Okay, finished with my reflections; here's my dissection of Da Grand Waaagh.
Venue: Nice. Yes, it's an aircraft carrier, which is cool 'n stuff, but it's also spacious, high-ceilinged, and has great airflow - we weren't bumping butts, it never got hot, and it never got smelly. There was food available on-site (which is good - the Hornet is not terribly near any other options), and it was reasonably tasty, prepared fresh, and not eye-gougingly expensive. Sadly, no adult beverages.
Two negative: first, there was an eternal high-frequency whine in our end of the hanger bay - I don't know if it was the
PA or electrical system, but every now and then I would notice it again, and it would annoy me for half an hour; second, the decks are made of metal, which is pretty hard on the legs when standing. I brought a foam rubber kitchen mat to stand on, and I think it helped me a lot.
Recommendations: It might be nice to pass along a little more venue-related info to players - remind them that the decks are metal and recommend a mat, or good insoles, or even just sitting more than they usually do.
Terrain: Great. On most tables, there was a lot of it, of various types, and there were some LARGE
LoS blocking pieces. Also, they weren't afraid to put pieces in the middle of the board, which I really appreciated. Boards/battlemats were placed on larger-than-needed tables, which is great - it gives your casualties a place to go.
There were a couple of odd tables that stood out - one was nothing but 6" tall rock pillars, ranging from 2" circles to 2"x4" ovals; a second had a couple trenches and a bunch of bunkers; a third had the sole river of all the
40k tables. I'll talk about the latter two below, when I go over my individual games.
One minor comment: at the start of the event, we were told that Monstrous Creatures (and Vehicles) would NEVER benefit from a cover save from area terrain, irrespective of whether they were actually obscured (e.g., by large bushes). I think this was a needless deviation from the actual rules. The intent was probably to avoid any arguments (as the bushes were often movable), but most (all?) jungle/forest templates had obvious locations for their bushes - reasonable players would not have had too many problems.
Recommendations: Two minor suggestions. First, the boards/battlemats could be shifted all the way to one side on the tabletop; this would leave about 2'x5' clear at one end, which is large enough for display boards/casualties, without worrying about them infringing on the play area. Second, the table number stands could be double-sided - we were going to the "back" of the "hall" to get table assignments, but you could only read table numbers from the "front."
Armies: A very nice mix. We started with 72 players on day 1 (lost 4 for day 2), and saw everything but Necrons, Dark Eldar, and Sisters/Witchhunters. And there were some truly lovely armies present!
Organization: I'm going to break this up a little.
Pre-tournament organization was okay. Aside from their website going offline the day before the event (probably not their fault), it was easy to access the available information. Cost was in-line with events of this scope ($65).
Recommendations: I was never really clear on what the "last" day for registration really was (I registered after the posted date, for example), so I stopped encouraging others to attend after September 1. More clarity along those lines could further boost attendance.
Tournament results/Scoring organization leaves some room for improvement. There are some non-transparent factors involved in the "Judge Comp" category, but a quick look at the scores suggest that Judge Comp was non-determinative as to who placed. There was some irregularity regarding score calculation day-of, but that wasn't significant. There is also at least some irregularity in the "Player's Choice" voting - a pro-painted army won, while at least one vote for George Flower's arson-themed orks doesn't appear to have been recorded. There was some inconsistency with paint judging, as discussed above; that part is troublesome, as paint scoring was checklist-based, and was determinative of overall placement in a number of cases.
Thank you to whomever voted my Tyranids for Player's Choice; I don't agree with you, but I'm glad you liked them!
Recommendations: I think many of the issues can be attributed to growing pains - DGW is about twice as large this year as last. Painting is the most important one; if there isn't consistent application of the checklist, maybe fewer judges should be used, and paint judging should be spread across more than one break in game play. One approach: assign "paint judging" groups to people, and have group 1 judged during day 1's lunch, while group 2 is judged during day 2's lunch.
Judge comp ranged from 5 to 16 (both are outliers); 58 of the 72 attendees fell in the 9-to-13 range. This category could probably dropped completely, which would save the organizers presumably non-trivial time (reading 72 pieces of fluff & judging 72 army lists, in the 3 days before a tournament doesn't sound like my idea of fun), and remove one of the focuses for drama. It's a tempest-in-a-teapot situation.
(My Tyranids got a judge comp of 11; Tyranids ranged from 13 (no idea what Paul was running to get that) to 5 (worst score of the event).)
Day-of organization has a mix of good and bad. The event ran reasonably smoothly, all things considered - we got through the right number of games, most games started & ended in a timely fashion, and there was a lot of flex built into the schedule. Table assignments were posted promptly, and while it was strange to sort by first names, it worked fine. I have a couple of suggestions, and 2 issues I found troublesome.
Recommendations: Some people ended up playing on the same table more than once (Sazzlefrats was on table 23 for 3/5 of his games); with a bit of Excel macro'ing work, that sort of issue is fairly easy to identify. It's not hard to avoid, and it does have an impact on people's enjoyment of the event - there's all these cool tables, and they keep drawing the same one!
Armies require some unpacking at the start of an event; let us use the tables for that. If the play area is moved all the way to one side of the table, it won't even affect the terrain layout.
If an event-altering announcement has to be made (such as changing the order missions should be played in), it's important that everyone hear it. Many people did not hear the change of mission order that occurred in round 3. Better would be just not to do that - everyone is going to play every mission over the course of the tournament, making the order much less important. As it was, a significant number of tables in round 3 played the "wrong" mission, and those people played the same mission again in round 4.
On a similar note, announcements to players should convey meaningful and actionable information. During the Saturday pre-tournament instruction phase, we were told to score our opponent's comp according to the checklist, and to do it honestly, but that the judges didn't think there were any '0' comp armies out there, and didn't think there were any '5s' either. Net effect: some people wouldn't grade comp above a '4' all weekend, because the judges told them they couldn't (2 of my opponents mentioned that). Some care needs to be taken in presenting instructions to players, as many of them are only half-listening (or can only half-hear).
Problematic Issue #1: Rules interpretations and consistency. We began Saturday with a 15-20 minute instructions session. Early on, we were told that the
INAT wouldn't be used, because it wasn't official rules and it was opinionated. 2 minutes later, we were told that we should use
RAW, or common sense if necessary, but everyone's common sense was different.
In the back of my head, I'm remembering that the
TO's responded to an emailed question about Spore Pods and Death or Glory by telling Tyranid players to use the Vehicle
Ramming rules.
If you don't care to use the
INAT FAQ, or to provide one of your own, that's fine, but using part of the introductory speech just to toss a shot at the people who created it looks petty.
Problematic Issue #2: Respect for your participants. As mentioned previously, round 3 offered some confusion - we were instructed to play the fourth mission in the packet, rather than the third. I knew some people didn't find out about that in time. So, at the start of the second day, during the opening announcements, I asked a simple question: "What mission do we play for round 4?" Instead of a simple answer ("Play the Lightning Raid scenario"), I got 3 minutes of how we were all adults, and we could read, and it was at the top of the table assignment sheet, and it was important to read all the words.
First, it was an insulting response to a simple question. Second, it took MORE time to discuss than it would have taken to simply state, in front of most of the players, which mission to play. It is better to err on the side of redundant information, than to rant at the people who are trying to enjoy the event.
Now, it's entirely likely that, if I knew the
TO as an individual, I'd have taken both of these comments in a different way. But I don't.
Missions: We played 5 missions, most of which involved some tweaked rules. Some were fine, others were less so.
One thing I didn't care for: most missions included a margin of victory requirement higher than that normally associated with the mission objective (e.g., win by 3 Kill Points). It made for a lot of ties - looking at the results, out of 176 games played, 62 ended in draws. I suspect the margin of victory was intended to provide separation (where another event might have offered massacre/major/minor victories, this was mostly massacre/draw/loss). It's a preference thing - I'd prefer fewer draws, both as a player and an organizer, but I can understand the choice.
Mission 1: Smash and Grab Pitched Battle deployment zones, with 5 objectives placed. The mission was Kill Points (must win by 3), with each objective controlled counting as 2
KPs. The "Unprepared" rule required deployment of 2 Troops and 1
HQ, with everything else in Reserves. Fixed game length of 7 turns.
I think Dawn of War deployment would have covered the purpose of "Unprepared" as well or better - forcing an army into Reserves is a heavy-handed approach, and can be especially problematic in some types of missions - any non-mechanized army is at an artificial handicap for any mission that requires crossing the board, for example.
I liked the "Objectives count as Kill Points" approach - it kept the focus on
KPs, but made Objectives something worth fighting over in a way that Secondary/Tertiary mission objectives sometimes aren't.
I didn't care for the margin of victory requirements, as it exacerbates a
KP problem about match-up dependency.
My opponent, William "Curt" Combs, had a Biker Ork army (2 units of Warbikes, Nob Bikers, Warboss on Bike, Ork
SC on Bike, 3 Deffkoptas, and a Looted Wagon). We got the single table with the board-spanning river. I quickly suggested that it wouldn't be dangerous terrain for his bikes. Great guy, and I voted him for Player's Choice, as the army style was highly amusing. I won (the Ymgarl all came out of the river on turn 2 & ate his Warbikes & Warboss)
Mission 2: Foothold Dawn of War deployment, with turns 1 & 6 using Night Fight rules. Seize Ground with 6 objectives (must win by 2), fixed game length of 6 turns.
Not sure why we needed 6 objectives, or the margin of victory, but the mission was fine.
I played against Lance Porter's Space Wolves; we drew, with me up by 1 objective.
Mission 3: Lightning Raid Assassination Pitched Battle deployment;
KPs (win by 3), where the army commander is worth 3, any other
HQ is worth 2, and everything else is worth 1. 6 turns.
Nothing wrong with this mission, either. The table could have been pretty nasty against a shooty list, but offered some interesting choices for two assault armies w/o assault grenades.
I played against Mike Larson's Fatecrusher Daemons (fun fact: Fateweaver + Bloodthirster + 2 units of 7 Bloodcrushers, 4 min-sized Plaguebearers, and 2 Soul Grinders got a (fairly average) 11 Judge Comp). We played on the 2 trenches + 6 bunkers table, decided not to use the Building rules, and played to a draw (I was up by 1
KP).
Mission 4: Lightning Raid (for real, this time)
Spearhead deployment,
KPs (win by 3) with Capture & Control objectives counting as 3
KPs each, and dedicated transports over 100 pts counting as 2; everything else was 1. The "Committed" rule denied use of normal Reserves, unless your unit also had Scouting, Infiltrate, Deep Strike, or any more specific rule (e.g., Dormant for Ymgarls). 6 turns.
Odd choice, with the Dedicated Transports rule. I know at least one game where it seriously impacted Eldar - Wave Serpents are expensive. The entire list I could come up with was: Land Raiders (bought as dedicated transports), Wave Serpents, and properly-equipped Devilfish. I don't think it added anything tactics-wise; it just annoyed those people with those units.
I played against Mark Reindl, with his Khan-led Ultramarines (complete with outflanking dedicated Land Raider, carrying Khan, a Librarian, and Assault Termies). After spawning more 'gants than I ever have before (~50), I drowned Khan and friends in bodies, and won.
Mission 5: The Fog of War Pitched Battle deployment zones, with 6 objectives. Each of us had to place 3: 1 in our own deployment zone, and 2 in our opponent's table half. We deployed a single Troops choice w/o a dedicated transport. Everything else went in NORMAL Reserves. Random Game Length.
Victory conditions: from the following list, you need 2 more than your opponent:
- Blitzkrieg: Capture one objective set up in your opponent's half of the table.
- Break Their Spirit: Destroy the most expensive enemy unit.
- Defend the Flag: Capture all 3 objectives in your own half of the table.
- Assassinate: Destroy your opponent's army commander.
- They Shall Not Pass: No unbroken enemy units in your half of the table.
- Capture and Hold: Any unit w/in 3" of the center, and no enemy units w/in 6".
My opponent, Michael Usi, was playing some lovely converted Nurgle marines. On turn 2, we combined for a total of 2 successful Reserves rolls, out of a total of 17 attempts. Turn 3, he looks up and asks me if this mission is leaving me feeling unsatisfied, too. I agreed. Unsurprisingly, we finished with a Draw (he was up by 1 victory condition - he had Defend the Flag and Assassinate, to my Break Their Spirit).
Any mission that forces armies into Reserves, and then involves victory conditions requiring crossing the table, is a bad mission. I like the intent behind this mission - it's a sort of buffet-style victory, where you can adapt what you're trying for based upon what your opponent is doing. But the deployment rules single-handedly killed it - no foot army was going to achieve Blitzkrieg, for example, and poor Reserves rolls made several of the others almost impossible.
So yeah - strange tournament experience. I ended up as part of a 3-way tie for 11th overall, with my 2-0-3 record (sharing the honors with Mike Larson's Daemons, as well as some Space Wolves). I met some great people, and played some fun games, but I don't care for the mission design - it seems designed to force Draws, when I'd rather win or lose.
