I am running another tournament at Gaming ETC in Stratford CT. We are bumping up the points to 2000 points but sticking with a single force org. Chart.
Tournament Info
I made a few tweaks to the missions, most notably swaping the big guns and crusade missions to avoid some rules issues from previous tournaments.
Missions
Entry Fee:$10
First Dice 10:00
2.5 hour Rounds.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Gaming ETC tournament 12/8/2012
So I am running another tournament at Gaming ETC in Stratford CT. We are bumping up the points to 2000 points but sticking with a single force org. Chart.
Tournament Rules
As I got largely positive feedback last month I am sticking with the same missions (though I may rearrange the order of the missions)
Missions
Entry Fee:$10
First Dice 10:00
2.5 hour Rounds.
Tournament Rules
As I got largely positive feedback last month I am sticking with the same missions (though I may rearrange the order of the missions)
Missions
Entry Fee:$10
First Dice 10:00
2.5 hour Rounds.
Friday, October 19, 2012
Gaming ETC tournament 11/4/2012
For anyone interested I am running a tournament at Gaming ETC (555 Lordship Boulevard) Stratford, CT on 11/4 Sign up 9am, Round 1 starts at 10:00 Am
Entry Fee :$10
I have posted the rules and missions below.
Tournament Rules
Missions
Entry Fee :$10
I have posted the rules and missions below.
Tournament Rules
Missions
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
40K Tournament Mission/format ideas
Hi all,
So with several months of 6th ed under my belt now I have had some thoughts about 6th ed for tournament play (and perhaps just general play), that I am hoping for some feedback on as I am looking to test them and perhaps implement them next year at CT con.
Thought 1.) Warlord Traits can SUCK...
Now as opposed to many people who have been opposed to the use of warlord traits at all, my experience has been this. Firstly they are not game breaking, I have yet to lose a game because of a warlord trait. In fact more often than not they are fairly useless (gaining outflank bonuses for armies that don't outflank, furious charge for a Bloodthirster[who already has it], getting the night fighting power Immotek etc.), and it is simply not fun when you get a power that does nothing(having one that is not good is not great either but at least it is better than completely useless). I have seen various ideas around fixing this issue.
a.) Not use traits at all. Which I am against as the traits are part of 6th ed.
b.) Re-roll a trait if you absolutely cannot use it/already have the ability. I'm not a big fan of this one either, as it can lead to people picking a tree they cannot use a lot of traits from with one or 2 really good traits. Also, it can delay the game due to needing to roll multiple times.
c.)Pick two trees and roll once on each: I'll get to try this one at NOVA and I think it is a decent solution. The one downside is it is still possible to get 2 really bad rolls/useless roll, though it is less likely.
d.) Roll once and then pick a tree. I.e. if you roll a 3 you can pick any of the #3 traits. I have used this once and I quite like it as it really reduces the occurance of completely useless traits. The potential downside to this might be that you end up with really good traits every time (though if this is true for everyone it is not a big deal.)
Needless to say at the moment I am leaning toward d.) that said I need to play around with it more, and I will have experience with c.) in two weeks.
Thought 2.) Less random mysterious terrain/objectives
Most tournaments I am seeing are going with not using mysterious terrain/objectives at all because it can randomly have great effects on the outcome of the game. I can understand that, and I actually agree in a tournament setting you don't want random terrain/objectives determining outcomes, it also makes it such that each table is playing a slightly different game, which is less effective for evaluating players.
That said I am also intrigued to try out some of the terrain effects. My thought at the moment is given a stock terrain/objective set-up for each board. Having pre determined mysterious terrain/objectives built into the missions. For a game including Emporers will (capture and control) have the objectives be skyfire nexuses, etc. Having this built into the mission, would allow it to be used, avoid randomness, and provide some interesting dynamics. Now i will need to test out this idea some, to see how it works but I think it has promise.
Thought 3.) Tournament Missions: One of the major things I have seen so far in 6th is that some missions if played straight out of the book are just not great for tournaments. Emperor's Will is a very easy mission to tiethough secondary objectives help this over Capture and Control from 5th. The Relic very quickly becomes a tabling mission if one player can capture the Relic Turn 1. It is just not fun to steal the relic and then run away the whole game to win the game. Scouring, while decent has randomly assorted objectives worth different values. Played straight out of the book this could have a particular player winning prior to the game even starting.
All that said my idea is to stack the missions together (kind of a 2 for 1) This was fairly common in 5th (with the Bay Area Open and NOVA formats), in 6th I think just assigning VPs to particular objectives works nicely (will need to test to see how balanced my thoughts are but none the less, they seem like a good idea. Here are some initial mission thoughts:
Mission #1
Balanced objective placement, rewards movement toward the center and mobility. Good number of VPs (21 minimum total possible, Max not capped due to Kill points but is 21 + KP total for either side.) Balances KP mission some as Objectives account for 15 VPs.
Mission 3:
As per the book in all missions (this was included in totals above.)
Battle Points:
So max win is 15 points, Rewards losers for keeping it close. Rewards Playing the mission, as even if you table if the game is close on the mission (i.e. it is objectives and you have no troops left you cannot recieve maximum points.)
Anyway those are my thoughts for now. After some play testing I'll be back with my reviews (hopefully get to use some in a few RTTs to get them tested by more people.)
So with several months of 6th ed under my belt now I have had some thoughts about 6th ed for tournament play (and perhaps just general play), that I am hoping for some feedback on as I am looking to test them and perhaps implement them next year at CT con.
Thought 1.) Warlord Traits can SUCK...
Now as opposed to many people who have been opposed to the use of warlord traits at all, my experience has been this. Firstly they are not game breaking, I have yet to lose a game because of a warlord trait. In fact more often than not they are fairly useless (gaining outflank bonuses for armies that don't outflank, furious charge for a Bloodthirster[who already has it], getting the night fighting power Immotek etc.), and it is simply not fun when you get a power that does nothing(having one that is not good is not great either but at least it is better than completely useless). I have seen various ideas around fixing this issue.
a.) Not use traits at all. Which I am against as the traits are part of 6th ed.
b.) Re-roll a trait if you absolutely cannot use it/already have the ability. I'm not a big fan of this one either, as it can lead to people picking a tree they cannot use a lot of traits from with one or 2 really good traits. Also, it can delay the game due to needing to roll multiple times.
c.)Pick two trees and roll once on each: I'll get to try this one at NOVA and I think it is a decent solution. The one downside is it is still possible to get 2 really bad rolls/useless roll, though it is less likely.
d.) Roll once and then pick a tree. I.e. if you roll a 3 you can pick any of the #3 traits. I have used this once and I quite like it as it really reduces the occurance of completely useless traits. The potential downside to this might be that you end up with really good traits every time (though if this is true for everyone it is not a big deal.)
Needless to say at the moment I am leaning toward d.) that said I need to play around with it more, and I will have experience with c.) in two weeks.
Thought 2.) Less random mysterious terrain/objectives
Most tournaments I am seeing are going with not using mysterious terrain/objectives at all because it can randomly have great effects on the outcome of the game. I can understand that, and I actually agree in a tournament setting you don't want random terrain/objectives determining outcomes, it also makes it such that each table is playing a slightly different game, which is less effective for evaluating players.
That said I am also intrigued to try out some of the terrain effects. My thought at the moment is given a stock terrain/objective set-up for each board. Having pre determined mysterious terrain/objectives built into the missions. For a game including Emporers will (capture and control) have the objectives be skyfire nexuses, etc. Having this built into the mission, would allow it to be used, avoid randomness, and provide some interesting dynamics. Now i will need to test out this idea some, to see how it works but I think it has promise.
Thought 3.) Tournament Missions: One of the major things I have seen so far in 6th is that some missions if played straight out of the book are just not great for tournaments. Emperor's Will is a very easy mission to tiethough secondary objectives help this over Capture and Control from 5th. The Relic very quickly becomes a tabling mission if one player can capture the Relic Turn 1. It is just not fun to steal the relic and then run away the whole game to win the game. Scouring, while decent has randomly assorted objectives worth different values. Played straight out of the book this could have a particular player winning prior to the game even starting.
All that said my idea is to stack the missions together (kind of a 2 for 1) This was fairly common in 5th (with the Bay Area Open and NOVA formats), in 6th I think just assigning VPs to particular objectives works nicely (will need to test to see how balanced my thoughts are but none the less, they seem like a good idea. Here are some initial mission thoughts:
Mission #1
Relic + big guns(4 objectives) Each Objective worth 3 Vp, Relic worth 5 VP+1 VP per Heavy Support Killed. Relic is fixed start in center of table each player places 2 objectives.
Deployment: Hammer and Anvil
Relic is not the be all end all in this case but does force armies toward the center, allows for some objective placement strategy. Also gives a good number of VPs possible (minimum total VPs possible is 20 is Max is 23, unless playing 2k or above with double force org.)
Mission #2
Scouring(objectives as mission +1 Vp per Fast attack killed) + Kill points(Purge the Alien)
Deployment: Dawn of War
Objective Placement
Blue- 1 (24” from each table edge)
Purple-2(12” from each Table edge)
Black-3(12” from each Table edge)
Orange-4(24” from each table edge)
Balanced objective placement, rewards movement toward the center and mobility. Good number of VPs (21 minimum total possible, Max not capped due to Kill points but is 21 + KP total for either side.) Balances KP mission some as Objectives account for 15 VPs.
Mission 3:
Crusade(Objectives) + Emporer's Will(capture and Control)-neutral objectives worth 3,capture and control objectives worth 4
Deployment: Diagonal
Objective Placement 3 Objectives on Center line (two at 29”, from each corner, one at table center one 1 capture and control objective in your deployment zone.
Again allows for some objective placement with the Capture and Control Objectives. Forces action toward the center, and rewards mobility (over blowing your opponent off the table, though that works too.) VPs still good at 20 Possible VPs.
Secondary Objectives
Slay the Warlord 1VP
Line Breaker 1 Vp
First Blood 1 VP
Now for the scoring for battle points (if win-loss, you could use this for margin of victory for pairings etc.)
Win 10 points
Draw 7 points
Loss 0 points
Tabling: If you table your opponent you win the game. You do not however, receive maximum points, you may continue to take remaining turns to claim objectives etc, then determine VP difference.
VP margin bonus
1-3VP (or loser has more VPs in event of a tabling.)=+0 win, +5 Loss
4-6=+1 win, +3 Loss
7-9=+3 win, +1 Loss
10+=+5 win, +0 Loss
Monday, July 23, 2012
Team Tourney Rules Ideas
So, I'm kicking around so ideas for the team tournament for Ctcon 2013.
Thus far my thoughts are
Moving Up to 1k points per player (from 750 this year)
Teams will function following the allies rules with the following exceptions:
1.)All teammate armies that are not Battle Brothers count as Allies of Convienience. I.e. Any army can ally with any other army, but battle brother armies gain a bonus from the battle brothers rules.
2.) Armies from the same codex are battle brothers.
NO allies may be take in a players army, you are already allying with your partner.
FOC is the same as last year
1HQ and 1 Troop required for each player
Each player can take up to 1 Elite/fast/heavy/additional 2 troops
The remaining FOC slots are swing slots i.e. one player can take a second elite/fast/heavy choice.
Each Player may select a fortification
Forgeworld Units that have been stamped 40k approved by Forgeworld, and FAQ'd for use in 6th Ed.(if neccessary, as in the case of vehicles) are legal.
Thus far my thoughts are
Moving Up to 1k points per player (from 750 this year)
Teams will function following the allies rules with the following exceptions:
1.)All teammate armies that are not Battle Brothers count as Allies of Convienience. I.e. Any army can ally with any other army, but battle brother armies gain a bonus from the battle brothers rules.
2.) Armies from the same codex are battle brothers.
NO allies may be take in a players army, you are already allying with your partner.
FOC is the same as last year
1HQ and 1 Troop required for each player
Each player can take up to 1 Elite/fast/heavy/additional 2 troops
The remaining FOC slots are swing slots i.e. one player can take a second elite/fast/heavy choice.
Each Player may select a fortification
Forgeworld Units that have been stamped 40k approved by Forgeworld, and FAQ'd for use in 6th Ed.(if neccessary, as in the case of vehicles) are legal.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Connecticon 40k mission
This is a blog I have created to document, and exchange Ideas concerning 40k and wargamming at Connecticon. A large Multigenre convention each summer in Hartford Connecticut. This blog will be the source for all information pertaining to wargaming occuring at the convention (though you will still be able to find general information on the Connecticon website.) Here you will be able to find proposed missions, rules discussions, event details, pictures/articles about terrain creation for the convention, etc. This is an endeavor on my behalf to make Connecticon the Goto event in Connecticut for minatures wargaming This year in 2012(my first year), we had our biggest event ever and I only hope to grow going forward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)