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.

Yeah the missions were something we failed at a little bit this year. The combo of book missions worked out well but it was the specific combos that seemed to be messed up. We've been running that format locally for a while now and are used to it but we didn't get the missions out on time for others attending to get used to it.

You should come out to WGC next year and maybe I won't refuse to play you again

Caldera02 wrote:
Yeah the missions were something we failed at a little bit this year. The combo of book missions worked out well but it was the specific combos that seemed to be messed up. We've been running that format locally for a while now and are used to it but we didn't get the missions out on time for others attending to get used to it.

You should come out to WGC next year and maybe I won't refuse to play you again

Mission design isn't easy. I have found with So Cal that we can often get so used to how our missions work that once we tweak them a bit it is easy for us but completely foreign and odd to those from outside.

If you guys schedule WGC for the end of June I can probably come every year since June 23rd is my bday! That's how I wrangled permission from Nat to go last year. Plus this year was over Graduation weekend at work so there was zero chance of my going then. It's cool to decline to play me I am total WAAC TFG That's why I win so many of my games at big cons!

As Caldera said, we play this kind of mission locally. So, I saw no issues with it. Even the missions with 10 objectives are manageable, you just have to focus on holding with troops and contesting/denying wherever possible to get the most points. However, I can see how it could be a problem for a player with 2-3 scoring units.

I too, really dislike straight Win/Loss. It's no fun to know your weekend is over after one bad game. Especially, if it is your first game. It can be really disheartening. However, if you just have a glimmer of hope....

When you have that many objectives it naturally favors infantry heavy armies over elite ones. There is a bias.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
When you have that many objectives it naturally favors infantry heavy armies over elite ones. There is a bias.

I would imagine all the Daemon players who take an Exalted Reward were perfectly fine with this mission...

crazyredpraetorian wrote:
As Caldera said, we play this kind of mission locally. So, I saw no issues with it. Even the missions with 10 objectives are manageable, you just have to focus on holding with troops and contesting/denying wherever possible to get the most points. However, I can see how it could be a problem for a player with 2-3 scoring units.

I too, really dislike straight Win/Loss. It's no fun to know your weekend is over after one bad game. Especially, if it is your first game. It can be really disheartening. However, if you just have a glimmer of hope....

I am curious.

How many players went 7-0, 6-1 and 5-2?

crazyredpraetorian wrote:
As Caldera said, we play this kind of mission locally. So, I saw no issues with it. Even the missions with 10 objectives are manageable, you just have to focus on holding with troops and contesting/denying wherever possible to get the most points. However, I can see how it could be a problem for a player with 2-3 scoring units.

I too, really dislike straight Win/Loss. It's no fun to know your weekend is over after one bad game. Especially, if it is your first game. It can be really disheartening. However, if you just have a glimmer of hope....

This is a good point, the disheartening bit. It's contributed to a lot of changes to various formats out there, where W/L events have added BP tracks and similar to give players parallel competitive awards to pursue even if they have a bad game. As has been talked about, mission design is tricky and worth critiquing / self-critiquing honestly; there's also obviously the flipside of how disheartening it can be to win all or most of your games, and see someone with multiple losses "beat' you, but it's definitely a worthy cause to make sure your format encourages players to feel motivated and to continue having fun even after a rough one. Kudos and all that - I think that as a motivator is a keypoint to various readers giving fair appreciation for and understanding of the motives behind the format.

40k-noob wrote:

crazyredpraetorian wrote:
As Caldera said, we play this kind of mission locally. So, I saw no issues with it. Even the missions with 10 objectives are manageable, you just have to focus on holding with troops and contesting/denying wherever possible to get the most points. However, I can see how it could be a problem for a player with 2-3 scoring units.

I too, really dislike straight Win/Loss. It's no fun to know your weekend is over after one bad game. Especially, if it is your first game. It can be really disheartening. However, if you just have a glimmer of hope....

I am curious.

How many players went 7-0, 6-1 and 5-2?

I haven't seen that data yet. I'm sure it will eventually be available. I went 5-2 and was in the lower bracket. I did not max any games but was not blown out any games, either. I think the eventual winner Ben M did go 7-0. Alan B, lost 2 games but had some blow out wins.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MVBrandt wrote:

crazyredpraetorian wrote:
As Caldera said, we play this kind of mission locally. So, I saw no issues with it. Even the missions with 10 objectives are manageable, you just have to focus on holding with troops and contesting/denying wherever possible to get the most points. However, I can see how it could be a problem for a player with 2-3 scoring units.

I too, really dislike straight Win/Loss. It's no fun to know your weekend is over after one bad game. Especially, if it is your first game. It can be really disheartening. However, if you just have a glimmer of hope....

This is a good point, the disheartening bit. It's contributed to a lot of changes to various formats out there, where W/L events have added BP tracks and similar to give players parallel competitive awards to pursue even if they have a bad game. As has been talked about, mission design is tricky and worth critiquing / self-critiquing honestly; there's also obviously the flipside of how disheartening it can be to win all or most of your games, and see someone with multiple losses "beat' you, but it's definitely a worthy cause to make sure your format encourages players to feel motivated and to continue having fun even after a rough one. Kudos and all that - I think that as a motivator is a keypoint to various readers giving fair appreciation for and understanding of the motives behind the format.

I speak from experience. Last year at Adepticon I took a loss my first game. My opponent asked me if I was going to play the rest of the day......I told him "Sure, I came to roll dice, not to win." He looked a little surprised. That little exchange really got me to thinking..... If I had my sights set on winning, that single loss would have ruined an otherwise great weekend. I went on to get Ragnar up to 38 attacks in the third game! It was an epic game and my opponent and I had a blast! One of my favorite 40K games ever. My opponent was actually cheering for Ragnar.

Never understood the mentatlity of getting disheartened by an early loss in a W/L format. But I genuinely do go just to roll dice and see friends. Lost my first game last year at Adepticon (2012) in a great game and had 3 other great games after.

Oh, and I think what Nova is doing for it's GT as far as winning tracks go is probably one of the best things ever for tourney players. 3 Equal winning tracks at once being W/L, BP, and Battle/Paint is pretty darn sweet.

I think the W/L vs battle Point system swings both ways as has been mentioned. Nothing is more frustrating than having a better record than an opponent (maybe even one who you beat), and losing to them overall because you did not beat face as much/win as handily on the missions. It makes certain army builds much less viable.

But then again like many others I don't get the "I lost so my tournaments is over line of thought." You can still have fun, place reasonably well. If the only thing that matters is "winning" then you are going to have a lot of bad weekends of 40k playing. Honestly the same things happens eventually in either format if winning is your concern, a couple of Minor wins can quickly put you out of the running as easily as a loss on W/L. I agree though that the NOVA idea is a great one.

MVBrandt wrote:
Probably not a good thread to get into format-ology.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
When you have that many objectives it naturally favors infantry heavy armies over elite ones. There is a bias.

Yeah, but that is what 6th is about troops only claiming objectives.

I like the missions.

Battle point systems are so easy for smart players to game. It is not the most competitive format - W/L is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cptjoeyg wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
When you have that many objectives it naturally favors infantry heavy armies over elite ones. There is a bias.

Yeah, but that is what 6th is about troops only claiming objectives.

I like the missions.

I find these type of armies boring to play. There are other win conditions such as Slay the Warlord and Line Breaker. Kill points is also still in play. Putting so much emphasis on scoring is unbalanced and shows a clear bias.

I heard alan b was 25pts ahead of next guy at the start of the second day. But lost (as in got less points than) 3 games not 2, on the second day. Twice against ben, then against the guy who got best general (second) on table #1.

Alan, great analysis of our games. I agree I think the terrain was a huge part of it. I would have had to play completely differently if I wasn't able to hide some of my units from the thudd guns.

As for the final records, I'm not sure how many people were 7-0. I suspect I was the only one, but its possible someone else had seven minor wins. There were however multiple people at 5-2 or 6-1. That's one of the reasons I like the 7 games BP format, you can lose one game and still come back and be in the running. Gareth lost a game on Day 1, but he clawed his way back up and was playing for Gold in round 7!

One takeaway from WGC I would stress is that communicating the missions clearly ahead of time is a good thing. My personal preference is a variety of mission types, but all of which are known ahead of time. This means there are no gotchya! moments for people who travel to the tournament, and you avoid people tailoring their army to one scenario.

Remember who I said we can blame for that?

There did look like there was a lot of terrain for the GT which is a good thing in my opinion.

Caldera02 wrote:
Remember who I said we can blame for that?

Are you guys throwing Goatboy under the bus again?

I don't think you can call it a win,loss or draws really.

Budzerker wrote:
I heard alan b was 25pts ahead of next guy at the start of the second day. But lost (as in got less points than) 3 games not 2, on the second day. Twice against ben, then against the guy who got best general (second) on table #1.

I was 18 points ahead of Ben in Battle but he was 5 points ahead of me in Paint so it was a 13 point spread which he was able to make even after our two games.

I lost all my games on Sunday:

Ben Beat me by 7 points game 1
Ben beat me by 6 Points game 2
Gareth beat me by 3 points game 3

Looking back at the event I would have taken a completely different list knowing the missions. I never really got in the 10 objectives games and I never placed terrain the way they did, where you can put it on your opponents side.

These where literally my only 7 games played with this army so basically it was all theoretical prep since no one locally wanted to get any play test games in against Forgeworld, which is such a taboo topic for us in Chicago.

3rd Place and Best Sportsman is great.

I am looking forward to playing Ben Mohlie a few more time next year... If you wanna be the best you need to beat the best !

yeezymozart wrote:

Budzerker wrote:
I heard alan b was 25pts ahead of next guy at the start of the second day. But lost (as in got less points than) 3 games not 2, on the second day. Twice against ben, then against the guy who got best general (second) on table #1.

I was 18 points ahead of Ben in Battle but he was 5 points ahead of me in Paint so it was a 13 point spread which he was able to make even after our two games.

I lost all my games on Sunday:

Ben Beat me by 7 points game 1
Ben beat me by 6 Points game 2
Gareth beat me by 3 points game 3

Looking back at the event I would have taken a completely different list knowing the missions. I never really got in the 10 objectives games and I never placed terrain the way they did, where you can put it on your opponents side.

These where literally my only 7 games played with this army so basically it was all theoretical prep since no one locally wanted to get any play test games in against Forgeworld, which is such a taboo topic for us in Chicago.

3rd Place and Best Sportsman is great.

I am looking forward to playing Ben Mohlie a few more time next year... If you wanna be the best you need to beat the best !

You're not reading the FW thread in this forum are you? FW consternation is not a Chicago thing. It's much bigger than that.

Alan

I would disagree with the statement that FW is taboo in Chicago. The thread on AWC boards (2013 AWC tournament circuit) clearly indicates exactly what the FW thread on dakka is showing. Some people are in favor of FW. Some are clearly not and some would like it with limitations. I believe the general consensus we came to was that we all like FW but we would like some limitations (ie 0-1 or 0-2 choice with no duplicate of the same unit)

0-1 or 0-2 with no duplicates seems reasonable.

You guys miss my intent and that's my fault.

I could care less what people think about Forgeworld.

The only point I was trying to make is that I didn't get to truly practice my list because of the FW. Its not like anyone wants to play a pick up game against that list nor would they be ready to.

Furthermore, I could not have brought it to a local GT to see how it did.

Wargames Con was literally the first and last 7 games I will play with that army list.

Hey now... haha - I am to blame for everything.

I have been chatting with Chandler from Feast on the idea to use W/L with Battle Points to calculate the actual win or loss of the game etc. Plus using the Battle Points to seed throughout the event until the 4 round etc.

That way it will still emphasize aggressive play as you want more points to try etc. to have better match ups but still end up with having a true winner in the end. I think Nova is looking at it too and right now the big issue I have is that w/l generates what I feel is rather weenie play. Win the main objective and just run away to keep your win etc. If you add both with the emphasis on still the win - it will make people try to push for all the points etc.

But still - really every system has issues as w/l can be crappy when you lose your first game or when you are paired up against a buddy. At Adepticon I had to play Paul Murphy first and with only 4 games to determine the top 16 it meant a win or do play the second day. Now if it came down to W/L and BP to figure out who gets there - it might be a different game. Who knows - it is all just theory hehe.

I do know that Thudd guns are BS - Thanks Mike hahahaha.