tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-388453741033869908.post6126327674989979256..comments2024-03-17T01:39:05.808-07:00Comments on Whiskey & 40k: The NOVA Open - Primer MissionsMike Brandt; mvbrandt@gmailhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00818846784767602047noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-388453741033869908.post-67691112414265834192010-06-03T02:40:34.703-07:002010-06-03T02:40:34.703-07:00Currently planning for a national open 40k and fan...Currently planning for a national open 40k and fantasy tournament and this is the best stuff I've read in a long while, Love it and will steal it without mercy! <br /><br />Our tournament wont be until November so will have time to see how your fantasy 8 stuff work out and hoping that you will publish the final missions that are actually used in your tournament..<br /><br />keep up the good work!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04380915442955538953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-388453741033869908.post-89693317000211556812010-04-23T17:32:32.897-07:002010-04-23T17:32:32.897-07:00*Yum Cookies*
No worries. I proofread the Tourny...*Yum Cookies*<br /><br />No worries. I proofread the Tourny Pack for my upcoming local (very poor) Doubles 'Event' today, and it was a LOT worse. A typo meant that Fire Warriors were Unique. Yeah, really. lolTheKing Elessarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04981821487098781957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-388453741033869908.post-54866750678847496352010-04-22T20:27:55.925-07:002010-04-22T20:27:55.925-07:00Good catch, TKE ... will make the change.Good catch, TKE ... will make the change.Mike Brandt; mvbrandt@gmailhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00818846784767602047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-388453741033869908.post-88120979551729257432010-04-21T18:36:11.030-07:002010-04-21T18:36:11.030-07:00Slight issue I've noticed MVB - you erroneousl...Slight issue I've noticed MVB - you erroneously state that only 'scoring Troop units' can claim objectives. Unfortunately, certain DAngel units, and PedroGuard break this mould. :)TheKing Elessarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04981821487098781957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-388453741033869908.post-21898598894232720552010-04-20T10:29:46.059-07:002010-04-20T10:29:46.059-07:00What if you scattered the objectives 2d6" or ...What if you scattered the objectives 2d6" or something along those lines? I guess that could provide the argument "But he had his both scatter toward the middle of the board, while mine went to the corners"<br /><br />Or perhaps "place the objective within 6" of this point" so they have a 12" diameter to place it in. *shrug*ButtHurt40khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04363651660960495412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-388453741033869908.post-77038592965165340192010-04-16T11:22:55.273-07:002010-04-16T11:22:55.273-07:00A good point, but it begs the question of what the...A good point, but it begs the question of what the strengths/weaknesses of player placed objectives are.<br /><br />I think the argument *can* be made that player placed objectives lend themselves to as many "ill" advantages as player placed terrain (whether or not those should be in play is another discussion).<br /><br />If you wanted to see REALLY stale, there are some who advocate using the exact same mission, terrain organization, and deployment for every single round. My only feel is that the mission, terrain and deployment needs to be identical across all tables EACH round, and that you need to avoid missions with "bias" toward certain codices/army builds (i.e. kill points).Mike Brandt; mvbrandt@gmailhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00818846784767602047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-388453741033869908.post-32509035082541900852010-04-16T11:11:59.947-07:002010-04-16T11:11:59.947-07:00I don't like fixed position objectives, at lea...I don't like fixed position objectives, at least not for an entire tournament. I can see it making sense for when the objectives are tie breakers -- but it makes for a stale game in my opinion (conquestNW had fixed objectives and it was kinda meh in my opinion).wintermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02387213368473553942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-388453741033869908.post-36350774310034704982010-04-16T05:13:51.033-07:002010-04-16T05:13:51.033-07:00I'm taking the detail-laden idiot-proof approa...I'm taking the detail-laden idiot-proof approach :pMike Brandt; mvbrandt@gmailhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00818846784767602047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-388453741033869908.post-26210547797583775052010-04-15T20:23:53.062-07:002010-04-15T20:23:53.062-07:00I think your making it more confusing than it need...I think your making it more confusing than it needs to be: <br /><br />Win Condition<br />First Tie Breaker<br />Second Tie Breaker<br />Third Tie Breaker (Always Victory Points)<br /><br />enough said.Darwinn69https://www.blogger.com/profile/11157612794328418711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-388453741033869908.post-57657887928643320742010-04-15T12:55:07.061-07:002010-04-15T12:55:07.061-07:00The "simple" VP is just a "breaking...The "simple" VP is just a "breaking the ties" tiebreaker. That is to say, that in a lot of playtesting, it has never come up ... but since it can, in a tournament setting, we don't have ties (ref: other blog post on this subject).<br /><br />The intent is to make sure that if VP are close, there's more at stake than just killing 1 point more - if you aren't able to beat your opponent by that margin, and he controls the field via objectives and/or quarters, he's going to take it from you, unless it's a perfect stalemate on those as well. It gives you - in practice/playtest - more to think about than just scoring points, b/c if you go that route purely, you'd better be ahead by enough.<br /><br />The win condition of #3 is indeed a unit VALUE preponderance in a given quarter. That is to say, that rather than rewarding you by UNIT count (which would advocate MSU too much), it's rewarding you for value. I.E. your heroic terminators control over a bunch of empty, beat up guard chimeras. Or, whatever.<br /><br />And, NP.Mike Brandt; mvbrandt@gmailhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00818846784767602047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-388453741033869908.post-18568388205819308882010-04-15T12:52:09.164-07:002010-04-15T12:52:09.164-07:00So VPs are used for 2 of the 4 win conditions? On...So VPs are used for 2 of the 4 win conditions? One with a 250pt difference for ties and one with out? Why not just go with one or the other and leave it at that. Seems overly redundant and silly to say oh you didn't win it was a draw by this VP system but you did win because you have 1 more VP by this system. Just a thought.<br /><br />Also could you explain the win condition of #3 a bit more clearly. I am guessing you meant that you control a quarter when you have more total VPs worth of unit in it then your opponent but it does not clearly state that.<br /><br />Thank you for posting this.HuronBHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03627538019185831412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-388453741033869908.post-91087178219843629742010-04-15T09:57:00.170-07:002010-04-15T09:57:00.170-07:00Please remember - The "combinations" of ...Please remember - The "combinations" of what is the primary, secondary, tertiary, and deployment level will NOT be the same as the Primer Missions for the actual event. There is no guarantee at PRESENT that the 3 missions above will actually even be used. What's important is to pay attention to and prepare for the FORMAT of a "primary for the win, 2ndary for the tiebreak, tertiary to break that, and simple vp if nothing else works" overall approach per Round.Mike Brandt; mvbrandt@gmailhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00818846784767602047noreply@blogger.com