|
Post by hyv3mynd on Jul 16, 2012 7:59:18 GMT -5
+1 to everything sonofsanguinius and travis said.
@ MajorSoB ~ The poll was to help Smitty get a feel for people's thoughts. He tried to get feedback at the end of the event but not everyone spoke up. Nobody is obligated to run a tournament based on this poll's results.
Re-reading the terrain rules again, I think the alternating method is even worse than my initial impression. Just my opinion and I don't expect anyone to adopt it. Also, this only relates to tournaments which 40k is not designed for, but are an important part of the hobby for many players.
Terrain density limit. "Players continue placing terrain until they decide to stop (1), or they reach the terrain density limit (2), or there are no pieces left to place (3)."
1. So a guard player (or tau or anything with a static gunline) can decide to place 0 pieces in their half forcing their opponent to cross an open field. Sounds great for armies with 3+, but try playing an assaulty xenos army. Missions are not balanced for this either. Scouring for example has objectives worth different points. In my final game vs Courtney, his 3 objectives were worth a total of 9pts and mine were worth 6pts. Is RAW fun when one player is winning on turn 1 and doesn't even have to move the whole game?
2. Terrain density limit, d3 per 2'x2', 3d3 per player half, 6d3 per table. Pieces can be large such as a forest or building, or 3 small pieces of debris can count as 1. Like I said and others have mentioned by now, 25% coverage from 5th ed doesn't provide enough pieces now. This includes the 6 tables I have in my personal collection. If you're going to allow a gunline player to place 0 pieces of terrain, you better provide enough for an assault army to at least place their limit. I'm fine with building more terrain to fill out my sets, but I haven't seen any stores add to their available terrain in 2 years.
3. No pieces left to place? No problem, it's ok in the rules. So tournaments could provide 1 piece and it would be ok by RAW? Sounds fun and cinematic to me.
4. Cinematic new rules? Check out Konrad's blog for his game #1 vs c4. (http://clickityclak.blogspot.com/2012/07/battle-report-learning-6th-event-game-1.html) Guard vs Guard with player set terrain. Each shooty army gives itself full cover and the only incentive to even move is the linebreaker point. How about necrons with 9pts in objectives in their DZ vs Nids with 6pts in objectives. Necrons also now have scoring wraiths thanks to the mission and all they have to do to win is... nothing. Stay put and shoot the bugs as they try to cross the table and mop up/tarpit stragglers with tons of free scarabs. Ask someone who's paying to play in a tournament how cinematic and fun it is when they're losing the game before a single unit has even moved.
I've said it before and I put my money where my mouth is. Tournament format or online discussions will never keep me from attending events. Between work, wife, and a 6 month old, I have 4 free days a month so getting in 3 games in 1 day is hobby heaven for me. The new rules have invalidated my DE WWP list. If the new terrain rules make my nids unplayable also, so be it. GW will always give my GK love even if other players hate playing against GK. But that's playing by RAW which is always a good thing right?
|
|
Smitty
Sergeant
Marines die, thats what we're here for, But the Marine Corps lives 4ever & that means YOU live 4ever
Posts: 324
|
Post by Smitty on Jul 16, 2012 12:07:26 GMT -5
I was trying to get peoples opinion on the the terrain and just the game in general due to issues that arose at the event. Yes we need time to learn the rules but I am trying to make things run smoothly. One thing that came up is we just dont have the terrain to be able to support d3 pieces in all 6 2x2 areas of a table! As explained in the rules, I tried my best to get 8-10 pieces of terrain at each table. Unfortunately with open gaming the stores terrain just plain gets beat up and lost. I greatly appreciate those of you that bring in your terrain as well. So for you RAW people if I can't provide d3 x 6 isn't that changing the rules as well? Like I said I'm trying to get feed back on and issue. The next issue was time. (which was kinda tied into the table set up) There were on average 2-3 game that could not finish in the 2.5 hr time limit most of which were still in turn 3. I UNDERSTAND that this is a new rule set and we all need time getting accustom to the new rules (including myself). Several people wanted to bump next month back up to 1850 which I am fine with. But do we really want to do that if people are having issues getting past turn 3 in the 2.5 hrs at 1500pts? This is my typical schedule: 9:30 sign ups 10-12:30 game one 12:30-1:00 Lunch 1:00-3:30 Game two 3:45-6:15 Game three 6:30 awards Expanding the rounds to 3 hours would me we wont be leaving till after 8pm. I dont know about you but that a pretty long day. I also dont like to stop games that have got to turn 4 either. Looking for suggestions here! I do plan on running book missions for the next few events. Back to the questions at hand? Do you want TO set table (which is in the book) or alternate terrain? Do we want the points to stay at 1500 for one more month or bump back up to 1850?
|
|
robm
Marine
Posts: 63
|
Post by robm on Jul 16, 2012 12:25:37 GMT -5
1500 or 1850 doesn't matter to me. I think the longer game times Sat were do to new rules, should get better in a month.
|
|
|
Post by sonofsanguinius on Jul 16, 2012 15:33:02 GMT -5
I'm partial to 2k just because I feel it balances things out more. So bumping up to 1850 would be awesome.
Having a handful of 6th ed games under my belt now, I honestly feel the new rules speed things up once you get used to them.
The new allocation is really a big time saver, and only begins to slow down if you have mixed armor. Which even then is pretty straight forwards.
Otherwise it's: roll dice, look at models, remove them. Take a look out sir roll if you have one. None of this 'well I'm going to put this wound here, and then this one, and then move that onto this guy'
I remember wound allocation taking forever in 5th the moment people started working the numbers and save rotation in order to take as few saves on special guys as possible. Or have multiple wound models with unique set ups.
As for terrain, I say preset. It is in the rules, and it just makes things easier especially if there isn't enough terrain to let everyone use the d3 density method to full extent.
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Jul 16, 2012 18:20:10 GMT -5
@ Smitty - First off, good job with the event. I know there were people who enjoyed it and you were open to comments. I do think that is a step in the right direction. I also did read on the event post that the games were 2 hours not 2.5 and had I known that it would have had a positive influence on my attendance. I respect that you don't want to be there all day but in honesty I knew I could not play a satisfactory game in 2 hours. 2.5 hours is agreeable. I wasn't taking a shot at you, but the somewhat short time limit that I read had is affect. I need more experience with the rule set so that I can play within the 2.5 limit and avoid bogging down the game and frustrating my opponent. @ Travis - We had a good conversation and we are still on the same page. I like what you said yesterday and what you wrote today. This game is a hobby for me as well, and my attendance to an event is based on nothing more than whether or not I feel I will enjoy myself. For that to happen I do need the time, which I normally have, as well as other factors like well defined rules, a deceit mix of players but most importantly a way to have fun. I get to play some games and enjoy myself. What makes an event not fun and keeps me from attending is when the system has been manipulated to death and players show up with no other purpose but to win. Those who know me knows that winning isn't the reason I play but like anyone I want to be involved in the game and feel like I have a somewhat equal chance to compete. At the end I want to feel like it was a fun, hard-fought victory or a courageous defeat, not lopsided either way. My attendance is based on my perception of overall fairness and the idea that the experience will be fun. If I believe i will be enjoyable, you can count on seeing me there. It's just that simple. @ Aaron - I don't believe for one moment that your reason for posting a poll on terrain has anything to do with helping the T.O. but that it is solely personally motivated to serve your own interest. I have been to events where I can say preset terrain has had a huge impact on the games and the outcome. I like a system where both players are involved in set up. Oh, and I have read the rules on set up and I do know the difference between density limit and requirement. dictionary.reference.com/browse/limit You don't have to fill each sector to its limit but you cannot go over it. Why is this such a hard concept? You know deep down inside for some strange reason I still think you mean well but somehow the problem that I always see is that whatever the topic you focus on how it affects you and your particular army rather than its overall affect on the game and players other than yourself. I know we won't agree on everything, I get that but if I had a wish I would hope that you could start with some empathy and start thinking of concepts from a universal perspective, not it terms of "This affects my Nids army like this..." or " My Mordrak ShocK list does this...". Don't give me a link to some battle report, like most I would rather play the game that read about someone else. And you will never get me to shed a tear because your precious Dark Eldar portal army is unplayable now. Here is a clue, it is still playable but some of the rules changed. To open a window to my world, yesterday I played an army with S3 T3 troops with zero shooting and had fun. I was in it until the end and while the outcome wasn't a win in the victory column, the experience playing was one of the best 40K games I have ever played. We played without death star units and enjoyed the game. We had fun. That is what 40K should be to everyone and that is what I wish it could be for everyone, you and I alike. We used all the rules when we played, not just the ones that I liked but all of them. Hell if I had my way I would start a poll about eliminating overwatch but if I suggested that then I would be warping the rules to my favor. That isn't fair for me to do and it is not fair for anyone else to do. 6th edition will have its moments both good and bad but the real success will lie in its player base. If we have a group of guys that want to get together and throw some dice while they push their toys around the board then this will succeed. If however the focus is on gaming the new system and trying to warp this edition into some ultra competitive exercise in math and probability that it clearly was not intended to be then I can predict that outcome. I don't need to be a psychic to know that future.
|
|
|
Post by Horst on Jul 16, 2012 18:55:14 GMT -5
Doug, you wanna start a poll on getting rid of overwatch I'm in. Losing 3/5 of my terminators on the way in makes me sad The rounds felt fine, round 3 felt too long, but thats mostly because rob tabled me by turn 3....
|
|
|
Post by sonofsanguinius on Jul 16, 2012 20:35:07 GMT -5
@ MajorSoB - Fun is a completely subjective term for everyone. You can't say: 'this is how 40k is supposed to be played' everyone has their own reasons, definitions and fun ways to play 40k.
Some people find being competitive fun. Some people find making themed armies fun. Some people throw together random units they like and find it fun. Some people like to put down models they enjoyed painting and find it fun. Some people play units because they like the fluff and find it fun. Some people like building really effective lists and playing hard tactical games.
The point is that list could go on forever, everyone has different things they find fun with 40k. If your version of fun 40k is throwing down a bunch of units no matter what they are and just throwing dice. Then that's awesome because the rules support it. But that doesn't mean that's the way 40k is meant to be played or the only way. Because the rules support other ways to play too, competitive play being one of them.
Taking death stars, not taking death stars none of that really matters. Even in casual games. Death Star units don't really mean competitive list, some units just by virtue of taking them are death stars. Some things are just harder to deal with, but being a good general is using what you have to deal with what is presented.
For me, the most fun I get out of 40k, is about being a good general on the table. It's like a different version of chess for me. My lists vary from competitive points effective lists to fun themed lists. I've always been partial to things like Sanguinary Guard and Storm Ravens even if they were not optimal units. I go back and forth between casual lets throw some dice games, and more involved tactically competitive games. Both ways are fun, but I won't go to a tournament setting expecting everyone to bring sub par lists and treating it like a casual get together in the basement. That's just not what the tournament scene is.
Does that mean I suddenly become a WAAC hardass, taking only the most effective units. Which is still generally MSU spam? Not at all. I mean sure I put a lot of work into my lists and do lots of research to find out what's effective with units and tactics. But I also use my personal preference and judgement. Ask anyone that played me there, my list was a general themed assault list with various units. I built them effectively sure, and even asked Horst what he thought if it was a comped event. And he said it would have likely received a great comp score. But if I was to bring a list of disjointed units that really don't provide much to a tournament setting. Then you're just setting yourself up for disappointment. If you know the standard then you know what to expect and can only blame yourself if you bring a list you know would perform badly in a more competitive setting.
Regardless, the tournament scene for the most part isn't the casual laid back basement game. I expect this so tailor my army and mindset to accept that. I find both ways of playing fun. Otherwise what's the point of playing at all.
Maybe I'm making assumptions here but the tone of your posts really seem like you're trying to push the casual basement feel into the tournament scene, and honestly that's just not going to happen. All my opponents there were awesome, and I hope they had good games as well. The atmosphere was friendly and with a semi casual but competitive edge. That to me was extremely enjoyable and fun.
Even if Aarons intent of the poll wasn't entirely benevolent, it really doesn't matter. The difference between this poll and the one you suggested about removing overwatch. Is that overwatch isn't an optional rule. The way terrain is set up is. The terrains rules specifically state there are two methods. And this poll only really pertains to tournament play. Nothing else. Use whichever rule for terrain you want otherwise.
If a TO can't provide sufficient materials for people who want to take the maximum allowed terrain. Then that rules options shouldn't be used as it creates an unfair situation universally. It's not a requirement to use the maximum terrain density no, but if you don't let someone actually use that option if they want to. Then the rule isn't working as intended and it's best to use the other method of terrain set up. That seems a pretty simple concept to me. Don't you think?
|
|
|
Post by lordnurgle on Jul 16, 2012 20:48:32 GMT -5
I would have no problem with terrain setup...... if it happened before we knew what side we are on. i mean by the time terrain starts to be set up, you already now where your deployment zone is and youve already set up your fortifications. most players are now going to set up terrain to help themselves and hinder their opponent. And I don't know about the rest of you, but when I have friends over, we've set up the terrain, THEN rolled for mission. Been doing it that way for years. Or weve evendone the "I set up the terrain, you pick your side" I like setting up boards that look nice and make sense. With the terrain set up OPTION, you dont get a good looking board. Is someone going to set up a big piece of terrain in the spot where it looks good, even if it will block line of sight for your devestators? If yes, you're a better man than most of us. MajorSoB- you said you hate when people manipulate a ruleset to death. Just watch how the 3 worst new rules are manipulated during this edition: Allies, Terrain set-up, and the second force org chart @2,000 points. it's going to be rediculous. I would guess you won't shed tears about it, but the Gladiator tourney at Adepticon next year will be one of the worst things ever to play in, just horrible.
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Jul 17, 2012 0:28:59 GMT -5
For no other reason than it is a slow day at work and I need something to amuse myself with... Doug, you wanna start a poll on getting rid of overwatch I'm in. Even if Aarons intent of the poll wasn't entirely benevolent, it really doesn't matter. The difference between this poll and the one you suggested about removing overwatch. Is that overwatch isn't an optional rule. First off, that was sarcasm not a real suggestion. I think Steve got that right? For a quick reference to the definition of the word sarcasm please follow this hot link... dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasmNext... Some people find being competitive fun. Some people find making themed armies fun. Some people throw together random units they like and find it fun. Some people like to put down models they enjoyed painting and find it fun. Some people play units because they like the fluff and find it fun. Some people like building really effective lists and playing hard tactical games. Got that. Any more wisdom you might care to share with us? Believe it or not, we agree and that is my point. What I don't want to see is what happened with the last edition. I would like to see this edition played like the rules are written, not like with 5th edition where we had to play with a whole mess of missions and rules interpretations that had nothing to do with what was written in the book. Again, this edition has been out LESS THAN A MONTH and we are already starting polls on how we should dictate the next 5 or so years of play? Seriously? Onward... Taking death stars, not taking death stars none of that really matters. Even in casual games. Death Star units don't really mean competitive list, some units just by virtue of taking them are death stars. Some things are just harder to deal with, but being a good general is using what you have to deal with what is presented. You believe this? And you have fun when you are playing against something that you really have no chance against, especially in a casual game? I get the whole good general thing, so being tabled by overpowered list makes you what, a French general in WW2? Let me look up the rules on surrendering to an overpowered force, yeah that sounds like a fun way to spend my afternoon. Maybe you can help Steve, was getting table by turn 3 at an event that was to focus on learning the new rules fun? Well it did happen your last game so I guess you got to pack up early and avoid the traffic right? Here is another... If a TO can't provide sufficient materials for people who want to take the maximum allowed terrain. Then that rules options shouldn't be used as it creates an unfair situation universally. It's not a requirement to use the maximum terrain density no, but if you don't let someone actually use that option if they want to. Then the rule isn't working as intended and it's best to use the other method of terrain set up. That seems a pretty simple concept to me. Don't you think? First off Millennium has sufficient terrain, and I would wager that if this was a real and not concocted excuse that on tournament days all the players could bring in some of their own terrain to help fill this void. I know personally I could fill up several tables on my own to the point where you couldn't place a model. And for all the wannabe rules lawyers out there that are keeping score at home, I also believe that it mentions placing terrain until you run out. The simple solution is to assign roughly 25% or so terrain to each table and place it as described in the rules before each match. When you run out, you are done, just like the rules mention. Again you do not have to fill every sector to its limit. ( See previous post for hot link to definition of the word limit! ) Another pearl of wisdom... Maybe I'm making assumptions here but the tone of your posts really seem like you're trying to push the casual basement feel into the tournament scene, and honestly that's just not going to happen. Yes you are making assumptions, and when you assume... You don't know me and you don't know my motivation so let me share this with you. I like Travis and want to see his business succeed. That being said I also like the other shop owners in the area and wish them the same sentiment. They are in this hobby to make a living. What they need to survive is to turn a profit and attract the maximum amount of people into their store at any given time. I want to see them all succeed so that I have many places to play and enjoy myself. They need people to spend money. What they need to do is foster an environment that appeals to both the casual player as well as the ultra competitive one. And you may be surprised by this fact but the basement gamer spends a lot more money then many of the ultra competitive jerks. In some systems Travis has had to require them to pay their entry fee in actual cash since they would like nothing better than to keep rolling over their store credit to win yet another event and gain more. What I would like is some sort of balance between the two, and no I am not sure what that is but what I do know is that it isn't going to be accomplished by polls eliminating rules created by players who don't like certain rules that have negative affects on their particular lists. Maybe, just maybe, you could alternate between different style of events so that you are appealing to both style of players, not just the WAAC idiots. You said you weren't one of those guess right or did I misread your post? So... MajorSoB- you said you hate when people manipulate a ruleset to death. Just watch how the 3 worst new rules are manipulated during this edition: Allies, Terrain set-up, and the second force org chart @2,000 points. it's going to be rediculous. I would guess you won't shed tears about it, but the Gladiator tourney at Adepticon next year will be one of the worst things ever to play in, just horrible. Thanks for the update. Reasons one million one, one million two and one million three why I will not be attending this years. Thanks again! Lastly... you're a better man than most of us. How could I argue with that logical statement. Well said sir!
|
|
sinistermind
Sergeant
Dice, the perfect example of a love/hate relationship
Posts: 315
|
Post by sinistermind on Jul 17, 2012 2:35:54 GMT -5
completely irrelevant of my stance on the tournament terrain set-up @ Aaron - I don't believe for one moment that your reason for posting a poll on terrain has anything to do with helping the T.O. but that it is solely personally motivated to serve your own interest. i could not help but to comment on this belligerent statement. really? after Aaron and Smitty(the TO) both told you Smitty tried asking the general attendees(not you) of the event their opinions but got few answers, you are adamant that he is somehow doing anything other than finding out everyones opinions, and stating his own? and i suppose the people working the voting machines come election time have some darker intent just because they have an opinion
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Jul 17, 2012 3:44:03 GMT -5
One man's belligerent statement might just be another man's honest opinion. Though you try to cloud this discussion with thoughts of this years upcoming election, my opinion remains that this poll was started not out of some sort of altruistic desire to help Smitty gain data but as a self serving exercise. No proof is needed either way since it is purely my opinion based on the fact that before the event ever took place that the author of this thread was already seeking to eliminate anything other than prearranged terrain. As you can see, of the very few that have voted there is no clear cut winner. Maybe some statistical genius could run the numbers but of the over 300 members of this forum we do not have a large enough census to draw a conclusion from. Don't get me wrong, it isn't that I do not enjoy TO set up terrain on occasion, and yes some of the boards put together definitely enhance the game. Hell, we can play TO set up boards on occasion if that is what people like, I really have no complaint against that. What I dislike is the idea that right out of the gate all of a sudden we need to start changing things around and start dictating what rules should and shouldn't be used. Here's a few things to consider, maybe we should start a poll for them as well? Maybe we should go back to 100% GW modeled armies? Maybe every army has to be 100% painted and based ( especially to win an award for best painted)? Maybe we should set an age limit on our tournaments? All these things used to be done at GW tournaments. Before you get carried away and start writing angry responses, let's take a deep breathe. I accept that not everyone wants to use GW models. I also accept that not everyone has the patience to completely paint an army. I also felt that a 16 plus age restriction at GTs seemed harsh and I do not want to see any of these things restricted. I also don't want to see any of the new rules restricted or eliminated just because they do not fit in with someone's idea of how we all should play and what is best for his army. That being said, if you want variety and to mix in TO set terrain on occasion then do it. Just don't eliminate core rules. And yes, I was not in attendance. Did you miss me??? I gave you my reasons why and I was upfront and honest. I just read tonight a blog where someone who played saturday complained about about the speed of their game. I had not played and I decided that I needed much more practice to be more efficient so as to not frustrate my opponent. Oh, here is the link since you probably think I am making it up. clickityclak.blogspot.com/2012/07/battle-report-learning-6th-event-game-1.html Also if I got tabled by some craptastic list in three turns at an event that was to center around learning the new rules I might not have laughed it off as gracefully as Steve did. Come next event I might be there, who knows. ( After all the new CSM codex is due out and maybe I can take 12 oblits then!!!) So tell me will you have a painted army by then? Thanks for helping me pass my time tonight! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by fishboy on Jul 17, 2012 7:46:19 GMT -5
I think we need to look at the mechanics of the poll rather than try to find each others personal likes and dislikes. From an old TO's point of view set terrain is the best way to go. If people bring terrain and want to set it where terrain already is then either remove that terrain or adjust it D6 and a scatter until it is not in the same space as the player bought terrain.
Most of the tables I did were themed tables and I know most of the people that have their own tables make them with a theme. I say stick with that heh. In one off games at the store on game night you can bet your hooty hoo (yeah I said it ;D) that we will do the random thing.
I think the real test will be trial and error. Make sure it does not take too long, does not unbalance the game, and everyone is having fun.
|
|
|
Post by hyv3mynd on Jul 17, 2012 7:47:46 GMT -5
Well I would have won that bet!!! Just like I would have won the bet that you couldn't participate in a discussion without resulting to name calling. ... ultra competitive jerks. ... the WAAC idiots... Interesting comments coming from the person who scored the second (?) lowest comp score in the 2010 GT because they "just wanted to win some games" (you said this about your list to more than one person). That qualifies as WAAC right? And your famous dual prince, 9 oblit list at the invitational which was also comp and free? Seems like a cash grab to me and many others. Also if I got tabled by some craptastic list in three turns at an event that was to center around learning the new rules I might not have laughed it off as gracefully as Steve did. Steve's a big boy and a good player. His list had 2 stormravens and was no baby seal thanks to the new flyer rules. He was tabled by a list that tabled all 3 opponents thanks to the new RAW rules you are championing, now that guard can bring along GK to fight their assaults for them. Since you love bringing WAAC lists as seen in the past, and are pushing for playing 6th ed 100% as written, I have a hard time seeing the validity of your calling other players WAAC and their lists craptastic. I won't sink to name calling like you, but I kindly request we keep the discussion on topic and cordial. Especially due to the opinions and requests voiced here: daboyzateam.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=tournamentnewsandannounceme&action=display&thread=3357To the others: Thanks for your feedback. I suggest not responding to MajorSoB as he always has to have the last word and will continue to respond and escalate to more belligerence and name calling.
|
|
|
Post by Icemyn on Jul 17, 2012 7:58:09 GMT -5
Doug, Since we are talking about facts lets actually look at them: You are NOT a tournament player you are a casual. FACT.
Now how can I come to this conclusion? Easy, you do not go to tournaments. In case you're keeping score you have only been to one tournament this year in February for the team tournament. FACT. I can tell you this because I have been to them all with the exception of this month because I was in TN for the ATC. I qualified for the End of year w.e in February, but I keep going anyway because I enjoy playing at a more competitive level. This does not mean I agree with everything and the way things were run sometimes, but still I go. (Maybe you can show up next month, but I won't hold my breath)
Tournament players want as much control over the game as possible because randomness and losing to things beyond our control IS NOT FUN for us. Player set terrain is set up for abuse it cannot work in a tournament setting for all the reasons stated and if you showed up to a tournament you may actually see that. Instead it seems you would rather tell us how its not that bad in the three friendly games you played in your basement (which I was not invited to! Doug's Basement and Board Game extravaganza sounds surprisingly legit.)
Additionally, It needs to be pointed out that your statement that casuals spend more than tournament players is absurd. Tournament players need the best units for the current meta and are constantly buying things to keep up with what is good. Casuals buy what they think is cool or want to play and then they play it. If you want to compare your purchases since DE came out vs my purchases since the Necrons Came out Id be more than happy too.(You Casual, Me Tourney)
Also, and this is a big one, you say you want to support Travis and the store? Pro Tip: Go to Tournaments that he runs. There is no better way to show your support, people playing games in the store is free advertising for people walking through. Then again, I don't know how big "Doug's Basement and Board game Extravaganza" has grown but I'm betting the foot traffic there doesn't help Travis as much. To sum this up, you do not support Travis more by showing up through tournaments and you certainly don't do it through purchases.
Go to any site on the internet and 6th edition is being heralded as less competitive, less balanced and more random then 5th. While this post is definitely not altruistic (sorry Aaron) I would have started it myself. Preset terrain is more competitive and more balanced than player set. Fact. Again I welcome any change that puts more control in my hands or at least out of my opponents. In a casual friendly game which is what 6th is meant for player set is great, the goal is just to have fun win or lose and no one is actively trying to screw the other. This poll wasn't started in reference to how we feel you should run your basement it was started what we feel is more balanced in tournaments going forward.
The most confusing thing for me in all of this is, Why Do You Care? You don't go to tournaments you have stated you don't plan to go to future tournaments (DaBoyz GT). Do you feel that what you are saying is somehow important or relevant? Do you really think that at the end of the day Smitty/Travis are going to cater the Tournaments to you or the people who show up month after month?
The Bottom Line Doug is if you want an opinion, earn it. If you want to continue as the DaBoyz Forums Internet Gangsta/Troll that is fine with me, but if you want to be taken seriously maybe work for that instead. Keep in mind I have actually enjoyed all the games we have played together, but this internet bs has to stop it isn't just getting old its been old for awhile.
-Dean-
|
|
rwag
Scout
Posts: 30
|
Post by rwag on Jul 17, 2012 9:50:55 GMT -5
I think the easiest way to resolve the time and amount of terrain problem in combination with allowing purchasable terrain is to have the TO set up tables as usual and then at the start of the game any players that bought terrain simply choose an already place piece of terrain and swap it out for the one they bought. While there will still be issues with unusually large pieces of bought terrain I think this would solve the majority of the issues at hand.
|
|