Concerned about tournament play - Page 3
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 67

Thread: Concerned about tournament play

  1. #41

    Default

    Heh, You're welcome Ted, but C'mon, its not like you have to twist my arm to make me play this game, lol

  2. #42

    Default

    One player who has the game couldn't make it so we were down to 5 players each having 2 games as Allied and Blight. We paired off following the competition rules. I sat out of the 1st game to make notes and would play the first to lose, the two winners then faced off.
    After 30 min the most anybody had scored was 10pts, 8 being the norm. Average game time 50mins-60mins but two were at 20 & 40 mins where players knew how to use Parmans Rapid Assault especially on scenario 3 where an objective can be taken on turn 1. (20mins 15-3 result)
    The Allies won 4 out of the 5 games.
    The only game won by the Blight was when one of the best players (won 2) played the worst (won 0). All the other players won once using Allies.
    Total Allied VP's 68 Blight VP's 50 Ignoring the score by the player who lost 2 games Allied 46VP Blight 27VP

    The scenarios played well, but we actually missed using the Mission Cards even though they can skew the game, maybe these can be added in some minor way? Maybe draw 3, keep 2 and no replenishment.

  3. #43

    Default

    I was interested in your remarks about Parman, as we had much the same experience with a try out we had at the weekend- in particular his undoubted usefulness in Scenario 3. Allies seem to have an edge and it takes a good Blight player to get the win.

    Although he is not a game breaking unit, I still feel RA plus 3 movement to everyone - especially Hammers - does skew a lot towards the Allies. We are experimenting with RA as usual but only the units inherent movement. Seems a little more balanced for these tournament scenarios.

  4. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hithero View Post
    One player who has the game couldn't make it so we were down to 5 players each having 2 games as Allied and Blight. We paired off following the competition rules. I sat out of the 1st game to make notes and would play the first to lose, the two winners then faced off.
    After 30 min the most anybody had scored was 10pts, 8 being the norm. Average game time 50mins-60mins but two were at 20 & 40 mins where players knew how to use Parmans Rapid Assault especially on scenario 3 where an objective can be taken on turn 1. (20mins 15-3 result)
    The Allies won 4 out of the 5 games.
    The only game won by the Blight was when one of the best players (won 2) played the worst (won 0). All the other players won once using Allies.
    Total Allied VP's 68 Blight VP's 50 Ignoring the score by the player who lost 2 games Allied 46VP Blight 27VP

    The scenarios played well, but we actually missed using the Mission Cards even though they can skew the game, maybe these can be added in some minor way? Maybe draw 3, keep 2 and no replenishment.
    Fascinating, the games from my group were much more balanced. Games were typically closer, within 3 points usually. Also the Blight fair much better attaining a better than 50% win rate. Personally, I preferred no mission play. Winning and losing was more about good deployment and positioning than luck of the draw.
    Last edited by Crazyjuan; 04-02-2014 at 10:19 PM.

  5. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crazyjuan View Post
    Fascinating, the games from my group were much more balanced. Games were typically closer, within 3 points usually. Also the Blight fair much better attaining a better than 50% win rate. Personally, I preferred no mission play. Winning and losing was more about good deployment and positioning than luck of the draw.
    Yes and no on the Mission Cards, yes you can be really unlucky or lucky with the draw and they will dictate who will win, but if the draw is balanced then you have even more deployment and tactical decisions to make, making for a more interesting game. Mission cards also give that element of the unknown, a quick look at the board can tell you roughly how many VP's you or your oppo will get in the next couple of turns, but Mission cards can turn that on its head making the game result less certain.

  6. #46

    Default

    Dice and the Action card draw bring enough uncertainty for me. Unless you think it would be sweet to get stuck with a "can opener" or worse "killdozer" mission card playing the 3rd scenario while your opponent draws "tally ho" or "victory is ours". If competitive play is supposed to be a measure of who's better at the the game, how does it aid the quality of competition to have that kind of randomness tied directly to victory points? I mean, in the 3rd scenario there is pretty much no chance you're going to get a tank shock in vs any player who's worth a damn, same thing with killing a tank, given that points are pretty quick to come in that scenario, tanks barely make it to the table in our games.

    Juxtapose that with tally ho, 2 vp for spawning 3 monowheels. It's virtually unstoppable. Same with victory is ours, that closest control point is likely going to be held at some point, its pretty much inevitable. Keeping in mind our games were typically within a few points of each other something like that could be a deciding factor. That, to me at least, is counter to the idea of competitive play being about decisions made and testing player skill against player skill. That randomness and unpredictability is great and fun for pickup games with friends, but I made this thread because it hurts RW as a platform for competitive play.
    Last edited by Crazyjuan; 04-03-2014 at 11:39 AM.

  7. #47

    Default

    Yup, that is the problem with the Mission Cards, but we actually missed them when playing, games seemed dull by comparison, which is the reason why the suggestion was to draw 3 and discard 1 with no drawing of fresh cards. This gives the game more interest and tactics by having more than one goal and at the same time reducing, if not eliminating, the extreme luck of the card draw. Could also remove the Tank Shock and Tank kill cards as you are right, tanks rarely see action unless you already have most of your stuff on the table, no one has Tank shocked yet in the now dozens of games played.

  8. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hithero View Post
    Yup, that is the problem with the Mission Cards, but we actually missed them when playing, games seemed dull by comparison, which is the reason why the suggestion was to draw 3 and discard 1 with no drawing of fresh cards. This gives the game more interest and tactics by having more than one goal and at the same time reducing, if not eliminating, the extreme luck of the card draw. Could also remove the Tank Shock and Tank kill cards as you are right, tanks rarely see action unless you already have most of your stuff on the table, no one has Tank shocked yet in the now dozens of games played.
    draw 3 and discard one is just cherry picking, from a selection that is still random. You still randomly get 3 cards... so I draw, tally ho (guaranteed 2 points), Keep 'em coming (pretty much certain to happen, 1 vp) and Victory is ours (guaranteed 1vp). I toss Keep em coming. I am pretty much 100% certain to get 1/3rd of the victory points needed to win. Not through playing smart, not through clever use of an action, but just because thats what I drew and it sat and waited for me to do something that was not preventable by the other player, or was going to naturally happen over the course of the game.

    Meanwhile you draw Leeroy Jenkins, (not very likely without action card intervention), bringing the fight? (cant recall title, but 8 infantry in no mans land, doable but could be tough if my MGs/Sniper are rolling well, unless of course you hold guys back till parman can make it happen, but then you might be missing out on keeping me off 3 of the 4 SOs in doing so.), and charge! (which is likely). No matter what you toss, you're still (in my estimation at least) starting in a hole.

    What tactics do cards like kill 3 infantry in a turn, or control a SO add? Short answer: they dont. These things will happen naturally over the course of the game, scoring victory points for things that will happen naturally is not conducive to good competitive play.

    I like the tourney rules as they stand, a lot. And I think they should stand as they are what I'm about to say next not withstanding...

    If winning or losing without being rewarded for things that happen naturally in every game is somehow boring and you need more objectives, make the reward for completing them deployment points, or maybe a rivet for the hard ones, or a free action card draw. Anything but victory points for free.

  9. #49

    Default

    I like what I see so far, but would advise against that last mission there. Unless my play group and I are missing something, that mission from the book is essentailly about who goes first, and just taking infantry straight dow the middle, and each scoring 3 each turn, unless one side is really unlucky on rolls. We all kind of assumed it was supposed to be layed out in some other way and got missed in layout.

    The basic rules of the tournament, and the other 2 missions look great though.

  10. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Messiah View Post
    I like what I see so far, but would advise against that last mission there. Unless my play group and I are missing something, that mission from the book is essentailly about who goes first, and just taking infantry straight dow the middle, and each scoring 3 each turn, unless one side is really unlucky on rolls. We all kind of assumed it was supposed to be layed out in some other way and got missed in layout.

    The basic rules of the tournament, and the other 2 missions look great though.
    Yea, it's hard to overcome initiative there, but it can happen with a little luck with dice/actions. Would it be better if the left/right SOs were where the bunkers are?

  11. #51

    Default

    More great feedback. Re-organizing map 3 makes good sense. We'll take a look at that.

    Good luck to anyone playing today. And if you're just watching be sure to take some pics. Thanks again for the support and getting in the fight!

    1PM
    http://cart.adepticon.org/index.php?...roducts_id=806

    8PM
    http://cart.adepticon.org/index.php?...roducts_id=807

    Name:  10157396_682232551833888_1949313694_n.jpg
Views: 97
Size:  116.8 KB

  12. #52

    Default

    I'm glad this discussion happened. I was at both tourneys today and I think most had a good time. I know for sure I did. I had some really interesting games , and it was great to meet some of the Cool Mini or not guys as well.

  13. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crazyjuan View Post
    Yea, it's hard to overcome initiative there, but it can happen with a little luck with dice/actions. Would it be better if the left/right SOs were where the bunkers are?
    Yes, for sure. We play it locally with switching the side Bunkers and SO's locations, so three bunkers in a row in the middle, and it makes it much better. Could also switch the close SO in the trench to bunkers and put a single SO in the middle at the T. I think that would make it almost too different though.

  14. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Messiah View Post
    Yes, for sure. We play it locally with switching the side Bunkers and SO's locations, so three bunkers in a row in the middle, and it makes it much better. Could also switch the close SO in the trench to bunkers and put a single SO in the middle at the T. I think that would make it almost too different though.
    Sounds right. It seems with the way the units balance now, the Blight have an uphill battle any time you've got a SO 3 grids from deployment areas with one or more SOs within 2 grids of it. Not impossible to beat, but definitely disadvantaged.

  15. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crazyjuan View Post
    I'm glad this discussion happened. I was at both tourneys today and I think most had a good time. I know for sure I did. I had some really interesting games , and it was great to meet some of the Cool Mini or not guys as well.
    Do you have some details or highlights from the two tournaments? Unfortunately this year my schedule was full, but i'd like to plan for it next year.

  16. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M2 Wolverine View Post
    Do you have some details or highlights from the two tournaments? Unfortunately this year my schedule was full, but i'd like to plan for it next year.
    Tourney one was of 8 players, playing 3 rounds. winners play winners and losers play losers until 1 is undefeated. 3 scenarios from the core rules were played with some changes. "the thornbushes" "trench warfare" and "main street". No secret missions were in play. all games were to 10 VP. Both players drew 2 cards prior to play, and the first player drew on his opening turn. I played Blight in all 3 rounds I played, losing a good game in the final to a friend of mine known to you on the forums as Tauwolf. "main street" is a tough row to hoe for the blight, as Parman's ability is more advantageous here than in the other scenarios played, but I made a game of it until I got a bit timid with my Sturmpanzer. All players seemed to enjoy the game, and competition was friendly. Everyone seemed to have a good time. Tauwolf won a Treasure Hunter, which he passed to me as I had purchased one at retail for him at one of our FLGSs a short while ago. As I have one, I passed it along to the player with the next most wins who owned a copy of the game and did not have one.

    2nd tourney was perhaps a little less successful. I participated but Tauwolf had adepticon duties to attend to. There was some confusion over who would be running the event, and there were some no-show participants which added to the late start. In the time, I answered some questions about the rules that some new/newish players had, and also covered some of the key strategies, including Parman's double-buff and using grid order to protect units. we drew for opponents, and played. 5 players played with a gentleman from CMON standing in on the 1st table. I won my game in 1st round at "thornbushes" playing Allies, having given my opponent choice of faction. A 2nd round never materialized. My opponent dropped out of the tourney after the loss, one round winner was ready to go, the 3rd winner of the 1st round was out of time to be there and had to be going. Personally, As I have the prize in question, and had driven in from out of state in the same day (up at 5 am for the 4 hour drive) I forfeited the round so the player could get his Treasure Hunter. Then I got a chance to chat with a couple of the CMON guys for a few mins, which was pretty darn cool. All in all I was glad to have come out for it. Probably the best thing was seeing how well received the game was by the players who were being exposed to it for the first time or first few times. With exception of my opponent in the 2nd tourney everyone really seemed to enjoy it.
    Last edited by Crazyjuan; 04-07-2014 at 02:36 AM.

  17. #57

    Default

    As I said in another thread I was there for the first tournament. there where a few no shows and the CMON staff "made" my son play (along with a couple of other guys). Both of us had a blast even though I lost all three games! But I learned a lot. This was my second full game I've been able to play. I really love this game! I hope next year I do a little better. The style worked well for just the 8 of us. And everyone seemed to get along. Sorry to hear about your sore loser Crazyjuan.

  18. #58

    Default

    Thanks for playing! No worries about that guy, it happens.

  19. #59

    Default

    Thanks for the updates guys. Crazyjuan, great write up and details. Also great to hear about the gifting of the treasure hunter. Very cool.

    New tournament doc is up with revised scenario #3.

    Edit:Adding links. Thanks Hithero, forgot about that

    http://www.rivetwars.com/docs/rivetwars_tournaments.pdf

    http://rivetwars.com/rules-and-stats/
    Last edited by Ted Terranova; 04-08-2014 at 06:52 PM.

  20. #60

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Privacy Policy  |   Terms and Conditions  |   Contact Us  |   The Legion


Copyright © 2001-2018 CMON Inc.

-->