Dropzone Commander Battle Report #5 1250 Tournament Final Round Top Table PHR vs. UCM

hawk wargames Cameron brings us a tournament report of DzC! Check out the Tactics Corner for more great tournament reports.

Dropzone Commander Tournament 1250 points.

May 10, 2014 Final round, top table Gavin (Nomad)’s UCM vs. Cameron’s PHR

We found the current battle points format for Hawk tournaments to be a bit weird and distorted (especially in focal points missions where a single dice roll can produce a big swing in victory points). We would love to know what other people think about the format! Post in the comments.

Tags:

About Reecius

The fearless leader of the intrepid group of gamers gone retailers at Frontline Gaming!

16 Responses to “Dropzone Commander Battle Report #5 1250 Tournament Final Round Top Table PHR vs. UCM”

  1. klr May 16, 2014 1:18 am
    #

    Nice pictures, but background sound is bad.
    Keep them coming.

    • Cameron May 16, 2014 5:09 am
      #

      Yeah, sorry. I have no microphones, and we were playing during a game store tournament, so there is a ton of noise.

  2. Crisp Mini May 16, 2014 6:55 am
    #

    wow, what a ball buster! Krazy Kodiak!!!! I don’t know what you could have done against that. Seems like you made a wise choice (go middle, rather than spread out) and it nearly worked.

    In regards to the Hawk Tourney format, is there a place I can read them? I’ve read reports and have an idea of how they work, but some plain black and white for me to read through would help clear up the specifics.

    I’ve been thinking of different scenarios mixing objectives, intel, and focal points. Sometimes similar to FLG BAO 40k format. Mostly this come from a disliking of the standard Recon (or w/e the name of the Intel grab mission).

    Thanks for the batrep. Gavin’s probably happy he made the drive, ha.

    • Cameron May 16, 2014 9:49 am
      #

      Yes, here’s the tournament packet from Invasion 2014:

      http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0159/4298/files/Invasion_2014_-_2_Day_Tournament_Pack_v1.1.pdf

      Quickly summarized, you play the normal mission and determine victory points for each player. For the winning player, you also add in any kill point advantage they have, at a rate of 200 kill points per victory point. If the losing player has an advantage in kill points, they gain nothing and the winner loses nothing.

      The base score for a game is 10-10. You then adjust that score by 1 point in both directions for each point of differential in the game score…

      So as an example, if Player A scores 5 victory points and Player B scores 4 victory points, and Player A also had a kill point margin of 230 points, Player A would win the mission by 12-8. (Start at 10-10, 1 victory point margin, 1 kill point margin).

      My criticism of this format is that it applies differently to different mission types. For example, in Targets of Opportunity it’s tough to really run the table, and missions are usually decided by 1-2 victory points. Same with Recon. In Land Grab, closely contested focal points can flip to another player on a single die roll, which produces 2-3 victory point swings… so what is in fact a closely contested mission (like this one) can produce an extremely lopsided result. Because of the way that those two focal points flipped, I actually ended up taking a 20-0 loss in this mission (we did the math wrong on the video) and I ended up finishing sixth out of eight in the tournament, despite going 2-1. If the two focal points had gone my way, it would have been 10-10, and I would have won the tournament because I had a 2 point lead going into the mission.

      To me that seems like a pretty crazy and unrepresentative swing. I probably should have finished in second or third.

      Also, have you read the new monorail and orbital laser missions? They combine focal points with other mission types, and look like really fun and tactical missions.

      • Crisp Mini May 16, 2014 10:16 am
        #

        Thanx, I remember reading this a while ago, probably after that tournament and reports were being posted. I agree with your consensus as if this was the first game of the tournament you would of been in the mid pack if you won, and the bottom if you lost. Perhaps the kill point advantage should be larger?

        I have read the new scenarios and like them. I’m hoping with enough time a DZC LVO format may emerge.

        • Cameron May 16, 2014 10:18 am
          #

          I think you should just go by W-L as the primary, and use things like win differential and kill points only if there’s a tie on W-L at the end of the tournament.

        • Cameron May 16, 2014 10:19 am
          #

          *Victory point differential

      • Egge May 18, 2014 12:49 pm
        #

        You could also use several missions in one go as a primary and secondary mission. For instance land grab and targets of opportunity in the same mission. Add KP and you can have three! Then you can have 4 points for each. 2-2 draw. 3-1 for a normal victory and 4-0 with a decisive battle win in that missions. This would mean you have 12 points in total in each game.

        I think that Fronline gaming in general have spoken up to this format several times as a good way to balance 40k missions. It should work even more in DZC.

  3. Nuln-Oil May 16, 2014 7:49 am
    #

    Man, you guys seem like you’re really pushing DZC. I guess it’s good to have a back up plan if 40k doesn’t survive the current shenanigans.

    • Cameron May 16, 2014 9:36 am
      #

      This video series is all my making (I saw that basically nobody was making Dropzone video battle reports, so I stepped in)… but yeah, I see as part of all the other content on frontline, it looks like there’s a lot of Dropzone content.

      I’m a 13-year 40k veteran that stopped playing in January because I hated all the design decisions, and I needed a new game to direct my enthusiasm towards.

      • Nuln-Oil May 16, 2014 10:19 am
        #

        I’m sorry if my tone came off differently. I am actually excited about DZC. It seems like it’s everything we want 40k to be. Hopefuly 40k will be better with the new rules, and there will be an eye towards balance. If not, DZC will have another customer in me.

        Thank you for the video

        • Cameron May 16, 2014 10:23 am
          #

          I think there will always be good games to play =). The more Dropzone players the merrier!

    • Reecius
      Reecius May 16, 2014 11:34 am
      #

      It’s not so much that we’re pushing DzC as we are genuinely excited about it. It really is a great game. Well made, balanced, fun. I think it is going to be a serious contender and in a few years would not be at all surprised to see it rivaling PP and 40K in the tournament scene.

  4. Vortex May 16, 2014 12:36 pm
    #

    Yeah the dice rolls that determine VP’s etc are sketchy. You can play a perfect game and if a few d6 rolls for objectives/intel dont go your way you’re boned.

    • Cameron May 16, 2014 12:52 pm
      #

      I feel like going by W/L will smooth over most of that. There’s always the possibility that you will have an absolutely awful, lopsided game for dice luck, but I think the majority of the time it won’t affect the game winner.

      For all the luck involved in this video, it should be pointed out that Gavin played a really smart game and deserved to win… he just didn’t deserve to win 20-0.

    • Reecius
      Reecius May 16, 2014 3:10 pm
      #

      That is usually mitigated by the number of Objectives, but, yes, that is annoying as hell when that happens.