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.

 Ordana wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:
Gang Busters sounds like it punishes using squadrons of Killa Kans or Broadsides too much.

That's what some of us dislike about the ITC secondaries. They play a big part in influencing list building where you start to design lists to minimize the possible secondaries you give up and any list with to many easy secondaries becomes unviable regardless of how good the list itself is.

That's why I listed them from my experience. There's 10 available and it's usually the same 4 every game that I and my opponent pick.

I didn't like Adepticon's unnecessarily complicated scoring format, but I did like how they added up secondary kill points in several of the missions. 1 VP for every 100 pts removed.

 deviantduck wrote:


Did I read that correctly earlier, Euros play maelstrom (with modified VPs) competitively?

We play an Eternal War and a Maelstrom of War mission simultaneously. A mix of BRB and CA missions, paired up.

Objective locations are mostly fixed in a 3x2 grid.

How about side-boarding?

Rather than a completely fixed list, each army may include a variable Patrol detachment. This allows players to swap units in or out to help avoid rock-paper-scissors matchups.