Battleground Games Forum
Games Workshop => Warhammer 40K => Topic started by: Chase on February 17, 2013, 12:51:54 AM
-
So it's over. I hope everyone had a good time.
Putting the missions together was sort of tricky in that I wanted to try and keep things simple, but also wanted to have SOME team element involved. I felt like they were kind of dry, but I was alright with that. How did they play?
This event allowed every FW model that can be played outside of an Apocalypse game. Word is that no one voiced anything at all to the Abington staff one way or another. What did you all think about making the stuff available? I'm thinking it wasn't a big deal at all, right?
Comments? Questions? Thoughts?
-
Chase I greatly enjoyed the tournament. While I did not play any forge world lists, i would have had no problem doing so. The missions were well balanced in my opinion and were clear and to the point on what was needed for objectives. My only critique is the objectives that needed scoring units from both players should have been made in bold. We found out half way through the second game there was no way to achieve it since we took to many causalities same for our opponents.
-
Chase I greatly enjoyed the tournament.
This makes me happy.
As far as the two teams needing a scoring unit to claim goes, I suppose that's a fair complaint. Instead of being in bold it was in caps, but it could have been more clear. I actually considered asking Derek to announce it, but decided against it because at the time Derek had roughly a trillion things to do.
(http://www2.picturepush.com/photo/a/12205945/640/12205945.png) (http://picturepush.com/public/12205945)
-
I think it added lots of variety but I am pretty sure the FW stuff tanked (as it probably should statistically).
I too had a bunch of fun in the tournament and if this format is done again I will totally do it again time permitting.
-
Awesome to hear.
-
It was my first tournament, and even knew I earned myself a smoking boots dice set, I had a great time. Missions where fair, and the FW stuff worked great. I played against some forge world models, and I hardly noticed. I really like the FW rule and think it can/ should be used more often. The table arrangement worked great, and I really can't wait for the next one.
-
Also! I played against some kids my age (15-17) that where "regulars" at Pandemonium, and they loved the store. They also said that the community was a lot more friendly, and they feel "that they don"t have to worry about their stuff getting stolen here". Go Battlegrounds!!
-
Pros:
* Great time as always, had 3 great games against fun opponents.
* I liked the missions, well thought out and needing 1 unit from each "half" of the army for certain things was interesting, it was also nice to see short edge deployment in a tournament!
*Interesting to see and be able to use some of the Forgeworld stuff out there even if it didn't do that well in certain games.
*At least a quarter of the people there i had never seen before so between new 40k players, Abington 40k players who don't make it down to Plainville, and probably drawing in guys from the local area as well it was cool to see some new armies and new faces.
Cons:
*Ran long but that's par for the course with doubles and 2 1/2hr games
*Tables were really close together in spots, maybe next time we can shuffle those display racks up front out of the way and give some more space to the guys
*NO SAM!
Overall another great tournament and i'm looking forward to the next one.
-
It was a fun tourney.
We played against an army that was mostly forgeworld round 1. Hades Breaching Drill, Caestus assault ram, etc. And the lists were Forgeworld armies: Charcaradons and Death Corps of Krieg.
That was really fun. I would love to play with ForgeWorld allowed more.
Rounds 2 and 3 we got destroyed by teams that really knew what they were doing a lot more than we did (Bill Souza, Keith, Ragnar, etc etc). Still fun games :)
CON:
I also think that it went too long. Left early, in fact...
-
Another very fun, well-run event. The scenarios were nice and clear, and had a good element of coordination needed from team members. I liked seeing "true" Hammer & Anvil deployment in a tournament. It was cool to finally get to an event at the Abington location; I liked the space and appreciated that it seemed like a good 20 min or so closer for me to get to coming from NH (hard to say for sure, given the weather and that my friend Jamie was driving and has a lighter foot than I do, but it was significantly closer). I had no objection to there being some Forgeworld stuff; my model for a great team event is the Adepticon Team Tourney, which I know you guys also like and take some cues from, and they've always allowed some FW. I didn't wind up playing against any (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?), so they really didn't impact my experience. Other than just the cool value of seeing that Caestus Assault thing on tables nearby, or the Vulture. Both of which looked pretty neat.
As far as any constructive criticisms go, the late start/running long are always a bit less than ideal, especially for folks coming from a long distance away. If I want to do any doubles events in the future, I expect I'll tell the wife not to expect me back until after 11, or after midnight if I want to go out for a beer with folks afterward. And of course I'd always be happier if events required full painting or at least WYSIWYG; I do recall seeing a few Valkyries without three double lascannons pretending to be Vendettas, for example. But other than that, I don't see a lot of room for improvement. Great job, guys!
Also, thanks to our opponents for three fun games and being good sports- Bill, Keith, Matt, Will, Tiago & Matt. Cheers, guys!
-
I agree about running late, though it was the first event in the new store, and abington seems to run less large 40k events than plainville does, plus it is doubles. So I guess it can be forgiven. ;)
I had a great time, though I will say, the last scenario had one major problem with it. Whoever won the roll to place objectives was at a significant advantage considering the Hammer and Anvil deployment.
-
That's a good point, Keith. I think arguably* one of the biggest flaws in core 6th ed 40k is having objective placement after table sides have been determined, especially when there are an odd number of objectives. Combining Hammer & Anvil deployment with a scenario which mandated an odd number of objectives I think did set up a lot of games which were unbalanced from the first roll. Making the side who won the choice of table edge automatically also place the first objective amplified the issue even further.
(*The only counter argument I've thought of to this is that it encourages people to build more mobile/aggressive, to be able to get at objectives on the opponent's side of the table, which could be seen as a bit of a counterbalance to how 6th ed is generally more shooty as a whole.)
-
Sean and I had a fun day. It is very nice to see this sort of thing in Abington and we are looking forward to more events like this here in the future. We had three very interesting and exciting games with some very fun opponents.
I'd appreciate planning an earlier start, 9am seems appropriate with an early Lunch rather than 11 am with a late one; I think that could have us all done by 7:30 ish, that'll help avoid oh god its late syndrome.
Rules Packets were good and clear. We'll be using them at home for messing around.
I'd love to hear that forgeworld is going to be allowed in future events, it's probably nothing compared to the nastiness people built from straight up 40k Codexes.
List formats, some are more complete and understandable than others. Now we all recognize that Army builder is not for everyone (after all it is not free). But having rules and abilities listed in consice format for people to ask about is a good thing. Could we have a BG format for lists, and enforce brining them to the tournament?
This would allow a stardardization in the way people share lists and prevent any misunderstandings.
As always a HUGE thankyou to the BG team for a great day.
Cheers,
Alan & Sean
-
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...
-
(*The only counter argument I've thought of to this is that it encourages people to build more mobile/aggressive, to be able to get at objectives on the opponent's side of the table, which could be seen as a bit of a counterbalance to how 6th ed is generally more shooty as a whole.)
That's the basic philosophy I have while designing missions these days. Plus, I feel it makes the game more dynamic, more energetic.
(No, I did not design the Doubles missions for this event.)
-
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 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.
-
She steal my money
-
(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.
-
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. :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
I was about to say "YES, HAVE AN EVENT IN MARCH", but then I remembered that I'm probably going to be out of commission for a few months now. :( . But, :)
-
Congrats!....?
-
I am a huge fan of objectives being worth a random number of points ...........
Can you explain this part a bit more? Sounds interesting and potentially scary at the same time!
-
So, the random objectives thing is nice because it changes the placing incentives, but I'm still not sure it keeps the guy who got 3 objectives to place form just placing them along his board edge, if his army is suited for that. (most are, except for a low-number count army that is also a rush-assault army)
It also has the downside that the victor can be determined more by dice luck than skill. I don't think that's usually what happens, but it can.
All told, I think I'd prefer tried and true of the 5 fixed objectives. Or maybe 3 on the center line, and the players each get to place one? Variations are possible, but I think it's best to force some to be near the center.
Maybe if you made a special rule that that all objectives have to 12", or even 18" form a board edge, rather than 6"? That forces things forward a bit, I think that may be good, actually. At least in Hammer and Anvil it keeps you from putting 3 on your back line, they won't fit.
-
I am a huge fan of objectives being worth a random number of points ...........
Can you explain this part a bit more? Sounds interesting and potentially scary at the same time!
I think he's talking about the way they did it at templecon with each team having 3 objectives. Once they're placed they get randomly assigned a value of 2, 3, and 4 points. At the end of the game you win objectives not by how many objectives you have but by whomever has more points worth of objectives.
-
Yes, the random pts where each sides objectives will work out to the same pts? That's good, that works. The one where's all the ones on the board can be random, and so one side may get 4 pts while the other 2? That's bad. I just want to make sure that we don't decide "random pt objectives are good" and then we wind up doing the later case by mistake.
-
There's a mission out of the book that does it. I forget which.
-
The Scouring. Six objectives, worth 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, and 4. The downside to that is that it's likely for one player to wind up starting on a higher value of objectives, which is pretty similar to just giving him more objectives in the first place.
This is a bit unbalanced, but less of a big deal in the core rulebook mission, because if one player has only a couple more points' worth, the other guy can even that out with VPs from Warlord, First Blood, and Linebreaker, and by killing FA units. If you're not letting those secondaries be worth VPs toward winning the game, Scouring tends to be more unbalanced than not.
At TempleCon my opponent had the higher point objectives in his backfield, and I was fortunate to be playing a flyer-heavy force so I had the mobility to get to them. At the end of the game I just barely eked out the win with my Helldrake on one of his objectives, my Overlord contesting another, and my two surviving Necron warriors on his third. My own backfield had been decimated so I wasn't even holding any of my own. :) I still was losing by a point on objectives, but had killed two of his FA (well, one, and his Helldrake was off the table), and that eked me over the top.
-
Yes, I agree. Some things are much more balanced when First Blood, Slay the Warlord, Linebreaker are worth as much or almost as much as an objective.
People seem to have an irrational hatred of them, though, and want them relegated to a very minor amount of points. That changes the balance, a lot.
-
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...
Don't you tease me Chase!!! I think it is a wonderful idea... you have to make it happen! ;D ;D
-
Just allow forgeworld at every abington event. please, just be a good chase for once!
-
Just allow forgeworld at every abington event. please, just be a good chase for once!
wow that was you 666th Troll.....
-
Just allow forgeworld at every abington event. please, just be a good chase for once!
This please, FW models make it so much fun, and people in Abington really enjoy it.
-
Half of me wants to say "hey since we're doing forgeworld lets go one step further and allow super heavies!"
and before everyone says "OH NOES! you cant do that, they're overpowered!"
*you still have to pay 400 or 500 points for it hurting the rest of your list
*stompas and baneblades still die pretty easy to chainfists and such
just throwing it out there. Maybe allowed them at a event that has forgeworld or a stand alone event like TANKSgiving with a small cost attached to it such as TANKSeaster, TANKS flag day or TANKS memorial day to honor the troops.
I think you would get people to jump at the chance to break out their superheavies they only get to use once or twice a year.
-
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.
Awesome! Seriously, I'm driving up to two hours with traffic, and I would LOVE for events to start an hour or even an hour and a half earlier. Getting home around dinnertime is a significant improvement when you've got a wife. :) Or getting home early enough to watch a movie or something with her if I decide to grab a beer and a bite with the guys.
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.
Do eeet! Make it 1850 for Adepticon practice! ;D
-
Half of me wants to say "hey since we're doing forgeworld lets go one step further and allow super heavies!"
and before everyone says "OH NOES! you cant do that, they're overpowered!"
*you still have to pay 400 or 500 points for it hurting the rest of your list
*stompas and baneblades still die pretty easy to chainfists and such
just throwing it out there. Maybe allowed them at a event that has forgeworld or a stand alone event like TANKSgiving with a small cost attached to it such as TANKSeaster, TANKS flag day or TANKS memorial day to honor the troops.
I think you would get people to jump at the chance to break out their superheavies they only get to use once or twice a year.
I liked the useability of forge world stuff. I dont think Super Heavies should be allowed unless you want guys like me to start showing up with a Thunder Hawk because if they are allowed dont think for a second i wont do it. That thing sits on my shelf as an orniment more than a game peice. I think we just need to do more casual games of Apoc.
-
Just make badab legal for events, i'll buy you a pony chase. Think of the bitches you'll get with a pony.
-
Think of the bitches you'll get with a pony.
(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/25292176.jpg)
-
I don't really have a problem with FW being allowed.
-
I do not plan to make FW legal in a broad sense outside of Doubles... Unless BG can somehow order and sell the stuff off the wall. ;)
-
I do not plan to make FW legal in a broad sense outside of Doubles... Unless BG can somehow order and sell the stuff off the wall. ;)
Makes sense, but kinda a let down. But I think there should be at lease 1 singles a year where FW is allowed. Also more events like tanksgiving, even if there is no prize/ we pay a $5 entry fee to support a prize. There has even been some talk in Abington about doing a dogfight event.
-
I agree about running late, though it was the first event in the new store, and abington seems to run less large 40k events than plainville does, plus it is doubles. So I guess it can be forgiven. ;)
I had a great time, though I will say, the last scenario had one major problem with it. Whoever won the roll to place objectives was at a significant advantage considering the Hammer and Anvil deployment.
I honestly think for Tourney missions that require objectives, going the standard "one in the middle, one in the direct center of each quarter" works best; that way no matter what the deployment each player/team has an equidistant length to move to get to an objective.
-
I prefer one objective in the center of the board. Whether the remaining objectives are placed by the scenario or the players depends on the mission.
-
Odd objective in the center, with rest player-placed I think is best. There is a tactical aspect to objective placement.
-
Did anybody think $40 per team was a little much?
-
I thought it was fine, considering the prize support.
-
Did anybody think $40 per team was a little much?
You must consider, BG is handing over almost their entire space for the entire day. And as Logan mentioned, awesome prize support.
-
Did anybody think $40 per team was a little much?
$20 per head is the standard for 40k events at BG and personally it's a small price to pay to support great stores that allow us to come in and use the tables whenever there's not a tournament for free
-
The Badab books were on the shelf in abington before. That means space sharks are gucci.
-
Odd objective in the center, with rest player-placed I think is best. There is a tactical aspect to objective placement.
This.
-
Odd objective in the center, with rest player-placed I think is best. There is a tactical aspect to objective placement.
This.
Yuuuuup.
-
Oh, any chance we could see results posted? I'd love to see where Steve and I finished.
-
I'll make sure this happens tonight.
-
AND FB PICS!
-
I lied. Did more talking than working tonight... which really fucked up my workflow for the week.
I really need to put excel on this laptop.
530am... Sleep now, work tomorrow.
-
For objective, how about we just place them before picking sides?
-
I lied. Did more talking than working tonight... which really fucked up my workflow for the week.
I really need to put excel on this laptop.
530am... Sleep now, work tomorrow.
"Tomorrow" refers to a date, not just "when you wake up later"