|
Post by shaun on Oct 5, 2012 6:57:24 GMT -5
Here is the fantasy info daboyzgt.com/Fantasy.aspxI know that you are Canadian and may not be all that familiar with this thing called the "Internet" Been too long since I've had the chance to talk with you guys. Sorry about my drunken charge and climbing over you guys at adepticon during the awards ceremony. Is it a rule that you guys always have to huddle like that in a tight circle formation? And why is Testers always kneeling in the center? You'll have to elaborate on this;)
|
|
|
Post by carlosthecraven on Oct 5, 2012 10:26:55 GMT -5
Hi Thanks for the update. There is still some scheduling information missing for Friday, but it is nice to see the format up. Regarding Testors, he is still trying to make up for the Team Beaver Fever T-shirt fiasco of last year... and we are a tough crowd to please... Cheers, Nate
|
|
|
Post by fishboy on Oct 6, 2012 0:07:07 GMT -5
Trying to push the event here at BFS.
|
|
|
Post by hyv3mynd on Oct 6, 2012 8:36:25 GMT -5
Trying to push the event here at BFS. Good luck Joe! I hear jawaballs stayed home so you can win best painted this year
|
|
|
Post by hyv3mynd on Oct 7, 2012 8:51:43 GMT -5
You guys know I'm a staunch supported of the GT but I gotta say I'm really disappointed in the missions.
5th ed victory points, kill points, and table quarters? No warlord, linebreaker, or first blood? It's not a 6th ed tournament if you ask me.
|
|
|
Post by shaun on Oct 7, 2012 9:53:33 GMT -5
Hi Aaron,
When I created the missions the thought process was to go with diversity since we don't know the full extent that the 6th ed missions can be "abused". They were published with the councel of "Jay, Ben, Paul Pacheco, Chris Courtney and then later Rob Smithgall". There were a few tweeks and revisions made but there was no disagreement( to be fair, Rob came in at the end so didn't have as much chance). In fact one of the statements made was that it is a good thing we are not doing first blood, etc. Not once was it brought up about including these.
We all know there are people around the country who are playing just to get first blood and then play for a draw. They even customize their armies to specifically obtain this result. Thats all well and good but I don't know of anyone in our area that wants either the best general or overall winner to be a person that was better at creating their army to manipulate the game mission system.
If you look at the missions you would see that there are aspects from current 6th ed missions as well as proven missions that have always worked and been popular regardless of the edition. You mention about linebreaker but doesn't both recon, capture/control and table quarters share somewhat similar traits in theory with linebreaker? The end result is to get a unit or units to another portion of the board. The objectives portion of each mission are based off of the 6th ed mission parts of big guns never tire and the scouring - we just added one for elites. If there is an odd number then one has to be placed in the center like in the relic(only it can't be moved). Kill points (and modified kill points for something different) is the same thing as Purge the Alien. Capture and control is the Emperor's will. Now that you mention it, killing the warlord may be a good substitution for table quarters. I will put that back up to the councel.
This type format has been very popular with the ATC, ETC and adepticon. It allows for someone to have that "unfortunate game" and not be knocked out of contention because they may be able to salvage some points. More importantly, they are simple and "tried and tested" so that we don't have any possible fallback - the number one complaint of last year being the confusion with the missions. As you know, we also needed to get this thing moving forward. These were posted as we need to satisfy those people who are "sternly asking" for details.
I hope this helps explain a little bit. I think by the way you worded your post that you wanted clarification as to the "creation process". I also hope this may have difused your irritation towards the missions. If not then Just so you know, these are not set in stone. There is supposed to be a caveat up stating that these may be subject to change. I will get this over to Brian so he can add it to the website.
Thanks,
Shaun
|
|
|
Post by hyv3mynd on Oct 7, 2012 10:17:11 GMT -5
Thanks Shaun.
While I agree on your points, my frustration is similar to what others have said in the past. DaBoyz GT the past 2 years was totally different from other national events and it was branded and identified by those differences. I can understand not being able to judge comp based on the new rules, but with the missions the way they are, it smacks of adepticon/NOVA/WGC/ATC. I totally understand if that's what you guys want it to be, I was just personally hoping for something different.
Also the team tournament has banned allies and fortifications which leaves several armies without a single flyer or skyfire unit. It begs people to bring the "Necron Airforce" armies that people seem to despise the most because unless you bring guard, CSM, or 3 flyers of your own, you won't scratch the 9 croissant list. Again, I understand your choices if that's the direction you intended to take, but it leaves me thoroughly unexcited because it doesn't feel like 6th ed.
Please take it as constructive criticism as I'm not trying to slam the event or seem unappreciative of the amount of time and effort it takes to bring everything together. Chances are I could be the only person that feels this way so don't change anything because of me.
|
|
|
Post by shaun on Oct 7, 2012 10:22:14 GMT -5
Hey Aaron,
The Hobins are the ones who are running the team event and they have full control. I will point that out to them so they can consider it. I see your point.
|
|
|
Post by professor on Oct 7, 2012 10:53:29 GMT -5
I understand not running comp at this year's event - with all the changes to 6th edition it would be difficult for a lot of people to have viable armies completed in time for the GT - not to mention we had no idea what we would get for 6th edition.
I have to agree a bit on the missions though - Da Boyz always had a unique feel to it in how the missions were done, the comp aspect and the event I thought really encapsulated diverse aspects of the hobby. It might not have been the most die hard event for crowning a 'champion', but it is unique.
I hope this year is a bit more of a stopgap with the new edition dropping, and we can get back to interesting/fun/crazy missions with composition scores next year - it really makes the event unique.
I understand banning fortifications/allies in the team event - it is hard to see how all this will turn out, especially without any true 6th edition books (okay well CSM) out yet. It does make it difficult to deal with flyers in general though.
|
|
sinistermind
Sergeant
Dice, the perfect example of a love/hate relationship
Posts: 315
|
Post by sinistermind on Oct 7, 2012 12:10:26 GMT -5
Ok first off i dont mind the missions, and not just because nids suck at first blood ;D
Secondly a small typo under early list turn in, it says for comp judging
Thirdly i didnt think of it before but theres no way i can convert up and paint the 50 extra gaunts i have for my single tervigon to spawn, will this be a problem for paint scores? They will not be on the display board but totted around in a small organizer tray, every model in the actual army and on the display will be painted though
Lastly sorry if i missed it but does the lack of saying warlord traits will be used mean that they aren't being used?
|
|
|
Post by shaun on Oct 7, 2012 19:30:33 GMT -5
Yes warlord traits will be in use. I'm not certain how the painting judgeing is going to work entirely but I wouldn't worry about the extra guants. I'm sure the fact that they are the spawned ones would probably be excluded, especially if you have the rest of the army all painted. I would say that the spawned gaunts would at least need to be partially painted though.
|
|
|
Post by netter on Oct 8, 2012 5:10:50 GMT -5
The missions look fine to me.
Thanks for leaving out first blood. What a lame victory point.
netter
|
|
|
Post by jhobin on Oct 8, 2012 7:46:24 GMT -5
The Team Tourney information has been finalized and is up on the website.
If there are any questions or I missed something let me know.
|
|
|
Post by grubnards on Oct 8, 2012 12:15:27 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, why do you find First Blood to be lame?
I find that while this objective is only worth one victory point it adds a whole new level of complexity to the game. In many of the book missions, where holding objectives is key, an even numbered of objectives tends to end up as draws and an odd number of objectives tends to favor the guy who gets to place that last odd numbered objective on his side of the board, that 1 point objective now plays a much more important roll.
Many of my 6th edition games have been won and lost by that 1 point. Plus I'm finding that it makes deployment that much more interesting. If I am going first do I want to deploy aggressively to get that extra point right away while taking a risk that my opponent may seize the initiative, now making my decision to deploy aggressively a potentially bad move. Or if I am going second, I now have to consider do I want to hide my weaker units behind cover or out of sight, even though it may deny me a chance to utilize their potential fire power in the first turn.
To me, having objectives like First Blood, Slay the Warlord, and Linebreaker make the game much more fun and challenging rather than the previous 5th edition mentality of lining up across from each other and just going for the kill. Excluding them just seems to be like taking the game a step closer back to 5th edition.
Just my 2 cents,
Kevin
|
|
|
Post by netter on Oct 8, 2012 16:18:28 GMT -5
I find First Blood to be lame.
It's primarily a shooting game. If you get first turn and no night fight, then you can probably get the first blood VP. Sure there may be exceptions or lists that are better in defending this but it's really offering up a VP over one or two die rolls (first turn and night fight). I don't think easy VPs (or very likely VPs) should be awarded this way. My opinion is that First Blood isn't well suited for an "I go, you go" game with tons of ranged offense.
From a fluff perspective, who cares who got first blood? Isn't the greater battle more important? Would a "Last Blood" be any more relevant to the outcome of a battle or skirmish? Would the moral victory of first blood mean anything if your forces were completely wiped out?? My fluff-o-meter reads zero.
What I would propose as an alternative is the ability to "contest" First Blood by destroying an enemy in the next available turn. So, if I were to destroy a unit on the top of turn 1, my opponent could neutralize that VP by destroying a unit of mine on the bottom of turn 1.
I didn't have a problem with 5th, so dialing it back in that direction doesn't bother me either. So far, 6th ed has been great. I like Slay the Warlord and Linebreaker. I also like the approach of using VPs a standard unit of scoring for units destroyed and objectives, etc. First Blood, however, just seems out of place.
netter
|
|