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.

Here's the scoring sheet:

Game 4 In-progress:

Chaos Demons/Tyranids vs Smurfs/Tau:




Smurfs/Dark Smurfs vs Smurfs/Eldar:




Sisters/Tau vs Space Wolves/Eldar:

Game 4 Endgames:

Chaos Demons/Tyranids vs Smurfs/Tau:




Smurfs/Dark Smurfs vs Smurfs/Eldar:




Sisters/Tau vs Space Wolves/Eldar:

Well, the tourniment overall was a lot of fun. I liked somethings better than others.

The four tables were interesting and each provided its one problems and rewards.

My two favorite tables were the Hills and Forest.
The hills, was just that, a bunch of hills that blocked LOS, but were not considered difficult/dangerous terrain.
The forest was well a lot of forests.

These were good games. Our team took first place so we won each of these two sinerios pretty handedly. Lots of tactical movement, lots of building up your own firelanes. It was a true gritty 40K fight. Where you can be proud of your win because you had to out play the other guy.

My least favorite were the city and plains.
The city was designed to benifit assault armies, and its easy to see how it did. But there was little to no tactical movement. If you were a shooty army you just had to wait for the other guy to show up (unless you brought indirect). If your an assault army, you just walk forward until you hit their lines. The sincerio itself offered little tactical gameplay. You win or loose depending on what type of army you bring. We won in VPs, but lost in BPs.

My absolute least favorite was the plains. It was simply who ever goes first wins (especially if you were a shooty army). Which we were, and yes we did go first. We obliterated 2/3 of the enemy army on turn 1. At the end of turn 3 we could have called the game. It was all open firelanes, no cover. It was a total slaughter. Not much fun if your on the recieving end, and not much fun if you look for a tactical challenge like I do. Set em up, and knock them down gameplay is not something I really enjoy. I like a tight fight where you actually have to outplay your opponent to win the game.

The armies that showed up were pretty interesting. I don't think anyone anticipated what St. John and I brought. 12 vehicles in 2000 points. Thats a lot of armor, our theme was immunity to small arms fire. I can't speak for St. Johns casulties, but in four games I belive I only lost 1 hammerheads, 2 devilfish (one I killed myself), about 18 firewarriors, and 6-7 pirahnas. My two crisis suits died in almost every game. I probably lost 5 or so of them.

There were about 6-7 or so gambits that you could opt to take that cost battlepoints. You could only take each one once for the whole tourniment. We got Obital Bombarded three out of the four games. It got really annoying. Thats how I lost most of my suits, at least one was always wounded and one time one of them just got oblitered before the game started.

Like I said, it was fun all around. They guys who played were all great people and the table talk before, during, and after the game was always pleasant and fun.

I hope everyone who showed up had a real good time.

The city and plains tables were experiments, but they weren't quite as one-sided as you might think.

Gambits were included to counter the plains, but only 1 team used them and they obliterated their foes on the plains table despite going second.

I guess I could have said 'this gambit is for this table' but surprising players with more difficult choices was the goal.

The same team that beat the plains scenario also did well on the city table, beating a shooting army that waited on the other side.

You and John focused on the objectives. Few others did, and the lack of anti-tank throughout the tournament was telling in your games.

Anyway, all 4 missions were setup to do what I announced they would--1 would favor assault, 1 would favor shooting, and 2 would be balanced.

I'll probably modify the city and the plains to be more balanced but the truth is it was the army generals not the scenarios that decided the victors.

Anyway the results for each table were as follows.

Note a 'win' obviously means someone else lost at that table.

Forest: Draw, 1; Win, 1.
Hills: Draw, 1; Win, 3.
City: Draw, 1; Win, 2.
Plains: Draw, 1; Win, 2.

In the city, a shooty army drew and a shooty army lost.
In the plains, the 2nd player drew once and won once.
The hills are a little skewed as two teams played each other twice, and it was a bad matchup both times apparently.

Anyway I find it interesting to see the results from the players point of view versus my own.

I'll see about posting up the overall results in a bit.

Here are the results:



John + Don took Overall.
Best General went to AJ + Trevor.
Aaron + Arthur won Best Butchers.

Man, just woke up. Yesterday was a long day.

My thoughts on the tourney somewhat mirror Don's, but I can still see what Andy was trying to do with the Plains & City tables... they didn't quite work, but I still see the idea.
My biggest issue with the tournament is ... well, the team format. Don't get me wrong, I loved playing in teams and against teams. What I did not love was 3 players dropping the day before - so ended up with two fewer teams ( and one guy standing around hoping for a team to show up so he could play). It was odd that there were "only" 13 people at the tournament (just 12 got to play). I know it was designed as a smaller tourney - but that meant that the drops hurt it even more.
Oh, and it seemed really odd to me that there were no Orks there. Curse you Edwin!

My casualties tended to be light as well, but I certainly lost more than Don - mostly, I think, because our opponents were attempting tho stop all the close range flamer template laying/melta loving/bolter round throwing goodness that was going on.
We played some quality opponents - but no one really had any anti-tank. And since we designed our armies to be "immune" to Str 4 or lower weapons, it kind of guaranteed us the win.

Yeah losing 2 teams pretty much broke the tourney in quite a few ways.

We'll chat on how to fix those two tables properly when we're all together again.

The lack of AT (at least in the games we played) surprised me.

The four games we played were...

1 - Tau/Marines
2 - Demons/Nids
3 - Eldar/Marines
4 - Eldar/Space wolves

We didn't initally plan it this way but for the most part (except for game 2) the battle plan turned out to be I'd take my two hammerheads, two piranhas, and two suits to take out other hammerheads and falcons. While you may not kill a falcon every turn (3 of the 5 proved impossible to take down) my Tau kept the other guys few tanks from shooting all game. That pretty much left the SMS systems and all of St. Johns lovely anti-infantry firepower to take out the foot troops. Especially since they had very little once their vehicles were taken out that could stop the rhinos and immolators (let alone have any chance of downing a hammerhead or Devilfish) from driving up and do what sisters do best.

Our two lists worked really well together. I was genuinly surprised at just how well they worked together.