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.

Orock wrote:While I agree that missions that ask you to get to the opponents side hurt armies like gunline or parking lot lists

I'd like to make a distinction here. While such missions may not play to the strengths of the archetypes you mention, they are far more difficult for armies without transports (some ork builds, all Tyranid builds).

Different example: at Da Grand Waaagh last year, round 5 forced you to start almost everything in real Reserves (DoW deployment options, but actual Reserves rules for everything that started off the table). 2 of the mission objectives then required you to get into your enemy's deployment zone. For those of us playing all-foot armies (I had Tyranids), it was an incredibly poor mission right from the outset.

the chance of having to play them in a tournament is the only thing that keeps variety of armies coming. If you knew ahead of time every mission was killpoints, and there was 3 pieces of terrain per board, tournaments would be the shooty A lists spam. Does it suck to have to have 5 objectives on the board when your playing space wolves missile parking lot. A bit. But it sucks more when tournaments have 4 flavors of armies that show up with little variation too.

The best thing tournament organizers can do to keep multiple army types competitive is to actually follow the 25% terrain rule, and make sure every table has significant LoS blocking terrain. You don't need funky missions; you just need to put down enough terrain that players are making meaningful choices about deploying fire-support elements, where to move up assault elements, and where they want to place objectives (keeping the first 2 in mind).

Reecius wrote:I wish I had more to share =) She was a hottie and she was down with nerd culture. That is like, amazing.

Doug, my first opponent (who is a good buddy of mine) said he was gong to make a shirt that said "I tabled Reecius at my first GT!"

Hahaha, I have a feeling I will never live this down!

The shirt is in the works my friend

I just have to say that it was a fun Tournament, but is was the people that made it fun. You are right about the missions. I won't get into them, it has all been said already.

Our game was pretty wild. My Boarding planks love Dreads. The Ork Gods were Truely with me too, but they seem to always be with me vs SWs. Warboss Led Foot has SWs #.

You will get your payback at the Tournament in July I'm sure... I'm only about 23% sure actualy and only 6% sure of that 23%. Sorry Orks aren't good at math.

@Orock

If you play book missions (as one option) then every mission wouldn't be kill points. Two of the three book missions are objective missions. I'm not saying that you should just run book missions, but I can't think of any tournament where every mission is just kill points.

As for three pieces of terrain, well, terrain is separate from missions and I agree that it can be a big problem at any kind of tournament. There's almost never enough, it wouldn't cover a quarter of the board for sure and almost none of it blocks line of sight to anything.

I think terrain in general is what keeps the shooty parking lot lists down. Kill points don't - a lot of those lists have way too many kill points compared to say an Ork army or Landraider or Terminator spam.

Anyway, I love mission variation. I just want them to be tested well beforehand and not have very bad ways that they can break. A couple examples from the past:

At the slaughter in space, there was a mission in which the primary objective was to get a unit next to two objectives right in front of your opponents deployment zone. if there were no enemy units within 6" of it, you blew up the objective and got the points. Against any army with scouts or a unit that moved 24", a Daemon army automatically lost if they didn't go first because they couldn't defend their objectives.

Another example would be the common "hold an objective for X turns" or "point per turn held" missions. Necrons and Tau, two already weak codexes, can almost never win this mission because their troops cannot sit on mid-board objectives for multiple turns.

Finally, when you get special rules that result in things like deployment zones that allow opponents to start too close, or force them to start too far away, you end up with missions unfair to either shooty or assault armies. The L shaped corner deployments are common and really are terrible for assault armies.

All of these things can be overcome - it is completely possible to create fair, balanced missions that are not book missions and encourage list variety. I think the adepticon missions this year are a good example of that. The problems really occur when one or two missions do nothing but punish certain army types or codexes. You have to be able to have a reasonable chance of winning every mission. If your army or codex is weak, well, ok, you don't have as good a chance as other people. But it shouldn't be a 5% chance of winning just because of the mission regardless of opponent.

Manimal wrote:I know for a fact that Reece is a terrible player.

I mean really, He got tabled at the BSB.

He always just pays off his ork opponents.

Game 1 was the first time a player did not take his bribe.

Of course this opinion has nothing to do with the fact that he tabled me at a GT.

Thanks for the Bat reps.

I am very curious about the new location for the BSB. How were the facilities?

Your dice beat you, Manimal! I had little to do with that!

@thread

Book missions are best, IMO, as they are the most fair to the most armies. Home made missions usually suck ass (IMO) and are nearly always way out of balance. They belong in campaigns, IMHO.

Reecius, it was awesome to see you and the guys at the tourney.

As far as the Broadside Bash goes, I don't know what was more distracting... Wonder Woman walking around or the two cases of beer you brought in on Sunday. : )

Good times!

@Wolflord Patrick

You too, bro! Always good to see the San Diego friends. And the beer helped to soothe my bruised ego after getting tabled by Dugg! Haha.

@Dugg

You better make me my t-shirt, too!

Any idea when the results for the BSB will be posted?

At the bottom there is a pic http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/349995.page

So other than the pairings sounds like an ok time.

In regards to the missions you can have good missions that aren't book standard. Most TO's just don't put in the time. Or are completely closed off to listening to people who have.

The guy who designed hardcore didn't play. The one SW player that did get the award seemed totally random, none of could see why he got it and no one else did.

Fixed it. Read the name wrong on the sheet