Monday, 28 May 2012

Do you like Scenario's at a tournament?

I have just had a little bird whisper in my ear as I'm in the midst of finalising the Players pack for GuardCon2012 WFB. The discussion is about including scenario's in NZ tournaments. I have always liked the idea and their inclusion in tournaments once the 8th edition book was released. They added a depth and character that spiced up my Warhammer enjoyment. It was one of the big things that made me embrace the gaming system more and brought me back to the wargame. It has been argued that scenario's significant skew the results in favour of some armies and they are not a true test of skill between players because of the random elements involved.


So do we like scenario's or should we be black and white and face off with 5-6 matches of Battle line every tournament?
Posted by at

6 comments:

  1. Ross Hillier-Jones29 May 2012 at 08:35

    I like some of them (Blood and Glory in particular) and really dislike others (Watchtower straight out of the book, Dawn Attack) and quite honestly, would rather play battleline every game. Battle for the Pass for example, strongly favours certain armies so I'm glad it's often absent from tournaments.

    I can understand why people like them, but at some point I think it'd be cool to have a whole NZ tournament with just battleline and see how it went.

    Cheer,

    Ross

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous31 May 2012 at 00:18

      I believe battle line favors a hand to hand strong army (which is why Ross loves it). But Battle for the pass suits the opposite... I think that a whole tournament of battle line would see only a select few armies, all close combat and I certainly wouldn't be playing...

      I think a lot of comp around 'protect' against gun lines, but as we have seen at NICON, 7 wood elf armies is a lot of bow shots and maybe people are getting around it.

      Delete
  2. PaW29 May 2012 at 17:02

    Hell Yes.
    Scenarios make for intresting games.

    They don't skew the results of armies that are built properly

    ReplyDelete
  3. hpoo6 June 2012 at 21:05

    Ha
    Have your general not show up and your army paniced off the board in and you don't even get a turn all because you rolled a 1. (don't even think about arguing that it ballences the books. Warhammer needs generals and not having one show up is not ballenced

    ReplyDelete
  4. Unknown8 June 2012 at 00:21

    Love them. Reakon one of the best additions to the game.

    Adds to the game as a whole as your tactics have to change not only for each opponent but each different scenarios.

    "They don't skew the results of armies that are built properly"
    Agree wih PaW on this.

    "Have your general not show up and your army paniced off the board in and you don't even get a turn all because you rolled a 1. (don't even think about arguing that it ballences the books. Warhammer needs generals and not having one show up is not ballenced"

    So when my general miscasts and dies turn 1 that is not balanced then?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Elven Glades9 June 2012 at 05:50

    @hpoo

    I know you've been influenced by a certain dwarf player having his soul sucked out by said army. Have to tell you though Hendog that having your general not turn up because you roll a 1 doesn't mean your game is over it just means you have to work a little harder to make it work. It's definitely a situation that means you have to mitigate that possibility and gives you the opportunity to test your deployment and manoeuvring skills and use your complete game.

    @Johnny

    I've had my Archie blow up many a first turn and it's made me enjoy the game much more than relying on 6 dice stratergy. It also has made me think that comping the irresistible to require triple six's and having double six's casting not causing irresistible but causing a miscast is good for Guardcon. Good stuff for making me rethink a direction that we can take the meta.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)