MOAB 40K Feedback, Missions and scoring and anything else Options

[ArchonCryx]

This was my first time playing a full tournament using the missions Jason has been using for Cancon and here.

On Saturday I encountered "Get out of Here") - a combination Recon (primary 5 BPs per scoring unit in enemy DZ) and a secondary ("Loot") with 5 objectives (that couldnt be in either deployment zone). I reckoned that would have been exceptionally difficult for me to score more than about 20 battle points max. and was held to a small win vs Adam in a greta game when he only had 5 models left, 2 1 man squad remnants, a 2man remnant and a Vindicator which allowed him to secure 3 objectives for the 2ndry bonus.

This elicited the fear that perhaps there was problems with the system. I was afraid that if there were many missions like these then troop spam armies would be advantaged. Of course it's a good reason to bring Marines or IG combo Platoons but I like seeing these armies encouraged as particularly marines seem to be less common at tournies these days.

However, as I played through subsequent rounds there were indeed missions where I could garner up to 40 BPs, who would have thought DE could max in a Kill Points missiopn, but that's what I did! And it turned out there wasn't another situation like game 3, as even in missions with 7+ objectives I could claim multiples with a single squad. By the end of the tournament I felt that there was just one mission where I couldn't get full battle, and that's from 11 games. That actually strikes me as eminently reasonable - sometimes the mission makes it harder for your army and that's part of the fun of 40K.

So I came to like the missions, even if I teased about the number of "Pitched Battle" deployments (surely we could have more Dawn of Wars?). I think there was a lot of objective missions and perhaps needed another Kill P{oint mission but overall there was a lot of balance looking across the tournament.

It was very different to normal 5th edition games though and makes a nice change after all, and despite some fears. I thought it suited MOAB but I would also say that I'd like to also see sometournaments that stick to 5th ed mission set as well as these (Ie I thought it was great for MOAB but I'll stick with 5th ed missions for Leviathan and don't think the system suits Lords).

I think one of the keys to the system balance would be the hiugh number of games. WHile I don't think you need as manay as 11 rounds, having 9+ allows you to run some very different missions and redress imbalance issues from one mission by careful variety.

------------

Venue - was great as always. If we could have had forewarning about being downstairs I might have been around in time to play round 1 (but it's still my fault). My hat goes off to Southern Battlegamers for continuing the awesome tradition. Great canteen, Bring n Buy, painting comps, lots of vendors, lots of familiar faces.

Timing - I need to get better with it!

Seriously, there wasn't anything to complain about with scheduling - I don't remember any interminable waits (well, except in the game that I finished i 25 minutes, again not the organisers fault!)

I thought Saturday was well handled, we really didn't particularly notice any problems due to lack of Jason - Julian and Dallas covered for himn perfectly well enough. I certainly hope Miss V's leg stops swelling without too much further discomfort.

I *loved* the trophy - obviously that is a better memento than the $150 vouchers (although they are very welcome as well) and will have a pride of place seeing as it's my first big tournament win ever!!! Huzzah!!

As for Terrain prizes, I noticed that John Lampe had also provided a fair bit of terrain, not to mention the area 37 boys supplementing. Possibly the TO rewarded one of those?

Obviously I loved the weekend and am just stoked to have snagged 1st place! WHile I can understand some of the criticisms over the system, they mainly fall into the category of "it's different" but I felt different in a good way that was still quite balanced. I noticed that soft scores were vital in determinig the top order, you have Adam bebenfiting from his exellent sports (and pretty fair paitning to boot), Scott was very difficult for me to reach due to his much higher paint score which was worth more than a won game to him, and there was me, okay so I snuck through with a high battlescore, but still would argue the podium was majority hobbyists! Battle only gets you so far, you still need to be a decent opponent and put some effort into painting/converting your army.

To me that means MOAB passed the biggest test of a tournament - are soft scores meaningful? They were.

I hope we get to see the score breakdown, I want to prove that there indeed was genuine comp scoring and that it had it's impact.

I'll be back next year, I hope Jason runs it again, but either way, I'll be there... For the first time ever I have a title to defend!

[sanguinary lord]

As always I found Jason's missions crazed and at times frustrating. It's great to get away from the normality of rulebook missions. Obviously one or two need a tweak but overall I never felt that either I or my opponent were not on a fairly level playing field.

My greatest frustration was with the bug hunt mission as I went first and so didn't have an option to move towards the bugs after their final move. I feel that gave my opponent a significant advantage for those few points.

The venue is great, good amount of stores and a variety of food. The use of bread rolls also helped alleviate any possible discussions of wether a sausage should be accompanied with one or two pieces of bread.

Hats off to Jason, Julian and Dallas for smooth running on time gaming.

Kudos to all prize getters especially Alex.

Julian, I am grudging you at Stouthammer.

[Lonestar]

I love the "no-comp" tournies, that arnt advertised as such To hard = don't do

AND what about the "best terrain prize" ? That was advertised to get people to help out, guess next time people wont help out the TO afterall.


And what edition of 40k were we playing? 4th ed?
Units couldn't hold more then one objective, but you could be double the distance away then rule book.

Jason, there didn't seem to be much preperation done with the tournie. No comp, Julian said to me that it was to hard and there fore none. Jas, you even agreed with there being problems with some of the missions.... why didn't you fix them before the tournie, as it seemed that most came from CANCON back in January?

Also the missions tended to be repedative, you made some "different" missions but couldn't think of "other" deployments?

But Jason, I know my comments are harsh, but on the plus side, the tournament basicly ran itself, which is always a very good thing.

And once again only GW supplied prize support to 40k - it's not your fault at all, and is completely out of your hands - come on MOAB, a bumper, packed tournament, and nothing to GW games at all? Sorry, other then the few trophies.

So a big THANKYOU to GAMES WORKSHOP, for helping MOAB out with thier prizes!

[Reunion-Round]

I reckon overall they were great. 4 scoring units would have been the minimum for any army in my mind. As I had some VERY close shaves with having only 3 scoring.

The missions where it was impossible for some armies to obtain max BP's are there to stem the flow of massive wins. Most armies that will do well in other missions wont do so well here because 90% of scoring units arn't that great at dishing out the damage of their fast attack/elite/heavy bretheren.

John Lampe's bug hunt mission was loads of fun.

Good to see KP's used as well (as they should be!).



I think they did a good job. It's great to see variation on the core rules (only troops contesting, larger capture/control radius' etc) as it brings about new things to think about and remember.


Aside from a couple of confusing scoring systems that ran out of the generic one it was well put together.

Still dont like Ghosts of war and good to have no beans!

[AJenko]

Gday

Looking at it this was my first tourny with Jason Mission so i guess take this lightly. Personally i think many of the missions doubled up on points for instintes round 8? (against Alex) with the primary being with in 20" of the center and secondary being quaters. Also i found that the set up was a bit repetative between games with one day of 2-3 of the same in a row (from memory). Lastly im going to suggest spread the Dawn of War around, only two and on the last day. Besides that no problems at all and i really enjoy the alternative missions and secondary that make it a tactical game.

As in "terrain prize" i have no care it was good enough to see some nice pieces and actually have some terrain to play on.

Hopefully i will be able to have a new army by Cancon

Edit: im surpised that i acquired 2nd players choice as there where at least 5 beutiful and constructed armies which i believe deserved it more,

This post has been edited by AJenko: Oct 6 2009, 07:32 PM

[Angmar]

No comp, Julian said to me that it was to hard and there fore none.

I said nothing of the sort, it was jasons decision and out of my hands.

But think, if there was comp you probably wouldn't of come 2nd

Also, are prizes that important ? I'm happier getting a trophy.

This post has been edited by Angmar: Oct 6 2009, 07:37 PM

[Reunion-Round]

Prizes are nice but trophies are great.

Edit: im surpised that i acquired 2nd players choice as there where at least 5 beutiful and constructed armies which i believe deserved it more,

Your infantry are awesome and the conversions are nice. However I feel people didnt look too closely at the tanks, to me they looked very WIP. It was a nice army but I agree... there were others that were better.

Placement is very important in Players choice. Where you are in the room can mean the difference of a few votes. For example, an army set up in the corner wont get nearly as much attention as one in the middle of the room.

[Angmar]

I think one of the things at moab this year with players choice, 2 of the best painted armies there were painted quite darkly and not particularly obviously good unless you looked closely (nathan merritt and shane sofra both had fantastic armies which wern't obviously so). Whilst it seems the big and bright armies did well though.

But then again, there is no criteria for players choice, all comes down to whatever players think is good .

[ArchonCryx]

Ah, so comp didn't get finished eh? Possibly due to a lack of Dallas...

Well, I assume then that sports and painting had an increased weighting... It seems obvious to me that the tourney was decided on top scores (I mean, I am quite confidant that if one was to compare the top 5 in battle to the overall, they'd not be the same.)

I got enough from the scoring when I looked to see that Scott had a massive score for painting that looked like it was ~50points more than my painting score, so I needed those lucky big wins!

Next time I'll put more effort into presentation as well...

[Spakka]

However I feel people didnt look too closely at the tanks, to me they looked very WIP.

I did and agree. The tanks were a bit of a let down compared to the rest of the army, which is the only reason it didn't get my vote. A shame too, cause the infantry were just awesome.

[Krefey]

Ah, so comp didn't get finished eh? Possibly due to a lack of Dallas...

Well, I assume then that sports and painting had an increased weighting... It seems obvious to me that the tourney was decided on top scores (I mean, I am quite confidant that if one was to compare the top 5 in battle to the overall, they'd not be the same.)

I got enough from the scoring when I looked to see that Scott had a massive score for painting that looked like it was ~50points more than my painting score, so I needed those lucky big wins!

Next time I'll put more effort into presentation as well...

Comp was finished. Dallas was just double checking to make sure the lists were correct if memory serves. Comp was exactly the same as last year, so I don't see why people are surprised.

Given how well the event ran, I'd say Jason did a pretty damn good job of preparing for the event.

Missions. There could have been a few more Dawn of War deployments etc, but there was a mix of all three deployment options. Some need some more tweaking imho, like the bug hunt mission. Having them scatter every player turn is a bit harsh. But otherwise, objectives were reasonably varied and different between each mission.

[AJenko]

However I feel people didnt look too closely at the tanks, to me they looked very WIP. It was a nice army but I agree... there were others that were better.

I did and agree. The tanks were a bit of a let down compared to the rest of the army, which is the only reason it didn't get my vote. A shame too, cause the infantry were just awesome.

Yer i admit the tanks where abit of WIP stuff and didnot have time top finish them to the extent i would have due to time and due to the fact my brother had a whole catachan army to do. However i am glad i did finish redoing all the bases, squad markings and the 30 odd imperial eagle wings. For those that voted for it thanks, and for those that didn't make sure to have a look at my 2010 army at cancon....

[Lonestar]

I said nothing of the sort, it was jasons decision and out of my hands.

But think, if there was comp you probably wouldn't of come 2nd

Also, are prizes that important ? I'm happier getting a trophy.

Accually you did, I asked you whislt we were out on the walkway on the second day how the Daemons went with the toned down list, and you said that comp was too hard, did you subit the list on time....... then walked away.

And I am a fan of a comp system, a reward system for people having correct and on time army lists, I am not. Especially when comp was advertised as part of the system like sports etc. And if taking a comp hit would of cost me equal first, then so be it.

As for prizes, 40k had good numbers, and MOAB has (in the past) supplied prize support and payed TO's for thier efforts ( $10 per head if memory serves ) so instead of getting afew vouchers to hand out, what would be wrong with more prizes to be spread over the others?

[Reunion-Round]

Quick question on those vouchers... can they be used online?

[Angmar]

Accually you did, I asked you whislt we were out on the walkway on the second day how the Daemons went with the toned down list, and you said that comp was too hard, did you subit the list on time....... then walked away.

ROFL. Yer, comp is too hard, that's what i said. You heard it here first folks!


What I actually told everyone who asked over the weekend was that i was unsure about comp and that I would ask Jason about it.

Oh and on the other hand, just having the threat of a comp system meant that most armies were quite reasonable. Only a few such as yours scott would of earnt below a 3.

This post has been edited by Angmar: Oct 7 2009, 04:43 PM

[Lonestar]

Oh and on the other hand, just having the threat of a comp system meant that most armies were quite reasonable. Only a few such as yours scott would of earnt below a 3.

You really don't like blood crushers do you

[Angmar]

Wasn't just the bloodcrushers.

Also compared to the rest of the field your army was one of the more powerful armies there.

It was worth a 2/5. Compared to the rest of the field, probably a 1/5 if i was marking it based on comparisons.

Can't say Alex's army was worth much either mind you

[Lonestar]

But Julian, mono-Daemon armies dont work, ask anyone here

What was funny with the Daemons, they work really well against tooled marine armies! So marine armies with lots of expencive, hard hitting, armour save dening, marines, just can not handle an enemy who gets thier 5+ inv save! And ofcause, the khorne boys deny them there saves.....

The hardest armies to take on are the hoard armies out there, as they have heaps of basic firepower and can drop the daemons with thier awesome 5+ inv save, in no time at all!

So, against marines, they are awesome, but against Guard, orks, bugs (hoard), dark eldar, eldar, they are really pushing it up hill.

So a 1 out of 5 for:

1 skull taker on jugger
5 juggers
40 letters
and a DP

Is totally justifable!

But combined with random deployment and deepstrike, maybe you could make allowances and give that rock hard force a 1.5 out of 5.

[ArchonCryx]

Yeah, they were pretty good, weren't they?

I never pretended they were soft, I was curious what comp they'd have got, hindsight colours things a bit.

8 Wins? Yeah, they were not soft by any stretch...

But you know what most of all? I am just relieved my ambition to win a 30+ tourney using Dark Eldar has finally been achieved... do you realise how long I've been trying for that?

Yeah, I'm still bl00dy stoked and no-one can *ever* take that from me. I'm on cloud ninety-nine this week!

And when you see my next army, I'm sure you'll see why I felt I could let my hair down a bit and run a lower comp army at this year's MOAB...

[Lonestar]

And I think I had 2-3 losses, with some added points. And only 1 or 2 40's.

This 3rd ed codex thing has been proven to be abit of a farce as an excuse to take "uncompetative" armies, look at how well the Knights run now, and what about the witches? The DE have a huge advantage in fire power and awesome HtH troops.