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.

Nowhere in the rules did it have a 25 pt cap on total wargear in fact that kind of defeats the purpose of KZ in my eyes as that's barely enough points for 2 models. Were fleshing out what works as well and adding feedback Jim not sure why you would comeback with such a hostile post considering that we are trying to expand the system and flesh it out by using broken things so they can be fixed as well as using it in our store. Also the rules for KZ state that you may take from any entries sans HQ for the most part I'm sure your errata for the GK codex will address henchman but I would still like to not have half of the neat units in the book taken out simply because we couldn't figure out how to balance an inquisitor and retinue. If it's true for the 25 pt limit 6-8 purifiers decked out properly from their own codex sounds about as boring yet totally viable as running 10 burna boys and some nobs.

My first list in the first round was
Vang vet jump pack lc x2 medipack leader resilient
Vang vet no jumpack lc pp resilient
sternguard vet HB targeter
Sternguard vet HB targeter
Sternguard sgt pw brawler

I used shrike as the lcx2 vet as well as painted all the models to a high ravenguard degree if that list isn't in line with the spirit of KZ than I totally got the concept wrong.

Let me rephrase. It was 25 points for skills, and upgrades. So giving your assassin an assault grenade was 1 point. Giving your guy Lightning reflexes was 25 points and FNP was 10 points. So really it was not war gear. They cheated on skills and upgrades. It was max of 25 points and they took 35 just on the Callidus Assassin.

As for hostile. I was only hostile to the two guys that cheated.

I put up things I didn't like about the matches. It is my view and it was not bashing. I hope some of what I put down would be taken into consideration.

The main thing for me is 1 vs 1.

Total extra points from mission should be even. So if it went 10, 15, 20 and 25 points. Then we all have that chance to get the points. If someone got lucky and got the 50 point card then they have a huge advantage to winning the whole thing.

4 missions is another thing I'd like to see. Not the mission is the same at each table no matter what round. I don't like playing the same mission twice and one where I start out at a disadvantage.

I like the rules but it does lead some people to look for loopholes. I took Stormtroopers who got free targetters.

My list was the following,

Inquisitor w/ Bolt Pistol and Power sword, I gave him a grenade, made him T4, gave him a +1 to damage in HTH and a extra CCW.
Death Cult Assassin w/ Grenade
3x Stormtroopers w/ Plasma Guns
3x Stormtroopers
2x Gun Servitors w/ heavy bolters
Familiar w/ CCW, CCW

Thanks for the comments, fellas. I appreciate the feedback and sincerely hope tighten up the dynamic in the coming weeks, months, year. We are going to work very, very hard to ratchet this beast and continue to refine the processes of gameplay. Killzone has become a something of a labor of love and I would sincerely like it to be rather worthwhile and even extraordinary. We hope to produce a top-tier, fan-based bit of fun, and hope that you enjoy it in equal measure.

Having said that, I must be completely frank... I am not sure that this system will ever be up the rigors of the uber competitive. Even standard 40K is arguably not at all "balanced," and we most certainly will not be able to fix that for a competitive environment by dismantling the game further. Our goal was to produce a skirmish system that fills a gap left by GW in the most recent Battle Missions expansion. We did not intend to rewrite the rules nor even put sutures on its holes. At the end of the day, we're a bunch of nerds connected by the internet pouring our hobby time and effort into a silly system for the sake of it. We're not the stalwart game designers at GW. ahem.

I suspect(ed) that much should be plain. Certainly, we are aiming for reasonableness and playability (but ask the same from the players -reasonableness and a sporting eye on play). Nevertheless, we intend to be significantly more explicit about the non-tournament nature of these games next year... from day one. At the same time, we will be more direct about our specific expectations for the event with regard to points and lists and whatnot. This is, perhaps, an oversight on my part but one that is easily fixable for next year.

I will admit that I was unprepared for this kind of competitive disposition amongst the players on the day. I have apologized above for the faults in certain Missions. I will do so again if you need me to, repeatedly. No sweat.

I presumed that the nature of this game dynamic would not appeal to the aggressive, the overly ambitious, nor the waac player. After all, a genuine "Combat Patrol" tournament was also running on the weekend for those who wanted to compete on a skirmish level. Again, Killzone was a tournament. The fact that we did not even collect lists, opting instead to say only that "we trust you," might have been a second hint as to the demeanor in terms of what could be expected of our disposition and that which we expected of the players on the day.

You are correct, Marcus, that people can cheat. That's always true. If someone did, then I genuinely pity that person. Genuinely. Pity. It's a sad, sad individual who would do something like that in a fluffy dynamic like this. In my defense, we had (and have) no intention of babysitting a quirky, fun event like Killzone. Cheaters will cheat regardless. Poor things. Still, we are hoping to draw lines around the opportunities cheaters and their ilk might have. All I can say is that the system is solid and improving.

At the end of the day, the "winners" earned a piece of paper and perhaps some leftover material that we had from the event. Perhaps those winners also won bragging(?) rights... such as they are. With so very little at stake, it should have been obvious that the point was to play a fun dynamic on custom tables with some extremely well-produced props, tokens, cards, and so on.

With regard to the Cards, I can only remind you of their description in the rulebook. The Secondary Mission cards are specifically designed to "upturn the results of a game." and the Fate cards are again specifically designed to add "a statistically improbable and cinematic" element to your game. I don't know how to be more explicit than that. Suggesting that you were not given the same card as another player or that the cards weren't of equal value is a bit like complaining that you weren't dealt all aces in poker. It's gambling. At every opportunity, you had the same chance to draw a beneficial card as your opponent (each card repeated four times in each deck, as with a regular deck so in theory all four players could have drawn the same card in each game). Perhaps I have missed an element to this issue, but otherwise I suspect that I don't fully understand the objection.

Finally, I am not sure what went wrong, but you shouldn't have played the same Mission twice unless you chose to do so in the final round. Each table had its own mission and each player was moved around the breadth of the board. the final turn was "player's choice," so you could have selected any table and any mission that you desired. I am not sure how you could have been subjected to the same objectionable mission twice (unless somehow it was the product of the players that did not show up to their reserved event. Certainly, we can do little about that).

With all that, I hope this doesn't sound as defensive as it may. I genuinely appreciate the feedback. In particular, I like your suggestion, Marcus, that everyone play the same mission on each turn, but change the missions sequentially for each round. That very well might help a number of problems I found running the event, tremendously.

Again, thanks for the feedback.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cheers.
Brian

As a new fan, I am all for what you guys are doing b. smoove... not that it wasn't obvious already. I might as well ask you guys on a date.

THIS is what the hobby needs... HOBBY! Not a real competitive atmosphere. Not WAAC. Not rules lawyering. Basically dudes sitting around having a beer and busting through game after game.

In some trials of the game tonight the whole storytelling aspect came perfectly true.

The first game was my Harlequins and rangers vs a stormtrooper force with a single sniper and sentinel. The mission was Downloads. We used another guys Tau Marker tower. So the enigmatic Harlequins jumped in and grabbed it before the Special Forces from the local Guard force could stop them.

The next game was another guy's Tau vs the guard in Persons of Interest. We used the Harlequins models as the persons. So... the Tau and Guard had encircled the Harlequins and we trying to take them in and get the download from the previous game.

Easy storytelling that got everyone, players and spectators that much more into the battle.

Not the typical "everyone playing cookie cutter lists and space wolves" tournament scene that is getting to be drivel. That's for sure.

Just wanted to respond to the card issue.

For fun games having a full deck is great and the way it should be played.

During a tourny still play it shouldn't be a factor. If I played 4 games and won and you played 4 games and won it should not come down to who got lucky with a card drawn from the deck.

Games should be based on skill and not a lucky roll of the dice.

If you are worried about tie breakers then you go to models killed or something equivalent.

I understand the cards are to add a different level and feel for the game. However for tourny play they should not have a big impact on who wins.

Example of one of the cards:
Pick 1 model and that model gets 10 points if it earns it's points in kills, 15 points if it gets double or more.

It doesn't matter if both players got this card and it doesn't change the way the game is played. Most people give this to the guy that usually does well.

Now during the game you didn't have to tell people who that guy was, so really we should have been writing down what guy had this and then showing it after the game so that both players can agree that you got those points.

Again, I liked the event, but there was just somethings that need tweaking.

@ Walls. Brilliant. I accept your proposal, and I am really pleased to hear that you've been enjoying the system.

@ MJT. I think I see your point about the cards more clearly now; however, I might take a slightly different approach and argue that the game will not ever be won on skill and will always come down to a "lucky roll of the dice" as you say. The game is utterly dominated by those dice. We may have to agree to disagree this one.

As for the cards, each specifically instructs you to identify and to record on your Roster any special model influenced by that card, so the scenario you propose should always be possible. In order to claim confusion on the matter, one would have to specifically and deliberately ignore the instructions on the card. At the end of the day, this would be beyond my control.

I fully see your point that all players may not have had precisely leveled opportunities to "win" the overall event, but again, there was very, very little at stake for that kind of victory.

I also agree that we need to tweak the event. Again, I am grateful that you have taken the time to offer these critiques and hope you will continue to do so if you find more issues. As importantly, I hope that you will come back and give us another run next year.

Cheers,
B

I finally posted over on the forums. Actually had a few questions/comments/suggestions after playing some games last night.

One more thing: I must also mention that despite the aforementioned problem with "leveling" the competition, the overall Mission Point winner for your event did so by a margin of exactly one point (from a total over 200+). While the grand scheme may not have been perfect, that margin at least suggests some modest success for those interested in competition.

Likewise, in your event, there was a margin of 3 Kills between the first and second largest tally. The "top two" players in this respect were not the same as the top two in the Mission Points category. That's pretty remarkable when you think on it.

To me, this suggests exactly the kind of dynamic that I was hoping for, representative of at least two different approaches to the game -one stemming from bloody mindedness, and the other from finesse.

Also, you are always welcome to contact me directly about concerns/comments/whatnot gentlemanones at g mail dot etc. I am not just being polite when I say that I would really appreciate your comments.

Walls wrote:THIS is what the hobby needs... HOBBY! Not a real competitive atmosphere. Not WAAC. Not rules lawyering. Basically dudes sitting around having a beer and busting through game after game.

I couldn't agree more. In fact, I think I'm gonna sig that line. The older I get the more I find I don't care what outcome the game has as long as the narrative of the battle is entertaining. I've been playing a lot of Necromunda and it's always a blast when there is some epic showdown that can turn the tide one way or the other by a single dice roll. It's awesome to sit back and laugh with friends, sipping on beer and just have fun.

I just hope this isn't lost on the younger generation who have such easy access to ball-breaking net lists and uber-competitive bloggers who dominate the meta discussion.


EDIT: Damn, wouldn't fit in my sig. Still, I whole-heartedly agree!

I wholeheartedly agree with the hobby part in the end it's a for fun game but you have to account for the WAAC's in anything you do even the competitive guys as well hell I think I kill my buzz every time I start beer pong just trying to win the first few games before I'm too gone lol. I think all in all Killzone is awesome and I had a great time playing it at adepticon I did not play in the sunday event, so that was not me you called out, as I was playing in the sun morn combat patrol, I won sat night and took best gen sun so I probably fall close to waac but I do not intentionally cheat as that defeats the purpose of being a competitor. I played multiple games next to the guys running it and even had a beer with bsmoove I think, thanks for that again btw, and had a great time though and hope to see it at adepticon next year as well.

Walls wrote:It can be, yes... but don't.

That doesn't work in a convention event. Maybe with you and your friends at home that will work, but in an open event someone is going to come with the most broken thing they can think of.

BWAAAAAAH! I LOVE TOURNIES!

Is there something wrong with your caps key? Seriously.