40K Team Tournament Primer Scenarios (Download/Discussion)

The place to discuss all that was! Visit the AdeptiCon website (www.adepticon.org) for past coverage, event results and photos!

40K Team Tournament Primer Scenarios (Download/Discussion)

Postby Matthias » Sun Jan 25, 2009 12:35 pm

First off - many thanks to 4 Guys 1 Cup, Cede Malis, Team Brokeback and Robot Ninjas for making the trip to the Bunker yesterday afternoon to test drive the 40K Team Tournament Primer Scenarios. Much appreciated.

Download the Primer Scenarios here.

I'll post results tomorrow afternoon - in the meantime let's hear your thoughts on the missions, command counters and all that!
User avatar
Matthias
Techpriest
 
Posts: 795
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 5:21 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

I'll bite... what I liked and what I didn't

Postby Chubs » Sun Jan 25, 2009 4:32 pm

Kill point are the replacement of victory points in 5th, I get that... but victory points were un baise to every army. A unit dies, the enemy gets a direct proportional amount of VP's that it's worth, ever army is even, but no more. The idea of victory point denial was pronounced in 4th with units like Land Raiders, Holo-falcons. But at the end of the day, if you killed them, you got the VP they were proportionally worth. Now, a Rhino... drop pod... Raider... wave serpant... worth the same Land Raiders, 8 blood crushers, 30 orks.

The team tournement used Kill points as a defining measure of victory 2 secondary objectives and one primary. I feel that Mounted armies are at a severe disadvantage versus those that are not under the current KP set up.

A very strong solution-> in One mission, only allow Kill point awarded for Troops choices. No elites, no HQ, No fast, and not transports. Everyone uses troops and can only have 3.

Easy balancer for one mission... for folks that use armour in the 41st millienum
***

I really REALLY liked how you made the additional points much harder to achieve than in the past - big plus. Overall the missions looked and played great.
The handsome face of 2T1C
User avatar
Chubs
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 6:06 am
Location: Libertyville

Postby Generalissimo_Fred » Sun Jan 25, 2009 4:55 pm

Kill points are the answer to multiple cheap units swarming the board. If KP is eliminated or changed, there is no disadvantage for pumping out as many units, whether they are scoring or not, in a list. Since a great many objectives are designed to be contested with just one unit, of any kind, taking many cheap units would be a no-brained way to build lists in 5th edition. The non-scoring cheap units can contest objectives freely and make list building fairly one sided.

There must be a penalty for taking a large amount of units in a list.
Generalissimo_Fred
 
Posts: 1248
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:31 am
Location: Elgin, IL

Postby Generalissimo_Fred » Sun Jan 25, 2009 4:57 pm

I like the first missions primary objective as a way to slow down dual 800pt Nob biker/Warboss lists.
Generalissimo_Fred
 
Posts: 1248
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:31 am
Location: Elgin, IL

Postby Brian » Sun Jan 25, 2009 6:23 pm

First, let me clarify that (with constant support and feedback from the Team Tournament staff) I wrote all of the missions.

I will be looking at the primer scoring data as well as the feedback from everyone and use it to write the best possible missions for the big show.

As for the question of Kill Points I can say two things:

-In the TT Kill point objectives will work as described in the 5th edition rulebook. Of course, command counters could still have an effect (see primer mission 3.)

-I do keep track of what % of overall battle points come from kill points. It was 45% in the primer. If the primer had a mission #4 like the real TT that proportion would have been a little lower because, obviously, we're not going to have Kill points come up twice as a primary objective.
User avatar
Brian
 
Posts: 499
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: Chicago (Logan Square)

Postby Chubs » Sun Jan 25, 2009 8:07 pm

Gen Fred - I agree with you about kill points being the answer for multiple small units running amoke. Really, I do. Speaking strickly from a team tournement where ever point counts, having primary or secondary objtives all geared toward non-mounted armies should drastically influence armies design.

Speaking in broad strokes here... if you knew that KP's would have a strong impact in the game, theme aside, why would anyone run light mech armies?

Primer wise... where were the 3-4KP hoarde orks armies? I thought the deamon players had GREAT armies to maximize min KPs. What happened when those deamon list locked up with droppodding marines and rhino mounted units ???? yeah... rolled.

What armies are going to stand out or be unquie... IG.
The handsome face of 2T1C
User avatar
Chubs
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 6:06 am
Location: Libertyville

Postby pheobus29 » Sun Jan 25, 2009 8:17 pm

I used the missions to run my own tournament.

Command Tokens were a big success.

1st mission: all four winners scored max objectives
2nd mission: only one winner scored max objectives, the other three games yielded more like a draw-to-loss ratio. That is, the losers tended to get no points, but the winners tended to get about half. I could see this coming and as a result, it was my favorite mission.
3rd mission: Similar to the first mission. Three of the four winners scored max objectives. The last missed the secondary objective.

Sportsmanship: 4x(MAX) and 4x(MAX -1)
Comp: 7x(MAX) and 1x(MAX - 3)

Let me know if you would like any more data. Oh, and the tournament I was running was going to be four games, so I wrote a fourth scenario after judging what you were trying to accomplish overall. We didn't end up playing it, but I did play test it and one team wanted to substitute that mission in for another. If you would like to see the idea, let me know.

Annihilation in all scenarios hurt Marines ability to combat squad (Boo-hoo, right? :twisted: ) I got the comment that nothing in here would really slow down the powerful Orks.
pheobus29
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:58 am
Location: UCONN, CT

Primer YEA!!

Postby icenutz » Sun Jan 25, 2009 9:41 pm

Everything was great thanks to who ever got the primer running. A few suggestions would be to have players judge composition before the game starts because if someone gets owned they have the tendency to assume that their opponent had a "Cheap" list....

Also as far as the primer went I though the missions were done well. However, I also thought that there was a bit too much riding on kill points. I think it was a Primary in one and a secondary in two others. I think it would be a good idea to think of 4 main missions as primary objectives in April. And then make them alternate fair through out the missions. So for example kill points would be a primary in one game, secondary in a different game and then tertiary and then there would be no kill points in the final game. I think this would be fair for all team because it will balance everyone’s strengths and weaknesses. Just some suggestions
icenutz
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 11:19 pm

Re: Primer YEA!!

Postby Ed » Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:45 am

icenutz wrote: I think it would be a good idea to think of 4 main missions as primary objectives in April. And then make them alternate fair through out the missions. So for example kill points would be a primary in one game, secondary in a different game and then tertiary and then there would be no kill points in the final game. I think this would be fair for all team because it will balance everyone’s strengths and weaknesses. Just some suggestions


In 5th, there are only two types of missions: killpoints and capturing objectives. I supposed annihilating your opponent might count as a third, but that's a little outside this discussion. As it stands, KP and capturing are pretty well balanced to be at the opposite sides of the army composition spectrum. Field three diamond hard units to meta the KP missions and you'll have a hell of a time winning the capture missions, and vice versa.

In order to capture an objective with a troop unit, you first have to reach it. The logical solution to that is to put them in a transport where possible. The only reason you wouldn't always do that is because those transports are going to be worth killpoints in that or another mission. Thus, we have a balance.

I'll post more in depth feedback about the scenarios later.

Ed
Ed
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:08 am

Postby Matthias » Mon Jan 26, 2009 12:37 pm

Results:

Image
User avatar
Matthias
Techpriest
 
Posts: 795
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 5:21 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Postby Matthias » Mon Jan 26, 2009 12:50 pm

I think the Primer is a bit skewed mission-wise for a couple of reasons.

1. We only played 3 missions at the end of the day. That 4th mission goes a long way in balancing the point spread.

2. We picked 3 of our possible 8 missions that we felt needed some time on the table and this perhaps didn't result in the perfect blend of P/S/T missions (especially after you factor in the missing 4th mission).

That said - we will balancing the point spread over the four missions the best we can and attempting to make coalition based objectives and tactical bonuses have some decent flavor.

What did you guys think about the Command Counters vs. the Mulligans of the past? I know there were some questions in regards to the nature of the Counter in the 2nd scenario I think and how the points were generally a wash. Command Counter options are being designed to not break anything, change stat lines, weapon strength, etc.

Again - thanks a ton for participating and all the feedback. Goes a long way in smoothing out the Team Tournament in this post=5th edition world.
User avatar
Matthias
Techpriest
 
Posts: 795
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 5:21 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Postby shadedragon » Mon Jan 26, 2009 2:24 pm

I really did like the scenarios... I did not see any gaping holes with them, and I think that they were well balanced (taking everything into consideration). I agree that KPs were a little much, but with the use of a 4th scenario and command tokens (if played well and placed on a KP-rich unit such as an IC with retinue, they could deny the opponent multiple KPs). If things stay the same for the actual tourney, it will prevent a LOT of abuse from certain armies... It will also make people "think" more when creating army lists.
I enjoyed playing them, and I enjoyed playing against all the teams present! Thank you all for a great practice!
Cal
There can be only one!
User avatar
shadedragon
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 11:26 am
Location: Round Lake, IL.

Postby Janthkin » Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:28 pm

Is the "Team Tournament" packet available, Matthias? I'd like to read up on these "Command Counters" a bit more.
Janthkin
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 12:14 pm

Postby Matthias » Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:41 pm

The Scenario and Result sheets are in the link above. Here is the Command Counter sheet from the primer:

Command Counters

as well as the rules per the event:

Team Tournament Rules

These most likely will be slightly modified prior to the event (or at least clarified) based on feedback and test games.
User avatar
Matthias
Techpriest
 
Posts: 795
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 5:21 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Postby Janthkin » Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:53 pm

Danke sehr.
Janthkin
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 12:14 pm

Next

Return to AdeptiCon 2009

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron