[Plainville MA] Warhammer 40k 1850pt Singles Tournament - 3/30/2013

[Dan Bunker]

The scouring book mission is by far the worst. I've had it happen more then once where my opponent has 10 of the objective points in there deployment zone. Makes it even worse if you use the long depolyment. If you keep things even with each player having a 3,2,1 it will allow for a normal game, not a unfair advantage for 1 person just based off of luck during set up.
I understand wanting to keep as close to the rule book as possible but if games workshop had any clue how to write the rules they wouldn't have 100's of pages of erratas and FAQs.

[Benjamin]

To be more specific, here's what I envisioned for the Scouring mission.

Six objectives scoring 4,3,3,2,2,1 like the book. Players roll off to determine who places the first objective (of their choosing). Players then alternate until each objective is placed. Players then roll for Deployment, etc. So worst case scenario, yes there are 10 points on one side, if you allow that to happen. Objective placement could be tweaked too (distance from each other, board edge, etc) to force at least some of them toward the middle of the board.

Sidebar: I just realized, if the values of the objectives are each increased by 1 point (objectives of values 5,4,4,3,3,2), that brings their sum to 21 points, which is exactly the number the primary objective would be worth for Adepticon scoring.

[Dan Bunker]

Adepticon totally changed their scoring this year. I would suggest against making the primary worth however many points of objectives you control per person. This would give a huge advantage to armies that generate extra troops. i.e. tyranids and daemons.

[Sir_Prometheus]

To be more specific, here's what I envisioned for the Scouring mission.

Six objectives scoring 4,3,3,2,2,1 like the book. Players roll off to determine who places the first objective (of their choosing). Players then alternate until each objective is placed. Players then roll for Deployment, etc. So worst case scenario, yes there are 10 points on one side, if you allow that to happen. Objective placement could be tweaked too (distance from each other, board edge, etc) to force at least some of them toward the middle of the board.

Sidebar: I just realized, if the values of the objectives are each increased by 1 point (objectives of values 5,4,4,3,3,2), that brings their sum to 21 points, which is exactly the number the primary objective would be worth for Adepticon scoring.

This is good, this is how it should happen.  Go Ben!

[Sir_Prometheus]

I feel if a player loads up on Heavy and/or Fast choices, they are likely to find their lists imbalanced for other missions. I personally never thought it was a good idea to make these different slots scoring units, but this whole tournament concept is "by the book" as much as possible.

Well, let me give you an example of what I was talking about.  I'm working on variations of my standard Tau+GK list.  Recent codex/meta changes have made me think I need to void cover saves more, so I was thinking more pathfinders with markerlights.

Now, I could use 1 group 8 pathfinders with a devil fish, and use that to transport firewarriors (for whom I would have bought a DF, anyway).  Or I could use 2 groups of 4, using the two DFs for two groups of FWs.

Same cost, but one has two fast attack units (both the pathfinders and the DF, 3 with the drones) while the other has 4 (or 6).  Having the FA yield bonus pts makes me think extra about taking 2 smaller pathfinder choices, which I actually think is a good thing.

I'm not super worried about this.  It's a book mission and has book mission issues.  The number of points each objective is worth will be determined randomly. 4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1 is likely what we'll go wit

I'm a little worried you're not worried.  Not to be dramatic about it, but you ran it like this at the doubles, I and I don't think it was a good scenario. 

Ben's idea about having people place objectives first is good. 

And for the record, I really LIKE hammer and Anvil deployment, I think you should definitely use it, and it's fine even with tables end to end.  I just think it's the worst in combination with letting players place the objectives. 

[Chase]

What happened to the book missions being extremely balanced?

I mean, we can change everything around like normal or we can stick with the book.  The idea here is that we'd do an event as close to "by the book" as possible in an effort to give the vocal few what they wanted and to see how it went.

Any mission where players place objectives has the potential to be mismatched, which is half the point.  This is ENTIRELY different than the scenario from the doubles in that each player has an equal number of markers to place and the points each marker is worth are determined at random.

If players place all of their markers as far away from their opponent as possible they run the risk of being rewarded big and penalized big equally.  If this is how the players choose the outcome of their game, I'm okay with that.

I sure as hell wouldn't want to risk something like that.

[Sir_Prometheus]

Ok. Then let players place terrain. Have first blood, warlord, line breaker worth just as much as as scoring an objective. Kiling a FA during scouring, too.

I'm not sure any of that addresses player placed objectives. (Well terrain placement does, somewhat). But the point is, even if the BRB missions WERE perfectly balanced, once you've changed one thing, they're not balanced anymore, so additional changes may be required.

Like Ben said, let players place before picking sides. I saw this misdion before, it wasnt great. The fact that there's an even number this time helps though.

Random value of objectives is a different subject, I think.

[PhoenixFire]

Personally i like Hammer and Anvil, it worked fine at the doubles in Abington and you had twice the people with really close tables.

Placing terrain is a recipe for disaster and is never done at tournament so i don't know why we would start now

random value of objectives was one of my favorite missions at templecon, you would need 6 objectives (or an even amount of objectives) to make it "fair" however

static objectives are fine for some missions, but i'd prefer not to have static objectives in all 3 games

[Chase]

Personally i like Hammer and Anvil, it worked fine at the doubles in Abington and you had twice the people with really close tables.

This heavily depends on if I up the event to 40 players or not.  If we go to 40 the way we have to build the room may not work well with H&A.  People learning on foam tables on sawhorses and stuff like that...

Placing terrain is a recipe for disaster and is never done at tournament so i don't know why we would start now

This is correct for SO many reasons.

random value of objectives was one of my favorite missions at templecon, you would need 6 objectives (or an even amount of objectives) to make it "fair" however

I agree.  I think the concept is awesome.  I also think it's a lot more complex than people realize.

static objectives are fine for some missions, but i'd prefer not to have static objectives in all 3 games

I agree.  It's boring.

[Benjamin]

I agree with Chase (surprise!).

I too prefer in general players placing their own objectives.

The Emperor's Will Never Tires is designed exactly the way it is with 5 fixed objectives, mostly out of simplicity in terms of comprehension. (You pick up the mission for the first time, do you understand it?) I don't know if it's an elegant solution, but the mission would be a complete mess to explain otherwise.

Purge the Alien Relic has one fixed objective, at least to start the game. That one is not my fault.

[Chancetragedy]

Hi guys this will be my first BG event and I can't wait to meet some new people and expand my playgroup hopefully!

Im not a fan of H&A as I don't believe it rewards tactical aggressive play.  Especially if we're cramped and can't get around the tables easily.  Although from what I just read in the thread I think it would be fine.  I actually really like the ability to place objectives as I feel it helps as a general no matter what army you play.  I'm very excited to be coming out for this though so I'm pretty cool with whatever. 

And to the painting thing I don't think it should be required for general tournaments ever. Because like chase said you want them to be accessible to everyone.  With that being said my army is painted but not yet based so take that for whatever. Just my 2 cents ;p

[Loranus]

>.> Not even a whole penny only 2/100 of a penny. You will have fun at this event trust me on this one. I am determined to try and have my army painted for this event because I have been lazy about it at every other tournament I been too.

[Chase]

We have 40 people registered.  We're upping the cap to 40.

Who needs sleep?

[Loranus]

I do I need to replace the serpentine belt on my car. Replace the Spark Plugs and the Plug wires and try to find the oxygen sensors replace them too so I can not have my car demolish itself the day before the tournament like the last time.

[Erich]

We have 40 people registered.  We're upping the cap to 40.

Who needs sleep?

That's a lot of people.