally, I think it's a LOT better TO switch them, but people complained... so I didn't.

Maybe it's the perceived difficulty in achiever them?

Damned if you do, damned if you dont. 

I don't know why people don't want rotating bonus objectives.  Maybe you're talking about objections to only having SOME each  mission?  But if you're not rotating them, they need to be equal points.

i would argue First Blood should remain the least (or tied for the least) amount of points awarded

This reflects a common misunderstanding of the role First Blood plays.  It is common, but disappointing.

I'm gonna let you finish in a minute but I'd just like to say that Battleground's doubles tournament was the best doubles tournament of all time!

[Grand Master Steve]

I agree about the time issue. I say plenty of teams squeezing out turns in the last 10 minutes.

im not sure how space could be improved but I was rubbing butts with the guy at the table behind me.

[Chase]

I was surprised to see that Derek laid the room out how he did.  I'm betting it was done in an effort to save time by not rearranging the entire space.  I think the space issue will be an easy fix.

People seemed to really like the early start time at the 500 point event.  I suppose we need to move the start time of every event up to 10am.  Looks like I'll be skipping the start of every single one from here on out! 
It's always mind blowing to me that people want to wake up early on a Saturday, but I'll be the first to admit I operate on a different schedule than most.

I did foresee the issues you guys brought up with respect to the Hammer and Anvil mission and the way objectives were placed.  I didn't foresee it making for "auto win" or "auto lose" games.  I did consider making it 4 objectives AND making them each worth a random number of points, but I knew I wasn't going to be at the event and I didn't want to have to try to communicate what I meant and explain it to Derek super late the night before or in the morning.  I am a huge fan of objectives being worth a random number of points and I would expect to see us use that in the future, it's just sort of clunky to implement.  Still, I should have made it 4, especially as is was mission 3.



How much do I want to torture myself by trying to run a Singles event in Plainville the weekend after PAX?  Seems like a bad idea to me, but it's that or no 40k at BG in March.

Hmm...  A choice must be made soon...

[Bill]

An easy fix to the hammer and anvil/objective issue would be NOVA style objective placement. This is one of the situations where that would be highly appropriate. An objective in the center of each quarter and one center table would have made a huge difference and still have 5 objectives to place.