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.

Posted By jfrazell on 09/07/2006 6:07 AM

You have a point there HBMC.  I especially enjoyed the batrep/new mission  in the most recent WD that turned out not to be a batrep,  just a  minis showcase.

Personally I was most impressed with the pre-determined outcome.

BYE

I'm not as certain of the pre-determined nature of it. Historically, GW has predetermined that the Imperium wins-sort of. They win but fighting continues blah blah. Since armageddon I've not seen an outright drubbing by the Imperium against, well, anyone.

Having said that I'm not particularly bothered either way. Its a worthless speck so had no promises of impending fluff/40K history change like EOT was supposed to have. Just a nice excuse for a campaign.

Posted By Bob Lorgar on 09/06/2006 7:35 PM

I understand why the GW studio feels they have to do it...

 

...but I really, REALLY hate how the last few campaigns have been "find an excuse to have every race in 40K fight".  Give it up already - there is no good excuse why every race in the entire stupidly frickin' huge galaxy should hang out on one single planet/region at the same time.  None. 

 

Wait a minute, what is the writing on the cover of the 40k books.. Doesn't it say something about "IN THE GRIM DARKNESS OF THE FAR FUTURE THERE IS ONLY WAR." 

For Christ's sake, do we need anything but an excuse to put models on the table and push them around and roll dice and have fun? A campaign is just a catalyst to excite games.. who the frag cares who wins?  I mean if you put that much stake in who wins these campaigns, you need to unplug your butt from your chair, pull back the curtains and let your squinty eyes adjust to the light and walk your happy arse outside and get some fresh air..  As Steve Irwin would say.. Crikey 'hat's a big one 'ere.  

 IF all you do is look for conspiracy and deceipt, you will find it.. it's inevitable because you will be so wrapped up ijn it you can't see the forest through the trees.. 

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 09/07/2006 6:41 AM

Personally I was most impressed with the pre-determined outcome.

BYE

A statement based on cynicism not on fact.

When I was checking the results throughout the campaign, I noticed some real shady stuff. Dark Eldar's past weekly scores kept "changing".

1st Week they took 6th.
2nd Week they took 5th.
3rd they took 5th.
4th they took 8th.
5th they took 5th.
Then on week 6, the rundown got changed to:
1: 4th
2: 5th
3: 5th
4: 2nd
5:5th
6: 8th (Even though, right above it, in the breakdown, it said they took 4th)

Then on week 7, it got changed up again.

1: 6th
2: 5th
3: 5th
4: 8th
5: 5th
6: 2nd (even though it still said 4th for that week)
7: 5th.

Week 8, the past remained the same. They where given 6th, even though they tied with two other armies. Chaos, and SM. SM where given 4th, and Chaos 5th. Go figure...

I didn't go through all of them to see if they all had similar "problems", but I wouldn't be suprised in the least bit.

I'm not suprised IG did well. Even though I never registered I still competed in the weekly mega-battles at my local store and the my guard always gave a good show. 3+ cover saves, heavy flamers, demo charges and hordes of autocannon shots tended to cause my opponents problems, while few of them used the restricted terrain or cover to good effect.

Besides, after the forces of "good" got the shaft in the last Fantasy campaign even after a clear win, isn't it about time they got some enjoyment?

and btw. didn't Necrons win the End Battle?

Look at how much whining there is about the results. Can you imagine how much worse it'd be if certain armies were the only ones involved? What if the Tau and Tyranid players were left out? What if the Imperial Guard players had their list restricted to being deployed ONLY if Space Marines were. Or even better...what if Space Marine players were told from now on, they'd only be able to play after Guard start losing campaigns? Yes, it'd be GREAT if there were army specific campaigns. Why not let us play campaigns where the Guard are holding out against a massive Tau force? I mean, look at the fluff. Marines are called in only when the Guard can't handle it. Pick up "His Last Command" and find some reference to Space Marines on the planet. How about giving the players just flat-out campaign books to work with, ala Flames of War? Give us certain Theatres of War.

That's what would happen in a perfect world. Regrettably, it's not. So get over it, or take your toys home and go play by yourself. I can tell ya this much, I'd hate to deal with any of you who are complaining. I'm working at my own campaign system right now off and on between my coursework. I'll unveil it once it's done, but until then...

BE CREATIVE AND GROW UP!

--Nick Risley.

Posted By djones520 on 09/07/2006 12:54 PM
When I was checking the results throughout the campaign, I noticed some real shady stuff. Dark Eldar's past weekly scores kept "changing".

1st Week they took 6th.
2nd Week they took 5th.
3rd they took 5th.
4th they took 8th.
5th they took 5th.
Then on week 6, the rundown got changed to:
1: 4th
2: 5th
3: 5th
4: 2nd
5:5th
6: 8th (Even though, right above it, in the breakdown, it said they took 4th)

Then on week 7, it got changed up again.

1: 6th
2: 5th
3: 5th
4: 8th
5: 5th
6: 2nd (even though it still said 4th for that week)
7: 5th.

Week 8, the past remained the same. They where given 6th, even though they tied with two other armies. Chaos, and SM. SM where given 4th, and Chaos 5th. Go figure...

I didn't go through all of them to see if they all had similar "problems", but I wouldn't be suprised in the least bit.

Ah then what you saw is what happened to EVERY army. They caught a large wave of cheaters and removed their bogus wins thus changing the outcome of the previous weeks.

 

Or at least I HOPE that's what it was.

How would GW identify and remove cheats?

I thinkk that the EoT was a good campaign in that instead of having a crappy excuse for Tau being there, they gave them a separate campaign. If in future they have serveral sets of 2 sides fighting, that wouold be cool. Any battle not between the designated races could be side skirmishes for both sets of campaigns.

Also if this proves anything, its that Necrons need a power boost in their new codex.

Make Pariahs 30 pts and give them Staff of Light instead of Gauss Blasters. That would be cool.

Posted By Kilkrazy on 09/07/2006 10:21 PM
How would GW identify and remove cheats?

D6 it.

 

 

*cough*

This guy

is the global leader, a tyranid player. He played more than 2 games per day. Notice anything interesting about his opponents?

Hey,


"The most important part of the democratic process isn't the vote.
It's the *counting* of the votes."
- Sicilian proverb


Playa

Posted By hotflungwok on 09/08/2006 7:19 AM

This guy

is the global leader, a tyranid player. He played more than 2 games per day. Notice anything interesting about his opponents?

I followed your link and got this message:

<h1 align="center" id="pageTitle">IT'S OVER!!!</h1>

 

+++ BATTLE REPORTING FOR MEDUSA V IS NOW CLOSED +++

+++ RETURN HERE SEPTEMBER 6 FOR THE FINAL RESULTS +++

 

I'm gonna note that it is currently September 8th.....

His results where much like the Hyrda leaders. 3-4 games a day, all against the same 3 opponents, over and over and over again.

Kids who didn't have anything to do during the summer.

You can have two battles a day with the same person- that person puts in one entry and you put in the other.

Now. Hopefully you both played 2 games and didn't report the same game twice. Yea, I've seen someone fight the same 3 opponents day in and day out without writing much of anything in the descriptions. I don't buy that.

you have to login to view the results he's talking about...

"Now. Hopefully you both played 2 games and didn't report the same game twice. Yea, I've seen someone fight the same 3 opponents day in and day out without writing much of anything in the descriptions. I don't buy that"

There was an awful lot of that going on. There were people winning 4-5 battles a day for weeks on end, against the same3-4 opponents.

Easily done with the help of Hotmail, in my opinion. Call me a cynic.

Was there any strange results like EoT where one side did slightly better on the ground (ie chaos) but sucked it up in space (ie Imperium won something like 80-90% of the BFG games)?

AFAIK it was a ground-based campaign but I never looked to see if BFG was involved.

The Imperium's "space dominance" had little to do with winning BFG games and a lot to do with masses of Imperial players reporting all their 40k games at the sector level rather than the planet level (probably because many of them never figured out that you could click on the planets and report your battles there).