Thursday, June 23, 2016

Double Trouble Feedback Discussion (everything but venue)

You should know by now that I try to be different from other TOs and genuinely try to listen to feedback and incorporate some of your ideas in my future events. At the moment I'm planning on running the next Double Trouble in June next year (or around then, date TBC). That means there's plenty of time to make things better. I'm obviously biased but I thought, in spite of the venue issues, the event went really well considering it was the first of a new format. Here are some of my initial thoughts on what I could do better though. I'd love to hear what you guys think too (whether you came along or not).

This will be a long post with hopefully a similarly long comments section but please stick with me and give me some feedback at the end.

Round Times
I knew there'd be a problem with people getting games finished which is why I kept the round lengths at 2.5 hours despite having 1,500pt battles instead of Blog Wars' 1,850pt games. I'd intended to add a box on the score sheets to get some idea of how many turns people were getting through but it slipped my mind. Were people getting to the end of their games? None of my games got to turn 5 but that was probably more my fault than anything else. 

It's a difficult thing to fix. The nature of the event means that the pre-game stuff takes a bit longer than usual. I don't want to simply increase the round time. I'm sure if I made it 3 hours then everyone would get 5-7 turns in comfortably but there'd also be people in finished in 2 hours and were hanging around. The nature of the event means that it wouldn't matter so much as you could go and watch other games etc but it'd make for a very long day adding 90 minutes on over three rounds. That'd be a pretty late finish and even longer day for those with a commute home afterwards. 

I think the way to do it then is to simplify a few things and streamline stuff as much as possible. One idea I had was to make the deployment the same in each round. Obviously this would favour some armies over others but knowing that you're getting before the event would mean you could tailor your list to compensate. I could also have objective markers in fixed positions on the table before you start. That'd cut out a roll off and time placing the objectives. You'd still roll off to see which side you ended up on and therefore have some control over where the objective nearest you were in relation to your army and useful cover. Speaking of which, I could also pre-classify terrain but obviously that's time consuming when I'm usually in a rush to get everyone registered and the event started.

Actually, since the A or B pairings are random I could have an A side of the table and B side of the table. Would cut out another roll off and potentially swapping sides. It's still a 50:50 chance which side you'll be on and if objectives are pre-placed it wouldn't be as important to choose. 

I could also merge the roll off so that you just roll off once. You can then choose to deploy AND go first giving your opponent the choice of deployment zone or choose your deployment zone but go second. Obviously Seize would still be in play.

Ditching Warlord Traits completely could be useful too but as I said at the start of the event, some armies rely on a particular trait for the list to work. Not sure that's an option really. 

Finally, I could potentially publish the matchups before the day and even the army lists. That way you'd cut out the explanation of your armies to your partner and opponents. Obviously there might be a couple of things to clarify but generally speaking your games would start quicker. Only trouble with this is that if I have some last minute dropouts the pairings might change on the day.

Deployment
As I've mentioned above. Do you think that having the same deployment in each round would make things easier or would it be less interesting that way? Would your army be particularly screwed by a Dawn of War in every game? 

The deployment in the last game was a bit of an experiment. There were certainly a couple of issues with it. Where do reserves come in? If it's the long table edge adjacent to your deployment then your units arrive behind one of your enemies. When doing the alternating deployment do you have to decide the order before anyone deploys or can the team going second get back a bit of an advantage by responding like they would in a normal game?

Scenarios/Scoring
I thought the objective cards worked out really well. Gambling for more points for controlling an objective for two turns was a nice change. Sometimes it paid off for us but on other occasions we should've just cut our losses. Are there any cards in there that you really don't like? Could any of them be tweaked slightly to either make them better or just clearer in wording.

Do you like having two concurrent missions? Since the pairings are random I didn't want to change the mission in each game. At least you can write your army list knowing what you're getting from the scenario in each round. I'm considering going back to a more traditional combination of VPs and BPs with prizes for 1st, 2nd and 3rd. That way you'd know who'd actually "won" each game. On the other hand the current system helped to minimise the importance of each game and create more relaxed games.

Forge World
The use of FW units has always been a bone of contention for me. I'm really not a fan of them. I own a couple of models but more for the miniature than to actually use them in games. I think they're a level of complexity that's simple to remove from games. I'm not going to go into my feelings on the subject too much but I'd love to hear from you guys about whether you thought they were had a particular impact your games.

I'm toying with the idea of limiting them to one unit per army OR a full 30K army. I'd rather that than an outright ban I think. With no superheavies they probably aren't that bad and at this points level there little you could really take that'd be that devastating.

Summoning
Coming from comments on my battle reports it seems that people thought that Summoning was a bit OTT at the event. To me knowledge there were only a couple of lists making use of it but I agree in principle that it was perhaps a bit too much. The trouble is that if you were picking the full 1,500pt army you'd mostly likely have some way of dealing with it built in but since you're only picking half it ends up being luck of the draw whether you get an army that can deal with it.

As Xachariel pointed out in the comments, Summoning actually breaks the army selection criteria of no more than two of any given unit. Obviously from a list point of view it doesn't but there's the potential to spam, I dunno say, flaming chariots. I will say that at least in my game, our list flattered the chariots and against other armies they wouldn't necessarily be so successful. Equally, we came incredibly close to killing the lord of change in our first turn and it was only because of a 4++ from the warp storm that we didn't manage it. The point is there are counters to it.

This is going to be one of those things where some armies would have no problem dealing with it but others would be severely hampered. I'm loathe to ban Summoning completely as, like it or not, it's part of the game. Personally, I hate it but I don't really want to extend the list of restrictions any more than I have to.

Short of banning it there are a few possible options for restricting its use. I could say that only a certain number of warp charge dice could be used for summoning each turn (or over the course of a battle) but that wouldn't stop some armies depending on wargear etc. I could say that the no more than two of a unit thing applies throughout the games. If you had two units of plaguebearers you couldn't summon more (or could only do so when they were completely destroyed). Maybe a cap on the number of units that can be summoned per game would be better. Let me know what you think. I do feel that if we limit summoning, there'll still be something that dominates in this particular format. Ultimately, as I discovered every time at BW, 40K isn't balanced and it's a fool's errand trying to fix that.

Random Pairings
How do you think this worked? Personally I loved it but I was pretty luck with my partners. I'm not sure my opponents were all particularly well matched but there's little I could really do about this. I'm keen to keep the system though as I think it sets the event apart and creates a much friendlier atmosphere. 

Did you prefer having 9 different people in your games or would you not mind if you'd played with/against the same people in later rounds? Basically next time I've got a ready made table selection assuming I had 32 people again. Wouldn't be hard to add others in either.

Painting Competition
I could definitely have done things better here if we'd been in the proper room. I'd have had tables ready cleared for laying your armies out and ensure these were well lit! I personally thought having several different categories made things interesting but maybe you lot disagree. Having only two entries in the conversions competition was a shame but that's really just luck of the draw with the people coming along. In previous events there's been several entries. 

Having the character and vehicle/monster categories was a nice extra I thought. Perhaps at future events these could be merged into a Single Miniature category. I don't want to simplify the painting side of things too much though as I'm keen on rewarding people's efforts.

Do you think the extra time allotted for setting out your armies was necessary given the size of the armies involved. Personally I thought it delayed things. I can see the point when we're talking 1,850pts but it shouldn't take long to lay out 750pt armies. One idea would be to find out in advance which particular category people are going to enter? That way I could print up labels for them and you'd know there were some armies missing if you got to the tables early. I could also hand out the voting slips after people have eaten too. Of course, you might change the category you want to enter based on the competition. 

Venue
I think this is the main talking point to come out of Double Trouble and for good reason. I'd started to write down my feelings in this post but I've decided to make it a post all of it's own on Friday. Come back then and give me your feedback please.

Conclusion
I like to think that my events are some of the best on the circuit in terms of organisation and definitely prize support. I want to keep that going and I want you guys to keep coming and enjoying the experience. I could quite happily run the event again next year without changing anything but I believe Blog Wars improved dramatically over it's five year run and I'd like to think it would take less time to get there with DT as I've already had so much experience.

19 comments:

  1. Personally I loved the day, and I really dont think much needs to be changed at all.
    1 unit of FW or full 30k sounds like a nice balance to me.
    I think the idea of limiting summoming by saying you can only have 2 of any unit at a time would probably work, more-so than a flat ban would for sure.
    2/3 of my games made it to full turns, so I can't say we had much of an issue with round length, and the random pairings and changing deployments really helped mix things up and add a nice element of fun in :)
    All in all a fantastic job, I'll definately be coming along to the next one!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really glad you enjoyed it. I'll put all of the feedback together into another post. It's strange thinking the next one isn't for a year but I might cave, who knows?

      No better review than someone saying they'll come to the next event!

      Delete
  2. I think limiting to 2 of any unit at any time seems fair, summoning could still produce a lot of stuff but it'd have to be different, and it would also stop the tervigon spam list that briefly crossed my mind.

    Two things I'd like to defend. Not knowing your opponents/team mate, and the simultaneous blood points/victory points deal. Both of these things are to me what made the event unique and extra fun. The mystery of who I was playing with was an exciting part of it for me, as was the potential for team mates to compete for the different objective types. Also, having two different winners is great (especially if I'm one of them :D )

    Basically for me, the format was great, just requires a bit of tightening up for the next one. :)

    - Dan W

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll see what the consensus is but I hadn't really thought about tervigons. I don't see them as quite the same problem as they're not as reliable and the units they spawn aren't as devastating most of the time.

      Really pleased you liked the randomness. It was always going to be the sticking point for people and I'm glad that most people seem to have embraced it.

      Most of the tightening up would probably come from the venue. My process is pretty streamlined for the bits that are within my control but there are still a couple of things I've tweaked on the spreadsheet for example. I'm always looking to make the event better.

      Delete
  3. For some reason, my 5 vehicles and 1 bike kept getting tabled, so I can't speak for reaching turn limits (although it was mostly around turn 5, so I doubt we would have had issues finishing) :P Overall, I'd say the timings are about right and I wouldn't worry about simplifying the pre-game stuff. I liked the deployments; for the last game I just rolled off with my team mate for who would deploy first. Admittedly by that point I was 100% sure I was out of the running for anything but the wooden spoon, so I may not have been being that tactical, so maybe some others would disagree? As for the reserves in that mission, just have them come on from the parts of the table edges that were your deployment zone? Outflank ruls still says two short table edges, so you could still come one behind your opponents.

    I liked the concurrent missions (not that I did well at either) as it meant winning or losing didn't matter; in fact, from the looks of things, a lot of games didn't come down to one side winning, but one pair gettign the VPs and the other the BPs. I kinda think that works out. It also meant that people could do really well but not be out of the rankings because their opponent's got 3 extra VPs; something that can get lost in a W/D/L system.

    FW-wise; Don't really mind. I like their stuff, and I wouldn't say they are any worse than most of the stuff in Codices. Actually, I had far more trouble with formation/codex shenanagins, but I think you'd have to start picking and choosing what to ban, and that way madness lies!

    Summoning... Yeah maybe limit it to 2 units of any type in an army at any given time, but that also might mean you couldn't combat squad units of 10 tactical marines.

    Random pairings good! I liked having different opponents and team mates. Wouldn't mind playing against someone I had already played against. Could make for good stories, but there is plenty of people so it does make sense to play games with as many people as possible.

    Painting competition; keep all the catagories; maybe make people choose their catagory before they get there so they can't decide "oh that army is going to win, so I'll enter something else". I liked having time to set up minis and that all the models were out before anyone voted. Combining the character and vehicles in to a single mini catagory sounds good. Could also mean that other models (perhaps a particularly nicely painted tactical marine or Ork boy) could win without the whole army havign to be up to the same standard.

    Other thoughts... I think the trophies were a nice touch, but I would :P Beyond that I'd just like to say thanks again for running an excellent event.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for taking the time to write such lengthy feedback.

      I still think I'll simplify the pregame a little. A lot of it becomes unnecessary with the format and I think having less stages would mean you get into games quicker which is the whole point of being there!

      I think the last game deployment was a nice change but I think a few things need clarifying that I had to make rulings about on the fly. Where reserves come on is a great example of that.

      I also like the BP and VP running together but I think it'd be good to have some idea of who actually won. Unless people think that would spoil the atmosphere?

      I'd not thought about the two units thing after army selection to be honest. I don't think splitting a tactical squad (or bike squad for that matter) is a big deal. You're not adding any models just splitting a unit.

      I think I'll keep the no duplicate partners/opponents if possible. That way you meet as many people as possible and minimise the chance of getting a game with someone you don't like!

      It's difficult to make people choose their painting category before. I know people avoid a category if there's a stand out but that's their choice. I think they're denying people the chance to see their hard work. Even if you only get a handful of votes that still means those people thought your army/model was the best.

      The trophies WERE a nice touch. I'll have to commission a new batch so I've got some stockpiled in case.

      Delete
  4. A quick word on the venue even though I know you are keeping it seperate: it really didn't ruin my day. I will respond in full to the seperate post if you do one.

    Now on to the rest of it. I loved it all. I genuinely had 3 of the most enjoyable games of 40K in a long time.

    Specifics.

    Random pairings. Brilliant. I got to play with people I've met at Blogwars previously but not had a gamr with and played with people I've not met before. It's a great idea, removes the power list potential from pre-formed teams and just led to fun for me. I definitely think it should stay.

    Missions and set ups I think were great. The objective gambles are superb and I think GW should do more of this sort of thing in the main rules. Great fun taking the risk for better reward. Dawn of War would probably make for easier set up but the 3rd mission was very interesting and added an extra level of thought to the tactics. I liked it.

    Prizes were spot on again. A good chance of winning a raffle prize (and I did!) And the prizes were very generous as always. Making the best prizes random in the raffle as with BW again is a great idea and should always be the way.

    Painting competition I thought was great because it gives several people a chance of winning something. Only being able to enter one category keeps it spread out nicely amongst the participants and noone can scoop everything.

    I'm sure I will think of more feedback so there may be another reply from me. All in all a highly enjoyable day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for taking the time to write such lengthy feedback.

      I'm glad the venue didn't affect your day. I think it was probably more of an issue for me to be honest. Was a shame we couldn't use the newly refurbished venue though.

      Seems most people loved the random pairings so I think they're staying.

      GW do a bit of the objective gambles in their new cards (I forget the name of them) but as Nick Thrower pointed out the risks aren't worth the reward. I particularly like the 3 VPs for two turns cards (Nick's suggestion) because they change the way you think about the game. Seems people liked the 3rd deployment but I do think it needs a few things clearing up.

      I think the raffle was a bit OTT this time to be honest. Including the tournament prizes (which are sponsored by Element) I gave away £450 worth of stuff (assuming RRP of course). No one is going to complain obviously.

      Delete
  5. Thanks again Alex for putting on such a great event, it was a real blast and led to three very exciting games.

    As to your points:
    Round times- I had one game go to 4 turns and two games go to 5 turns, though both side's 5th turn took place in the last 5 minutes of the round. I don't know if that was due to the armies played, but I found that it was the discussion with your partner at the start of each round as to what objectives to go for or what to do with our units that took a lot of time. This is just inherent to a doubles game and there is not a lot you can do about it. I thought that the games went pretty quick, but it was a long day (contradictory, I know), so think the times of the games is about right.

    Deployment- I enjoyed the deployment in the 1st and 3rd games, it created some interesting match ups. I did not like the corner deployments in game 2. My Ork army had to use up most of our deployment zone just to put everything down, so my partner was a little restricted in where he could deploy. In addition, the deployment allowed my opponents to set up pretty deep in their zone, over 36" from my large Ork mob, essentially neutralising them from the game as I was unlikely to make that distance over 4 game turns intact.

    Forge World- I played with a couple of Forgeworld units and against some. I don't think either made such a massive contribution on the game to affect my views on banning or limiting them.

    Scenarios/Scoring- I liked the mix of blood points and Maelstrom missions. I would leave them as they are.

    Summoning- I played with a Daemon player and against a Daemon player. The summoning was ok and didn't do too much to affect the game (though I didn't face the chariots!). What was more of a killer for me was the Daemon Prince with Iron Arm. It made the unit practically indestructible to our army as nothing could harm it. Plus, with so many power dice and psykers in the daemon army, we couldn't stop it at all.

    Random Pairings- I really liked this and it was one of the main draws of the tournament for me. Keep it as is. I don't think we spent too much time before each game discussing lists.

    Painting Comp- As someone who has absolutely no shot of winning a prize in the painting comp, I think it was fine. The different categories are neat and it stops one player from picking up all the prizes.

    That's my thoughts, hope it helps.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for taking the time to write such lengthy feedback.

      Again, I do think things could be streamlined a bit more so people are actually getting 5-7 turns in. It's something I can definitely improve upon.

      The deployments intentionally don't suit everyone. That's why I didn't want to do Dawn of War in all three games in the end. Some armies would love it but others would be penalised. I could swap the corners for Hammer and Anvil or Vanguard but frankly H&A would've been pretty much the same for you.

      Iron Arm is a bit OTT but there are counters. For example, had he played my Dark Eldar with venoms it wouldn't have helped him. I know I've banned Invisibility but I don't want to start too much picking and choosing of rules.

      Delete
  6. My thoughts:

    Fantastic fun as always!

    Round Time: Spot on although if people weren't getting to the later turns it was the discussion with your partner at the start of each turn.

    Deployment: Didn't really have any issues with the deployment although the 3rd one seemed odd.

    Forge World: I'd say keep it in (biased as I brought 1 Unit of FW) - those that want to bring some of the meaner FW units will soon find them boring - it was nice to see some 30k armies make it to the table as well!

    Scoring: Loved it, keep it as it still discourages trying to table people

    Summoning: Generally at the lower point values it seems unfair however I would say leave it be - the lists that rely on it are easy to spot and then its a matter of just killing the psykers. I have had more trouble dealing with Iron Arm Nurgle Flying Daemon Princes (personally think nurgle should not get access to biomancy) than newly summoned units.

    Random Pairings: Stops power gaming and guarantees a different game every time - keep it!

    Painting Comp: I got a vote!!! preferred the extra categories personally.

    Thanks for a great day again Alex!
    -DW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the feedback Pete. As I've said above, Iron Arm isn't great but some armies will still be able to deal with it. Obviously I'm biased since I played a mostly poisoned weapon army.

      Glad you enjoyed the day anyway.

      Delete
  7. I loved the event! the fact that the venue was double booked didn't really bother me; the event would have been better if it was upstairs, but it was amazing already.

    I don't have a problem with FW units. I didn't include any in my list, but I do enjoy using them in my regular games. Some units may be a little on the harsh side, but I feel that you pay the relevant number of points for them.

    Summoning. My first game was against tzeentch chariots, and I felt vulnerable throughout the entire game. My partner and I destroyed almost every daemon unit that started on the board, but they were all back by the end of the game. I don't feel that summoning was the problem though, it was WHAT could summon. At 750pts, you don't have a lot of points to play with in regards to anti-air. Maybe banning flyers/flying monstrous creatures would be a better option.

    Deployment. I had a blast on the last game. That deployment method made the game a LOT more tactical, as you found yourself running after your chosen targets, rather than headlong at them. This was probably my favourite game of the day, due to this deployment type.

    Painting competition. The painting competition was fine, but I would say that, as I won the best army award. ;)

    Vp's and bp's. This was a very good way of doing things. We have people that are good at different things in my gaming group. Some are better at collecting maelstrom vps, some are better at asploding stuff. This system allows both types of player to enjoy their games.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We'll discuss the venue more in the next post (going up tonight) but yeah it was just a shame we weren't upstairs more than anything.

      I don't want to all out ban FMC/flyers but maybe it would be sensible to limit them to one per list. It hampers some armies but at 750pts it shouldn't be too much of an issue.

      Glad you liked the deployment type. It was a bit of an experiment that I can certainly improve but I'm glad I tried it out.

      Right, I'll try and combine everyone's feedback into a new post and start to talk about what can be done differently/better next time.

      Delete
  8. Hey Alex,

    Double Trouble was a blast! :-D

    Onto the topics:
    Round Times
    First game we only managed three rounds, if I recall it correctly. Our opponents had more horde style armies, so it could be in part due to that fact. But also we chatted quite a lot.
    But I guess mostly it was due to the fact, that we hardly made any moves / took action when someone else was doing something. So I guess part of getting more rounds in is to do stuff simultaneously. In the other games we got to round five each.
    Overall the time limit is fine - no need to change anything here.

    Deployment
    Round One - nothing to say here.
    Round Two - it got a bit crowded in our corner, but still we managed to get everything in. Actually liked the fact, that everyone had to move more to get to the objectives.
    Round Three - Fun reminder of old times. It can be an issue though, as you mentioned yourself, that the team going first most likely will gang up on one oponent, resulting in a possible taibling of one person soon. Maybe change it so each team can set up in their corners however they like to. For example they could opt to ignore one corner completly and kinda mimick the round two setup. This would prevent the possible ganking of one player.

    Forge World
    Having brought a FW unit myself, I'm a bit biased. Personally I enjoy the variety FW offers. Limiting it to one unit / full FW army seems fine.

    Summoning
    I didn't get to play with / against one of our Deamons so I can't really tell how good / bad it was.
    Keeping the limitation of two units of a kind at all times seems fair to avoid spamming.
    Maybe have the possible units that can be summoned fixed to one / two selections. Once they are on the field, there can't be more spammed, until the previous units have been destroyed.
    Else I don't think there should be any other restrictions. Summoning is an integral part of the Deamons and it would be unfair to limit just one army.

    Random Pairings
    Loved it! Great mix of people I got to play with and against.
    I wouldn't mind getting to play with someone I previously played against and vice versa. Could actually be pretty fun. :-)

    Painting Competition
    Besides the lightning issues, everything was fine. Having a dedicated area reserved beforehand would be nice for future events though.

    Conclussion
    What I think may have been an issue for some was the somewhat great difference in power levels of the armies. Some where rather strong, others not so much. This may have been a bit of an issue. Though I can't complain for myself.

    Double Trouble had a great atmosphere. Everyone seemed pretty relaxed and in for the fun.
    Also thanks to the Firday night gang for a fun night and thanks to Luke for doing the Hunger Games X-Wing game! ;-)
    Expect the "German posse" (as named by Dave Weston) to return to DT2! :-D

    Cheers,
    Hendrik

    ReplyDelete
  9. Great event Alex. I preferred it to blog wars as it was more relaxed and less win-centric than ever. Round times, painting competition and mission were all great.

    I play demons from time to time so wouldn't want to see summoning nerfed Maybe give all armies easier access to Santic powers?

    The final deployment needs a few tweaks ( My scouts had fun picking any deployment zone they liked and my bikes were almost able to first turn charge) but there could be ways of exploiting it unfairly.

    I can't afford forge world stuff so you can nerf that all you like !!!! :)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hi Alex,

    As per all of the previous BW events this one was as fun as ever! Regardless of the venue mess ups, I had a really great and intend to keep on coming!
    That said: My thoughts on the key points, feel free to disregard them to your hearts content :)

    Round Times:
    This was a bit of a double edged sword for me. I am generally a quick player and therefore the time limit never really stretches me in tournaments. However this one did have games last longer than expected, It was not (at least for me) all of the pregame dice rolls so much as the familiarising yourself with the people your playing with. Plus if one person out of the 4 is a little bit less organised at getting their rolls made and models on the table it could slow the whole game down.
    That said I managed to make it to turn 5 in all of my games so cannot be that bad.

    However I wouldn't want there to be any more time for the games (at least not without upping the pts to 1k per person) But I may be biased in that I was tabled turn 2 in my last game and therefore had a V. long wait until the end.

    Deployment:
    The first missions deployment worked fine.
    The second missions corners seemed a little bit small for me, it my be a personal opinion but table quarters with 12'' from a central line rather than 12 for a central point would give a little bit more room for the bigger forces.

    The third mission deployment I really don't like.
    I think my main problem with it, is that the whole point of this tournament is to make 2 people work together to get the points, and this missions doesn't particularly work towards that as it separates the forces. Because you and your ally are diametrically opposite, at least in my game (and the practice games before) it felt that you were just playing separate battles on the same board.

    It doesn't help that it is far too easy for the team with the first turn to gang up on one player without reprise, especially if the other army is assault based. That could be at least 3 turns before they would be able to intervene and help!

    But then I am biased due to my tabling (see above) that wouldn't have been possible with a *normal* deployment. I think for an alternative I would prefer to play with the deep deployment zones short edge to short edge for the 3rd round.

    Forge World:
    I had a 30k army, so again I am biased.
    I like seeing forge world models as they tend to be a bit rarer and therefore more interesting. In terms of broken I do not think they are any nastier than the normal rubbish we see coming out of the eldar/tau/space marine codexes these days so I don't think this is a balance issue. Understandably though they are additional rules to remember for the uninitiated so I do agree with your idea of restricting to one unit/army.

    Summoning:
    I have already stated my opinion on summoning in a previous comment so I wont go into much detail. Suffice to say, i do not think it is that bad, at least in comparison to some of the filth other codexs can bring. I can understand restricting the models summoned so that they do not break the 2 unit limit. However if it was to be outright banned I would like to add D Weapons, Biomancy Powers & Formations to the list please :)

    Random Pairings:
    This was awesome, don't change anything. 9 separate people throughout the day please.

    Painting Competition:
    Such poor lighting at the venue, It was really regrettable as the pictures that have emerged truly reflect some of the awesome paint jobs I saw!

    That said for competitions I would like to see:

    Best painted army
    Best painted single miniature
    Best converted army
    Best converted single miniature

    In the same way best painted mini helps for people who are unable to complete large armies to such good standards, I would like to see particularly well thought out singular conversions rewarded.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I thought this event was excellent. I enjoyed the random pairings immensely, and the painting format worked very well. Perhaps the dedicated areas for each would be good beforehand as I did see a few people wandering round looking for places to put their stuff.

    I am personally not a fan of daemon summoning and like the idea of limiting them to two units of the same type, as that will make everyone reasonable happy I think :)

    I would not like to see the same deployment method in each game. I felt having differs rent ones added variety which was welcome. Mission two was very crammed though, especially if both armies are quite large. Mission 3 I enjoyed but I can understand the issues some has expressed over it.


    On forge world I am not bothered about facing them. I like the heresy armies and do not think they are overpowered, although the eldar tanks we faced in the first game were certainly fairly unpleasant to be on the receiving end of :D

    Loved this event and will certainly be back for the next one. Thanks for the hard work and dedication you have out in to run it and improve on each year :)

    ReplyDelete
  12. I am intending to comment, I just haven't had time to write everything down yet!

    ReplyDelete

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...