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.

On the note of sportsmanship scoring by players, I was told twice last year that I was doing it wrong (and could be DQ'd for it)because I awarded full points to all my opponants. I had fun in all my games and don't like judging other players fluff so in my mind everyone gets full points. TO's telling me to judge peoples fluff harsher or gets to stepping is a bit hobby elitist/hardcore. Just sayin thats all.
And +1 to backbreaking knee high tables last year.

Hulk: I wasn't present last year, service commitments, so I don't have that experience to draw from. I can infer from your previous posts you have a big axe to grind, that's your perogative, but have you written out..literally, your position? Tone and body language often do more to defeat constructive discourse more than differing viewpoints do. Admittedly, PACMADs frown on "WAAC" gaming...it's not how we do business. We advocate the hobbiest and a "would I enjoy playing this person in a one-off setting" perspective.

With regards to your comment on "integrity": I think inserting "purist" or "strict constructionalist" in your previous statement would make your position tenable.

With regards to the "Hardcore": Again, that's an echo of the anti-WAAC sentiment.

The PACMAD's have done the leg work to lock on a venue. If you are unhappy with the way the event is organized or missions are written, establish "buy-in" by providing feedback and examples of methods you may have seen work in other venues.

As with anything, I am not trying to make everyone happy...i'd lose that fight. I would like to see some of these issues addressed, and incrementally, the event will be better, stronger and more efficiently run.

Semper Fidelis,

Richard

Hi all,

I'm Kurt, one of the tournament organizers of the Broadside Bash. I am known to many of you, either from the past tournaments or the local gaming scene.

We welcome ALL feedback, even if we don't agree with you. We welcome any of you to come over to our forums and post feedback, or you can e-mail me directly...kurt@broadsidebash.com

With regards to the number of slots available, that is somewhat arbitrary. We do have a fixed amount of space, but its not like we have a specific space for 40k, specific space for WFB, etc. We rarely have to turn anyone away. We do however have to allow equal space for all systems, that is part of GWs requirement. If it were up to us, we would not even bother with WoTR. We have yet to turn anyone away for lack of space, so don't be afraid to register based upon an arbitrary number.

We have been experimenting with different scoring systems and mission structures at each event, not always hitting the mark. We will take this feedback into account and may make some changes based upon this.

Something that we are adamant about is that this is a HOBBY tournament first and foremost. The biggest competition will come in the form of painting, sportsmanship and theme. Battle scores are always going to be a marginal factor. This is something that you can either like or dislike, but it is a core factor in our tournament structure.

With regards to the SCGWL drama...the ironic thing is that is pretty much was started by and involved, other people...no one from the Broadside Bash team was involved in that drama. It was between various San Diego gamers and various other OC/LA gamers. We don't now, nor have we ever had anything against the SCGWL players or organizers...even if we do disagree on how "competitive" events should be played.

@ Hulk, I am sorry that you felt brushed off by myself or one of the other TOs with regards to feedback. That was not our intent, we are all tired and I would suggest in fact I welcome you, to visit our forums and post your feedback.

@Grim, while I do not agree that you should have been directed to judge people harshly, by giving everyone perfect marks, you are skewing the scoring simply due to the fact that it seems like you don't agree with sportsmanship scoring. If you legitimately felt that you have perfect games, then score accordingly.

We are doing this for you guys. We don't make any money off of this event, everything that we take in goes to either pay for the facility (yes, we have to pay for this), goes to cover our expenses (these events are costly to run) and the rest into prizes (we buy a lot of extra prize support).

Thanks for listening, thanks for your input and most of all thanks for attending the Broadside Bash.

- Kurt

I don't have an axe to grind actually. Like I said I've taken home best general 2 out of 3 years. Even if I had to point out the error that was made on my BP scores (they had somehow dropped 10pts off my total) after the event and it was never officially acknowledged. I didn't have a problem with that as the problem was rectified fast and well. It's why I attended the second year in fact. Kurt did a great job with it and I praised him for it then and I'll do the same now.

My problem is that they are not open to constructive criticism when given and that they have done nothing to improve the event for all types of gamers that would attend and instead have actually gone the other way.

The fact that you use the phrase WAAC to describe people who just want to bring a list they enjoy playing is an underlying problem as well. Check out my Sports scores for year 1 and 3 (the years I won Best General) and you'll notice I normally get 2-3 favorite opponent votes. I'm fun to play against even if I bring a tough list. If other people aren't mature enough to have a good time even if they lose why should players like myself, reece, janth, grimgob and others be punished?

And actually all of my discussion on the topic last year was written except for the painting checklist which I discussed at the time of the event and later online. Most of it via pm with Espa from their forums or on their forums. But I was attacked immediately upon my criticism of the fact that they had just recycled year ones missions (for 4th edition mind you) last year. I then gave tons of constructive criticism citing that the missions in fact favored my army so much it would be hard to lose. I pushed for DoW and KP's as mitigating factors to the list I was bringing (before I ever saw the scenarios) but was shut down and told next year. Blackmoor, Reece, and I pointed out the flaws and issues they would have and shockingly, those exact problems arose.

I realize this even is put on by primarily Apoc gamers and people who generally don't step out and play in any kind of competitive style. That it's put on by a club of extremely like minded individuals who have a very narrow vision of how 40k is suppose to work. I just wish they could realize that people have less fun when you try and force your style of play on others than if you just said go for it. It's like they didn't even read the critique of last years events that several attendees posted up on various locations afterwards.

The only reason they've had attendance is because their haven't been other options and now that has changed. There are 3 other events in SoCal and 3 more within a 6 hour drive that are going to be going on outside of this event. That's not counting the Sacremento, Oregon, Seattle events that will also be going on the West Coast. I'd say it's a good idea to start adjusting at least a little bit to what people out there who attend these events want or they won't be running the Bash next year. Someone else might be.

@Kurt

I realize it's primarily a hobby event. Most tournaments are. But you can have a hobby event that is fun and competitive too. Nova did it. BFS did it. Adpeticon is going to do it next year. The SCGWL guys are getting much, much closer (if I can get them to drop that damn single wacky mission they always insist on). Why incorporate sports and a whole new arbitrary system into it? Why not just write good, solid scenarios (or steal them) and let the competitive (not WAAC) players have fun to? If your doing pairs by pure BP's anyway then these people will be playing each other and everyone will be having a good time. Right now your trying to shove your brand of gaming into every aspect of the game. What does theme have to do with Best General? I realized a long time ago I wasn't going to walk away with the Best Overall. I don't meet yall's painting standard which is fine actually. I might pick up sport but genearlly do to well at BP's to pick that up. Which means there is only one prize I'm going to walk away with if I do well. I'm totally cool with that and that is what I shoot for. I bring well designed, fully painted (generally very well painted by most standards), and interactive lists so I wouldn't be surprised to walk away with it again if I attend. I think it's important that you realize I just want the experience to be better for everyone and the current direction you are going drives away more people than it brings in. That's pretty much my problem with the Broadside Bash as a whole cause I want you guys to be around. I want tournaments to go to. But I'm worried that you'll get lost if you don't start to adapt to what a lot of people are looking for.

Hulksmash

“Then the current person doing the missions said that next year they'd be better because he'd have more time. Then went around being pissed that I didn't praise his missions.”

When I’m “pissed” you’ll know it. Quite honestly, I don’t recall meeting you. Sorry.

“Integrity-Did you think your opponent made an army list based on the theme of the relevent gaming universe and available background for that army (as opposed to a force built purely for winning with little or no regard to that armies established background)

This to me come off as completely elitist and over the top really. So if I build an army I like and it doesn't match your idea of fluff then I have no integrity? Statements like this further divide the community. Why not just leave that at did this person measure and yada appropriately?”

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?pageMode=multi&categoryId=300005&pIndex=8&aId=3400027&start=9

Yes. It’s as elitist as the 2008 GW Grand Tournament it was taken from. Sorry.
_________
Reece

“These guys have said, and I quote, they'd like to see someone win a tournament even if they lost all of their games.”

That’s news to me. I will begin an immediate investigation to castrate these people who design tournaments where losing is winning.

“the guy writing the scenarios doesn't play regular 40K. He plays a house rules version only in a for fun league setting.

So, he has very little experience in competitive 40K or even a good knowledge of the rules, to be honest. You notice there are no Dawn of War missions, again, and that is because he doesn't like DoW and did not know how it worked.”

Yes, if by little experience you mean 10 years of play, 4 leagues, 8 campaigns, missions used in RTTs, having owned Tyranids, Eldar, Dark Angels, Sisters of Battle, and Orks. Oh, and averaging two games of 40k just about every Saturday against more than 50 players over the past 5 years. I’m a newb.

”I am not putting him down, just stating why the missions are so bad.”

Of course you’re not putting me down. You’ve played these missions, reviewed their balance and playability, and have a well-informed basis of criticism. Some of you may know that Reece and I have personal differences. I would ask that if you wish to tell others that a movie ‘sucks’, you are fair enough to have seen it first.

I make no apologies for the PM gaming philosophy, nor its emphasis upon providing attendees an experience of fun in gaming that is not solely defined as “win”.

If you believe the only fun is to win. That there is glory to be found in being the ‘best’ at 40k by winning at all costs, so that Bieberesque fandom will validate your existence than please do not come to BSB 2011.

If however, you enjoy a good game win or lose. You enjoy seeing others interpretations of 40k in hobby and play, and you just love the game for all of its trappings – hobby, game, story, camaraderie – you are most assuredly welcome! We’d love to have ya.

Thank You,

Jason Nichols
Please, feel free to send suggestions/queries to nicho043@csusm.edu

Espa wrote:Reece

“These guys have said, and I quote, they'd like to see someone win a tournament even if they lost all of their games.”

That’s news to me. I will begin an immediate investigation to castrate these people who design tournaments where losing is winning.

“the guy writing the scenarios doesn't play regular 40K. He plays a house rules version only in a for fun league setting.

So, he has very little experience in competitive 40K or even a good knowledge of the rules, to be honest. You notice there are no Dawn of War missions, again, and that is because he doesn't like DoW and did not know how it worked.”

Yes, if by little experience you mean 10 years of play, 4 leagues, 8 campaigns, missions used in RTTs, having owned Tyranids, Eldar, Dark Angels, Sisters of Battle, and Orks. Oh, and averaging two games of 40k just about every Saturday against more than 50 players over the past 5 years. I’m a newb.

”I am not putting him down, just stating why the missions are so bad.”

Of course you’re not putting me down. You’ve played these missions, reviewed their balance and playability, and have a well-informed basis of criticism. Some of you may know that Reece and I have personal differences. I would ask that if you wish to tell others that a movie ‘sucks’, you are fair enough to have seen it first.

This doesn't really help your cause, or encourage me to attend. There are some specific criticisms of the missions posted above, and they appear to raise valid concerns; rather than use an open forum to address them, you offer sarcasm.

Would it help if someone you don't have personal differences with were to repost some of the concerns with the missions?

If you believe the only fun is to win. That there is glory to be found in being the ‘best’ at 40k by winning at all costs, so that Bieberesque fandom will validate your existence than please do not come to BSB 2011.

If however, you enjoy a good game win or lose. You enjoy seeing others interpretations of 40k in hobby and play, and you just love the game for all of its trappings – hobby, game, story, camaraderie – you are most assuredly welcome! We’d love to have ya.

And here, you're setting up a false dichotomy that leaves me feeling unwelcome. There IS room in the hobby for people enjoy the modeling, the painting, and the actual gameplay, but apparently there isn't room for such people at your tournament.

Not at all. It would help if I were contacted by these concerns, but as of yet I have not been.

I have always encouraged players to test these scenarios and provide feedback.

Reece and Hulksmash know this because they are aware that I worked with players' suggestions for BSB 2010. Reece and I have pages of discussions working to develop the scenario "Provide No Quarter" for BSB 2010 and now appearing for BSB 2011. That wasn' the cause for the personal differences, by the way. In fact, I'd found our collaboration very helpful and said so publicly - please see the BSB 2010 postings.

My cause is to provide a tournament for all attendees to have fun at in accordance with the mission of the Pacific Marauders, as best possible, and reviews of my psychological and philosophical basis of designing the scenarios is not very helpful. Simply emailing me at nicho043@csusm.edu
would very much help the cause of those who wish to open a discussion regarding BSB 2011.

However, simply ranting before saying "Hi. I have a suggestion." doesn't reveal a desire for change so much as a desire to dismiss the possibility for that change.

I don't bite unless asked. I promise.

We didn't meet Jason. Our discourse was entirely via the internet. And to be honest I'm far more inclined to take a friends word for it than yours when it came to how you discussed my criticism of the missions outside of our conversations.

As for the comment taken from 2008 it's actually in a different context. That is clearly a game play issue in their checklist. In your checklist it's an integrity issue. See the difference there? One is about the game, the other is about the person. Two totally different things.

"I make no apologies for the PM gaming philosophy, nor its emphasis upon providing attendees an experience of fun in gaming that is not solely defined as “win”.

If you believe the only fun is to win. That there is glory to be found in being the ‘best’ at 40k by winning at all costs, so that Bieberesque fandom will validate your existence than please do not come to BSB 2011."

Where the hell did we say we don't enjoy just playing or that winning is the only thing that is fun for us? Janth hasn't won a major event yet this year despite attending a multitude and he's always a blast to play or talk to and generally very much enjoys himself. Grimgob is in the same boat and we always have great games. Your painting an entire group not just with the same brush but with the wrong one.

In regards to missions and Reece comments. How many RTT's or GT's have you attended in 2009-2010? I don't care if you play in leagues, or have pick up games on saturdays, or played in a campaign. That isn't nearly the same environment as a major event.

And as for needing to play missions to see they aren't bad, I don't need to do that since I understand tournaments and all the codexes and have basic reading skills. I can tell you major issues by looking at them and then find minor ones as I play them. It's not hard to notice that lack of DoW or true KP's will favor certain builds. Nor to note that gaining points for objectives will hurt several armies. Or to point out that not giving someone a full turn isn't a fair way to run an event.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
And the insistance of personal correspondance instead of openly having a discourse doesn't help. Last year no matter what Reece did he couldn't get you to use KP's which I was talking to you about at the same time. Only reason I know this is that I talked to Reece. Blackmoor and I couldn't get you to use DoW.

Closed discourse leads to pretending to listen to people while doing what you want. Open conversation shows willingness to change.

"And as for needing to play missions to see they aren't bad, I don't need to do that since I understand tournaments and all the codexes and have basic reading skills. I can tell you major issues by looking at them and then find minor ones as I play them. It's not hard to notice that lack of DoW or true KP's will favor certain builds. Nor to note that gaining points for objectives will hurt several armies. Or to point out that not giving someone a full turn isn't a fair way to run an event."

Again, please send your suggestions for fixes to nicho043@csusm.edu

Said another way, I believe you wish to provide suggestions for the scenarios that would encourage a fun environment at the tournament. Please send them to me. Design a scenario of your own, send me one you've found somewhere else. I have no personal investment to see that any one of these are played at the tournament. The scenarios were chosen from 21 under review, 7 seemed a nice number, and 5 will be used.

There was no science behind their selection. Simply, these were chosen for the sake of simplicity, table logistics, balance, and variety.

If I was rude to you in our emails, my apologies, but I don't recall receiving such criticism. Quite the opposite, actually. You, yourself thanked me.

Again, please feel free to open a dialogue. I ask via my email simply because it offers a means to send image files and pdfs, and has a better archive.

Thanks,

Jason
nicho043@csum.edu

Oh I thanked you for changing from the initial missions that were rehashes of the 4th edition tournament. And for that I was truly grateful. Like I said last year you did a fine job in the amount of time that you had.We exchange several emails and if i remember correctly I tried very hard to include KP's and DoW. I did mention that they heavily favored midfield capable forces (primarily marines).

Here is something to consider as overall guidelines:

>1-2 DoW missions in a 5 game tournament
>No random objectives/occurances
>KP's are essential to balanced play, 1-2 mission in a 5 game tourney (1 if one mission is VP based, 2 if not)
>No more than 1 game with forced mid-table objectives
>No point gathering objectives
>Make sure full turns are always played. Avoid missions like the kill half+2 and autowin right there style scenarios

Things to do:
>Use standard deployment zones. Speeds everything up
>Slightly modify or tweak book missions, don't go overboard
>Keep it simple

Everytime to make an adjustment or change you have to think about which codex it hurts and if it will result in unhappy gamers. The current missions with the exception of the second and fifth ones are complete no-go's. Everyother mission heavily negatively impacts someone. Also bear in mind that requiring multiple objectives to major/massacre you're inadvertantly pumping up SM's who have the most resilient basic troops in the game pt for pt.

Hope that's clear and helpful.

"Oh I thanked you for changing from the initial missions that were rehashes of the 4th edition tournament. And for that I was truly grateful. Like I said last year you did a fine job in the amount of time that you had.We exchange several emails and if i remember correctly I tried very hard to include KP's and DoW. I did mention that they heavily favored midfield capable forces (primarily marines). "

With as much conviction to use KPs as you'd had last year, Reece pushed for VPs.

I would've worked with you to design a scenario for KPs that considered the other point advocating for VPs, but Reece took the initiative in that time and we began work that resulted in DPs. That's not to say you weren't involved as I often passed your points onto Reece as we discussed a solution.

In designing scenarios for a diverse collection of players, I have often found many players argue in opposition of others with as much passion and legitimacy.

For this reason and the logistical ones stated, I do not publicly discuss scenario design. This is not for the sake of a "Closed discourse [which] leads to pretending to listen to people while doing what you want." If you would like a copy of discussions concerning KPs and VPs and if Reece gave permission, I would be happy to provide you a copy.

I'm sure you'll see, just from the extensive discussion we'd had, and many drafts we'd worked on, why a public forum is not the most effective means regarding this dialogue.

Public forums also have an interesting way of intensifying the need to be 'right', or appear 'better' than others; offense is quick, frequency and style supercede substance.

Again, I ask that you contact me at nicho043@csusm.edu
if you haven't already. And, if for the sake of review you would like our email posted publicly, that's more than okay with me. I think many would find scenario design informative.

Thanks,

J

....and there you have it, folks, communication!!! It works when both parties are involved.

Hulk: I heard you the first 5 posts that you won best general 2 times in a row As for your comment on a group with a very narrow view of 40k, well Im sure every other gaming group/club has the same perspective about other groups. Pot and kettle, opinions and certain body parts, etc. Don't be so quick to judge/generalize other folks interpretation of "things", it isn't dignified or constructive.

With regards to all your other comments: Im glad you are entering the conversation as opposed to carte blanche "hellfire and brimstone" the BSB.

Mazel, Mazel. Good things!

Richard

I don't need to be right. If the actual missions are playable I normally just sit back and smile. If you check out the way Phazael adjusts his missions based on feedback you'll see it doesn't get out of hand. It's only when missions are so far off the track that they get the crazy reaction. In all honest I have zero urge to restructure your scenarios or create entirely new ones. I'll offer ideas or guidelines like I did above. I'll tell you how it can negatively impact my opponents or how it will OP my own armies. But designing from the groud up isn't my style. I'm to inclined to only moderately adjust standard missions like:

Mission 1:
Deployment: Pitch Battle
Minor Win:Most KP's
Major Win:3+ More KP's
Massacre:3+ KP's and Most Table Quarters controlled by troops.

Mission 2:
Deployment: DoW
5 Objectives-1 In middle of table and 2 in each "deployment zone but not within 12" of a long edge or 6" of a short one.
Minor:More Objectives
Major:3+ More Objectives
Massacre: 3+ More Objectives and Killed selected HQ or More KP's

Simple stuff like that. It uses standard deployments. Is easy to read. Doesn't hammer a particular army though the second one would be harder on foot sloggers like Nids but not impossible. That's as "in-depth" as i get when it comes to creating scenarios. Balance and playability come first. "Unique" or "Quirky" aren't something I look for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Sierm

It never was Fire and Brimstone the BSB dude. As for the Best Gen comments it's important because it's coming from someone who has not only attended but performed well in the events. That should, in a normal world, lend weight to their opinion as their opinions aren't coming from a "make it so I can win" perspective. See how that works?

I can and will assume from the way you run your events, the tone of your forums, the constant use of the WAAC term, and your responses that your club has a restricted view on 40k. Most of it's members aren't really part of the "tournament" scene (I could be wrong about Fantasy) and generally only come out to this event. The only guys I regularly see from San Diego aren't associated with your club and I hit every major SoCal tournament and most of the RTT's. So that tells me that your group isn't tournament oriented and the language of the replies tells me that you have a..dislike..of people who play differently than you do. Referring to them largely as WAAC gamers who get their validation from playing with little toy soldiers. That's the brush you guys use to paint people that don't play your way. Less holier than though and more honest open conversation.

Nothing I've posted has been fire and brimstone. It's been honest feedback on major issues that haven't been addressed previously and that experience tells me won't be addressed now. But I'm always willing to talk, who knows, maybe people can take something away from it.

I'm not a WAAC player but I do like the competitve part of 40k more then other parts of the hobby (I really enjoy painting and modeling also). but saying things like if your just coming to win don't come is really offensive. you have a product but you don't like a 1/3 of the people that buy said product so you alienate them to keep the product "pure". Next thing you know people arnt buying your product. you already have 5 people on here that don't like being called WAAC that are not going to attend this year which will domino to their frinds (the two people I came with last year passed when I asked them yesterday). you pulled 28 people last year and now your down to 21, way to grow the hobby. I know you don't do it for the money but you don't want to loose money and buisness is all about repeat coustomers and coustomer opinion. ignoring 1/3 of your costomers is bad buisness.

To be fair Grimgob they had 48 people for 40k last year. So they'd be down to 41 And so far it's only 2-3 non-returners and another 4+ that won't be attending who could have expanded the venue again.

I stand corrected, 41 it is

"In all honest I have zero urge to restructure your scenarios or create entirely new ones. I'll offer ideas or guidelines like I did above. I'll tell you how it can negatively impact my opponents or how it will OP my own armies. But designing from the groud up isn't my style. I'm to inclined to only moderately adjust standard missions[.]"

Of course. Please, reconsider. I find a unique, especially dissenting opinion to be the most helpful, offering views I may not have considered. I enjoyed working with you last year and I am confident I would again this year.

However, for the reasons I'd provided, I'm unable to work from forum criticism - it's logistically prohibitive and extraordinarilly time consuming. I've already lost a lot of work hours just in this discussion.

Again, I sincerely hope to receive feedback regarding these scenarios, simply pointing out what you don't agree with is not as helpful since scenario design requires a host of considerations including simple things such as 'where will players put their armies when not playing?'. The decision just on army point size included 8 people.

As always, feel free to contact me at nicho043@csusm.edu

If not, please consider creating your own tournament. No license or tests are required, and with as much passion and experience as I've witnessed on this forum, I'm sure it'll be worthwhile.

Much Appreciated,

Jason

"The decision just on army point size included 8 people."

And this is part of the problem. When you get to larger groups your start trying to make everyone feel valued and want to make everyone feel like they contributed. 1-2 people should design 10ish missions. Throw them up for criticism and review. Those 1-2 people make adjustments based on feedback. Rinse and repeat until it hits a not everyone is happy but no one is pissed stage.

And feel free to use the two I put up as an example of simple and far more balanced missions. People might not all like them but you'd be hard pressed to have people say they are gak and hurt specific codexes.

"And this is part of the problem. When you get to larger groups your start trying to make everyone feel valued and want to make everyone feel like they contributed. 1-2 people should design 10ish missions. Throw them up for criticism and review. Those 1-2 people make adjustments based on feedback. Rinse and repeat until it hits a not everyone is happy but no one is pissed stage"

With repect, what do you believe I've been doing?

With respect, I meant put it up to the community at large. Not the club. That's where you get the best answers. Clubmates tend to come from mostly the same place since that's why they are clubmates to begin with. And if you know your club is 90% "soft" score oriented players that don't participate in to many tournaments then how are you going to build good scenarios from that?

You can do that by simply posting scenarios on a forum like this and asking for feedback. Leave it alone for 2-3 days unless it's a question on how something works and then come back. Take that criticism, state your going to tweak, and in a few days come back with the tweaked ones. Rinse and repeat. That is how you use a forum to help. There are a lot of good, solid tourney players here that can help. But not everyone cares enough to go into an email dialogue and to be honest I would feel I couldn't play if I straight designed the missions as that would be unfair or could open up the possibility of public outcry if I win Best General or Overall.

Don't get caught up in arguements and you won't almost any more time than you would have correlating and reading emails and tweaking it that way.

It's not February. The scenarios are not gospel. I have asked you to work with me.

I'm not sure what else I can offer, except what you've just asked for.

Started a thread for you, I suggest checking it on friday or so, making a note, and then throwing up some reworked stuff next week. This can make for a fast and easy way to get more balanced scenarios assuming people participate. Also contacting other TO's and stealing ideas should be encouraged

Hulksmash wrote:I meant put it up to the community at large. Not the club. That's where you get the best answers. Clubmates tend to come from mostly the same place since that's why they are clubmates to begin with. And if you know your club is 90% "soft" score oriented players that don't participate in to many tournaments then how are you going to build good scenarios from that?

You can do that by simply posting scenarios on a forum like this and asking for feedback. Leave it alone for 2-3 days unless it's a question on how something works and then come back. Take that criticism, state your going to tweak, and in a few days come back with the tweaked ones. Rinse and repeat. That is how you use a forum to help. There are a lot of good, solid tourney players here that can help. But not everyone cares enough to go into an email dialogue and to be honest I would feel I couldn't play if I straight designed the missions as that would be unfair or could open up the possibility of public outcry if I win Best General or Overall.

Hulk: That's a very good point. Im not certain as to the number of tournements that are willing to post missions prior to the event, but your observation is valid.

With regards to my use of the acronym WAAC and your use of the phrase "your group": WAAC is common parlance and used frequently on this forum. If it strikes a nerve, it isn't intended. The magic of internet, as you know, is that sarcasm and humor cant be passed efficiently, the best general comment was my attempt at humor...sorry, im a Marine, not a comedian. Yes winning commands respect, but it also breeds hubris.

Yes, you are wrong to assume that about me. I play in tournements and I do not have a dislike of players who pursue victory at the cost of being cordial. Don't paraphrase my position or misquote me. I have not done you that diservice.

This conversation should be proof that the PACMADs are willing to engage in debate to resolve the issues identified.

Grimgob: I don't make anything to sell, brother. Your trite comments have been addressed by Hulk, so I'll go back to painting my Vendettas.


Richard

But even there Sierm you make the assumption that most of the players would pursue victory at the cost of being cordial. Most of the guys I run into at the top tables are the most fun games I ever have and 90% of those games are completely argument free. I could be misremembering but I used to run into worse sports and less cordial people before I began populating the top tables for the most part.

I apologize if I offended you. Remember that being part of a group though does impact how others view you and you belong to a very "hobby" oriented group so that's going to affect my comments and sometimes my tone

As for posting missions prior there has been a move that is making that common place. The SCGWL guys have been doing it for 2 years. The Nova, Bolter Beach II, and BFS have posted them all early. I'm pretty sure that Adpeticon is moving to posting them early this year as well. Props to the BSB guys on this as they have consistantly done this since at least the second year. It's an excellent move as the last thing you want is someone bitter from the experience of your tournament going home and ranting about how crappy it is because a homebrewed mission screwed them after being sprung on them at the tournament. It's the best way to make sure you get positive feedback and the most enjoyment out of the event.

For instance if the missions for this get fixed you might see people do a turn around and attend after all. That's the joy of doing this 4 months out so you can really get the ball rolling. Most of us aren't complaining about the actual scoring rubric (though I'd personally like a more step-by-step painting checklist). We're complaining about the missions which put a major damper on the whole thing for some of us as they are unfun and can lead to hurt feelings on the side of the guys getting screwed which with Sportsmanship can screw the guy who won even if he was a decent guy.

I'm always open to discussion and discourse. Heck, i even started a thread to help with the scenarios. I want to see the hobby grow and my biggest issue with the BSB this year is that they seem to be pushing some people away instead of opening their arms to bring them in.

Hulk: No, im not assuming that most players would pursue victory at the cost of being cordial. I said that I don't dislike players who pursue victory at the cost of being cordial. After the game is done, we usually have a great time...except for Tester, errrrr!!!!!!

In any case, as Espa posted earlier, the missions aren't set. I look forward to reading about this event!

I hope you change your mind about attending, Hulk.

The one thing I hate about Comp...you have no idea what a TO is going to ding until its too late.

So; what Army comps will a PacMar TO dock in points, regardless of the logic of the list or precedent found in 40K lore?
Dual lash Chaos? Triple Vindi Marines? Triple Lith Crons? 20+ missile Wolves? Melta-Vet Chimera spam Guard? 5+ Deff-Rolla Orks? Any army with multiple Special Characters (Ghazi-Snikrot, Shrike-Telion, etc)?

Also what is the policy for counts-as armies? Blue Salamanders, Black Imperial Fists, Red Space Wolves, Green Blood Angels (you know, things like using a Codex SM army as one of the specialized Armies)?

Better to get it in the open now so their are no nasty surprises on game day.

To be fair there is not comp. Outside of the 3 points available for "Hardcore" they aren't doing anything resembling comp. That isn't to say it won't affect your painting score though

They did at least take that from last year and eliminate it. That and actually spelling out the scoring (assuming they hold to it this year) were to two large steps they took forward.

The addition of "hardcore" and sports to best general was a step back. So were the scenarios. The painting rubric needs work too. If they fixed these three things you'd actually see a pretty good event assuming they fixed their pairing issues from last year as well.

Personally they don't need to drop "Hardcore" from general. I get it honestly but I would prefer them to drop the sports from it.

I'm sorry, I didnt mean to sound flamey. if your selling 60$ (and you are selling something, T-shirts too) tickets to play games dont call it a tournament. I went last year and did well but I dont like the fact that if I go, subjective thoughts about my personality and what I did with a legal codex list that has multiples of the same unit will dictate if I win or not. My list is harder then last year and my personality can be abrasive to some, but my painting is complete and I add details all the time, I know the rules, and try to be a nice person but the former will keep me away from the overall and it not a fair system. Why would I pay 60$ for that when I could go to a more rounded tournament where everyone has a chance. that was my point anyways and why I will not be attending this year.

And now it was my turn to not have read right. They have fixed the painting rubric. So that means that my only points of contention with the set-up is the scenarios and a few of the scoring aspects. If those are fixed I'll be attending and will even promote it to others since it shows they really do want to grow the hobby and incorporate all gamers. I should be back to scoring around 25-27 which makes overall possible again oddly enough...since that kind of increase over last year would have moved me up to 3rd place overall...

@Grimgob

If they fix the stuff go just to try and pick up Best General. It's all I tend to aim for due to their scoring previously. But with the fixed painting score I have an actual chance at Overall and you probably would to. Keep an eye out to see if they fix the major issues.

Thanks Brad. Nice to have a hope you don't end up out of the running before the event even starts.

I was OK with most of the missions. Agree that DoW deployment should be included. It's one of those setups that really equalize the battlefield. No turn 1 Alfa Strikes nor spammed Bright-Lance killing tanks before they even move.
I really hated the one where you auto-lose at 50% unit casualties. I can see missile-wolves mass killing transports on the alfa-strike, having the embarked unit take casualties and break, and the SW player winning on turn 1 with the opponent never getting to roll a single dice.