Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So as not to hijack the "ork pirates" thread, I thought I would start this one up all on itself.

I for one thought the missions and terrain were perfect this year at adepticon.  The missions provided a nice wide possible spread of victory points considering the level of the victory/loss, which is hard to accomplish nowadays with a 3 game RTT.

The terrain was VERY nice.  I'm actually used to playing with a planet, maybe one moon and thats about it.  The larger amounts of terrain made for very interesting gaming and maneuvering. 

Personally, Centurian, I dont think you have to change a single thing about how you ran the tournement.  Simply think of some new scenarios would be my only suggestion, not that the ones used this year were problematic at all, It'd just give you something to do over the year! 

The only issue I ran into was time; of my 3 games, only 1 saw us reach the end (and that was the final game, where my opponent's whole fleet disengaged on turns 3-4; 6 escorts died that game, and that was it).

No real way to fix that, barring fewer turns and/or smaller tables.

It was a very good tournament, and I was thrilled to dust off (literally) the old ships.

Cool...thanks. Although I was suprised at how many people seemed to think that dust clouds blocked LOS.

Not quite sure what I can do about the time issue. I can increase the rounds to 2.5 hours each, but that's pushing it within the time frame of a Sunday tournament. I'm guessing that a lot of that is simply that people aren't necessarilly familiar with the rules...it seemed to me that a lot of people were constantly looking stuff up (especially when people are pulling things like boarding actions and the like). I'm definitely thinking about it, though.

One thing I'm considering for next year is having a mission with a defined attacker/defender breakdown. Not quite sure how to work it out, but it's something I'm considering. Any suggestions are welcome.

Hmmm. If it were running campaign style, I'd recommend the following:

1) Have people bring a full 1500 pt list, and a 1000 pt sublist (made up from their 1500 pts).
2) Create mission, with a defined attacker and defender, where the defender gets some amount of stationary defenses to go with his 1000 pt list.
3) Run mission twice, in a manner which ensures that everyone plays both attacker and defender. (Option: run this mission for rounds 1 & 2; attacker is player on the near side of the table for round #1. For second mission, keep players on the same side of their tables, and shift them; reverse attacker/defender roles. No seeding for round 2.)

Have to be somewhat careful with missions, of course; people tend to be annoyed at unbalanced scenarios in tournament settings. Even the reserves options we had in round 3 were somewhat problematic, as it is MUCH harder in BFG to react to enemy ships showing up in unexpected locations, except by simply disengaging.