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

[Benjamin]

I can appreciate the tactical challenges H&A presents, and I'm all for different things. But unless I can walk around a table, I don't like the challenge it presents in actually playing the game.

[Tharcil]

One logistical improvement that could help might be to leave a gap between the tables and the windows in the front of the store to improve traffic.  Would be nice not just for Hammer and Anvil, but also just getting around between games, moving your deep-striking models on the other side, and so you don't have to ask the same people to move to get by each time you do need to move.

[mchlwllms]

tall people like/don't mind hammer and anvil and people who can't or have trouble reaching the other side of the table hate it

I can reach the other side of a table and I mind it simply because of what Ben said, I always feel uncomfortable being asked to determine LOS/ models under a blast on my own models. I always give an honest answer, but I am also worried that my opponent may have derived a different conclusion. Hammer and Anvil isn't bad when you can easily manage to circumnavigate the table, but in a packed store this isn't a realistic possibility. Not really sure what the best solution is for utilizing it in tournaments though.

[Sir_Prometheus]

I thought the missions were damn near perfect.  We should do it like this every time. 

[Chase]

I thought the missions were damn near perfect.  We should do it like this every time.

I have heard surprising little about what people thought of the scenarios this time around.  I guess that's a good thing?

I have heard that people were not a fan of placing six objectives (three a piece) at 4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1.  People suggested that we do 3, 2, 1 and each person places one of each, determined randomly.  I feel like that sort of gets away from the book a bit, but /shrug, who knows.

Did people think that counting heavies and fast attacks as double points towards the tertiary was "enough" in the missions where they scored?

[Sir_Prometheus]

I thought randomizing the objectives in a sensible manner was actually a little laborious.  I thought the spacing you came up with for the objectives was very good, worked perfectly to make sure they were pretty spread around, even thought the players were given some choice.  Generally speaking, I always prefer things to be less random, so having each player have a 3,2, and a 1, would be both fair and less pina to randomize. 

I....did not notice that heavies and FA were worth double victory points in the appropriate mission.  Hrmm.  I didn't lose any of either, but it theoretically could have gotten me 2 more pts against Erich turn 2.  (but probably not enough difference).  Good thing I was 3 pts behind Jared. 

The victory pts tended to not to have huge swings, I'd actually probably just count destroyed Heavy and FA as extra bonus pts in those missions.  I know I preach zero-sum but a few bonus pts here an there are fine. 

[PhoenixFire]

the point value objectives were awesome. opened up new strategic planning instead of the old 'get as many objectives as possible' now you could sit on 2 and win by points.

i still think the most fair way to do it is each side gets an equal number of points. the randomness of one side possibly getting the 4 and two 3s makes his oppenent have no choice but to charge in

[mchlwllms]

Besides my complaining about Hammer and Anvil, I liked the missions. Hammer and Anvil was also a lot of fun, but I got lucky to have an end table which made it really nice.