Kirb your enthusiasm!

WEBSITE HOSTED AT: www.3plusplus.net

"Pink isn't a color. It's a lifestyle." - Chumbalaya
"...generalship should be informing list building." - Sir Biscuit
"I buy models with my excess money" - Valkyrie whilst a waitress leans over him


Friday, June 3, 2011

Lords of Terra Mission Analysis


*exhales* this post isn't going to be pleasant. Send all young children away as I am dispensing with the fudgemuffin copyright and going full out! I'll probably swear once... Edit: I swore more than that. This post isn't just ranting I do analyse the missions and suggest changes but my gears were ground and angrypants Kirby came forth!

Okay so last year we went to Lords of Terra since it is a huge gathering of nerds for Australia (100+) and is decently local. It's a comped tourney (so fail) but it was good to get five games in against some new people. There were of course some major issues (my Tyranids getting 40% painting for example when half painted armies or armies with thick paint and no detailing scored higher; comp scores being...just bad with bad armies getting poor comp and decent armies getting good comp, etc.) but hey, I enjoyed myself and was going to enjoy going back there to play five more games, have a good time and ignore all the bullshit Australian gamers think is necessary to play 40k properly. 

Then I saw the missions (scroll down to end of first post).

Overall it's a huge fuck you to people with transports yet you're already saying fuck you to that with comp. So it's basically a double fuck you, with armies which are now good based on the missions, getting comp bonuses. So what is really happening is...we're not playing 40k anymore? It's not even a tiny deviation this is like FPS compared to RTS. I mean seriously, I know many Australians and the tournaments they run are all "mech is bad and unfluffy and not fun and WAAC" and stupid crap like that but if you run two systems to try and nerf mech, you're going to get a different set of powerful lists and because the missions benefit them and they are 'bad' in normal 40k (so get good or average comp), you give them two boosts. Is that not hard to understand in some way?

Let's look at the missions then and why they are such fail. Note: I'm not going to mention the silly battlepoints system for determining who is a good player or not. It's already been said before. And let's not get started on the 30 battlepoint, 30 paint, 30 comp and 10 sports spread...

Mission 1: Pitched Battle + three objectives in the middle with random values assigned when a non-vehicle model moves into contact with it

Three objectives in midfield. Good. Random value assigning? WTF no. I'm happy to not have vehicles be able to 'activate' them as it encourages out of transport play but hey look, I dominate board control, get shitty rolls and thus have two objectives worth one each whilst my opponent gets one objective worth 6 and I get a Major Loss. Fail. If you want to make objectives different values have the central one be twice as much as the rest as that is literally harder to hold and more important to how one can beat someone else in an actual game of 40k; holding the centre. 

Mission 2: Dawn of War + Kill Points

It's a BRB mission so I can't complain too much. Oh wait yes I can. Apparently tabling your opponent is a minor win. I'm sorry, I beat you so badly that I crushed your army completely and I'm only just barely winning? Want to run that by me again. Fail.

Mission 3: Pitched Battle + One point for each unit in enemy DZ (highest total wins)

Not bad, it emphasises mobility and hurts static gunlines (both of which 5th edition already do). Wait. Dedicated transports (and anything else which doesn't take up a FoC) doesn't count for scoring a point? Hi MechDar, your transports which are often as expensive if not more expensive than the units you carry (i.e. 1/3 to 1/2 of your total points) you're relegated to being able to do nothing in terms of scoring a victory for your general just like the 35-50 point transports of the Imperium. That sounds shitty doesn't it? Ya it's because someone doesn't like cheap transports and doesn't understand that old books need to be considered as well. If your transports are expensive, this mission just stuck something up your ass and it isn't pleasant. If you're still running a transport based list, well you're fucked as well because a lot of your army isn't helping you win the actual mission either other than getting your units across the table and then needing to run back the other direction to disrupt your opponent in your DZ. Just *sigh.* This is not 40k, transports are a major part of 40k if you don't like it, go play Fantasy or Warmahordes where they don't exist (as far as I know).

Mission 4: Spearhead + 5 objectives

Yay another BRB mission and we have a deployment other than line up and shoot each other. The objectives aren't set however so whomever wins that roll-off has an advantage since they get to place an extra objective over their opponent. Once again though. I TABLE you. And get a Minor win. Fail.

Mission 5: Pitched Battle + modified KP (units which move >6" = 3KP, units with infiltrate, scout or HQ = 2KP, everything else = 1KP)

3rd pitched battle deployment? Out of 5 games? Yawn. So in mission 3 you're giving the finger to transports because hey, they are cheating right? Here you've giving them the finger too because it's just not nice that they can move faster than everything else whilst being cheap now is it? A standard Mech list of 15-18 KP now shits out a staggering 30+ KP. Holy fuck. Lucky they didn't make individual vehicles singular KP either or man that would be even more terrible (yes it's possible). So another kneejerk reaction of a mission to mech rather than fielding better lists and being able to handle them. This is...Fail. That's 5/5 pretty impressive, even with two BRB copy paste missions. Wow.

Summary

Mission 5 is just trash but Mission 3 has some merit. Make it Troops only or something but don't disadvantage fast armies in Mission 5 and mech based armies (which are fast too) in Mission 3 as well. It's not balanced and isn't good for producing someone who is actually the best General. Wipe outs = full battle points. Not sure how that is hard to understand. You've outplayed your enemy well enough to dominate him off the board, how is that different to outplaying him whilst he has units on the board to dominate the board? It isn't, it displays superior tactical acumen. This is the major knock against Missions 2 and 4 which are BRB copy-pastes and Mission 1 I've already discussed. Randomness needs to be based on the game (i.e. dice rolls such as reserves, who goes first, game end, etc.) but not dictate the board once the game has started. If you want to do different objective values have a reason for making them more important than others like it actually is more important normally because it's in the exact centre of the board. This is advantaging an army already in an advantageous position but makes sense game-wise rather than this random bullcrap.

And stop hating on mech and transports in general. They are a part of the game. Deal with it.

Don't worry there's more. Secondary missions. You get to choose your secondary and keep it hidden from your opponent *girly giggle*, that sounds fun doesn't it? Not that it isn't going to be too hard to figure out what your opponent is doing (why are you focusing undue attention on my HQ...oh right) but 40k isn't a game of fucking secrecy, it's a game of tactics based around movement and target priority which you've already tried to fuck up by saying "mech is bad, don't use mech!". Right so let's look at them one by one. 

Secondary Mission 1: Kill highest point HQ in opposing army whilst keeping yours alive

Haven't people got the memo yet? This is stupid. HQs operate differently in each army. Hey Space Wolves and IG, you keep your HQ hidden at the back where they are nice and safe okay? Tyranids, throw that big hard to hide fucker forward because you spent 200+ points on it and it would be fucking moronic to hide it. *designs list so he can hide his HQ and be safe*. Fail.

Secondary Mission 2: Have a non-vehicle heavy weapon or HQ occupy the highest point on the battlefield

Say what? Oh look ruins in my deployment zone which are higher than yours, awesome I'm going to pick this and stick a single guy up there and most likely win it. Oh wait, your army doesn't have any heavy weapons? And has an expensive HQ? Or moving your heavy weapons stops them firing? What was the point of this mission again? oh right to advantage lists with mobile heavy weapons because they really need more help. Fail.

Secondary Mission 3: Table quarters 

Woot a good mission parameter. Wait. Dedicated transports don't count (hey mech, fuck you) and it's like old 3rd ed Cleanse where you have to own the entire quarter? Fail. Do it like the other tournaments have been doing please and make it so it's the VP in each quarter who decides who owns it and stop fucking with transports. Some armies live on their transports and spend a lot of points to do so (oh hi older books, didn't notice you there under my hate for mech in the new books).

Secondary Mission 4: Victory Points

For a secondary mission I'm happy with this (if we ignore the fail of using battle points as a determinant of who is a good general or not). 

Secondary Mission 5: secure enemy home objective

This is like half of capture and control, you know, that auto-draw mission? Meh not epic fail like the above but certainly not good. Draws are bad yo.

Secondary Mission 6: secure your home objective

It's the other half of capture and control except...holy fuck, 12" contest range! And even transports can now as there is no exception. That's going to be oh I don't know, kind of difficult unless I table my opponent (but I only get a Minor win then) and grossly imbalanced seeing as I need to get within 3" of their home objective to contest if I choose Mission 5. Here's a tip, balance is good and you've fucked it up. Fail.

Conclusion

In the end the secondary missions are not as bad as the main missions but still pretty bad. It's like there's some sort of misconception that not all armies are the same and each one runs a very different and unique bunch of army lists which place importance on different things. Since you have to use five of these six secondary missions, odds are you're only going to have a couple which work for your army and the rest are just meh. Add in that comp is already screwing over good armies and the main missions are designed to hurt most of them again (if you're a good foot list you're okay! unless you're a fast foot list...which cuts us back to just a couple again. Hi Loganwing) and you get not 40k but LordsofTerra 40k which I don't really want to spend money coupled with significant travel time to play.

The question then becomes do I want to go? Certainly not with any of my mech armies (I wanted to take Grey Knights but they'll be comped and have poor missions for them such as Mission 3 where half my army can't score or Mission 5 where I have 30+ KP) and I don't feel like taking my Tyranids because Alex doesn't know what a Hive Tyrant is and can't mark painting right and they still get comped pretty harshly. I don't want to take a new army because...oh wait I don't have cash to fling about to buy a Loganwing army which mostly laughs at the missions designed to nerf what is perceived as the best lists and I know that painting up a Bike/Jumper army in that time is going to be insanely difficult and is still given undue major advantages or disadvantages in certain missions (3 and 5 I'm looking at you).

I guess it depends on whether or not I have a full-time job by that time if I'll go but most likely I'm not going to because it's just...well it's bad and I'm being polite there. If you want to comp armies go for it. Try and do it right but you know, I can't see this changing despite the success of NOVA based tournaments so I'll roll with it. But to turn around to the guys who have spent a lot of money are their minis which they like and say we are going to comp you and fuck you up with the missions is just poor form and lack of analytical thinking. This is supposed to be a tournament which rewards everyone right? And overall is fun? Not feeling it guys. We were able to have fun at Centurion and Event Horizon without comp or terrible missions and you didn't have to win all your games to get rewarded (but holy fuck, if you did win all your games you did get rewarded :O that's novel).

/endrant

Sorry for the un-3++ vibe there but ya, I'm tired of crappy tournaments in Australia. Time to get off my ass and get a 3++con going.

Comments (47)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
Elias Macale's avatar

Elias Macale · 722 weeks ago

I would totally save money for plane tickets and a passport to go to a 3++con.

Shame about those missions though. It seems like the tournaments/GTs with the most impressive names usually have the lamest scoring systems. Those missions are flat out bad, and it's ridiculous to gimp mech so bad just because the system favors it and some people find it 'un-fluffy'. I can appreciate the work that goes into a big event like that, but the TO's need to take a hint if they want to garner any respect.
1 reply · active 722 weeks ago
I agree. I would like to stress I applaud the effort to creating the event but the missions? *sigh*
Katie Drake's avatar

Katie Drake · 722 weeks ago

Whoever's running this tournament is borderline retarded. Just sayin'.
4 replies · active 722 weeks ago
Come on Katie don't be mean...
Katie Drake's avatar

Katie Drake · 722 weeks ago

This is me we're talking about.
I disagree, I don't think they're borderline at all.
send an email to ArchonCryx they guy whose running the event, i figure that simple analysis minus the swearing kinda shows that these missions are based on luck and the army list or skill of the player doesn't really have a huge impact on most of these games.

a better soloution would be the event horizon system of table quaters kill points and objectives with secondary missions as flavour if they want to do flavour ie kill the commander keep one squad at full strength etc.

mounted lists, mech lists, jumper lists all seem to be getting penalised and i dont really see the point
2 replies · active 722 weeks ago
last time I talked about the meh missions (2010 version) it was not received well (even though there wasn't any ranting unlike in this one). Just like when I mentioned my poor paint score and others pointed out they thought it was low and should be higher, nothing really came of it. So I decided to be the publicly squeaky wheel this time around ^^.
darkstarr's avatar

darkstarr · 722 weeks ago

"The High Lords of Terra is an invitational event for those players that are arguably in the top 10% of tournament players across Australia and New Zealand. " and are being forced to play missions that are arguably more based on luck then strategy.

really?
A lot of the big Aussie tournie organisers haven't moved out of 4th. It's very sad.

I had great fun at Even Horizon, and I'd love more uncomped tournies.
Imagine this being the norm, and 'good' tournaments being exactly the same, except they won't require fully painted armies. That's what it's like here.

I don't see the point of playing fandeveloperhammer.
Why don't people revolt against these terrible events?
5 replies · active 722 weeks ago
Katie Drake's avatar

Katie Drake · 722 weeks ago

It's just that a lot of people would rather play in these sorts of events than not at all.
darkstarr's avatar

darkstarr · 722 weeks ago

That pretty much sums it up, and its nice to play with friends occasionally and meet new people.
I went with 'nothing at all.'
Katie Drake's avatar

Katie Drake · 722 weeks ago

And this is why you have no friends.
Tin_Can_Man's avatar

Tin_Can_Man · 722 weeks ago

Sounds like a perfect opportunity for a garage gaming weekend..
1 reply · active less than 1 minute ago
Is it possible to make something more organized out of garage gaming? A webcam recording, a forum to discuss the battles played in the community, a system to make it a snap. That could be a hit...

Just imagine - you've played your game with a friend, with web camera recording the battle and you saying out loud every detail - like
- I move the landraider 6" and turn it to the right
or
- I throw 10 dice for shooting my bolters. Two ones, five threes, three fives. Roll 8 dice to wound on 3plus. A one, two twos, two threes, a four, two fives. five wounds, no armour save - Dave, roll for cover saves.
- (Dave) I roll 5 dice for 4plus cover save. Two twos, two fours, a five. Remove two casualties.

The recording is for all to see, some guys (preferably those playing) make a transcription of what was said, the video taken from above can be easily translated into step by step battle presentation. The battle can be literally stripped down to the bones, the errors catched, tactical flaws found, alternative strategies proposed.

Heck, the battle can be replayed by anyone, starting from any point choosen - to find out the proposed changes in strategy.

I'd jump right in into such a system.

This actually could turn a tide - the community would grow, gamers would better their competitive abilities and then events could be organized for the community (and anyone interested). Competitive events, not comped/gimped ones...
I'm not too fussed about the huge mechanation and piles of tin boxes in armies but I feel sympathy for anyone who fields what they "know" is a good army and gets their butt handed to them because they didn't read the mission pack in detail and work out that this isn't standard 40k, it is in fact something different. It's like the tourney should have a warning label.
May contain 4th ed nuts.
that said I would probably have the same chances of losing badly, ie mostly.
What actually causes me the most head scratching is the composition scores. How do you calculate them? Is it based on what you think would be hardest to play? which is what being being least cheesy amounts to.
(TO) Hmm- I could never win with 6 units of penal legion so this player must have kahoonas like king kong and that means I'm giving him a high composition score!
Or is it based on fluffyness.
(TO) You have an entire army with mark of nurgle on every unit, you win the grand composition pustule.
Which is weird for armies like necron or tau where any combination could be argued as being fluffy

But I don't think someone making a tourney with rules you don't agree with is a reason for abuse. It just means you need to read whats on the packet and decide if you want to go or not.
1 reply · active 722 weeks ago
I assume it's like the usual Ausland comp scores, where your points are basically a reflection of the TO's biases. "omg you took six Rhinos in your DA army, so unfair, -100000000 points. oh wow what a fluffy BA jump army, you win all the comp points."
Just take Nids.
No mech = win :D
4 replies · active 722 weeks ago
I'm sure Kirby would take his Grey Knights so that he has an excuse when footdar beat him ;)
Lol.

Maybe Kirby will take Footdar? He'll say "yeah, the tourney is just for kicks" and then he'll win it :D

He could take FootDeldar, just to spice it up a little.
FootDeldar would be considered WAAC... they are a new codex so all the competitive players haven't had the opportunity to figure out how to win with their 4th edition lists.
Vinsanity's avatar

Vinsanity · 722 weeks ago

Just take Tau and table everyone lol. Fuck those missions, thats how Tau rolls :D Oh wait, tabling is only a minor, FUUUU!
2 replies · active less than 1 minute ago
Funny thing is, I was intending on going with my tau, but I don't really have the money. This solved it though, not going with crappy missions like that (kroot don't catch objectives and die, so they don't do much, and my fire warriors are in an expensive devilfish...which means a hopeless unit is even more hopeless).
Auretious Taak's avatar

Auretious Taak · 721 weeks ago

This is why you use your cheap ass vehicle sto just surround the last unit that has no way of comfortably dealing with armour pinning it in one place and DON'T table him, just leave him be with a small portion of a unit. I don't see how this is too hard, after all with nothing left able to do shit to you, you'll max the battle points and be all swimmingly fine about it and won't have tabled your opponent.

It's a comp tourney - do you know how rare it is to table someone anyways? It's like everyone is forgetting that key contextual point here.
Smiley face Vince. That is all.
Ezekielbrodie's avatar

Ezekielbrodie · 722 weeks ago

The missions, together with it still being a comped tournament (and so highly weighted toward comp, wtf?) turned me off it completely so I've decided to not go and defend my podium position this year.

Alex (the TO) is a great guy and really puts a lot of work into the hobby and the community but he doesn't approach gaming in the same manner as you or I. He and his ilk are the reason Australia continues to have comp tournaments as the norm; the TO's themselves generally like to just have fun gaming with their friends and so their tournaments reflect that bias. Obviously the only way to bring about change is either to convince them to go with no comp, which is unlikely, or lead the charge yourself.

Given your recent performance at the no-comp events Kirby, I'd have thought you'd prefer to slink back into comped events ;)
1 reply · active 721 weeks ago
Auretious Taak's avatar

Auretious Taak · 721 weeks ago

OH SNAP Kirby!
Just don't go to failfest events like this. Seriously. Just don't go. As long as you keep going with a "oh well at least I get 5 games against new people" mindset then you're just feeding the fire. When people stop attending events like this while Centurion and EH get increasingly popular more people will realise there is an alternative to Comphammer Failthousand.

Most Aussie gamers don't know any better and think that bullshit like this is normal. Then they go to their first decent tournament where there is no drama (guess what comptards, when people are free to bring whatever list they want no one cries!!) and winning games directly translates to your final placing and they realise what they've been missing out on.

I think comp is dying. Not fast enough, but it is dying. Boycott failfest events (I refuse to call LoT a "tournament") and it will die quicker. Resign yourself to the fail and attend and you're part of the problem. C'mon Kirby, you're supposed to be part of the solution ;)
1 reply · active 722 weeks ago
Auretious Taak's avatar

Auretious Taak · 721 weeks ago

You're generalising waaaay too much and aren't contextualising distance at all. LoT is one of the major events bringing in people from all over the shop for games, yeah it's more a 'I get 5 games against new people' approach but so? Most people don't get many games outside of their small gaming communities and events like this promote that regardless of the stupid scoring system. I get to meet SneakyDan and possibly fester this time around, considering that distance is several European Countries in length between us that's a pretty good reason to go for me. And outside the tourney we can still play games and do other 40k related things (or, you know, socialise and get shitfaced instead for day 2 funsies with hangovers and no sleep). Non comp events are starting to show up more frequently, but tournaments are a way for aussies to get games in against other people, distance is a huge factor, it's really as simple as that. In any case wargamerau has had the LoT sub forum opened for several years and Alex is fairly open to constructive feedback but if one person gives feedback that isn't 20 or 30 people giving the same feedback, and the feedback can only happen from those who attended the event to really give emphasis to it all. The other approach is that some people like comp tourmnaments. Youc an't just keep lumping comp torunies as 'failthousand' when there is a significant proportion of players that appreciate the comp tournament setting regardless of this blogs predominance against it, in the context of aussie tourney land it is still rather popular and not attending a comp tourney in protest really doesn't do shit all at the end of the day, it's like not buyoing from GW or better buying from Independent sellers overseas because with postage included it's 60% the base cost of shit ina GW store in australia but GW don't recognise this as the actual reason and come up with other crap and ignore the real reason and instead force people away from buying their stuff entirely brand new. You aren't buying from them, or you aren't attending their tournies, there's no direct feedback there.
I wouldn't bother going, you're just going to end up being upset, which isn't worth it.
It is turn 4 and all you have left is that immobilsed Rhino. Enjoy your three turns of trying to repair it because I am not going to shoot at it. Why not? Well I only get a minor win if I shoot it but I can get a major win if I just sit here on the objectives.

I say go with the garage gaming weekend and show they you are not interested.
someoneelsetookdude's avatar

someoneelsetookdude · 722 weeks ago

Aussies its take to have a frank talk with your tourney organizers, or get new ones.
Jesus Christ this is bad.....my heart goes out to all the Aussie gamers- you guys have it rough.
1 reply · active 722 weeks ago
Thenakedkasrkin's avatar

Thenakedkasrkin · 722 weeks ago

This tournament style is more of a pandemic... the tourneys at my local game store are very similar (hence I do not play them). One difference is that the store owner assasinates armies that he doesn't like. Orks, IG, and Nids are murdered with the comp system. He even makes special rules that TRIPLE hit certain units such as valkyries and monsterous creatures that are already causing huge comp losses...
I am very likely not going (but will be secretly rooting for someone who is to win). Along with EH this has given me the kick to start working on a 3++ tourney based in Northern Sydney. Will update as I know (Dennis! DENNIS send me terrain =D?).

Also funny thing to note. Before this posted the mission pack had only been downloaded 64 times. Now it's at 184.

Anyway, I recommend anyone who is thinking of going, not to go. This has nothing to do with the guys there or running it, but as has been said the missions are just terrible and it doesn't accurately reflect 40k but rather their poor opinion of it. As others have said, the only way for them to get the hint is to talk with your money and not attend. Be strong!
5 replies · active 721 weeks ago
Katie Drake's avatar

Katie Drake · 722 weeks ago

Fuck the poh-lease!
I will be going, missions are different and it does make it harder for some armies. But that is why i am going. It will help me improve by thinking out of the box and managing more variables in the game. Tournaments like EH is great place to test your skills but LOT would be a good place to develop them.
Problem is that you won't be improving your 40k skills, you'll be developing skills for an abortion of a variant game system. LoT will bear very little resemblance to real 40k. Play too much Comphammer and then when you go back to playing the real game, where people have good armies and play balanced missions, you will fall flat on your face.
Auretious Taak's avatar

Auretious Taak · 721 weeks ago

Or, you know, maybe Devourer is an intelligent gamer and can step from comp to non-comp events with ease and modify his gaming style to suit? You give him and everyone else attending no credit as a person instead you just accuse them of sucking. Also your definition of 'real 40k' is subjective as is any interpretation of it. I've found with comp games I refine little skills that aren't apparent so much in a non-comp event and as such because I have that development happening I can apply it to improve my own game purely because I HAVE to think outside the box to maximise my own score and get a good ranking at least on battle/comp scores (lol at painting hehe) in such a comped event. Non-comp it's all about maximising everything, and so you don't get as many opportunities to experiement and refine skills sets that you don't have down pat yet. Play too little or no comp hammer and you get a biased tone towards comp hammer and how people approach it and you also get that attitude that comp hammer is not real 40k. it is real 40k it's just like real life, an army commander can't always call on the perfect units for a situation, this is what comp games are like, you are stuck with not the best units it doesn't mean you don't play as hard. Shit man, get out of yoru narrow minded vuiew that comp tourunies and all people that will go to them are fail and suck at non comp tournies because they go to comp ones as well.
Lol, that was funny. Obviously playing 40k outside the box you build around yourself is bad.
I'm going and I can't wait. It was awesome last year and my main goal this year has been to qualify once again because I had such a good time. I'm always stunned by the hate I see on forums about how someone runs their tourny (discussion is different than the hate we regularly see - and most of the above is hate). I congratulate any TO who runs a tourny, whatever rules they put in place. It's not like they're springing the way the tourny runs on you once you get there. Don't like it, then don't go (but for god's sake, stop bitching).
Auretious Taak's avatar

Auretious Taak · 721 weeks ago

Lets be blunt here - the scenario's look exactly lik ethe Leviathan 2010 scenario's. I've played the random objective scoring one before, it's annoying but if you are a good player and have a balanced all comers army (still perfectly viable with a good understanding of your codex across FOC slots and the alternatives that whilst not optimal in non comp are just fine in comp) you are able to counter this nicely; the secret mission one is annoying so play for a tabling (and you know don't table just ring the last units and tarpit them and make it a unit that isn't going to be a likely unit in any of the alternative secret objectives - again it's like real life, your objectives and your opponents aren't always known); the others yeah, it's just different scenario's you as a player get to adapt to. The tabling is a minor win thing is absolute bull shit though. The mech penalties could be a bit more balanced but the contextualisation of LoT to a comp tourney that is a balance of all things about the hobby in the comp environment for Australia is being ignored by kirby and most of the posters above. It's a popular tournament and feedback from one person as negative is not feedback from 20 or 30 people as negative, not rocking up but bitching about the tourney and the scenario's is NOT going to change anything, rocking up and illustrating how unfair it is will. There is an example comp for armylists thread over on wargamerau in the LoT Tournament sub forum section which lets you know ahead of time where you are gonna fall and that's new and pleasing at least. At the end of the day, LoT is a popular tourney which brings together the best player over the tournament scene in Australia and New Zealand uin the previous year, they duke it out with balanced not over the top armies and everyone else does the same in a lesser capacity. It's as close to a continentals/Nationals Event we get each year and it is not a GW based event it's independent. It's been going for some years but bitching about it here won't achieve too much especially if bitching is not followed up with attending and having 'I played the scenario's and games and here are my complaints as predicted, this is how I would improve it and still maintain the balance of this comp event within a comp setting rather then making ita non-comp setting which the tourney is not about'. I'm intending on go9ing, i get to meet SneakyDan and or Fester, and I will have a painted army for a change, hooray, and the best thing, I'll adapt my non-comp style of play to comp-style and just play the games and refine my skills as I experiment whereas I can't do that in a non-comp tournament. Scenario's aren't great and some things like the tabling fail sucks ass, but end of the day it's a celebration of the past year in tournament play within Australia and New Zealand and that is still dominated by Comp. If you don't play in the events, stop bitching as it takes a long time to get a grasp on comp in ausrtralia and the attitudes at the events that have them still prevailing even with non-comp events on the rise. You want to influence it do it via the channels set up for the tournament itself and you know, attend on teh day and give first hand rather then theorised feedback on the games and scenario's that is constructive, not angry and not biased against Comp. THAT will do a whole lot better then this wanton bitching ever will.

Post a new comment

Comments by

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...