Battleground Games Forum
Games Workshop => Warhammer 40K => Topic started by: Chase on June 28, 2014, 07:48:02 PM
-
I just got home from the event. You're all still playing round 3. I'd like to take a few minutes to go over some of the feedback I got from talking to most (all?) of you.
First, it was cool to see so many not-so-familiar faces in the store rolling dice and pushing models around. It's been a while since I've shown up on a 40k event day. Very cool. Everyone seemed super nice and I'm glad I got to put names with faces.
Anyways...
Some (basically) unanimous feedback is that the super-heavies (Lords of War) are too much for "normal" events.
Lots of people mentioned this to me without me having to ask. Some of you got into specifics which I found to be valuable. Some of you felt that the tanks are probably okay, although not preferred. One group I spoke to even felt that the C'Tran (as they're calling it on the internets these days) was fine because you can try to avoid it.
Sam said something I found particularly valuable. He mentioned that people have now played in an event that's allowed them to see, first or second hand, what the "big stuff" does to the game.
As you all know, one team took a Warhound Titan and a Baneblade. Their lists were the talk of the tournament and when I left they were at table 1 in the final round. They obviously took things to an extreme, but it was within the rules of this event (and of 7th edition) to do so.
And it begs the questions: What to "do about it." It's not not immediately obvious to me or an easy decision. Banning Lords of War seems like a knee-jerk reaction to one specific thing that's powerful and different (here's looking at you, Invisibility). Banning LoW ends up eliminating Imperial Knights and the new Ghazghkull, which I'm definitely not interested in doing.
Some of the bigger TOs have been going back and forth on what to do about LoW. My guess is that they'll end up allowing a certain list of them. I'm interested in seeing what they conclude.
The feedback surrounding Tactical Objectives was very interesting.
I made an effort to ask most tables how they felt about the inclusion of Tactical Objectives. It seemed that about 30% strongly dislikes them due to variance (fair), 30% is okay with them but doesn't love them, and 40% thinks they're great, make for an exciting game, and are tons of fun.
After it became clear that people were so split on the topic I began asking what improvements might be made to them. (Spoiler: I plan to include them in some capacity in all future Doubles tournaments if for no other reason than it communicates the "not a super competitive event" message)
Some of the potential solutions that were mentioned were:
Instead of drawing X cards at the start of turn 1, draw X+3 instead and discard down to X before the start of your first turn.
Play only with objectives that are in "no man's land."
Draw cards BEFORE deployment.
Score cards starting with round 2.
Score objective based "cards" at the end of your OPPONENT'S turn.
Be able to discard more than 1 card per turn.
Always ignore cards that are impossible to accomplish (which we did).
I thought that a lot of these were pretty good. A good solution probably involves a combination of some / all of them. It is my belief that solid mission design can create a similar feel to these Tactical Objectives, but for the time being I think it's important to keep events "feeling" something like 7th edition as it appears in the book.
New Edition = Make things super clear in the packet.
In round two I heard a fair number of questions that could have been avoided had I been more clear in the packet. That's on me. I debated getting into all sorts of details but refrained due to trying to keep the mission + score sheet to 1 page.
Don't nerf things that might be in the game for a reason. ;)
It was probably a mistake to nerf Invisibility for this event. As it turns out, Invisibility might be quite strong against.... things that are quite strong, like Warhound titans and other super-heavies.
After thinking about things, talking to people, and reading a bunch about how to "handle" 7th edition Invisibility it might not be game breaking after all. It's obviously quite strong and probably exploitable, but... That remains to be seen.
Consider getting rid of the different restrictions the allies matrix puts in place.
In mission 3 it might be very difficult or costly to claim and an objective if you're playing with a team member that's not playing a friendly army. Do we think this is a problem going forward?
(You need a scoring unit from each player to claim an objective in this mission, which means that a unit from each player would have to be within 3" of a given objective marker and therefore within 6" of a "potentially unfriendly unit" giving them both a chance to do nothing.)
So that's most of it. Please use this thread to post your opinions or any different feedback you might have.
Thanks!
-
I'm glad to see the feedback about Invisibility, and I'm glad it's currently in favor of leaving it as is. It's nice to have a ruleset not continually on the cusp of comp.
-
My only comment is def don't mess with the Ally matrix, no one is forced to play with someone who isn't battle brothers or allies of convenience, I played tau with dark eldar and we actually crushed that 3rd game and just waited til last turn to claim those objectives together and it didn't interfere. I had a great time as always, thanks a ton chase.
-
I had a lot of fun today, it was a good turn out and most everyone was very friendly and fun to play against. My third game in particular was a blast, blood shed and mayhem to the extreme ending in a draw with cheering and laughs all around.
That said I liked the tactical objectives. We played it so that if an objective was not possible to achieve, we generated another instead and that was great. However, it totally sucks when you have a ton of objectives that you have a very hard time achieving because the objectives are in your opponents zone, surrounded by broadsides or something. So I think discarding more than one per turn would be nice and scoring beginning at the end of turn two might help, but it would have to be tested.
As for Lords of War, I don't like them. One reason in particular, if you are able to kill a lord of war vehical, it blows up and wrecks everything near it. Some codexes have no good way of killing a lord of war outside of close combat, so doing so is sacrificing your unit by doing something they are suppose to be doing. Example' tank bustas are suppose to be good at blowing up vehicles, but if they do so against a super heavy, they themselves die in the process. And not every codex has a good way at all to deal with a super heavy. I'm tired of the argument that a unit of melta wielding space marines in a drop pod can easily take out a super heavy because not everyone plays space marines. And, finally, I know there are measures taken to try to give the player not using a lord of war an advantage in scoring, but it doesn't seem like enough to balance the game.
About the psychic phase, it's strong. I don't think it is game breaking strong but it seems to me like the dispelling might as well not even be a thing. In the six games I've played of 7th edition, I ever only dispelled once, and it was the last spell cast out of desperation with very few power dice remaining. Biomancy in particular is very good. If you like winning, use psychers, and not just to cast prescience anymore.
And lastly, it's a doubles event, Partners shouldn't have to worry about moving close to each other. They don't have to benefit in any way from each other, but some people want to play they army they enjoy playing with people they enjoy playing with and it doesn't always result in fluff approved battle brothers. Doubles isn't the most competitive event out there and I think allowing partners to play without one eye open (or whatever the rule is called) makes for a more fun event.
That'll do it. Thanks for putting on the event and I look forward to doing it again sometime.
-
Today was a ton of fun, and here goes my 2cents.
Firstly, Tactical objectives are way to random. If you get "bad" ones you can do everything right and still loose. Or on the flip side play lousy and win due to "good" fortune. Great fun within a friendly environment, not a competitive one.
Second, Lords of War are great to see on the table top but some form of restriction is required to keep games fun for both sides. Warhammer 30k restricts them to games of 2k plus and no more then 25% of your point total. The Bay Area Open and Nova have come up with a list that basically eliminates the Lords that can ignore cover or use hell storm templates. Possibly 2 good starting points. For team play Mabee limit teams to 1 CAD they can split up, much like 5th ed but allows for a single Lord and a single Fortification.
Third, Psychic phase. It's a mess, army's getting insane power dice vs army's that get almost none and the dispell mechanic doesn't balance out at all. It is no fun facing such a massive mismatch. One idea is to remove a success for every 6 rolled and if the castings total successes are dropped below there warp cost then it fails. This eliminates the all or nothing mechanic and allows army's with only a few dice to have a decent chance at countering that one critical power. Another idea is to cap dice on a sliding scale based on the total points of the list possibly 5 per every full 500 points.
Lastly, Allies. Keep the ally matrix intact. Friends that want to play together still can but have a slight chance of messing each other up if there army's are desperate or come the apoc. That is the way the game is designed in this eddition.
Just my initial thoughts on the matter, they are meant to be constructive critiscism and not start a flame war and they are not targeted at any person or team. Let's keep this civil and build a better framework for competitive play together.
-
I played a few games this weekend, my first taste of 7th. I played as pure Grey Knights and didn't think my psychic phase was overpowered. Yes I generate a lot of dice, but as GK the model count is incredible low & always outnumbered.. so I need every drop of firepower I can get. On the reverse side, if I get perils.. it is a severe blow. Like I said, it's a low model count army, so loosing even one marine to perils is devastating.
I don't like the Maelstrom cards at all because it's like playing Texas Hold'em on top of 40k. It wouldn't be as bad if objectives were captured at the end game turn.. NOT player turn. It encourages suicide tactics, even throwing away your HQ because the objective is worth more. If it was done at the end of game turn (as opposed to player turn) it would at least give the opponent a chance to retaliate. Seriously, something like the life a Farseer with 5000 years of experience, all of a sudden means nothing when he sees a shiny trinket in the ground. It's also DUMB that you can literally obliterate your opponent's army and still lose the entire game because of the stupid cards.. lol WOW ::)
Other then that 7th is a lot of fun.
-
Honestly besides restrictions keeping the limit to one Lord of war besides knights would be fine,
I assumed that I would fight one and came packing for it,
I think the mechanics for the objectives cards could be done better, perhaps one deck amongst the table.
But over all I enjoyed it And will probably run a different army next time,
In terms of allies matrix?
Leave it, if people want to choose whacky combos, make them work for it,
-
Had a great time, and 3 great games.
My feedback is the strategic cards are ridiculous and all luck. It takes up time and frankly I simply do not think you should consider them going forward. Our 2nd game, we happen to draw the exact cards we needed to shoot us up by a lot of points right out of the box.
As for the Lords of war, sure we got both of them down (Alex and I). But only because we had the tools to do it, 3 tzeetnch deamon units all getting flickering fire for free + a lucky divination roll from Fateweaver to acquire misfortune. Plus Alex had haywire staffs and guass weapons. Honestly at first I thought what a terrible draw for us to have to face a warhound titan and baneblade. But soon realized it was a terrible draw for them, as I am not sure many other armies/players could of dented those things (this being from the armies I saw in the top tiers, not the players). They are cool and all, but I do not think lords of war belong in a skirmish based game. If so then the restriction of 1 at 1850-2000 points, and only 25% of your points cost is a great one to consider. This allows Orks to use Ghaz but takes out the 800point ridiculousness.
As for the psychic phase, Even having 9 dice + d6 at 1000 points... You still cast less spells than the last edition, even if your opponent has none. Alex and I played some practice games, My daemons Vs. his Necrons. 13 + d6 Vs D6. And I still got off less spells than I was able to last edition. We also played space marines Vs his Seer council/wave serpeant. He had 16+d6 Vs my d6, and he could not get off the same amount of spells as he used to be able to in 6th. Spell casting is weaker than it used to be and doesnt need a nerf really. If you are really considering one, then perhaps try something like roll a d6 for each warp charge point you will generate for free (per mastery level, not dice roll). On a 3+ generate the warp charge as normal, on 1-2 you do not. So 9 warp charges = 9 rolls. On a 3+ you get the warp charge to use, on 1-2 you do not.
I enjoyed the games, thanks everyone for their compliments on my painted Daemons.
-
Some of what I would have said has already been covered, but here are a few things.
Allies- Everyone should be allies of convenience. People say you should have to work for wacky combos, it is what the edition is, blah blah blah. Doubles is supposed to be a more casual event. I play Orks and Shawn plays SM. We should not be penalized just because 2 friends want to play together...especially when one of us plays with a subpar codex. Imperials have way to much of an advantage since they can pull off wacky combos with the BB stuff. Also, I like dual allies to capture objective and table quarters, but with imperial BB is is ridiculously easy. Scotti and John were able to just flip HQs into each other squads and done (which was a brilliant idea). If everyone is AoC, it just lets people come and have fun (and does not immediately give a big advantage to some teams)
Superheavies- Do not like them. It is cool to see James's big walky thing of death (and I know he had fun playing it) but it is exceeding difficult if not impossible for some armies to fight them. 1 Imperial Knight pretty much wrecked almost my entire Ork force before I killed him...and then it blew up and took out another chunk of my force. Especially having no Deffrollas in 7th, going to be even harder. I think they fit better in an apocalypse style game. They are not point balanced for what they can do (unlike the colossals in warmachine) and probably do not belong in a skirmish game.
Tact Objectives- Cool, but need some work. One opponent kept drawing hold objective so and so, which was the objective in their deployment zone that they put 2-3 of their riptides on and all their broadsides. We kept drawing that too. Auto points for them, impossible points for us to take. I would move the objectives to no mans land and actually make people go after them instead of just having them in their deployment zone. I also like in Warmachine you do not score objective points until the second players second turn. It gives you a chance to contest.
All in all a fun experience for a first 40k tournament. I would do the more casual ones like this again. Although since I got a taste of the more tournament style lists 4 riptides, an imperial knight, and a bunch of crisis suits (and seeing the super heavies James and Brenton brought), I think I will only be doing the casual ones since my 40k army seems to pretty much lock me into NPC status for the "forge the narrative" crap GW is pushing.
-
Allies - I would like to see them left alone but wouldn't be objected to AoC for doubles so everyone can have a fun time. HOWEVER if a non daemon army summons daemons they should still have to follow the allies matrix and take the negatives of doing so.
Tactical Objectives - I felt like I needed a secretary to just keep track of all of them. I think they slow the game down allot and with added phases and rules that is not helpful. Also it makes a tactical game a pure luck of the draw game which isnt fun at all. Possible solution? Keep all objectives in no mans land and maybe limit the amount of cards you can draw a turn to a maximum.
Superheavies - Normal 40k games have no place for them. They are ridiculous. I think if you allow them Todd has a great idea. Limit the amount of points that can be spent on them. This allows the cool things like Knights and Gaz but eliminates the ones that shouldn't be in 40k. (my opinion agree or disagree its cool)
Physchic phase - Not a big deal spells are harder to cast then they used to be. Even armies without pychers get a chance to throw dice at a deny. I font see this as being an issue.
All in All - Had a great day of gaming alot of fun to be had and it was really good to see the place full up again!
-
I'm glad to see the feedback about Invisibility, and I'm glad it's currently in favor of leaving it as is. It's nice to have a ruleset not continually on the cusp of comp.
Almost every post in this thread is suggesting some kind of a change. Why are you against changes for the sake of it.
Certain aspects of the ruleset are garbage. Fantasy is the same way. However, Many people feel that 8th edition Fantasy, with some minor comp changes, is the best edition ever. GW genuinely encourages TOs to run their own ruleset and experiment.
-
Keith, it's cool that you like fantasy, but there's no need to keep bringing it up in the 40k thread. 7th is really good, the biggest criticisms seem to be the Lords of War and the objective cards.. other then that it looks like a solid edition.
-
Ello! SoB player here.
Just some thoughts from my side of things.
The Tactical Objectives are a fantastic way to keep players moving and thinking about about the board state, instead of waiting till later in the game for the mad rush to hold points. It keeps players on there toes about the mission at hand. While I did get bad draws, we were every turn moving toward our goals at hand. I do welcome the ideas that were suggested to be able to discard more than 1 card per turn.
and always ignore cards that are impossible to accomplish. Do keep them for future games if you can!
Superheavies - What has already been said about them I agree wholly about. I don't have any studious ideas on how to keep them and make them work. I am sure you guys will have the better mindset to handle it. I welcome the big vehicles and such to the table, but limitations are needed.
Physchic phase - I didn't do enough research it seems, but invisibility is quite amazing I learned. I remember last edition it was all about prescience, but wow invisibility is spiffy!
I had a amazing time overall. It was a bit overwhelming and I learned a lot from all of you guys. I have been playing up on Lowell for a long time now and I got used to the same similar tactics people did around here. You guys showed me that 40k really has a lot more to show me then I thought! Thanks again!
-
Keith, it's cool that you like fantasy, but there's no need to keep bringing it up in the 40k thread. 7th is really good, the biggest criticisms seem to be the Lords of War and the objective cards.. other then that it looks like a solid edition.
As much as I hate to agree with Keith I do. He mentions Fantasy because they have gone through the EXACT thing 40k is going through now. They had to adjust the game to make it better. Are we not talking about the same thing?
Since he plays both he has an even better idea on how fantasy can relate to 40k and what 40k has to learn from Fantasy. I would advise not to immediately dismiss his thoughts or statements because they mention Fantasy but rather try to see them from his point and maybe learn from SOME of them.
LOL cant believe I just said that. Overall I think minor tweaks are needed to make this edition a very solid game I am looking forward to how things move forward at a BG level and a GT level.
-
as One Of The Superheavy Players I Admittedly Disagre With What Is Said. Yes They Are Very Powerful, But That Isn't The Players Fault. If We Took Four Lemon Russe Instead We Would Have Had More Fire Power Than Either Superheavy. And It Would Have Been More Advantages To Us As We Could Have Better Fire targets. Also The Fact Of The Matter Is, If You Killed All 30 Of Our Other Guys, We Could Have Not Win The Match Since We Would Not Have Been Able To Bold Objectives Well. I've Playe Against SuperheavIes In 1850 WithouT One And Won By Objectives. Also There Are Combos Far Worse outthEre Than Them. 2+ Rerollable Saves? Really? Anyone Who Played Against Us And Uses That Combo Normally KnowsExactly How People Feel When They Play Against That. The Fact Of The Matter Is You Restrict All Broken Ideas Or None Of Them. Look At It Like This. At 1850 It'sEntirely Possible To One Round A Warhound. Your Entire Army shooting At Seerstar Removed A Bike A Turn On Average. YouWillComplain About Big New Models, But Not Complain About AutoWins?
-
Keith, it's cool that you like fantasy, but there's no need to keep bringing it up in the 40k thread. 7th is really good, the biggest criticisms seem to be the Lords of War and the objective cards.. other then that it looks like a solid edition.
Yes, and fixing those little issues is "comp".... and there is nothing wrong with that.
-
as One Of The Superheavy Players I Admittedly Disagre With What Is Said. Yes They Are Very Powerful, But That Isn't The Players Fault. If We Took Four Lemon Russe Instead We Would Have Had More Fire Power Than Either Superheavy. And It Would Have Been More Advantages To Us As We Could Have Better Fire targets. Also The Fact Of The Matter Is, If You Killed All 30 Of Our Other Guys, We Could Have Not Win The Match Since We Would Not Have Been Able To Bold Objectives Well. I've Playe Against SuperheavIes In 1850 WithouT One And Won By Objectives. Also There Are Combos Far Worse outthEre Than Them. 2+ Rerollable Saves? Really? Anyone Who Played Against Us And Uses That Combo Normally KnowsExactly How People Feel When They Play Against That. The Fact Of The Matter Is You Restrict All Broken Ideas Or None Of Them. Look At It Like This. At 1850 It'sEntirely Possible To One Round A Warhound. Your Entire Army shooting At Seerstar Removed A Bike A Turn On Average. YouWillComplain About Big New Models, But Not Complain About AutoWins?
I am going to guess this was written either on a phone or some device featured on ancient aliens.
-
as One Of The Superheavy Players I Admittedly Disagre With What Is Said. Yes They Are Very Powerful, But That Isn't The Players Fault. If We Took Four Lemon Russe Instead We Would Have Had More Fire Power Than Either Superheavy. And It Would Have Been More Advantages To Us As We Could Have Better Fire targets. Also The Fact Of The Matter Is, If You Killed All 30 Of Our Other Guys, We Could Have Not Win The Match Since We Would Not Have Been Able To Bold Objectives Well. I've Playe Against SuperheavIes In 1850 WithouT One And Won By Objectives. Also There Are Combos Far Worse outthEre Than Them. 2+ Rerollable Saves? Really? Anyone Who Played Against Us And Uses That Combo Normally KnowsExactly How People Feel When They Play Against That. The Fact Of The Matter Is You Restrict All Broken Ideas Or None Of Them. Look At It Like This. At 1850 It'sEntirely Possible To One Round A Warhound. Your Entire Army shooting At Seerstar Removed A Bike A Turn On Average. YouWillComplain About Big New Models, But Not Complain About AutoWins?
Your post makes my eyes bleed. Aside from that, no we complain about seer star as well. I definitely don't see the need to be an all or nothing fix. Slight tweaks is the way to go. Like for LOW putting together point maxs or an approved list would go a long way on them being accepted in general. Out right banning all LOW wouldn't help.
-
Keith, it's cool that you like fantasy, but there's no need to keep bringing it up in the 40k thread. 7th is really good, the biggest criticisms seem to be the Lords of War and the objective cards.. other then that it looks like a solid edition.
As much as I hate to agree with Keith I do. He mentions Fantasy because they have gone through the EXACT thing 40k is going through now. They had to adjust the game to make it better. Are we not talking about the same thing?
Since he plays both he has an even better idea on how fantasy can relate to 40k and what 40k has to learn from Fantasy. I would advise not to immediately dismiss his thoughts or statements because they mention Fantasy but rather try to see them from his point and maybe learn from SOME of them.
LOL cant believe I just said that. Overall I think minor tweaks are needed to make this edition a very solid game I am looking forward to how things move forward at a BG level and a GT level.
Exactly.
You might even notice I haven't made any suggestions or comments on what 'should' change or even if there should be changes. Only that claiming "change = bad, because change!" Is silly. Keep an open mind, take stock of how things go.
With 8th ed fantasy (Oh Noes, I said the bad word again!), everyone kind of waited 60 or so days and played 1 GT before many TOs decided to implement some levels of comp. This was done primarily at the request of the players who attend their tournaments.
-
You really don't need to take it that far.
Lords of War will be okay with a point cap of some kind that is percentage-based, it will keep out the ridiculous stuff and keep in the lower-end things in a nice simple way.
Chase mentioned to me at a point that the doubles was meant to be fun and less competitive, and that potentially a singles event would be the hardcore bit. In that regard, I didn't really think the cards were a bad thing at all -- they kept our games pretty lively and interesting. I have a bit of a different view than most people, I suppose, but to me when I saw another team get a good draw that came up big for them, it was no different to me than when I saw a team get a great dice roll, or win a close combat, etc. I can see how it would suck if you dominated your opponent but they still won by a landslide with the cards...but I don't see that happening much.
I'm a firm believer that simple fixes are the best fixes. If there is a problem with the cards, it would be better to limit them in some way then to axe them entirely. They make a lot of the things in the game that rock on pure power level become marginalized (2++ units who don't get points for the objective they stormed, for example). It really forces you to control the board and try to fight effectively in a few places at once, which I thought made our games better in most cases.
In our second match it felt like we were doing great but when ended up losing by a margin purely because of the cards drawn by our opponent on the last turn. Capping on the GAME turn instead of player turn adds a LOT of power to the second player, because they have the ability to deny player one but player one will never have the ability to deny player two (realistically, anyway). I'd argue that would be less fair at times than random cards for both players.
You could also just say that people can only cap one card each turn. That might stave off the big draws a bit. Or maybe max the amount of VP you can get off of them as a lot. Or maybe make it so they aren't able to be scored if you have a certain lead, so that the score stays close. I don't know, I'm just throwing out random ideas here, but I guess my ultimate point is long-term I'd tweak the cards rather than ditch them.
More importantly: I think for the kind of "cas-com" bracket, this was a great event, and if you're looking for a format that will bring in a broader audience outside the strictly competitive circuit, just limiting the Lords of War to a percentage to keep stuff like Reaver Titans off the table would probably suffice, if you are looking to cater to a more competitive crowd, I'd tweak the cards to be more fair/less valuable (maybe just a secondary or tertiary? Just a thought).
Everyone we played was excellent and we had three great games. It was great to see a good turnout!
-
I think if Kill Points were added in every mission as part of the primary objective, then it would greatly balance out the Tex'm cards. That way even if you get a bad hand, a good player can still blow up stuff to help level the points off-set. When a game sells itself on the phrase "In the grim, dark future.. there is only war" I would kinda expect killing stuff to actually matter.
-
Kill Points in every mission very much affects army construction. I would encourage a lot of thought before involving them to that degree.
Unless of course the idea is to push one type of play above all others. Like, maybe a small elite army like Grey Knights. In that case, this is a phenomenal idea.
-
Kill Points in every mission very much affects army construction. I would encourage a lot of thought before involving them to that degree.
Unless of course the idea is to push one type of play above all others. Like, maybe a small elite army like Grey Knights. In that case, this is a phenomenal idea.
Do you think Grey Knights can put out more damage per turn then Tau, Eldar, AM, or IK? On the flip side small elite armies can't afford to take heavy casualties.. like at all. I see your point but I'm not sold, either way it's worth a try.
-
I, too, like randomly reaching for a solution without spending time thinking of consequences.
-
I, too, like randomly reaching for a solution without spending time thinking of consequences.
It wasn't random, I lost the other day even after inflicting mass genocide on the other army. Either way you cut it the cards are not balanced. But I'd be interested in starting a poll and seeing what is the consensus.
-
Its good that you found a way to change the rules that would help your tournament performance.
-
Well in that case let's not add any comps at all. You can't have it both ways.
-
Play by the book, add restrictions or not, add modified scenarios.... In the end someone is going to be upset and sadly Chase cant please everyone. This was a feedback requested, not another forum for us to pick each others post apart and bicker. Chase whatever event restrictions you run I enjoy your events and will continue to come to them, a store 10 minutes from my house had a tournament on Saturday and I drove 2 hours to yours, so take that for what its worth. Even when you nerfed invisibility, i simply changed my list from Bel'Akor who I always run, to try out fateweaver who I never ran before.
Just remember this Chase. Regardless of the rules, edition, comp, restrictions or whatever else you add or take out or modify.... People who are competitive will find a way to play at that competitive level; people who love the game and play for fun, will continue to play for fun and find love in the game; and people who find reasons to complain or be upset about something, will still find reason to complain and be upset. The Rules or Restriction are of minimal relevance.
-
Play by the book, add restrictions or not, add modified scenarios.... In the end someone is going to be upset and sadly Chase cant please everyone. This was a feedback requested, not another forum for us to pick each others post apart and bicker. Chase whatever event restrictions you run I enjoy your events and will continue to come to them, a store 10 minutes from my house had a tournament on Saturday and I drove 2 hours to yours, so take that for what its worth. Even when you nerfed invisibility, i simply changed my list from Bel'Akor who I always run, to try out fateweaver who I never ran before.
Just remember this Chase. Regardless of the rules, edition, comp, restrictions or whatever else you add or take out or modify.... People who are competitive will find a way to play at that competitive level; people who love the game and play for fun, will continue to play for fun and find love in the game; and people who find reasons to complain or be upset about something, will still find reason to complain and be upset. The Rules or Restriction are of minimal relevance.
There's a lot of wisdom in this post. Thanks, Todd.
-
For objective cards
use them as a finite deck shared between the teams where the objectives cannot be repeated nor duplicated
we kept being able to score multiple objectives in each turn with ease. Not very fair to other team
super heavies,
I came expecting to have to deal with one, and hordes, I think keeping them as an ever present threat means that you have to equip to deal
or suffer the consequences
-
Holy cow, Todd getting praised for wisdom in a post and Troy agreeing with Keith. I must have woken up in a parallel universe this morning...
For future doubles events a tweak to the tactical objectives would be good. Some nice ideas already presented. A LOW cap (one per team, no more than 25% team points etc) might make them more palatable to a lot of players.
For what its worth I had a lot of fun playing against the Warhound and Baneblade.
I think singles events are a different animal though. I'd like to see a 'no alterations, by the rulebook' singles event before deciding what things should change. If someone wants to bring 3 CADs, cool. Someone else brings a baneblade, someone a knight army etc.
-
I'd agree, it is better to play everything out and make sure it is a problem before fixing it.
The biggest concerns I'd have honestly, are things that bog the game down and would require an increase in time for rounds. An event already takes all day. I wouldn't want it to be longer.
-
Right, it's a feedback thread.. just tossing around ideas.
-
Chase while I do believe tweaks are needed I think Alex and Keith have a great idea in doing at least 1 tourny by the book to see how broken it is. That way we will have a benchmark on how to adjust the game for the better.
However I will be hiring an assistant to keep track of all the book keeping during my games from here on out because that stuff is crazy!
-
Todd's post obviously makes the most important point here: no matter what you do, you aren't going to please everyone, and people are going to continue to play the way they prefer regardless. In this regard, changing things to try and make people happy is a bit of a farce; for every person you make happy by nerfing invisibility, you probably make another one mad they can't use it the same way. The takeaway here is that change for change's sake just makes more work for you guys.
Ian's remarks earlier, though facetious, touch on a key theme throughout the length and breadth of 40k: people hate things that mess up their army and love things that they have already adapted to. The Necron guy is always going to feel assault is too good; the Ork guy will always feel like they don't have enough charge range; the Tau gunline guy will hate Tactical Objectives because he has to actually move to win the game; the Daemon guy will feel like FMCs and mass psychic powers are perfectly fine, etc. etc. It's often so obvious that I can guess what army a person plays by what they want changed.
However I will be hiring an assistant to keep track of all the book keeping during my games from here on out because that stuff is crazy!
Having three cards in my hand that told me my objectives didn't seem all that different from having a tournament packet doing the same, frankly. I found this to be one of the simplest tournament mission sets I've seen in a while, actually: this is one of the big successes of this event to me -- the mission packet was nice and clean, and the cards made it very simple to keep track of what was going on turn to turn. People WITHOUT the cards probably had a harder experience for sure, but with the cards it was very easy for my team. We just kept the active ones out, and then flipped the capped ones into our box. I liked it largely because we didn't have to keep much track of them; once capped we just put them aside. I like the cards because you can do a lot of creative stuff with them as an event organizer in terms of missions. So they have some utility/novelty, at least.
Plus, the scoreboard looks to me pretty much comparable to previous events, at least the names I recognize are in the usual places (including my own near the bottom...WOO!). So they can't have changed things too much, no?
It wasn't random, I lost the other day even after inflicting mass genocide on the other army. Either way you cut it the cards are not balanced. But I'd be interested in starting a poll and seeing what is the consensus.
I don't know. For one thing, it's equally random for all players involved. To me, this is on the player if someone ignored the objective (and presumably pushed for a tabling). I get that the game is supposed to emulate war, but it is still a game, and capping objectives of some kind is how you win the game.
I'm not saying you shouldn't get credit if you wipe the opponent, mind you. It's just not an effectivre argument against tactical objectives to say that you almost wiped someone and still lost. No version of the game has ever rewarded us for almost wiping out the enemy but getting no points along the way, after all.
-
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say no comp. Here's why:
1) Tactical objectives; makes the game more diverse, and if you own the cards then the game actually goes just as fast as if you're not playing with objectives at all. It's when you are playing tactical objectives and don't use the cards, is when the game can go a lot slower.
2) Lords of War; one of the major changes in 7th ed is the vehicle damage chart, which makes vehicles tougher then they've ever been before. This edition looks like it's going to be a mech edition with lots of tanks anyway, so there should be enough regular armor to counter the LoW. You can only have one LoW in your army so it's not like you can spam them, and the really nasty ones can simply be cut out by restricting the points of the games.
Imperial Knights have had there D weapons nerfed in 7th, and the Imperial Knight Paladin looks like it will have a difficult time cracking open higher armored vehicles. Neither the Knight Paladin or Knight Errant can hurt fliers at all, so that is another counter.
3) Psychic powers; wow these were really over hyped and the 1st battle reports that surfaced when the new edition was released seemed to be using them wrong. I will say, now that it's no longer based on leadership tests, now all psykers have an equal chance of casting the exact same spell with the same number of Warp Charges(WC). A LD 10 psyker is no better then a LD 7 psyker anymore.. they are equal.
Regarding WCs, if a player wants to reliably get a WC1 spell off, he is going to want to roll at least 2 dice (because he needs a 4+ on one dice for it to go off, and it's too risky to just roll one dice) However, even with rolling two dice, it is still very possible to roll two 3's (or lower) and failing the cast. If I want to really get a WC1 spell off, I'm gonna throw down 3 dice.. the dice number is 3x the minimum casting value and my chances are pretty good. So by that guideline, if I want to cast a WC3 spell, I'm gonna throw down NINE DICE. See how quickly we can burn through dice when casting WC3 spells? All of a sudden daemons with 30 dice doesn't sound so high, since all the big summoning spells are WC3.
Now add in perils of the warp. If you're throwing down 9 dice to super reliably cast a WC3 spell, then there is a pretty good chance you'll get perils. That's not even including Deny the Witch, which is supposed to be used to stop the one spell that you hate, not every single spell your opponent casts.
4) Allies; I would still let all allies be available and players can take the penalty. People didn't do it in 6th so I doubt they will in 7th. In future doubles tourneys I'd recommend everyone treated as Allies of Convenience so people aren't rewarded or penalized for picking a certain partner.
That's my 2 cents
-
2 things.
Troy has trouble keeping track of the mission when there is only one objective in the center of the table.
The random mission cards need work of some kind. Drawing an objective that you can immediately score points off of, is unbalanced.
-
I will add a short bit of feedback.
First off the tournament was super fun I was welcomed and enjoyed all my games. Thanks for running this tourney battleground.
My first game I hated the tac obj thing. I didn't understand it. Game 2 I understood it and really liked it. It change the game from lets kill everything we can and take objects to let's kill the warlord or let's take these specific points. It is a bit unbalanced due to luck but I think that was most apparent because of the amount of cards we drew. I'd like to see these in the future And plan on buying the tac cards next time I'm in the store.
Other than that I think there needs to be some limitations to lords of war but not out completely. I have no suggestions to offer but it needs a tweak.
-
Lots of good stuff in this thread! Great event, too! These were my first three games in 7th ed and they were pretty great. I got to play against 4 people I hadn't met before and 2 people I hadn't played in a doubles before, so three very enjoyable games.
I don't have much to comment on except the tactical objective cards. I think they're great for the most part (provided you can cycle through ones that are impossible to score), but it can be a bit much if your opponent gets a bunch of +D3 cards and keeps scoring 3, while you're just plugging away with 2 points per turn. Here are 2 things I think would help
1. You should have to win by SOME amount more tactical objective card points to score a max victory for that category, or it's a draw. I recall when KP were the primary, you typically had to win by 2-3 more than your opponent to get full points, I think if you did the same thing with tactical objective cards it would help round things out.
2. You should always start with a hand of 6 cards and then discard down to three (and reshuffle the scorables into the deck). It's bad if you get screwed in your opening hand, and there's no mulligan-like mechanic in the game. Now, it doesn't have to be draw 6 and discard to 3, thats just an example. I'm sure we could come up with something reasonable if people think this is a good general idea. Oh, and we should probably add something about being able to shuffle your opponent's tactical deck before the game starts. Now that there's cards that kind of matter, we should adopt the best practice to make sure it's all on the level.
Also, no more secret objectives. It's a pain to keep my die rolls a secret on the piece of paper and my opponent doesn't really know if I'm writing down the ones I actually rolled. It just adds more time to generating the objectives and they're so random it's not like my opponent can (usually) meaningful impact my ability to score my objectives during my turn right after I draw them.
As far as things that only matter for doubles, I would recommend reducing the Come the Apocalypse deployment restriction to 6" instead of 12," or removing it altogether. I only had 1 unit to deploy and it was a pain in the butt that didn't really impact how the game played out. Previously, we just made everyone allies of convenience. I don't think we have to do that, but doing something about the deployment restriction would be great.
So, thanks for the fun event and I'm looking forward to the next one! #TeamTD4W
-
As far as things that only matter for doubles, I would recommend reducing the Come the Apocalypse deployment restriction to 6" instead of 12," or removing it altogether. I only had 1 unit to deploy and it was a pain in the butt that didn't really impact how the game played out. Previously, we just made everyone allies of convenience. I don't think we have to do that, but doing something about the deployment restriction would be great.
This is really a point I would differ on. It is a LD test really. Playing the allies matrix the way it is adds the flavor and keeps the fun of the doubles. Personally I dont see why it should be changed everyone can ally with everyone. The only reason it was changed in the past was because that was not the case. Now that we have rules for Come the Apoc I think they should be left alone.
Just my opinion.
-
As far as things that only matter for doubles, I would recommend reducing the Come the Apocalypse deployment restriction to 6" instead of 12," or removing it altogether. I only had 1 unit to deploy and it was a pain in the butt that didn't really impact how the game played out. Previously, we just made everyone allies of convenience. I don't think we have to do that, but doing something about the deployment restriction would be great.
This is really a point I would differ on. It is a LD test really. Playing the allies matrix the way it is adds the flavor and keeps the fun of the doubles. Personally I dont see why it should be changed everyone can ally with everyone. The only reason it was changed in the past was because that was not the case. Now that we have rules for Come the Apoc I think they should be left alone.
Just my opinion.
Previously we let anyone ally with anyone as convenience instead of desperate. Desperate would have forced the animosity tests, but people didn't think they would be fun. Logistically its a pain to have to deploy 1k units 12" away from another 1k units. I'm not saying we get rid of the tests, just a very unfun deployment restriction.
-
I hear ya Rob a valid point to say the least. Doubles will always be one of those tournies that goes outside the norm and that's ok.
-
This is really a point I would differ on. It is a LD test really. Playing the allies matrix the way it is adds the flavor and keeps the fun of the doubles. Personally I dont see why it should be changed everyone can ally with everyone. The only reason it was changed in the past was because that was not the case. Now that we have rules for Come the Apoc I think they should be left alone.
Just my opinion.
What I don't like about it is that it punishes people for playing with the models they want to have fun with and a friend who plays with different models. The doubles event isn't the most competitive event out there and many who take part in it are just there for the fun of playing 40k. And there is nothing fun about a 16% chance of a unit doing absolutely nothing for a turn in a game that might only last four turns. It only happened to me a time or two, and it won't stop me from playing in another doubles event, but I personally would get more enjoyment out the event if teams were treated as allies of convenience.
-
Yeah, I dislike the idea of punishing people for playing with their buddies.
-
I was not able to attend this event but I would be interested in attending a Doubles Tournament in the future.