DaBoyz GT Primer September 10th

[crimthaan]

Where: Millennium Games and Hobby
When: 9:30am Registration
What: We will be running a DaBoyz GT primer event with three of the DaBoyz GT missions being used. Additionally all armies are subject to the DaBoyz GT comp. rubric located at the GT website, www.daboyzgt.com ,with a minimum score of 30 needed to participate in the event.

See you there!

[hyv3mynd]

Exciting! ;D

Rally all your friends people! The more we get to attend this event, the more data and feedback we'll have on the missions and format to make the GT better. I want to see every one of your pretty faces Saturday morning.

Will you guys need any terrain or do you have that covered?

[crimthaan]

Aaron if you have 2 tables to bring that would be awesome!

[hyv3mynd]

I can do 2.

[teecypher]

witch sisters rules are we useing

[lordnurgle]

since the codex will be fully out for more than a month for daboyz GT, I would think we'd have to let people play WD rules. how else can they practice? That would be a bit of a disadvantage.

[hyv3mynd]

The issue is the codex hasn't been out for a full month by this Saturday. Millennium's house rule has always been 30 days prior to the event. This event I believe is being managed by the GT staff so they can make the call whether to uphold the house rule or allow the WD codex as the event pertains to a larger one happening next month.

I have no problem with using the new WD version, but I've gone out of my way to buy both magazines and read them thoroughly. I'm also not GT staff, so hopefully one of them will chime in with the official stance.

[crimthaan]

My apologies for taking so long to get back to you guys. I have some additional information for you all.

The winner of the primer will have their GT ticket paid for my Millennium Games and Hobby, as well as qualify for Millennium's December tournament.

Since the WD codex is the one that will be recognized at the GT you will be expected to use the WD codex this Saturday.

[Horst]

Had a great time! Thought i'd leave feedback on missions / comp format.

First off, the missions were in general pretty cool. However, I would like to see degrees of winning implemented in them. In this tournament, everyone that I know of got 35 points for a win, 0 for a loss. This makes a closely fought battle a bit lopsided in the outcome, even if someone barely edges out a win. Let me give you an example...

Mission 1 was the ear collection mission.

You got 20 points if you had more ears than your opponent, 10 points if you tied your opponent, and 0 if you had less. You also got 15 points if you had more killpoints, 7 if you tied, and 0 if you had less.

A better system, in my opinion, would be to score it like this -

Primary Objective Battle Points Rubric
Massacre win = 20 points
Major Victory = 15 points
Minor Victory = 12 points
Minor Loss = 7 points
Major Loss = 5 points
Massacre loss = 0 points.

Secondary Objective Battle Points Rubric
Massacre win = 15 points
Major Victory = 12 points
Minor Victory = 9 points
Draw = 7 points
Minor Loss = 5 points
Major Loss = 3 points
Massacre Loss = 0 points

Mission Specific Implementation for "Ears" Mission -

Primary:
8 or more ears than opponent = Massacre win
4-7 ears more = Major Victory
1-3 ears = Minor Victory

Secondary:
9 or more killpoints more = Massacre win
5-8 more killpoints = Major Victory
1-4 more killpoints = Minor Victory


Or something like that... I'd just like to see margins of wins implemented so we don't have such a binary win/loss condition. When you only have to win by 1 point in order to win, it leads to people playing the mission rules, rather than the mission intent... Instead of trying to score more killpoints, it can be quite common for someone to hold everything in reserve, and then just kill 1 unit and hide the rest of his army. Not that this happened today, but I've seen (and done) things like this in other tournaments where I only had to win by 1 point in order to get full points... and it makes for less intense games in my opinion.





As for the comp rubric, In general I liked it. However, I think that the Dedicated Transport section of the rubric could use some work... It allows for players to take up to 3 land raiders in a space marine army without losing any comp points, yet if a player takes 3 rhinos for tactical squads he will lose 10 points.

My suggestions are:
1) For every dedicated transport you take that can be taken as a standalone choice in the codex, if another of that unit is taken as said standalone choice it shall be counted as a duplicate.

2) Give a lighter penalty for taking more than 2 dedicated transports, but give a heavier penalty for duplicating more than 2 transports.

The implications of my suggestions (as I see them):

1) I think this would mean land raiders and battle wagons (not sure if anything else) would count as duplicates if you take 1 as dedicated to elite and another as a standalone heavy, instead of counting as 2 distinct unit types.

2) A mechanized marine list with 4 razorbacks should be penalized heavier than a marine army with a razorback, a rhino, and 2 drop pods. Diversity should be encouraged, but it seems like its possible to have diversity with different types of transports. I'm a tread head when it comes to strategy games though, so maybe thats just me.


These are just my thoughts and opinions, feel free to take them or leave them, in any case I'll be attending the GT and having a great time with it.

[nutter]

The only thing I would change in the last mission is the outflank part. The units would still outflank but get rid of the "your choice" board edge::: 1,2,3 right side, 4,5,6 left side.

[warmasterprimus]

I agree with Horst on the battle point spread. In my first game (ear collectors), I managed a late game kill on a death star that swung the swung the game in my favor. It was a really close game, but I managed full points. While it's cool that I got a big win, the points didn't reflect the very close battle we had.

In my second game (dwindling supplies), I think that the objective removal during the 4th turn was pretty cool. I didn't like that one player got to place 3 objectives and the other player only got 2. I think that it gives a bit of an unnecessary advantage to the 3 objective player. Maybe give each player 2 objectives to place and a center 3rd. Also, the dwindling supplies part of the mission came too little too late. It really didn't add that much flavor, nor did it impact the game. If you start it from the beginning, it may slow games down a little but would make for a more flavorful mission.

In the third game, I think that a battle point spread (similar to the one proposed for the 1st mission) would work great, though I would make the kill point margins greater:
Minor win - 1-5KPs
Major win - 6-11
Massacre - 12+

12+ seems like a lot, but Rob managed to give me a decisive massacre (19 to 5) and from my feeling of the game, 12 KPs feels right for a massacre.

[hyv3mynd]

I agree that the points spreads need to be more diverse either by more than just W/L/D or by increasing the requirement for a win.

I think the personal experiences are too subjective this early on for certain points. How is placing 3 objectives over 2 any different than seize ground with 5? The mission says place them exactly as seize ground and you still roll for sides after. I also had a totally different experience with dwindling supplies when my GKT unit with libby lost their power weapons the turn they needed to assault hammernators off an objective. Since I wasn't currently holding an objective, that mechanic sealed my fate.

There were too many massacres so I agree the scoring needs to be looked at and I did like Bens idea about changing outflanking reinforcements for the 3rd mission we played.

[hyv3mynd]

As far as the comp rubric goes, I think it's set in stone at this point so be prepared for lots of land raiders and battlewagons. 3 of our 11 at the primer brought dual LR lists with near full comp points. I think that's why they have 30 judge points, so people who abuse the system like that may not get those. Remember each game is 35bp's so if you cheese the comp rubric with 2-3 LR's or BW's, those 30 judge points you may not get are almost worth a massacre.

[Horst]

ah, I forgot its so close to the GT and that changing the rubric at this point would mean some people don't have enough painted models.

Guess I'll stick with the army I have now then I was thinking about chucking in 2 drop pod squads instead of my land raider + terminators, but the hit on dedicated transports in comp makes it not worth it.

[jay]

Sept 12, 2011 6:47:29 GMT -5 warmasterprimus said:

I agree with Horst on the battle point spread. In my first game (ear collectors), I managed a late game kill on a death star that swung the swung the game in my favor. It was a really close game, but I managed full points. While it's cool that I got a big win, the points didn't reflect the very close battle we had.

In my second game (dwindling supplies), I think that the objective removal during the 4th turn was pretty cool. I didn't like that one player got to place 3 objectives and the other player only got 2. I think that it gives a bit of an unnecessary advantage to the 3 objective player. Maybe give each player 2 objectives to place and a center 3rd. Also, the dwindling supplies part of the mission came too little too late. It really didn't add that much flavor, nor did it impact the game. If you start it from the beginning, it may slow games down a little but would make for a more flavorful mission.

In the third game, I think that a battle point spread (similar to the one proposed for the 1st mission) would work great, though I would make the kill point margins greater:
Minor win - 1-5KPs
Major win - 6-11
Massacre - 12+

12+ seems like a lot, but Rob managed to give me a decisive massacre (19 to 5) and from my feeling of the game, 12 KPs feels right for a massacre.

my only concern is when one army with 8 KP plays 9 KP and you only when by 2 and there is two guys left standing.