Results: 1850pt Onslaught GT Primer

[Chase]

[Typhus]

God, I'm terrible at this game.

[keithb]

Love to hear some feedback re: missions etc...

Was it too easy to 20-0 your opponent, too hard?

[PhoenixFire]

Love to hear some feedback re: missions etc...

Was it too easy to 20-0 your opponent, too hard?

I liked the missions, the mathhammer to score it at the end took some getting used to.

[Typhus]

Love to hear some feedback re: missions etc...

Was it too easy to 20-0 your opponent, too hard?

So the 1st mission we did was the 5/4/3/2/1 VP (depending on which way you were facing).  On the whole, it's a good dynamic to make armies that depend on being entrenched to get out and fight, as well as make you commit forces to going for the big gamble.

The 2nd Mission, while I understand the intent, I'm not too keen on a "disappearing" Relic; you pretty much have to wait till end game to try to take the relics, as my opponent and I simply waited till we knew which one was the fake, and then moved for it.  At that point, it's simply a game of "whomever kills the most stuff" type of game.

3rd Mission was the "count up points in your opponents phase" which has always just felt off in my experience.  It appears as if the missions are all based on being very, very aggressive with your list, and a lot of armies don't play that way- Which may be the intent, but it just feels like we (The player base) are being pushed down a path in order to win the scenario, and that feels off.  Maybe I'm wrong.

As for counting up points, it took a veeeeery long time for all of us to figure out how to score, and even with Sam's direction, it was a long process to tally up the points/get the sheets turned in.  As well, I think the math on the example was also wrong, which confused some of us.

So looking, it looks like there is a fairly large gap between tood/alex, and then Bill/Chris, and then a fair number in the mid-low thirties.  I'd say that overall, the design and points scoring is good as it tends to give a clear, decisive look.

[Cryptognomicon]

I agree that the disappearing objecting was kind of a pain.  If both players take the objective on their side of the table and then move towards the middle objective and it just happens that you are unlucky and the objective on your side goes away on turn two then you are at a big disadvantage at the beginning of the game due to "bad luck" not skill.   And the fact that it happens differently on different tables make each set of players playing under one of three different scenarios again all based on a un/lucky die roll. Not a fan of this as it is not balanced.

[Chancetragedy]

I loved mission1 and 3.  So my opponent had a pretty big firepower advantage in game 3 running ovesa star.  In a normal objective mission it would have been near impossible for me not to get tabled.  But I was able to slowly sacrifice units to score objectives and contest his while he kept killing mine for VP's.  It did end up in a tie but that's only because this was the first time we had played the mission and were getting used to cumulative scoring. 

Game 1 was the same thing I was facing gun line tau who normally would have blown me off the board before I could do anything.  But because of the objective setup I was able to play around with outflanking and take objectives at the end of the game. 

The math to figure out scores was a little cumbersome at first but by game 2 it seemed most people had it down.

I agree though I was not a fan of the disappearing relic. And I really wish we could just do away with the dataslate characters and supplemental codecii but I know that's not gonna happen so it's time to adjust.

[keithb]

I agree that the disappearing objecting was kind of a pain.  If both players take the objective on their side of the table and then move towards the middle objective and it just happens that you are unlucky and the objective on your side goes away on turn two then you are at a big disadvantage at the beginning of the game due to "bad luck" not skill.   And the fact that it happens differently on different tables make each set of players playing under one of three different scenarios again all based on a un/lucky die roll. Not a fan of this as it is not balanced.

 

Vanguard Strike deployment.  Place three objectives along the (diagonal) center line.  Each of these objectives is a Relic.  At the beginning of turn 2. A randomly determined Relic is removed from the table(roll a d3).  Each remaining relic is worth 4VPs if controlled at the end of the game.  A unit may only control one relic at a time. A model with the IC rule may not possess the relic by itself.
First Blood, Slay the warlord and line breaker are each worth 1 VP if achieved. 
Annihilation (each unit is worth 1VP if destroyed).

There shouldn't be a relic on anyone's side.  All should be in the neutral part.  not sure if they were printed the same at the event.

The idea behind one disappearing was that the player going first has less of an advantage as he would have to expose 3 units to claim all three, and one would not yeild a reward.

[Cryptognomicon]

We were playing vanguard for this mission so maybe that was the problem.  But either way, if there are troops on all three objectives and one randomly disappears there is a good chance that one of the players is going to be at the immediate disadvantage due to random dice roll that has nothing to do with player skill or tactics.

[Chase]

As well, I think the math on the example was also wrong, which confused some of us.

It was wrong.  I realized that at 3am.  Pressing the "5" key instead of the "7" didn't help.

Still, I didn't think it was difficult. 

[Chase]

For scenarios, I copy and pasted from the post Keith has up.  If they were edited somewhere else, I have not seen the updated versions.

[Sir_Prometheus]

I love mission 3, with the scoring over time.  I wouldn't mind if every mission was like that.

Mission 2 with the 3 relics, I like that there is more than 1 relic, but I don't like how one disappears, that's a random element that can be unfair, even understanding why you did it.  Doesn't just saying they can't be grabbed until turn 2 take care of that?

Mission 1.......I don't love the 5,4,3,2,1 thing, or perhaps more accurately, I don't love the extent of it.  It's all well and good to incentivise scoring deep into enemy territory, but some armies can't really do that, while it's very easy for others.  THis is basically the guardian jet bike / drop pod mission.  I guess I would just tone it down a little, somehow. 

[Typhus]

As well, I think the math on the example was also wrong, which confused some of us.

It was wrong.  I realized that at 3am.  Pressing the "5" key instead of the "7" didn't help.

Still, I didn't think it was difficult. 

I'M BAD AT MATH, MAN.

[Typhus]

There shouldn't be a relic on anyone's side.  All should be in the neutral part.  not sure if they were printed the same at the event.

The idea behind one disappearing was that the player going first has less of an advantage as he would have to expose 3 units to claim all three, and one would not yeild a reward.

I think there might have also been an issue on where to place the markers (or rather how far apart).  We measured out from corner to corner (i think its like 88 inches), so we placed one in the middle at 44, and then the other 2 1/2 way again, so 22 (and 66) respectively.  That way it was even down the middle no matter which corner we took.

[Bill]

Easy way to do it is the center of the unoccupied quarters. 18 from short board edge and 12 from long