Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V  1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> ATC feedback and wrap up
Buddha
post Sep 9 2013, 10:20 AM
Post #1


El Bandito
*

Group: Veteran Members
Posts: 9,786
Joined: 19-November 04
From: Adelaide, SA
Member No.: 37



So just to confirm what we saw in the other thread:

Final Results

Standing/Team/Round Points/Game Points
1st - NZ - 8 - 470
2nd - VIC - 8 - 462
3rd - NSW - 5 - 405
4th - QLD - 4 - 398
5th - WA - 3 - 354
6th - SA - 2 - 311

Well done to the Kiwi's!

Individual standings can also be found here: http://www.wargamerau.com/forum/index.php?...158271&st=0

Also, well done to Chas Roberts.

Chas won the Favorite Player award, a new custom carry case made by Laser Touch in Melbourne. Chas not only took out Favorite Player but also had the highest Battle Points for the weekend, fairly amazing.


A few thank yous:

Laser Touch - for doing all the trophies, blast marker gifts, etc... great company for anyone running tourneys or custom plastic work to use!

The German Club - great venue to deal with, great hospitality and service over the weekend... I ate more sausage than any man probably should in any one weekend wink.gif

All the helpers, especially the SA boys in particular - Andy Penn, Chris Appleby and Matt O for doing the terrain and TO duties, thanks a whole heap!

My 5 great opponents, and anyone else I am missing! Cheers for a top weekend smile.gif



Now; players could we get some feedback:

Mainly focusing on the following:

- Missions; were they what you expected? changes for next year?
- Fortifications; yes, no, maybe? restrictions?
- 3hr rounds? long enough, too long?


Cheers,

Tom
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Angmar
post Sep 9 2013, 10:32 AM
Post #2


Member
*

Group: Veteran Members
Posts: 4,140
Joined: 19-November 04
From: UOW
Member No.: 239



Missions wise, I think straight 6th ed missions are poorly written and aren't well designed for competitive play. If you are going to use them you should only use even numbers of objectives, winning the roll off for table edge plus the majority of objectives is a pretty huge advantage. IMO tournament play for 6th ed should be using missions like the ones from 5th ed, more balanced from a competitive perspective. Kirby's missions at 3++ con were a pretty good example of what I think make for some well balanced tournament missions that I would be happy to play.

Fortifications rules are a joke.

Loved three hour rounds.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sharpdogg
post Sep 9 2013, 10:45 AM
Post #3


Member
*

Group: Members
Posts: 55
Joined: 7-May 12
Member No.: 12,963



Anyone find a fox black jumper that was left there?

This post has been edited by Sharpdogg: Sep 9 2013, 10:46 AM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Buddha
post Sep 9 2013, 10:48 AM
Post #4


El Bandito
*

Group: Veteran Members
Posts: 9,786
Joined: 19-November 04
From: Adelaide, SA
Member No.: 37



QUOTE(Sharpdogg @ Sep 9 2013, 10:45 AM) *

Anyone find a fox black jumper that was left there?


I gave a jumper to the Vics to give to the Kiwi's because it was left behind with one of the Kiwi's gear. I think it was black, but not sure if it had a Fox logo.

Durkah? can you recall?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Demon
post Sep 9 2013, 11:14 AM
Post #5


Lord of The Crossroads
Group Icon

Group: Support Veteran
Posts: 8,206
Joined: 19-November 04
From: Pandaemonium
Member No.: 218



That was probably the most laid back tournament I'v ever TO'd

4.5 rules deliberations over 5 games - .5 because for one of them Diffey overheard the enquiry and leapt to the rescue with a tableted faq within like a second of the question being asked (thank you, Rulescouncilman).

Round sorting for effectively 6 competitors.

A microphone so I didnt have to wander around shouting at people.

Food and drink supplied/nearby.

Prizes sorted.

Venue sorted.

If I were to ever do that again I'd bring some sort of hammock.

I think the 3 hour games were excellent. If anything I'd probably make the small adjustment that no extra turns started after 2.45 but tbh the impact was negligible - we didnt start late for any of the following rounds.

I agree with Julian about the missions. And the fortifications really did seem to command the tables they were on.

Congratulations again to the winners, day two's rounds were excellent to watch as teams jostled for a podium.

I'll have the day 2 photos up tonight, I got home last night & got totally derailed after seeing my imminent son moving around. Its like the scene from aliens.


--------------------
MAY YOUR FOREHEAD GROW LIKE THE MIGHTY OAK


In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded. - T Pratchett

QUOTE(WitchFinderGeneral @ Jul 2 2017, 05:43 PM) *

Being a little bitch is in my genes apparently.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Paddlepop Lion
post Sep 9 2013, 02:51 PM
Post #6


Member
*

Group: Veteran Members
Posts: 3,848
Joined: 19-August 10
Member No.: 9,971



I completely dissagree about the missions. Rulebook missions (IMO relic included) are pretty spot on.
They arent ballanced, they are skewed and this means about 1/3 of the time your starting the game from a dissadvantage but thats what 6th ed is.
I think that its just what we have to accept is that your armies cant just be static castle armies anymore and pull some trixy garbage to win at the end. you actually need to go to them and fight them off thier objectives when they have more than you.

IMO however, and this sucks because there was 5 rounds not 6, we needed 1 more pitched battle deployment and 1 less short table edges. I feel it gave an unreasonable advantage to shooting armies like tau but at the end of the day its not that important.

Fortresses do command the table but thats what there kind of supposed to do. They cost 250 pts which is no small price so your fighting a fair bit less army as a result. many codexes simply dont use them well however so i dont think we are in any danger of them causing big problems.
Its just something to meta against not ban.

I cant think of any problems with the event, it seemed to run very smothly, we all had time to finish games etc.
well done and thank you on the organisation
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Angmar
post Sep 9 2013, 03:05 PM
Post #7


Member
*

Group: Veteran Members
Posts: 4,140
Joined: 19-November 04
From: UOW
Member No.: 239



See, I don't particularly care that 6th ed games are designed to have elements of imbalance, we're not playing friendly games at home. As far as I'm concerned tournament missions should be as balanced as possible to create competition between two armies, rather then one army gets to play a static game cause it's a shooting army that won the roll off for the lop sided objectives and table side.

I think 5th ed had it way better in that regard, even without set objective deployment you had to be careful with where you placed your objective as there was no guarantee you would get the right table side. This created tactical objective placement, and prevented static armies having a significant advantage with just a single dice roll.

As to fortifications, well, I'll wait to see what I get in my reply from the faq crew, but I hope that we wont be playing fortifications with those rules again.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Matt--ShadowLord
post Sep 9 2013, 04:03 PM
Post #8


Member
*

Group: Veteran Members
Posts: 1,327
Joined: 15-January 08
Member No.: 4,932



Another great ATC, thanks to everyone involved in making it happen and running it so smoothly. The result was an excellent, professional event.


- Missions; were they what you expected? changes for next year?
One simple suggestion: If the number of objectives is going to be preset, please can it be preset to an even amount of objectives?
In two rounds I won the roll off for placing objectives first, which meant I placed 2 of 3 and 3 of 5 respectively, which was an unnecessary advantage.

Apart from that, I have no objection to playing book missions since firstly that's what players from all states/countries are used to, and secondly the majority of home-brew alternatives are not actually an improvement.

- Fortifications; yes, no, maybe? restrictions?

I took one, but doubt I would in future (because I'd rather spend the points on things that move and score). The rules have two main problems, the damage chart and grenade rules makes the idea they are protective ludicrous, and the fact they are neutral when unnoccupied makes it difficult for opponents who can't jump up or over them.
They are in the book however, so my view is if it's in the game it's in the game.

- 3hr rounds? long enough, too long?

Long enough, thanks.


--------------------
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Angmar
post Sep 9 2013, 04:15 PM
Post #9


Member
*

Group: Veteran Members
Posts: 4,140
Joined: 19-November 04
From: UOW
Member No.: 239



Yep, the simplest step in creating some balance in the missions is even numbers of objectives.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Paddlepop Lion
post Sep 9 2013, 04:36 PM
Post #10


Member
*

Group: Veteran Members
Posts: 3,848
Joined: 19-August 10
Member No.: 9,971



Look i agree that the ballance was better in 5th and it felt better to play those games than it does to start from a losing position. But this is just how 6th plays and the extra 3 points you can get help to even that out quite well i think.

It would have sucked for you to play against a fortress when you didnt know the rules for them. The rules are hard to nut through but they are in the book and they can be played around and/or killed.
I know you lost our game because of the fortress but if you had deep struck your oblits behind/ontop of it and not flown off the board like you did you would have smashed me. Be building rules are a bit weird but they dont break the game.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Angmar
post Sep 9 2013, 04:44 PM
Post #11


Member
*

Group: Veteran Members
Posts: 4,140
Joined: 19-November 04
From: UOW
Member No.: 239



Well, with how you guys are using them it does break the game and in my opinion is almost definitely not how gw intended then to work. But, I'll wait and see if the faq team respond and see what comes of it.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Paddlepop Lion
post Sep 9 2013, 04:45 PM
Post #12


Member
*

Group: Veteran Members
Posts: 3,848
Joined: 19-August 10
Member No.: 9,971



which faq team you talking about? the GW one?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Angmar
post Sep 9 2013, 04:46 PM
Post #13


Member
*

Group: Veteran Members
Posts: 4,140
Joined: 19-November 04
From: UOW
Member No.: 239



yeah, gw. So I'm not holding my breath.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Chaplain_Fortis
post Sep 9 2013, 04:46 PM
Post #14


Authority Bared
*

Group: Veteran Members
Posts: 101
Joined: 10-January 08
From: Melbourne
Member No.: 4,901



QUOTE
Well, with how you guys are using them it does break the game and in my opinion is almost definitely not how gw intended then to work. But, I'll wait and see if the faq team respond and see what comes of it.

What were they doing?


--------------------
Existential memes for nihilistic teens
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Paddlepop Lion
post Sep 9 2013, 04:50 PM
Post #15


Member
*

Group: Veteran Members
Posts: 3,848
Joined: 19-August 10
Member No.: 9,971



We put them in the corner with an objective behind them like anyone would do.

We then hid scoring units behind them so they couldnt be seen easily and used units to block off helldrakes from getting close enough to see any of them. i really dont know what your problem is julian it was completely legit good play.
I understand your salty about not being able to kill my last 2 warriors hiding in a little nook and losing as a result.
But if you had read the rules on fortresses and practiced against them you would have known that the drakes struggle to see behind them fully and not flown off the board turn 3. If you had more time with both drakes to fly about flaming you would have killed them all eventually.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Chaplain_Fortis
post Sep 9 2013, 04:54 PM
Post #16


Authority Bared
*

Group: Veteran Members
Posts: 101
Joined: 10-January 08
From: Melbourne
Member No.: 4,901



Yeah... doesn't sound very fun. I get it, but still... urgh... is there not a minimum distance from the board edge for objectives anymore?


--------------------
Existential memes for nihilistic teens
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Paddlepop Lion
post Sep 9 2013, 04:59 PM
Post #17


Member
*

Group: Veteran Members
Posts: 3,848
Joined: 19-August 10
Member No.: 9,971



yea its 6" but you can put them in the corner with enough room for the objective.

Its probably not fun when you dont expect it or know how to play against it but its not broken. Budda managed to kill 2 sections in our game by deep striking oblits at it and caused a ruccus behind it with a flying deamon prince. it was a real hard game that ended similarly with warriors cowering half dead behind a corner passing Ld checks.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Angmar
post Sep 9 2013, 05:02 PM
Post #18


Member
*

Group: Veteran Members
Posts: 4,140
Joined: 19-November 04
From: UOW
Member No.: 239



QUOTE(Paddlepop Lion @ Sep 9 2013, 04:50 PM) *

We put them in the corner with an objective behind them like anyone would do.

We then hidscoring units behind them so they couldnt be seen easily and used units to block off helldrakes from getting close enough to see any of them. i really dont know what your problem is julian it was completely legit good play.
I understand your salty about not being able to kill my last 2 warriors hiding in a little nook and losing as a result.
But if you had read the rules on fortresses and practiced against them you would have known that the drakes struggle to see behind them fully and not flown off the board turn 3. If you had more time with both drakes to fly about flaming you would have killed them all eventually.


There were no units preventing me getting close. My problem is preventing units like flyers skimmers and flying monstrous units ending their move over the fortress, this is what kept your scoring unit alive, without this it was an 11 - 9 draw your way . I highly doubt that's what was intended by gw.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Will_S
post Sep 9 2013, 05:02 PM
Post #19


Member
*

Group: Veteran Members
Posts: 1,119
Joined: 29-March 12
From: Croydon Vic
Member No.: 12,786



QUOTE(Chaplain_Fortis @ Sep 9 2013, 04:54 PM) *

Yeah... doesn't sound very fun. I get it, but still... urgh... is there not a minimum distance from the board edge for objectives anymore?


Isn't it 6 inches?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Angmar
post Sep 9 2013, 05:04 PM
Post #20


Member
*

Group: Veteran Members
Posts: 4,140
Joined: 19-November 04
From: UOW
Member No.: 239



Oh and don't get me wrong, I was exhausted, couldn't think properly and played badly.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 16th June 2019 - 02:36 PM