Howdy,
Many of you have noted the issues with the scoring systems in place and in use today. I have issues with them as well. Some like comp, others like painting being a big part, others still think sportsmanship is important.
My personal view is simple: You should always have a painted army at a GT. You should always be a sport, despite playing people you will likely never play again--presenting yourself well is always expected of any GT attendee.
I think by allowing players to run whatever they want to, you encourage participation--simple as that. I realize some may not come because there are no restrictions, and my only response is--if the game GW designed isn't good enough for you, then why are you playing it? We will not use comp in any tournament I run. If GW decides Tyranids get 3 S10 AP1 Power weapon attacks each for 4 points a pop on cavalry Gaunts, we'll consider it. Till that day, we won't use comp. Period. If a book comes out 3 weeks before a tournament, we'll allow it.
In any case, I think the 'soft scores' exist to prevent 'battle score' ties. Which often happen. I've scored max points, I've tied for highest points. I'm sure others have too. It's not hard with a very limited pool of points and a lot of broken scenario rules.
So my suggested fix is to offer so many different battle points that it's very unlikely you can gain them all, in fact it's nearly impossible to do so. This, combined with a variety of even and odd point goals, should allow YTTH Con to have a clear winner while still keeping to a 5 game format--as a 'pure' swiss tournament is really just not possible. With a system like this, we are breaking the mold many are familiar with. We might very well crash and burn completely, hard to say. I hope we don't!
Your thoughts, comments, criticisms, feedback, and simplifications are all sought here, so please...post them!
==============================
Here is the scoring system. I've rebuilt it to be a simpler format, although it is still complicated. ;)
Feel free to use this per the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License listed on the blog. :)
YTTH Tournament Score Sheet - Beta - Feedback Stage
Each multiple selection is worth 1 point each, each yes selection is worth 2 points unless otherwise noted.
Remember that scoring units are troops (excluding dedicated transports) and contesting units are non-scoring units (including dedicated transports). All units can 'control' where that terminology is noted, including falling back or pinned units. Remember only results at game end count--you cannot claim goals you do not actually have just because your opponent conceded. Remember that in any concession a judge must be notified before scoring is tallied or units removed from play--this is to help ensure a fair playing field for all involved. Failure to do so will get you AND your opponent average scores for the round.
Area Secure * How many Table Quarters did you secure? Check every box that applies.
・ Quarter
・ Quarter
・ Quarter
・ Quarter
Explanation: You must have more scoring and contesting units in total in a quarter than the opposing player, at least one 'scoring' unit must be in a quarter to score it. You may not score multiple quarters with any units—they may only be counted once. For units spread across multiple quarters, the owning player may choose which quarter they will be counted against. The player who went first must declare what units are going to be scoring which quarters first. Units falling back are still counted towards this total.
Terminated. * How many Kill Points did you score? Check every box that applies.
・ Kill Point ____________________________________________
・ Kill Point ____________________________________________
・ Kill Point ____________________________________________
・ Kill Point ____________________________________________
・ Kill Point ____________________________________________
Explanation: How many of your chosen Kill Points did you score? Remember to write these down at the start of the game! Units falling back are counted towards this total.
Slayer of Eternities * Did you score more Kill Points than the enemy?
・ Yes
・ No
Explanation: Is your Kill Point total higher than the opposing player?
Objectives Seized * How many Objectives did you secure? Check every box that applies.
・ Objective
・ Objective
・ Objective
・ Objective
・ Objective
Explanation: You must have more scoring and contesting units in total within 3” of the edge of an objective than the opposing player, with at least one scoring unit in range, to score an objective. You may score multiple objectives with any unit. Units falling back are still counted towards this total.
I'm In Control * Do you have more objectives secured than the enemy?
・ Yes
・ No
Explanation: Is your total objective count higher than the opposing player?
I Shall Cut Thee * How many Force Org slots did you score? Check every box that applies.
・ HQ
・ Elites
・ Troops
・ Fast Attack
・ Heavy Support
Explanation: Did you destroy all units that started the game in a given Force Org slot? Remember, you can not score any Force Org slot that had no forces in it at game start.
Destroyer of Worlds * Did you eliminate more Force Org's than your opponent?
・ Yes
・ No
Explanation: Is the total number of Force Org slots eliminated higher than the opposing player?
The Loot! * Do you have a non-vehicle unit in possession of the enemy loot counter?
・ Yes
・ No
Explanation: One unit in each army (not The Hunted), selected when the unit is deployed, must carry a loot counter. If the unit is destroyed or falls back, the opposing player may place the loot counter anywhere the unit was in the current game turn before being destroyed or forced to fall back. Your own forces cannot pick up the loot counter but can sit on it to try and deny it to the enemy. If no units are deployed at game start, the first unit to arrive on the board will carry the loot counter (unless it is The Hunted unit, then the next unit will carry it). Any non-vehicle unit (exception: Walkers) can pick up and carry the loot counter. It can only be claimed the next turn by moving into base contact with it: you can continue moving, shoot, and assault as normal. This goal is worth 3 points.
Assassinate * Did you destroy all enemy IC's, or if no enemy IC's exist at game start, all HQ's?
・ Yes
・ No
Explanation: All enemy IC's must be destroyed. If there were no enemy IC's at game start (they are in retinues) then all HQ's must be destroyed.
Recon * Do you have at least one scoring unit partially or wholly within the enemy deployment zone when the game ends?
・ Yes
・ No
Explanation: As the question asks, is it? You can still score any and all other items needing a scoring unit even if you score this goal.
Territorial Gain * Do you control more terrain than your opponent?
・ Yes
・ No
Explanation: All that matters is who has the most pieces of terrain with at least one unit within 3” of the edge of the terrain. Total the terrain pieces contested up, the player with the higher number gets it.
Take & Hold * Did you capture the objective in the board center with at least two scoring units?
・ Yes
・ No
Explanation: What this means is, you must have at least two scoring units on the center objective AND have more total units than the opponent to score this goal.
Hold The Line * Are there no enemy units on your half of the board at game end?
・ Yes
・ No
Explanation: Even in a table quarter mission, it's your half of the board (long edge) that matters. Destroyed enemy vehicles do not count.
Unplanned Assault * Do you control more terrain features? More objectives? Or more table quarters? (Whichever was rolled for.) Indicate here: ________________________________
・ Yes
・ No
Explanation: At the end of game turn 3, the player going second rolls a D6 when his turn ends. On a 1-2, terrain. 3-4, objectives. 5-6, table quarters. Whichever 'extra' goal is rolled up is worth an additional 3 points if scored.
Archeotech Excavation * Do you control the Archeotech?
・ Yes
・ No
Explananation: Do you? You reveal the Archeotech by moving a non-vehicle unit (exception: Walkers) into base contact with the center objective, stopping, and doing nothing else for the rest of the turn--at the end of that turn you've found the Archeotech. Once found, it moves randomly 2D6” at the start of every game turn. The player going first rolls the random movement. On a hit, do not move the Archeotech—it has decided to stay in place. While not an objective, you control it the same way. This goal is worth 3 points.
Sabotage * Did you successfully sabotage your chosen objective?
・ Yes
・ No
Explanation: When you deploy, choose an objective on your opponent's half of the board. You can sabotage it by moving into base contact with it with a non-vehicle unit (Exception: Walkers) in the movement phase. If you are still in base contact and not pinned or falling back when your next movement phase rolls around, you have sabotaged your objective. This goal is worth 3 points.
Recovery * Do you control the comet marker with a scoring unit?
・ Yes
・ No
Explanation: At the end of turn 2, the player going second chooses a point within 12” of the table center, placing the comet marker there, and rolls 2D6 and a scatter die. If a hit is rolled, and your dice does not have a small arrow, roll again until an arrow is rolled. Deviate the marker 2D6 in that direction as the comet slams home. This marker will net you 3 additional points. While not an objective, you control it the same way.
Survivors * Did your nominated unit survive the game? Indicate it here: ______________________
・ Yes
・ No
Explanation: Starting with the player going first, nominate a unit you think will survive the game. If it does, you can score this goal. Exception: If the unit arrives from reserves on the final turn of the game, their “bravery” has been duly noted by the opponent and you cannot score this goal.
The Hunted * Did you destroy the chosen unit? Indicate it here: ______________________
・ Yes
・ No
Explanation: Starting with the player going first, nominate a unit you think you can destroy. If you destroy it, you can score this goal. Exception: If the unit arrives from reserves on the final turn of the game, you duly note their cowardice and can score this goal anyway. The unit does not actually count as destroyed for any other goal.
Trench Warfare * Did you reduce all enemy scoring troops to less than 50% of their starting strength? Do not count any dedicated transports. Units that arrive on the board on the last turn are ignored, provided the game went at least 5 turns for both players.
・ Yes
・ No
Explanation: Did you? You do not count dedicated transports, only actual scoring troops. If it is a troop but does not count as scoring, it does not need to be reduced to less than 50%--only the scoring troops do.
Home Analysis Tournaments Warhammer 40k » Deep Thoughts: YTTH Tournament Scoring
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Deep Thoughts: YTTH Tournament Scoring
By
Stelek
Labels: Analysis, Tournaments, Warhammer 40k
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
I voted generalship only. It appears most people agree with me.
If you want to enfore painted only that seems fine. Heck even have awards for best painted and best sportsman or best comp, just don't integrate it into the scoring for best overall. Keep them completely separate.
Ties are highly unlikely in the final standings if you use victory points. I would hope you use a normal w/t/l swiss scoring system (3/1/0) instead of that massacre nonsense. A win is a win.
Regardless the scenarios look interesting. Do you expect players to fill out this entire sheet following every game?
I'm not sure why a "pure" swiss system wouldn't work. Strength of opponent or victory points are suitable tie breakers, or both.
Wow! I can definitely say that you put a lot of thought into the scoring system!
May I suggest a few things to help?
First, you should have these printed out for everyone every battle and they turn in the sheets to you. On these sheets, have a place under each section where they write in their "chosen" unit(s). For instance, under the Sabotage battle point, they should have to write in which location sabotage objective should be. They cannot claim the point if the sheet is not filled out before the game starts.
Second, this is going to be very confusing, and I suspect that you will have a lot of people that are going to miss things like moving the archeotech and the comet. You should provide a cheat sheet on the very first page of this handout that says what to do each turn.
Third, the "Did you?" comments in the explanation are unnecessary, and if I were your editor i'd ask you to remove them for professionalism.
Wait a sec. I'm not familiar with this. How many of these scenarios are used per game? All or rolled for randomly? Which bits are the soft scores?
Most of them look fun and interesting and pretty balenced too. Here comes the but...
But:
I really am not keen on "I shall cut thee" or "Kill points". Armies who use more sections or have more units are penalised before they even start the game and for what purpose? These scores are an inaccurate interpretation of the battle proper.
I think that scoring systems related to armies should be based upon points values. Points values represent the value of units to an army.
I lose 3 sentinels, you lose 2 seer coucil bike units. Kill points says that I am loosing but am I?
I lose my 1 HQ unit and my 1 Elite unit. You lose your 1 HQ and 5/6 of your troops, 2/3 of your FA, Elites and HS. According to this system I'm loosing 2:1.
I have a quibble about assassinate too. I think this should simply be restricted to the most expensive HQ or a single nominated HQ unit. Again you get penalised for no particular reason for taking ICs. I think a simple "regicide" representing cutting off the serpents head is more balenced?
If an army works best when it has more units, or a good spread across the FOC chart, or even when it has lots of ICs, then these objectives are unfair, no? Surely these criteria might affect people's decisions when they write their list, they might create a smaller army (fewer kill points) or focus on fewer FOC slots. Doesn't this contradict your paragraph on "no restrictions", albeit informally?
Anyway I'm sure you have reasons for these which I'd like to hear.
M&P: That is the entire system. EVERY game will be like that. There are no soft scores--that's the point. Re-read what I said, eh?
The whole point on Kill Points is there are only 5 Kill Points assigned per army. It doesn't matter how many units you have. i.e. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.
The force org stuff is difficult to do with any real meaning. They are simply bonus points for achieving a minor goal. After all, if you get ALL of them--shouldn't you get a decent bonus for essentially tabling your opponent? It's very hard to table people in games that can run only 5 turns.
Your next point, kill point "value". Actually, each player designates the 5 Kill Points they want to kill. So you are setting the value of your targets yourself. If you don't think you are getting a fair value, maybe you chose the wrong targets.
You are correct that armies intentionally built small have a weakness. As I've been trying to point out--the best armies are the ones that have lots of multiple units in each slot. At 2000 points, you really have to for most armies. I cannot make the game system "fair" when it isn't inherently fair. I can only try and cover as much of the surface with as broad a brush as possible, yes? That's the intent here. If you lose 1 elite and that's all you had, then you give up a single point. Most armies don't have 1 elite, simple as that--they run 2 or more in each FOC slot, because that's the best way to design an army. Which is what I want, as competitive a competition as I can get. Encouraging people to build armies properly by not dicking them on certain rules is, imho, the best way to get that level of competitive play.
Assassinate could be done that way, but I don't understand your complaint. You get penalized for taking IC's? The vast majority of armies take IC's as HQ's, they HAVE to. Only a few still have retinues (and a rarer few have neither retinue nor IC). The rule is intended to force you to kill all enemy IC's or all enemy HQ's. You actually have a easier time of it with IC's, they can jump from unit to unit and hide where a retinue (or non IC non retinue like Bjorn or a MC) cannot. I think you misunderstand this one.
If you look at the last tournament I ran, nobody held back. Having few units did not necessarily help Jimmy, who had the 'smallest' army. Having many units was the norm, and that made it possible to build lists without regard to how kill points restricts things.
Personally, I think you aren't really getting it, which might be the way I explained it so hopefully the more in-depth explanation is better and you will get it. Let me know, I've got all the time in the world today. :)
Nash: It does indeed. The plan has always been to have a best painted award, and not to integrate it into any scoring but for best painted. They will be completely separate.
Ties are more possible with so few points in only 5 games given it's highly possible the #1-#4 players will never play each other, actually. A win will be the person with more points within a given range, a tie and a loss will be the same. Most likely it will be a 5 point differential, if you are within it...it's a tie. If you are outside it, it's a win or a loss.
I do expect them to fill out the entire sheet. There's no soft scores or painting or comp to fill out, so the amount of 'paperwork' will end up being the same if it's a bit more involved.
A pure swiss system won't work because:
People will not pay 1000 dollars to face single elimination (unless there is a suitably large prize, like 20k or 50k or 100k) and with only 5 rounds you cannot reasonably hope to match everyone up. People WILL win the tournament based on just the armies they play against--but unlike most tournaments, not only can you be beaten badly and stage a comeback, but it's very likely you'll be playing the top players repeatedly if you excel--and this scenario system is very difficult to win handily. Even with nearly tabling your opponent. I know, I've seen excellent players fail to score max points repeatedly--I designed it that way intentionally.
Paul:
Of course.
Let's see...
First: Of course. The record keeping for pre-game stuff does need to be written down in a better format. :) The sabotage objective, however, does not need to marked down--the point of that one is you have to defend both objectives on your side of the board as he can claim either one.
Second, I'm aware it might be. I might do something different with the archeotech and the comet to reduce the game-slowing dice rolls. I am open to suggestions.
Third, I don't have a better way of offering a suggestion. At least I couldn't think of any. If you have one, let me know what it is please. I don't know if just removing it is an option. It reads wrong to me when I did so during editing, so I put it back in.
<span style="">Mike N asked:</span>
<span style="">Quick question; When choosing and/or applying kill point units, how do you deal with troops and designated transports? Are they considered seperate units, or a unit as a whole? The same in respect to say a Tau Piranha with its drones disembarked, two kill points or one?
Thanks for your time,
Mike N</span>
Designated transports count as kill points in the main rules, so can be chosen if you so desire. Anything can be selected, but only by removing the unit from play (destroyed or falling back/off the table edge) can you score it. You cannot score kill points for drone squadrons on a Piranha without selecting them as a KP. Anything that can be created during the game must actually be selected as a KP. Some things, like say Ku'gaths created Nurglings--well, you can select them, but killing 10 of them will only net you 1 KP. If the other guy bothers to create one. ;) Being specific: Desig Transports + units purchased together are separate kill points.
I don't really get "I shall cut thee", I think for the same reason as Masterandpuppet. In your reply to him you're saying that the point is to encourage people to take multiple units in each slot, which theoretically makes for a more competitive army...
...But if that's the case, then surely that'll be reflected in their score overall anyway? i.e. you'll be punished because your army will suck and you'll lose more easily. You even said so yourself: "<span>I cannot make the game system "fair" when it isn't inherently fair."
</span>
So if it's already 'unfair', and people who take one unit from each FOC slot are going to lose due to their failure-ridden armies, why add insult to injury by arbitrarily scoring another point against them?
Well here's what it comes down to: Those are very rare (and minor) boosts, not penalties--to those with competitive armies. If you don't give players the encouragement to run solid lists by giving them a reward for it, there's no reason to play said competitive armies. You are seeing it as a negative, when everything in the system has been built to be positive. There's no negative points being rewarded, only actual victories earn points. The idea is not to punish, but to reward. Your score (you, the guy with 1 elite) is not penalized in any way. That's the key difference here, that's the reasoning behind the system.
@Stelek: "That is the entire system. EVERY game will be like that."
Hold on, I need to understand this better. Are you saying that every game of the tournament will have SEVENTEEN different objectives? And each player will have to report on all 17 objectives at the end of each of the five games?
1. More Table Quarters
2. More Kill Points
3. More Objectives
4. More FOC units eliminated
5. In Possession of Loot
6. Destroy all enemy ICs or HQs
7. Get a unit in enemy deployment zone at game end
8. Control more pieces of terrain
9. Hold center of board with 2+ scoring units
10. No enemy units on your half of the board at game end
11. Control more terrain/objectives/quarers (randomly rolled for on turn 3)
12. Capture randomly moving objectve (archeotech)
13. Hold objective on opponent's side for 1 full turn
14. Capture randomly moving objective #2 (comet)
15. Keep nominated unit alive
16. Kill nominated enemy unit
17. Reduce all enemy units to 50%
Do I have that right?
Seventeen different objectives is possibly the wrong way to look at it. You have seventeen different ways of scoring points, and it is near impossible to get points for all of them. I feel like I'm going over what he's already said, but he designed it this way so that people cannot obtain all of the points in one game, making the scoring system easier to see who's playing better overall.
For example player A gets 4 KP's at the end of turn 5 and player B has 3. In a regular tournament player A would be declared the winner. However, player B has control over the table, owning three of the four table quarters, one of which being his opponents deployment zone, just through poor rolling did he not get the extra KP to hold a draw. Does player A deserve to win?
In regards to Comet and Archeotech Excavation, I think they're both written well and would be pretty easy to follow. It also adds alot of spice to what would be no brainer tactical decisions: "Do I follow the AE for the possible three points and risk revealing my side armour to melta?".
If I were hosting a tournament, this is how I would want to play each game. Good work Stelek.
I agree with you Gavin, I think the point is to focus on a handful of the objectives, look at others as a possibility and simply try to deny the rest to the enemy. Whilst having this many does make the mind boggle it also makes for a whole host of tactical options and I think that it would be immensely fun to try and second guess which your opponent is focussing on and on which he is bluffing. It sounds infinately more enjoyable than the 'last turn objective rush' which we all use at the moment.
I think that the score sheet could do with a little adjustment. For example it would help if it said which objectives needed to be identified before battle commensed and which would be simply scored at the end. For example I now understand that the Kill point system is taken from the 5x5 system but I wasn't sure beforehand whether those kill point lines were simply there as space for the players to write down which units they had eliminated.
I'm still not convinced by the Assassination, I shall cut thee and trench warefare scores. I.e.:
Space Marines.
HQ: 2 Captains
Elite: 1 Techmarine
Troops: 6 tactical squads
Fa: 1 land speeder Squadron
HS: 1 predator
Total available points to the enemy is 14 (3 for assassinate, 6 for trench warefare and 5 for I shall cut thee).
Mech IG:
HQ: 1 CCS
Elite: none
Troops: 3 Vet squads
FA: 3 Vendetta squadrons
HS: 3 LR squadrons
Total available points to the enemy is 7 (1 for assassinate, 2 for trench warefare and 4 for I shall cut thee).
The Marine player cannot score as many points as his opponent, surely this puts him at a disadvantage? How are the overall tournament scores being tallied? It seems to be simply a case of adding each of these scores together? If you were to face more armies like that space marine one then you would potentially have more chance of scoring more points per game than a player who happened to fight smaller armies like the IG one therefore giving you a greater chance of winning the tournament. I just feel that the same number of points should be available for both sides to score across all games and gamers.
Perhaps limit the scores to a maximum? Either simply say that you can only score up to 3 or 4 points for I shall cut thee, 2 for Trench warefare and 1 for assassinate (you cannot guarantee that armies will bring more than this number of units). This is essentially the same system as you have for kill points.
Or alternatively a compromise would be to set the maximums between the armies based upon the smallest point scoring army. For example, using the example above you would limit the trench warefare to 3 points (because this is the maximum that can be scored against the IG player), 1 point for assassinate (IG only has 1 HQ/IC) and to 4 points for I shall cut thee.
I'm aware that I am being a pain in the ass about 9 points but that represents nearly 20% of the total points available and If I was paying money I'd lke to think that I have the same potential max score as any other army.
As for soft scores, I was aware that you were trying to eliminate the need for the soft scores by creating a system that makes ties highly unlikely. What I was unsure about was how these scores would be totalled. I'm guessing that it will simply be a cumulative count? I think this needs to be explicitly stated. The other option I was thinking of was whether the yes/no options would be a primary count and the muliple scores would be considered should the primary scores tie (as a kind of soft score, but more like a secondary score).
So bascially, all of these combined determine the winner of the game, right? Or is the 'normal' 5x5 system (KP & obj.) the main objective, with everything else being bonus points? If not, ever considered this? The winner by 5x5 could get a substantial bonus over the loser. Just a thought.
Mkerr: Most of the objectives are 'yes for me, no for you' type. Fairly easy to score those.
The only ones that really require thinking are the various objectives--counting up the total number of units can be time consuming.
The intent is not to make it possible for each player to actually score all of these points, but to score only some of them. They do have to report each one though. I actually hope to have enough demo time + judges to explain this before play begins, and help people score in the first game. I was already thinking of having extra long games to give people time to play out their games, probably after game 1 a bit extra would need to be added.
Orange: Yes, it's the total number of points scored--the original 5x5 system has enough bonus points added, the point of this system is to allow players to build armies to win the way they want to, and take objectives they want to. In short, making it an open field where two players can choose very different methods of attack and may the better man (or woman) win.
I have to say, I think that's pretty clever. It's making it much less obvious what your enemy's intent is - you can't just rely on him going for KPs and objectives. He might ignore them completely in favor of goals easier for him to achieve, which you would have to aware of all the time.
M&P: I agree, the score sheet could be fixed up so all the 'must do this before the game' are at the top; along with the 'must do this during the game' stuff.
Re: KP's, yep those lines are there to write down the name of your chosen KP's.
Re: Different points available...that is true. That's a terrible army, and you left out some points and didn't really understand others.
1) Trench Warfare is worth 2 points, period.
2) Assassinate is worth 2 points, period.
3) I Shall Cut Thee is worth 2-5 points, depending on the army. Most armies will give up 3-4 imho, some will have 5 available. It's meant to give people a reason to bring solid armies with redundant units--if you only bring 1 unit along in a force org chart, people are going to aim for it. Of course, you can try to use that to your advantage... ;)
Now to your hypothetical example: The Marine player does have a small disadvantage in those areas, but in claiming objectives (and even kill points) he has an advantage (squadrons are great, but are relatively easy to kill; while his troops are very solid and the IG player has very weaksauce troops).
In short, part of why the system is the way it is--is to accomodate all kinds of armies. If you really want to bring just 1 of something, you can--odds are, your opponent will score a specific set of points off of that. If you load up on troops; you could potentially smother all the objectives, terrain pieces, quarters, comet, arceotech, and center...all of which are worth considerably more (those are easy to sieze if you have more scoring units than the enemy, which is correct in this situation). See, you are focusing on just one small part of the overall scoring system--the goals are complimentary, and not meant to be considered alone but all together as a cohesive whole.
There is no need for a limit since you did not understand how many points could be scored. Hopefully now you do.
The only real variable in the number of points available is the force org slots--it's not a huge deal. In the end, it's usually only a 3 point swing if it gets accomplished at all. Fyi in the last tournament, it was not a highly scored goal.
Re: Cumulative scores, it's all added together. Once I get more feedback, I'll rewrite it and include a total score per player line. Honest!
Hope that helps. :)
Orange: Thank you. In the last tournament, some games people scored 4 points, and others they scored high 20s - low 30s. It's very difficult to consistently score highly. The better you do, the more likely you are to play other people doing well--and it really is a matter of obvious skill after the first couple of games if you are scoring high 20's - low 30's you'll be fighting other players with similar scores. I'll post an example in a bit, coffee first. :)
@ Stelek:
I agree, looking again I kind a fucked up on the interpretation of assassinate and trench warefare a little bit. Well I decided to merge them with kill points for some reason lol. Epic fail.
Let me try again.
Assassinate. What should have said was that the space marine player with 3 HQs/IC is actually better off because the IG player will have to kill 3 units to the marines one. So the IG player is 'slightly' worse off. Ergo my suggestion should have been that you only have to kill 1 hq not 3 to make it entirely fair.
Trench warefare. Same thing really but regarding troops. As is I shall cut thee but about FOC slots.
So basically you are better off if you have more Hqs, more troops and fewer FOC slots. I'm going to resist the minor quibble I have about the system 'slightly' benefitting these armies because I haven't played the system yet together as a whole. In any case I'm moaning about 6 points at most and it's likely the potential difficulty between each army completing each objective is minor.
I'll shut up now and let you drink your coffee. Sorry for the stupid comments :D
M&P: Nothing to be sorry about. If you are confused, I should re-word something to make it less confusing. That's the whole point of posting this. lol
Helps having a dipshit like me for that eh? :P
You should use these for comet objectives (except for the "is this real terrain?" thing)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYYzTpZX4i0&feature=sub
Post a Comment