The TO Speaks Back....

After yesterday's post I received the following email from Dan. As he indicated that he tried to comment directly I hope he won't mind me posting.

Hi Pete,

Ive read your blog post this morning, always interesting to read opposing views. I tried to comment on it but couldnt without one of a numerous amount of "profiles" I dont have lol :-)

Anyways, was just going to say whilst I disagree with some of your points, I do see the opposing argument as valid, especially with regard to inbuilt comp. I felt we needed to see what would happen as no tournament at "normal size" in the UK has had six games of battle line and I for one am fed up of the stories from the events I attended, as well as the games ive been involved with where you literally get a non event due to the scenarios - how tactically challenging is it if the guy on the other end gets 30 graveguard with regen or 40 horrors into the watchtower?? How does it work if a really balanced high elf or empire list with only 2 warmachines and 2 small move/fire shooting units that relies no minmal shooting support ends with them off the board first turn so they cant shoot? Logistics of scenarios such as watchtower with 80 tables is also somewhat hard work..... :-)

I do think with a stricter comp system (something I have been giving a lot of thought to recently) you can, as we did in 7th, go someway to stopping people taking things just because the scenarios arent there.

Now, 40 bloodletters - this is more tongue in cheek as its not the end of the world and not even that great if you have a well built army to counter it, its just something I feel (like the 6 dice monking you describe) which can be a bit dull in terms of it will win you games without trying against lesser opposition and against good opposition its just a boring game of "can they deliver the unit intact into you main unit". I am not talking about just 1 unit, ive got no issues with that, but look at some of the UK masters lists - 2x40 with a big horror block etc is just not a fun tactical game imo against a lot of things, not the end of the world just a personal dislike :-)

Anyways, some random chit chat :-) We will be covering the feedback from the event on the show so will let you know how the players found playing under the pack.

I think that this is fantastic comment from Dan. Positive and constructive.

Following on from this here are a few followups:

1.Valid point about variety in tournament set-up. However given the event’s status I worry that it becomes a template.

2.Tactical Challenge re Watchtower – I disagree with this as I think there is enormous tactical challenge for both players – the critical point is around not allowing him to get the mega unit in the building. Now I can go into various ways you can do this but obviously they will be situational. However I would say that if you do play Watchtower it is important the scenario bonus is meaningful to make the sacrifice of units worthwhile (As a Skaven player I sacrifice my Gutter Runner units to stop large units getting in – I concede that the Dirty Reform into a building can make this difficult, though not impossible).

3.I agree with Dan that 8 months on Comp is necessary. My preference is light comp (as previously outlined on the blog – see posts in January). I think without the scenarios the comp has to become heavier. Ripples on a pond.

4.I appreciate Dan is partly tongue in cheek with his “40 Bloodletter” comments, but we all have things we don’t like. I hate Fireballs, Dwellers and Death Magic but as a Skaven player I’m on shaky ground when I will use the Dreaded 13th Spell. I do think most things are ‘Containable” with good tactics and list construction. This might mean that your list isn’t 100% honed but you make concessions so you have tools/tactics to adapt to variety of situations.

Please don’t take this blog as a criticism of Dan (and his ideas) or those of the SCGT organisers. As Dan says it is good to have discussion on these points. It is easy to sit taking potshots at Podcasts and tournaments from behind an internet keyboard but that is not the intention here. I’d hope that the comments are constructive just as I find Dan’s comments constructive.

It’s great that Dan is seeking feedback after the event and I’ll be listening and watching with interest.