Demon changes



     Played demons Three time of the weekend and I must say the are a

very power if random army



Demon overlord is cheap, when you can add option this makes him more

flex able than other general which is right he should be 125, like all

other Leadership 9 generals



Agree with splitting the heroes from wizard



Daemon Lord - 85 (may be this should be 80 if +1 attack, or 95 if +2)

points (max 2 per 1.000 points)

	 Can get the option to fly for 15 points.

Daemon Lord Wizard - (may be this should be 80 if no + attack, or 95

if +1) 85 points (max 1 per 1.000 points)



	 Can get the option to fly for 15 points





Daemonic Instability:

Keep text as is for instability.

Keep instability results 1-5 as is.

Instability test - Result 6: The Pure daemonic power flows through

this unit. Driven by it this unit ignores any command modifier for

this turn. No command modifier for lost stands, dense terrain and

enemy within 20 cm range. Still gets -1 for any additional commands

after the first one.

        I don't like prefer original version, this is IMHO to powerful

be a game winner, if you want to keep the ignore command modifier for

first order, this version allow a two stand unit to get a flank attack

    is about 59% to 60%, (about 40% from hero or wizard) normal needs

two orders, of the time 10 attack on a flank could be a game winner.



New Dwarf list.

Miners Change the name to Explores may be.



Thunders could still be a bit lower in cost but about about so would

be happy to try fight them again.



Troll slayer rules may be right but if the have this 30cm moving unit

I believe this should increase the cost of there general, they now

have a fast mover they already have artillery and a flier, so the

reason for having a lower than stand cost general with leadership 10

should be reduced, increasing this cost by 10 to 20 (more like

10points, than 20).



Is the new troll slayer rule going to replace the current list rule as

well?



The event as a whole was not as good as in other years but still

looking forward to next year.

--- In eurogt@yahoogroups.com, "anadrael" <anadrael@...> wrote:

> New Dwarf list.

> Miners Change the name to Explores may be.



Not sure if they should be left in list, but idea noted 8-)  also the

other issue on discussion (dropping Bushwacking and when brought fro

mreserve the command penalty for bringing them on is cumulative for

other orders on them that turn.



> Thunders could still be a bit lower in cost but about about so would

> be happy to try fight them again.



;-)  with or without the armor penetration



> Troll slayer rules may be right but if the have this 30cm moving

unit



Actualy it is not a 30 cm moving unit. The 10cm is just once at the

start of your turn and after that they have normal infantry move.

Besides the extra 10 is random based on positioning AND could cause

confusion on other units, so I think there is enough offset in the

unit to avoid doing what you point out below...



> I believe this should increase the cost of there general, they now

> have a fast mover they already have artillery and a flier, so the

> reason for having a lower than stand cost general with leadership 10

> should be reduced, increasing this cost by 10 to 20 (more like

> 10points, than 20).

>

> Is the new troll slayer rule going to replace the current list rule

as

> well?



Yes, that actualy was a more generic rule, which also means we drop

the unbrigadeable restriction.



> The event as a whole was not as good as in other years but still

> looking forward to next year

--- In eurogt@yahoogroups.com, "anadrael" <anadrael@...> wrote:

> New Dwarf list.

> Miners Change the name to Explores may be.



Not sure if they should be left in list, but idea noted 8-)  also the

other issue on discussion (dropping Bushwacking and when brought fro

mreserve the command penalty for bringing them on is cumulative for

other orders on them that turn.



> Thunders could still be a bit lower in cost but about about so would

> be happy to try fight them again.



;-)  with or without the armor penetration



> Troll slayer rules may be right but if the have this 30cm moving

unit



Actualy it is not a 30 cm moving unit. The 10cm is just once at the

start of your turn and after that they have normal infantry move.

Besides the extra 10 is random based on positioning AND could cause

confusion on other units, so I think there is enough offset in the

unit to avoid doing what you point out below...



> I believe this should increase the cost of there general, they now

> have a fast mover they already have artillery and a flier, so the

> reason for having a lower than stand cost general with leadership 10

> should be reduced, increasing this cost by 10 to 20 (more like

> 10points, than 20).

>

> Is the new troll slayer rule going to replace the current list rule

as

> well?



Yes, that actualy was a more generic rule, which also means we drop

the unbrigadeable restriction.



> The event as a whole was not as good as in other years but still

> looking forward to next year

> Thunders could still be a bit lower in cost but about about so would

> be happy to try fight them again.



;-)  with or without the armor penetration



	 Without :p with you would need to be around the 100 points.





> Troll slayer rules may be right but if the have this 30cm moving

unit



Actualy it is not a 30 cm moving unit. The 10cm is just once at the

start of your turn and after that they have normal infantry move.

Besides the extra 10 is random based on positioning AND could cause

confusion on other units, so I think there is enough offset in the

unit to avoid doing what you point out below...



	 The effect is actual better than a 30cm move allow them to Init.

Charge from up to 30cm, for a unit the dwarf have to destry this is a big

advantage (10cm toward nearest, then another 20 Init charge)



	 This actual provide futher power to the thought the a dwarf general

should cost more :p Would you not argee looking at a unit that can init

charge from 30cm doing 18attack on average losses a stand for an unarmoured

unit.



	 and then get in it's next turn another up to 30cm attack. Is very

powerfull and giving Dwarf access to cheaper unit will allow them to get a

higher break point, therefore the lost a single unit of slayer will have

little or no effect on his break point, when it is like to have remove 1 to

2 units it's self.





	 Leslie

--- In eurogt@yahoogroups.com, "Anadreal" <anadrael@...> wrote:

> giving Dwarf access to cheaper unit will allow them to get a

> higher break point, therefore the lost a single unit of slayer will

have

> little or no effect on his break point, when it is like to have

remove 1 to

> 2 units it's self.

> >

>  Leslie



Militia units are only for the Alternative list, so that would not be

an issue on the main list, besides, on the alternative list you can

only take 1 unit of trollslayers.



On the main list, it is now for your opponent, even more then ever,

easy to lure the trollslayers where you want them, out of a brigade,

possibily causing confusion on other dwarven units AND (because it IS

a 10 cm direct towards nearest visible enemy) blocking a dwarven

players LOS for shooting..



Plenty of negatives already I would say

I can't remember if the 30cm charge came into play on the Friday

night or not but to me this makes the slayers one of the most

powerful units on the table if used correctly especially as you don't

lose any points if your opponent kills them all.

Used to a good players advantage they could be manouvred to the flank

of the enemy 10cm move then a 20cm initiative move into the flank can

and probably will take out 2 units that turn then 3d6 to sort

themselves out leaving them to the flank or just behind the next

target means that everything within 20cm's of them is at a minus 1

for command and leaving them a good chance of taking another 2 units

the next turn.



In a worse case scenario this means that the Dwarf player could get

440 points in 2 turns for the loss of a slayer unit which when

eventually killed by their opponent would mean no points.



Thunderers I think should loose the armour penetration :o)



Miners, we already discussed this on the night so I don't think I

need to add any more.



Well that is my thoughts on them anyway, I would be happy to have

another go at the dwarfs though with the experimental rules jsut to

push it further.



Martyn



--- In eurogt@yahoogroups.com, "Anadreal" <anadrael@...> wrote:

>

> > Thunders could still be a bit lower in cost but about about so

would

> > be happy to try fight them again.

>

> ;-)  with or without the armor penetration

>

>  Without :p with you would need to be around the 100 points.

>

>

> > Troll slayer rules may be right but if the have this 30cm moving

> unit

>

> Actualy it is not a 30 cm moving unit. The 10cm is just once at the

> start of your turn and after that they have normal infantry move.

> Besides the extra 10 is random based on positioning AND could cause

> confusion on other units, so I think there is enough offset in the

> unit to avoid doing what you point out below...

>

>  The effect is actual better than a 30cm move allow them to

Init.

> Charge from up to 30cm, for a unit the dwarf have to destry this is

a big

> advantage (10cm toward nearest, then another 20 Init charge)

>

>  This actual provide futher power to the thought the a dwarf

general

> should cost more :p Would you not argee looking at a unit that can

init

> charge from 30cm doing 18attack on average losses a stand for an

unarmoured

> unit.

>

>  and then get in it's next turn another up to 30cm attack. Is

very

> powerfull and giving Dwarf access to cheaper unit will allow them

to get a

> higher break point, therefore the lost a single unit of slayer will

have

> little or no effect on his break point, when it is like to have

remove 1 to

> 2 units it's self.

>

>

>  Leslie

>

@Trollslayers:

You should have in mind that the first 10cm move is a mandatory one

directly towards the nearest enemy unit (a bit like homing back) and

after that they have to charge immediately if the enemy is within

reach - so it's not so easy to move them into anyone's flank...



But I think it would be ok reducing them to 1/1000.



Greetings,

Gerald



--- In eurogt@yahoogroups.com, "Martyn" <martyn_dorey@...> wrote:

>

> I can't remember if the 30cm charge came into play on the Friday

> night or not but to me this makes the slayers one of the most

> powerful units on the table if used correctly especially as you

don't

> lose any points if your opponent kills them all.

> Used to a good players advantage they could be manouvred to the

flank

> of the enemy 10cm move then a 20cm initiative move into the flank

can

> and probably will take out 2 units that turn then 3d6 to sort

> themselves out leaving them to the flank or just behind the next

> target means that everything within 20cm's of them is at a minus 1

> for command and leaving them a good chance of taking another 2

units

> the next turn.

>

> In a worse case scenario this means that the Dwarf player could get

> 440 points in 2 turns for the loss of a slayer unit which when

> eventually killed by their opponent would mean no points.

>

@Trollslayers:

You should have in mind that the first 10cm move is a mandatory one directly

towards the nearest enemy unit (a bit like homing back) and after that they

have to charge immediately if the enemy is within reach - so it's not so

easy to move them into anyone's flank...



But I think it would be ok reducing them to 1/1000.





I would Agree that would be a good and fair option

--- In eurogt@yahoogroups.com, " Dr Siamak Lou" <siamak@...> wrote:



> 2. KOTH seems to be balanced.Remeber there were 3 objectives not

only the hill.



Every battle for King of the Hill I saw over teh weekend was only one

objective that being the hill in the centre of the table, defend your

home had 3 objrctives.



Personally I would like to see a change in scenario's whereby

regardless of the army being played they would have a chance of

actually competing for teh scenario.



In 2004 when I went across to Bergan Op Zoom for my first GT one of

the scenarios was an evade/escape situation whereby the player had to

get from one side of teh table off the opposite side of the table,

for an Orc & Goblin army this was near impossible especially if your

oponent was High Elves as they have the ability to hit you on the

first turn.



King of the Hill is very much the same sort of scenario, I concede

the game I had against John's Demons without even setting up as there

was no way I could win and this was proved by Leslie who played his

game to prove the point and the game was over in the first turn

before he had even moved because the Demon player was able to get all

his foot units onto the objective.



Experimaental rules...

In 2004 there were no experimental rules this year it seemed like

there was nothing but experimental rules being played and to a great

extent I felt this spoilt the weekend.

I don't have anything against experimental rules but as some of us

don't get the chance to play on a regular basis against peopl ein our

own country let alone those from other areas/countries I feel it

would be nice to be able to play without the experimental rules

during the day and by all means try the experimental rules in the

evening.



The game I had with Lex on the Friday night with the experimental

rules was enjoyable because it was a lot more relaxed and was not in

a rush to be finished therefore giving both Lex and myself a chance

to discuss these rules as the game progressed and it also let other

players watch the game and add their comments, to me this was a far

better way of play testing experimental rules.



Banners...

Why have 1200 and 2 x 400 point banners when they are not going to be

used?

Apart from the game I had against Gerald who insisted on only playing

a 1600 point battle it was the only game all weekend that I played

with less than 2000 points and to be honest it was pointless playing

O & G with less than 2000 points.



As a thought and it was mentioned by a few other people as well, why

not have a 2000 point attacking army and a 2000 point defending army

rather than 3 different banners?



Or play it as was done at the winter warmer with 1700 points and use

the magic/tactical cards, although for this I would say make it at

least 1800 points as many people rarely got anything from 5 cards

worth 300 points.



I believe that the cards were used in 2004 at the Euro GT anybody

like to tell me why they were taken out?



The Meta game...

I liked the use of the new tiles and they were nicely done as well

but at first glance it was difficult to work out where some of the

teams main city was and the red team were using white flags which

threw me at first???

No complaints from me though really as I try not to get involved in

the meta game too much and just do as I am told, although I believe

it was felt by some that the meta game had taken over this years

event a little to much and was dictating the games a little too much?



Maybe it was the way the teams were set up or the armies that were

brought along, I don't know, some people played each other twice in a

row, I believe John had 5 games and each time his Demons were pitched

against O & G's, myself I played against an Empire Army 3 times?

By the Saturday evening we were ready to have a Cival Waaaaaaaaaaaagh

between us because it was felt a lot of teh enjoyment had gone out of

it.



On the whole I enjoyed the weeekend and the company, meeting up with

old friends and new alike, many thanks to the people organising and

running the weekend.



See you all another year.



Martyn

Hi Sia.



Thanking you and your Austrian contingent for partaking in a

fun-packed weekend of gaming. We were pleased to be made welcome.



A good post you made here Sia, and I shall gladly return comments on

the topics which are relevant to my GT experiences. Brace yourselves

for the shocking truths...



The Quality: Well the venue was top notch and the staff were so

friendly and quite amazing really. It should go without saying that

the organisation of this event was dire compared to the excellent job

of the last UK event. Wayne co-ordinated a splendid event in a shite

venue in 2006. My feeling (and I'm sure Chris agrees with me) is that

this GT would have been lame, if the GT elders* had not been on hand

to salvage it.



*Fact: Were it not for the trust we placed in Lex, Wayne & yourself,

then our party would have cancelled the trip.



The Metgame: This is a big old topic. For starters I have a quite

different understanding of 'metagaming' to you Sia. Magic the

Gathering is probably to blame for this! Bubblegum cards aside, it's

no secret that the Portbury Knights are not fans of the 'Intel' system

incorporated in the GT's metagame, nor the metagame itself.



The sacrifice of currency (Wyrdstone aka Treasure) in Mordheim games

to gain 'Intel' is a sore spot. Without currency it is very difficult

for warbands to improve. Chris & I were able to strike some balance in

this. We were sacrificing currency to attain 'Intel', while still

leveling up charaters and replacing dead henchmen. Other players may

have struggled with this, or maybe misunderstood the orders/options.



Regardless, I think that the interaction between fantasy game formats

could be improved, yet remain simple in the campaign.



The Map: Using the new Mighty Empires tiles was a nice touch. They

look cool! I have nothing against the Settlers of Catan system you

employ but I think it's a shame that you aren't basing the campaign on

the Mighty Empires campaign rules (old &/or new). I have fond memories

of playing ME - the old rules are now available on the SG site for

anyone who can be bothered to read them.



As a big fan of Warhammer lore, the novels, the RPG books, and the

cartography, may I say that I am disappointed when campaign maps do

not resemble a place in the Warhammer World. :(



The Rules: I agree that the GT should be used as an arena (within

reason) for development. GT goers such as Ian Davies, Chris Kneller &

myself have contributed to experimental Mordheim rules. Some of our

work has been released as semi-official/unofficial material. We could

have tested out some new experimental material at this GT if only

there had been more players. Next time for sure then we'll push the

special scenarios, random happenings & warbands. FYI Tim is really

interested in using a warband list for Marauders of Chaos from this

summers unoffical campaign release. I have emailed Tim a copy to use

at his local game club.



The Narrative: I really enjoyed the approach Markus took in running

the freestyle narrative. He does it well. It is very tricky to do this

with all of the time constraints for playing the games! Players are

handling all of those pesky in-between-game admin duties. There is so

much to do!!



Chris & I were both communicating with our team captain Wayne to

determine orders. The orders do not usually feel like they relate to

the Mordheim games, which is a shame. The act of reporting to the

captain DOES give Mordheimer's feel of team gaming in the GT. This

positive effect needs to be retained, where as scenarios could be

properly categorized and applied depending on what orders are being

given. This might help bring the Mordheim games closer to what is

happening on the WM front line.



We were playing too many basic skirmish games for my liking, in which

shooting is very important. The '50% of models armed with missiles'

limit should not be required in a Mordheim campaign which features a

variety of scenario types (including special scenarios like the ones

which Markus employed).



When playing such special scenarios, the guidelines should be printed

and provided to players as a reference. This really helps at the table.



Hand-outs should be used (something delivered before the event starts

as an introduction for the players, optional scraps of limited info

during the event, deeper reading at close of play on each daily

session) to prompt & inspire players in a narrative campaign.



The Truth: I am not surprised to hear that WM players don't read their

campaign rules. When my gaming group runs a Mordheim campaign, we

expect less than half of the players to read the bloody narrative!

What happens is that information from the fluff is discussed between

players and so it works its way round the group via gossip. Severe

punishment is handed out for anyone caught not following the thread of

  our special scenarios.



That's all folks,



Stu.



--- In eurogt@yahoogroups.com, " Dr Siamak Lou" <siamak@...> wrote:



John commented on the quality of the GT. Wold you be so nice to

elaborate that.



The Crew would like to know if the metagame, the ME map, and all shown

items were clearly understandable.



We will not comment on the fact that experiemental rules were used.

This is a long standing EuroGT policy. We will not change that.



Concerning MH. Did you like the narrative approach and did you have

the feeling that MH was part of the tourney. Did you have

communication concerning intel with your captain. Would you prefer a

more conventional approach (as in WM ) with orders and missions ?



We liked the hall and Bugman. We had some problems with the size of

the hall and the crowd. Sometime we felt a little bit lost there. We

really appreciated the help of theGW Staff, but would like to had a

"special guest".It is a big difference if you have the Designer at

your side who says..that´s the way it is instead of long rule queries



What is very sobering, every year with no tendency towards

improvement, is the fact that few players read the rules. I would

estimate that 10-20% actually read the rules.



If I imagine that from 20 WM players only 2-4 ! would read the rules

and everybody else would just come along to play...



I for my part enjoyed playing MOW and WMA still it would be a good

idea to have systems which could run on theirself means at LEAST 4

players in reality 8. Having sufficient Marshalls who should pay only

a very limited amount of money and help ops to run the tourney.



I have no idea how long we will carry on the EuroGt Flagg to be

honest. 9 Years are a long time.



Sia

----- Original Message -----

From: grimfanta

To: eurogt@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 2:31 AM

Subject: [EuroGT] Re: Feedback on EuroGT (Mordheim)

Hi Sia.

Thanking you and your Austrian contingent for partaking in a
fun-packed weekend of gaming. We were pleased to be made welcome.

A good post you made here Sia, and I shall gladly return comments on
the topics which are relevant to my GT experiences. Brace yourselves
for the shocking truths...

The Quality: Well the venue was top notch and the staff were so
friendly and quite amazing really. It should go without saying that
the organisation of this event was dire compared to the excellent job
of the last UK event. Wayne co-ordinated a splendid event in a shite
venue in 2006. My feeling (and I'm sure Chris agrees with me) is that
this GT would have been lame, if the GT elders* had not been on hand
to salvage it.

*Fact: Were it not for the trust we placed in Lex, Wayne & yourself,
then our party would have cancelled the trip.

The Metgame: This is a big old topic. For starters I have a quite
different understanding of 'metagaming' to you Sia. Magic the
Gathering is probably to blame for this! Bubblegum cards aside, it's
no secret that the Portbury Knights are not fans of the 'Intel' system
incorporated in the GT's metagame, nor the metagame itself.

If there is another way to glue together 4 completely systems on ONE map I am glad to hear it.Nobody likes the Meta game. But nobody comes up with a solution either.

If I would run a single system campaign. No prob. With 2 systems I could invent someting fancy. With 3 or 4 ...no bloody chance.

The sacrifice of currency (Wyrdstone aka Treasure) in Mordheim games
to gain 'Intel' is a sore spot. Without currency it is very difficult
for warbands to improve. Chris & I were able to strike some balance in
this. We were sacrificing currency to attain 'Intel', while still
leveling up charaters and replacing dead henchmen. Other players may
have struggled with this, or maybe misunderstood the orders/options.

Exchanging Wyrdstone for Intel was always the wy it was done. It forces MH player to chose between the sake of their warband and their empire. Furthermore it hinders the advance of MH gangs to a massive extent.If you get 3 lucky games you shouldn´t have the uberMHgang imvho.

Regardless, I think that the interaction between fantasy game formats
could be improved, yet remain simple in the campaign.

We would like to hear a simple solution here. Until now nobody had a better idea ..

The Map: Using the new Mighty Empires tiles was a nice touch. They
look cool! I have nothing against the Settlers of Catan system you
employ but I think it's a shame that you aren't basing the campaign on
the Mighty Empires campaign rules (old &/or new). I have fond memories
of playing ME - the old rules are now available on the SG site for
anyone who can be bothered to read them.

Too complicated (the old ones) The new one is  not suited to multiplayer teams. Single Player ..yes.Multi player ..no.

As a big fan of Warhammer lore, the novels, the RPG books, and the
cartography, may I say that I am disappointed when campaign maps do
not resemble a place in the Warhammer World. :(

We were happy just to put this map together without looking like a plastic wave :)

The Rules: I agree that the GT should be used as an arena (within
reason) for development. GT goers such as Ian Davies, Chris Kneller &
myself have contributed to experimental Mordheim rules. Some of our
work has been released as semi-official/unofficial material. We could
have tested out some new experimental material at this GT if only
there had been more players. Next time for sure then we'll push the
special scenarios, random happenings & warbands. FYI Tim is really
interested in using a warband list for Marauders of Chaos from this
summers unoffical campaign release. I have emailed Tim a copy to use
at his local game club.

The Narrative: I really enjoyed the approach Markus took in running
the freestyle narrative. He does it well. It is very tricky to do this
with all of the time constraints for playing the games! Players are
handling all of those pesky in-between-game admin duties. There is so
much to do!!

Chris & I were both communicating with our team captain Wayne to
determine orders. The orders do not usually feel like they relate to
the Mordheim games, which is a shame. The act of reporting to the
captain DOES give Mordheimer's feel of team gaming in the GT. This
positive effect needs to be retained, where as scenarios could be
properly categorized and applied depending on what orders are being
given. This might help bring the Mordheim games closer to what is
happening on the WM front line.

We were playing too many basic skirmish games for my liking, in which
shooting is very important. The '50% of models armed with missiles'
limit should not be required in a Mordheim campaign which features a
variety of scenario types (including special scenarios like the ones
which Markus employed).

When playing such special scenarios, the guidelines should be printed
and provided to players as a reference. This really helps at the table.

Hand-outs should be used (something delivered before the event starts
as an introduction for the players, optional scraps of limited info
during the event, deeper reading at close of play on each daily
session) to prompt & inspire players in a narrative campaign.

well to be honest. I was not even sure that there will be a MH capmpaign 3 weeks before the event. MH was the reason we cut back to 3 Empires. Markus run the event and it was his decision to do it this way..besides playing MOW and WM as marshall, soothing my mind, and quelling my anger...

The Truth: I am not surprised to hear that WM players don't read their
campaign rules. When my gaming group runs a Mordheim campaign, we
expect less than half of the players to read the bloody narrative!
What happens is that information from the fluff is discussed between
players and so it works its way round the group via gossip. Severe
punishment is handed out for anyone caught not following the thread of
our special scenarios.

maybe next year with the return of Harrald, Remi and hopefully a lot of other MH players...

That's all folks,

Stu.

Thank you Stu

--- In eurogt@yahoogroups.com, " Dr Siamak Lou" <siamak@...> wrote:

John commented on the quality of the GT. Wold you be so nice to
elaborate that.

The Crew would like to know if the metagame, the ME map, and all shown
items were clearly understandable.

We will not comment on the fact that experiemental rules were used.
This is a long standing EuroGT policy. We will not change that.

Concerning MH. Did you like the narrative approach and did you have
the feeling that MH was part of the tourney. Did you have
communication concerning intel with your captain. Would you prefer a
more conventional approach (as in WM ) with orders and missions ?

We liked the hall and Bugman. We had some problems with the size of
the hall and the crowd. Sometime we felt a little bit lost there. We
really appreciated the help of theGW Staff, but would like to had a
"special guest".It is a big difference if you have the Designer at
your side who says..that´s the way it is instead of long rule queries

What is very sobering, every year with no tendency towards
improvement, is the fact that few players read the rules. I would
estimate that 10-20% actually read the rules.

If I imagine that from 20 WM players only 2-4 ! would read the rules
and everybody else would just come along to play...

I for my part enjoyed playing MOW and WMA still it would be a good
idea to have systems which could run on theirself means at LEAST 4
players in reality 8. Having sufficient Marshalls who should pay only
a very limited amount of money and help ops to run the tourney.

I have no idea how long we will carry on the EuroGt Flagg to be
honest. 9 Years are a long time.

Sia

----- Original Message -----

From: Martyn

To: eurogt@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 2:48 PM

Subject: [EuroGT] Re: Feedback on EuroGT

--- In eurogt@yahoogroups.com, " Dr Siamak Lou" <siamak@...> wrote:

> 2. KOTH seems to be balanced.Remeber there were 3 objectives not
only the hill.

Every battle for King of the Hill I saw over teh weekend was only one
objective that being the hill in the centre of the table, defend your
home had 3 objrctives.

copy and paste from the pdf WM rules.

3. place a central Hill in the middle of the table. 40 cm left and right

additional two objectives. Sorry for not being more present but with no marshalls and uneven players...

Personally I would like to see a change in scenario's whereby
regardless of the army being played they would have a chance of
actually competing for teh scenario.

In 2004 when I went across to Bergan Op Zoom for my first GT one of
the scenarios was an evade/escape situation whereby the player had to
get from one side of teh table off the opposite side of the table,
for an Orc & Goblin army this was near impossible especially if your
oponent was High Elves as they have the ability to hit you on the
first turn.

King of the Hill is very much the same sort of scenario, I concede
the game I had against John's Demons without even setting up as there
was no way I could win and this was proved by Leslie who played his
game to prove the point and the game was over in the first turn
before he had even moved because the Demon player was able to get all
his foot units onto the objective.

Experimaental rules...
In 2004 there were no experimental rules this year it seemed like
there was nothing but experimental rules being played and to a great
extent I felt this spoilt the weekend.
I don't have anything against experimental rules but as some of us
don't get the chance to play on a regular basis against peopl ein our
own country let alone those from other areas/countries I feel it
would be nice to be able to play without the experimental rules
during the day and by all means try the experimental rules in the
evening.

The game I had with Lex on the Friday night with the experimental
rules was enjoyable because it was a lot more relaxed and was not in
a rush to be finished therefore giving both Lex and myself a chance
to discuss these rules as the game progressed and it also let other
players watch the game and add their comments, to me this was a far
better way of play testing experimental rules.

 

Banners...
Why have 1200 and 2 x 400 point banners when they are not going to be
used?
Apart from the game I had against Gerald who insisted on only playing
a 1600 point battle it was the only game all weekend that I played
with less than 2000 points and to be honest it was pointless playing
O & G with less than 2000 points.

why ?OG are only playable with 2000 pts ? Interesting..didn´t know that.

As a thought and it was mentioned by a few other people as well, why
not have a 2000 point attacking army and a 2000 point defending army
rather than 3 different banners?

in the case of a fast round we planed to do 1200 pts battles. And 2 alternative banners gives you a little variety .

The real question is:why 2hour play.

Simple because this is the the time in which 3 systems can play regular games. (means 2 MH games, 1 WHFB 2000-2500, 1 WM 1600-2000).And normally we do have a lot more WHFB players. This is the first EuroGT where we had none. The average % of WHFB is, normally, around 60% -70% of the attendance. So we try to make everybody happy. Should the next EuroGT be a "specialist games only" event we will increase playing time to 150 minutes. Within these 2000 points should be doable.

Or play it as was done at the winter warmer with 1700 points and use
the magic/tactical cards, although for this I would say make it at
least 1800 points as many people rarely got anything from 5 cards
worth 300 points.

I believe that the cards were used in 2004 at the Euro GT anybody
like to tell me why they were taken out?

Because you were allowed to take MI.

The Meta game...
I liked the use of the new tiles and they were nicely done as well
but at first glance it was difficult to work out where some of the
teams main city was and the red team were using white flags which
threw me at first???

We were forced to reduce 4 to 3 empires. We thought that the red crosses were enough.We had to improvise complete new empires, our colour coded ordersheets were compromised and the first round was made on the fly...

No complaints from me though really as I try not to get involved in
the meta game too much and just do as I am told, although I believe
it was felt by some that the meta game had taken over this years
event a little to much and was dictating the games a little too much?

Quite the opposite. We reduced the Metagame massively.(probably around 50%)And the Metagame has to dictate the games. This is what make a EuroGT different to any other tournament.The metagames holds the systems together. This is the central part of an empire tourney.

Maybe it was the way the teams were set up or the armies that were
brought along, I don't know, some people played each other twice in a
row, I believe John had 5 games and each time his Demons were pitched
against O & G's, myself I played against an Empire Army 3 times?

We normally put teams together which have a good/bad army.So it might be that you play the same army. Although we really try to provide different gaming partners and especially players you not always play against,  

 

By the Saturday evening we were ready to have a Cival Waaaaaaaaaaaagh
between us because it was felt a lot of teh enjoyment had gone out of
it.

Well this was probably the most sad part of the EuroGT for me..

  
On the whole I enjoyed the weeekend and the company, meeting up with
old friends and new alike, many thanks to the people organising and
running the weekend.

See you all another year.

Martyn

Sia

----- Original Message -----

From: ghostandrider

To: eurogt@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 8:43 PM

Subject: [EuroGT] Re: Feedback on EuroGT

@Trollslayers:
You should have in mind that the first 10cm move is a mandatory one
directly towards the nearest enemy unit (a bit like homing back) and
after that they have to charge immediately if the enemy is within
reach - so it's not so easy to move them into anyone's flank...

But I think it would be ok reducing them to 1/1000.

Greetings,
Gerald

--- In eurogt@yahoogroups.com, "Martyn" <martyn_dorey@...> wrote:
>
> I can't remember if the 30cm charge came into play on the Friday
> night or not but to me this makes the slayers one of the most
> powerful units on the table if used correctly especially as you
don't
> lose any points if your opponent kills them all.
> Used to a good players advantage they could be manouvred to the
flank
> of the enemy 10cm move then a 20cm initiative move into the flank
can
> and probably will take out 2 units that turn then 3d6 to sort
> themselves out leaving them to the flank or just behind the next
> target means that everything within 20cm's of them is at a minus 1
> for command and leaving them a good chance of taking another 2
units
> the next turn.
>
> In a worse case scenario this means that the Dwarf player could get
> 440 points in 2 turns for the loss of a slayer unit which when
> eventually killed by their opponent would mean no points.
>

--- In eurogt@yahoogroups.com, Christof Simons <Christof_simons@...>

wrote:

>

> Hello Lex,

>

> coming from another point, but I think it would be a sad thing if the

> trollslayers are only kept to 1 per army. Many people have painted up

at

> least 2 or 3 units, I guess if people paint them up, they want to use

> them. Glad it looks as the organization was ok.

>

> With friendly regards,

>

>

> Christof

>



Christoff, you were missed...



took clear this up:



Playtestgroup has been working on an ALTERNATIVE Dwarf selector,

currently dupped "Younger Holds", but some suggested "Enginieering

Expiditionary Force".



Some changes for Dwarfs are "generic", like the TS rule.



The 1 per Army rule is strictly implied on the alternative list, NOT on

the normal selector.

Well, I think that's a little bit too strict.



Gerald





--- In eurogt@yahoogroups.com, "L. van Rooy" <l.vanrooy@...> wrote:

>

> remember in the Experimental list they are even just at 1 per army !!

>

>

Well, I think that's a little bit too strict.



Gerald





--- In eurogt@yahoogroups.com, "L. van Rooy" <l.vanrooy@...> wrote:

>

> remember in the Experimental list they are even just at 1 per army !!

>



Me too 1 per 1000



	 Leslie

----- Original Message -----

From: ivansoulseeker

To: eurogt@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 1:02 PM

Subject: [EuroGT] Re: Feedback on EuroGT

--- In eurogt@yahoogroups.com, Christof Simons <Christof_simons@...>
wrote:
>
> Hello Lex,
>
> coming from another point, but I think it would be a sad thing if the
> trollslayers are only kept to 1 per army. Many people have painted up
at
> least 2 or 3 units, I guess if people paint them up, they want to use
> them. Glad it looks as the organization was ok.
>
> With friendly regards,
>
>
> Christof
>

Christoff, you were missed...

took clear this up:

Playtestgroup has been working on an ALTERNATIVE Dwarf selector,
currently dupped "Younger Holds", but some suggested "Enginieering
Expiditionary Force".

Some changes for Dwarfs are "generic", like the TS rule.

The 1 per Army rule is strictly implied on the alternative list, NOT on
the normal selector.